5 ms·

At the moment there are two other responses to my comment, and they both interpret the parent comment in completely opposite ways, so I'd offer that as support

At the moment there are two other responses to my comment, and they both interpret the parent comment in completely opposite ways, so I'd offer that as support for my argument that the parent comment wasn't clear. I'm using the term "dog whistle" here to mean a comment that appears to be innocuous, ambiguous, or harmless to anyone who doesn't already understand the reference, but which in fact has meaning or acts as a placeholder for a longer, well-tread narrative to people familiar with a particular subculture. In this case, the two ways it can be interpreted are spelled out pretty concisely by the first two responses here: "The point he's making is that despite lip service by the media little has changed", which I take to mean, "Media still considers the deaths of black people to be cheap and therefore not worth reporting." Then we have, "The point is black lives seem to matter only if taken by a white police officer", which is the dog-whistle version I was talking about. If that's the message someone is taking from the ambiguous phrase "google Chicago shootings", well, I can't think of a better illustration of the term "dog whistle".

blueflow 5y ago
How does the second statement relate to racism?
- KittenInABox 5y ago
  It relates to racism because the topic, in fact, is racism. It flows naturally that when a conversation starts on racism, generally, conversations on the topic are also related to racism. (In the same way that if I asked HN about their favorite keto recipes more than likely all the replies will be about keto broadly) The discussion above is to identify that when someone says "google Chicago shootings" what they actually are trying to do is undermine the position of someone bringing up "Black Lives Matter" in an indirect way. This specific behavior of bringing up another, new subject matter for the purpose of undermining a position, instead of stating one's criticism about the position directly, is known as a dogwhistle.
  - blueflow 5y ago
    I don't see why criticizing BLM automatically makes something racist. BLM has alot to be criticized for, but i'd think most of it is not really tangential to the virtue of its anti-racist cause. MLK also cheated on his wife, and its fine to criticize him for that, but that doesn't make his other efforts invalid. I searched about the Chicago shooting deaths, and i don't see how it makes any point for or against BLM? And, even if BLM is selectively in what they care about. Aren't they allowed to? I feel like i got between the fronts of for-BLM and against-BLM groupthink.
    - hairofadog 5y ago
      > I don't see why criticizing BLM automatically makes something racist. It doesn't! Any social movement, no matter how just their cause, should be willing to accept valid criticism. However, when Person A says "look at this instance of systemic racism" and someone else replies "But MLK cheated on his wife!!", that's not arguing in good faith; that's commonly known as "whataboutism". [^1] > I searched about the Chicago shooting deaths, and i don't see how it makes any point for or against BLM? This is what makes it a dog whistle. The words are "google Chicago shootings", and there's nothing wrong with the literal meaning of those words, but other people here clearly received the message "this point about systemic racism is invalid because BLM is a bunch of hypocrites". If you google for the exact phrase "google Chicago shootings", including the word "google", you will find many instances of people using that phrase to make bad faith arguments criticizing the Black Lives Matter movement. [^1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
      - blueflow 5y ago
        > If you google for the exact phrase "google Chicago shootings", including the word "google" This thread is the first result for me. Not kidding. Could it be that you made it up that its a dog whistle? I'm doubting your good faith here.
        thewakalix 5y ago
- AzzieElbab 5y ago
  because when you hear racist dog whistles everywhere that usually implies that you yourself are exactly the type of dog who can hear those whistles
AnimalMuppet 5y ago
How do we un-dog-whistle it? I mean, look, if black lives matter (and they do), then all black lives matter, whether they're killed by a police officer, or whether they're killed by other blacks in inner-city violence. We need to continue to have the conversation about police killing blacks. We also need to have a conversation about inner-city violence, and try to figure out what can be done to help. We need both. How do we have the second conversation without it being shut down as an attempt to shut down the first conversation?
- hairofadog 5y ago
  Totally, and if I said anything to imply I didn't consider the second topic to be worth discussing then I'd like to correct the record: I do think it's an important (albeit separate) topic. > How do we have the second conversation without it being shut down as an attempt to shut down the first conversation? The best answer I can give you is that it's subjective. I'm happy to have a good-faith conversation even (or especially!) with people I disagree with, but dropping "google Chicago shootings" into a drive-by comment isn't what I would consider to be making a good-faith argument.

blueflow 5y ago

How does the second statement relate to racism?

KittenInABox 5y ago
It relates to racism because the topic, in fact, is racism. It flows naturally that when a conversation starts on racism, generally, conversations on the topic are also related to racism. (In the same way that if I asked HN about their favorite keto recipes more than likely all the replies will be about keto broadly) The discussion above is to identify that when someone says "google Chicago shootings" what they actually are trying to do is undermine the position of someone bringing up "Black Lives Matter" in an indirect way. This specific behavior of bringing up another, new subject matter for the purpose of undermining a position, instead of stating one's criticism about the position directly, is known as a dogwhistle.
- blueflow 5y ago
  I don't see why criticizing BLM automatically makes something racist. BLM has alot to be criticized for, but i'd think most of it is not really tangential to the virtue of its anti-racist cause. MLK also cheated on his wife, and its fine to criticize him for that, but that doesn't make his other efforts invalid. I searched about the Chicago shooting deaths, and i don't see how it makes any point for or against BLM? And, even if BLM is selectively in what they care about. Aren't they allowed to? I feel like i got between the fronts of for-BLM and against-BLM groupthink.
  - hairofadog 5y ago
    > I don't see why criticizing BLM automatically makes something racist. It doesn't! Any social movement, no matter how just their cause, should be willing to accept valid criticism. However, when Person A says "look at this instance of systemic racism" and someone else replies "But MLK cheated on his wife!!", that's not arguing in good faith; that's commonly known as "whataboutism". [^1] > I searched about the Chicago shooting deaths, and i don't see how it makes any point for or against BLM? This is what makes it a dog whistle. The words are "google Chicago shootings", and there's nothing wrong with the literal meaning of those words, but other people here clearly received the message "this point about systemic racism is invalid because BLM is a bunch of hypocrites". If you google for the exact phrase "google Chicago shootings", including the word "google", you will find many instances of people using that phrase to make bad faith arguments criticizing the Black Lives Matter movement. [^1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
    - blueflow 5y ago
      > If you google for the exact phrase "google Chicago shootings", including the word "google" This thread is the first result for me. Not kidding. Could it be that you made it up that its a dog whistle? I'm doubting your good faith here.
      - thewakalix 5y ago
AzzieElbab 5y ago
because when you hear racist dog whistles everywhere that usually implies that you yourself are exactly the type of dog who can hear those whistles

AnimalMuppet 5y ago

How do we un-dog-whistle it? I mean, look, if black lives matter (and they do), then all black lives matter, whether they're killed by a police officer, or whether they're killed by other blacks in inner-city violence. We need to continue to have the conversation about police killing blacks. We also need to have a conversation about inner-city violence, and try to figure out what can be done to help. We need both. How do we have the second conversation without it being shut down as an attempt to shut down the first conversation?

hairofadog 5y ago
Totally, and if I said anything to imply I didn't consider the second topic to be worth discussing then I'd like to correct the record: I do think it's an important (albeit separate) topic. > How do we have the second conversation without it being shut down as an attempt to shut down the first conversation? The best answer I can give you is that it's subjective. I'm happy to have a good-faith conversation even (or especially!) with people I disagree with, but dropping "google Chicago shootings" into a drive-by comment isn't what I would consider to be making a good-faith argument.