4 ms·

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

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
      Google gives personalized search results. It seems Google is aware that you frequent Hacker News. DuckDuckGo has non-personalized search results: https://archive.vn/mxh08 https://archive.vn/mxh08.
      - AzzieElbab 5y ago
        I get this thread as first result from google.com in incognito window https://imgur.com/nsvBk4O https://imgur.com/nsvBk4O
    - handrous 5y ago
      There's a whole pile of twitterese phrases like this that are used to fly under moderation radar. Some refer to specific standard sections of Wikipedia's biographical articles in order to highlight that a person's Jewish, some are like this (that's why the "google" is important to triggering one's "this might be one of those things" alarms—a common pattern for these is directing people to look at another resource, using set phrasing) Yes, seeing dog-whistles everywhere gets tedious (for all concerned) but the above is, unfortunately, a real thing. I'd be surprised to see it used with that intent on HN, though.
      - blueflow 5y ago
        I still think you guys are bullshitting me. What prevents me from looking up phrases from your post on the internet, pick out some social groups that also use that phrase and claim you are associated with it? There isn't even a way for you to falsify it. > There's a whole pile of twitterese phrases like this that are used to fly under moderation radar. What rule is it breaking to tell people to "google chicago shootings"? And my question > How does the second statement relate to racism? is still not answered. Is just knowing the information about the Chicago gun violence putting some folks at disadvantage? Where is the implied link here?

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
    Google gives personalized search results. It seems Google is aware that you frequent Hacker News. DuckDuckGo has non-personalized search results: https://archive.vn/mxh08 https://archive.vn/mxh08.
    - AzzieElbab 5y ago
      I get this thread as first result from google.com in incognito window https://imgur.com/nsvBk4O https://imgur.com/nsvBk4O
  - handrous 5y ago
    There's a whole pile of twitterese phrases like this that are used to fly under moderation radar. Some refer to specific standard sections of Wikipedia's biographical articles in order to highlight that a person's Jewish, some are like this (that's why the "google" is important to triggering one's "this might be one of those things" alarms—a common pattern for these is directing people to look at another resource, using set phrasing) Yes, seeing dog-whistles everywhere gets tedious (for all concerned) but the above is, unfortunately, a real thing. I'd be surprised to see it used with that intent on HN, though.
    - blueflow 5y ago
      I still think you guys are bullshitting me. What prevents me from looking up phrases from your post on the internet, pick out some social groups that also use that phrase and claim you are associated with it? There isn't even a way for you to falsify it. > There's a whole pile of twitterese phrases like this that are used to fly under moderation radar. What rule is it breaking to tell people to "google chicago shootings"? And my question > How does the second statement relate to racism? is still not answered. Is just knowing the information about the Chicago gun violence putting some folks at disadvantage? Where is the implied link here?