> This is actually surprisingly common in the culture--just think of the prevalence of specious 'dog whistle' accusations, which allow journalists to say, with

> This is actually surprisingly common in the culture--just think of the prevalence of specious 'dog whistle' accusations, which allow journalists to say, with a straight face, that while politician X might be saying something perfectly harmless, or even something that you agree with, they're secretly signaling terrible things to their terrible supporters! There's a second side to this, the "STOP NOTICING THINGS" demand, where people use obvious dogwhistles and then act angry and astonished when someone outside their intended group knows what they said. They think they can use sheer outrage to wave off evidence that they just said something horrible, and likely get their followers riled up because an outsider is accusing their hero of doing the thing the followers like that hero for doing. And it is a demand, not an argument, because it's a power struggle: Who has enough power to decide the framing here? This, I'm certain, is one reason some people went absolutely nuts over Postmodernism: Postmodernism, correctly understood, is all about noticing and questioning the various frames that guide interpretation, and it's easier to control a narrative when nobody is allowed to question those frames. (Of course, a larger number of people hate "Postmodernism" because they use it as a snarl term to mean "Absolutely Everything I Hate" and who wouldn't hate that?)