3 ms·

Given the literal statement, you are arguing that the statement is an alt-right dogwhistle slogan, and therefore the phrase must be understood from that context

Given the literal statement, you are arguing that the statement is an alt-right dogwhistle slogan, and therefore the phrase must be understood from that context, and we must ignore the literal, naive meaning of the phrase. If "the alt-right folks are counting on people to naively interpret the phrase literally", doesn't that make Rasmussen an alt-right folk? Rasmussen asked the phrase, "ignoring the context and origination" of the phrase just like you said. If you believe Rasmussen is not "alt-right" folk, I wonder how you distinguish the two?

freejazz 4y ago
>If "the alt-right folks are counting on people to naively interpret the phrase literally", doesn't that make Rasmussen an alt-right folk? Rasmussen asked the phrase, "ignoring the context and origination" of the phrase just like you said. That kind of gives credence to his point, doesn't it. Saying "Ignoring that this is a racist dogwhistle, do you think this racist dogwhistle is true?" isn't exactly being neutral or negating the fact that the "statement" is a racist dogwhistle. This is kind of the thing that I don't get about the attitudes expressed here w/r/t making points and arguments. Your argument is facially not good. You confuse the fact that its conceptually plausible, with the reality that on it's face, it doesn't serve that goal at all. It's like desperately clawing at rhetorical fallacy to make your point... when you could just make your point without it. Of course, then you couldn't structure it to make it look like you aren't defending racist dogwhistles... but that's what you are doing.
- CrimsonCape 4y ago
  I'm pointing out the weirdness of Rassmussen asking a question which is just a reformulated racist dogwhistle. What's the point?
  - tstrimple 4y ago
    There is nothing weird about an explicitly right wing polling organization making polls explicitly to support right wing talking points.
dpkirchner 4y ago
As far as I've seen Rasmussen doesn't shy away from its GOP/alt-right bias, so yes, probably.

freejazz 4y ago

>If "the alt-right folks are counting on people to naively interpret the phrase literally", doesn't that make Rasmussen an alt-right folk? Rasmussen asked the phrase, "ignoring the context and origination" of the phrase just like you said. That kind of gives credence to his point, doesn't it. Saying "Ignoring that this is a racist dogwhistle, do you think this racist dogwhistle is true?" isn't exactly being neutral or negating the fact that the "statement" is a racist dogwhistle. This is kind of the thing that I don't get about the attitudes expressed here w/r/t making points and arguments. Your argument is facially not good. You confuse the fact that its conceptually plausible, with the reality that on it's face, it doesn't serve that goal at all. It's like desperately clawing at rhetorical fallacy to make your point... when you could just make your point without it. Of course, then you couldn't structure it to make it look like you aren't defending racist dogwhistles... but that's what you are doing.

CrimsonCape 4y ago
I'm pointing out the weirdness of Rassmussen asking a question which is just a reformulated racist dogwhistle. What's the point?
- tstrimple 4y ago
  There is nothing weird about an explicitly right wing polling organization making polls explicitly to support right wing talking points.

dpkirchner 4y ago

As far as I've seen Rasmussen doesn't shy away from its GOP/alt-right bias, so yes, probably.