3 ms·

There isn’t any assumption of malintent. I’m not sure where you’d draw that conclusion from.

• nomel 4y ago
  You’ve repeatedly used “dog whistle” in your replies, along with “heard this rhetoric before”.
  • drewbug01 4y ago
    It’s true that I suspect the author views it as an annoyance or irrelevant, but I don’t know that the author holds actual malicious intent. Said differently: to me the dog-whistle seems to be “this annoying group that I don’t care about won’t leave me alone, they should shut up.” I don’t think that’s outright malicious, necessarily.
    • nomel 4y ago
      Do you agree with this definition of dog-whistle? From urban dictionary: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dog+whistle https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dog+whistle > Dog whistle is a type of strategy of communication that sends a message that the general population will take a certain meaning from, but a certain group that is "in the know" will take away the secret, intended message. If so, then that means they're trying to signal a hidden message. From what you've said, I'm assuming that you believe that they're trying to hide the fact that they don't like LGBT people or messages to them. I think that is malicious. I think the non-malicious perspective of what they wrote is that they like product logos being used for visual identification of the product.