5 ms·

What is a dog whistle? Is it just an opinion people disagree with and so rather than engage with it they assume malice or ill intent? I really don’t get it.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
kevingadd 2y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_whistle_(politics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_whistle_(politics) To simplify, dog whistles make a sound that's too high pitched for most humans to hear, but only dogs can hear it. So it's speech that the speaker's ingroup recognizes as meaning something other than what the literal interpretation would mean. It's coded speech, usually for racist, sexist or even violent purposes. An adjacent concept is giving orders without giving orders, i.e. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_no_one_rid_me_of_this_turbulent_priest%3F https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_no_one_rid_me_of_this_tur...
drivebyhooting 2y ago
Yes I too can google. And in fact I did. Evidently questioning the validity of dog whistle is a dog whistle itself. Meanwhile a small consolation is that https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/06/17/against-dog-whistles/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/06/17/against-dog-whistles/ agrees with me. So I’m in decent company.
- Lerc 2y ago
  Ever watch the West Wing? The first episode should do it. One of the signs of dog whistle use is the situations in which the term is used that raises probability beyond the credible level of coincidence.
  - drivebyhooting 2y ago
    I don’t watch TV. To my mind, this dog whistle moniker is more of a tool for suppressing dissenting views than identifying covert bigotry. Apparently all the critical thinking has already been done off stage and now only those whom we agree with are tolerated. The others are shunned as racists or worse.
    - neaden 2y ago
      This is a world where Donald Trump, the man who calls his political opponent mentally disabled among other things is a serious front runner for the highest office in the nation. I have no idea how you can look at contemporary America and say people aren't allowed to say offensive things.
    - shadowgovt 2y ago
      > Apparently all the critical thinking has already been done off stage In general, yes: there is a long history of conversation on various topics, actions that have caused trust levels to be preset among various groups, and meta-symbols constructed atop that information. Those new to the conversation may be unaware of the context. > and now only those whom we agree with are tolerated I'm not sure who "we" is in that context. In the US, currently, the polity is very divided because sevaral key events have, in a sense, caused "mask off" to occur in the mainstream of both political parties that makes it difficult for anyone to believe one of them is willing to share power. (as a side note: rhetorical questions don't usually convey well through text media. If you didn't literally mean "I really don't get it" when you said you didn't get it, making clear you are being rhetorical could be considered polite).
      - drivebyhooting 2y ago
        “Those new to the conversation” I find this hilariously un-inclusive. Do you expect young adults to come out of school with the correct doctrine in place so that no further thinking or discourse is necessary? Perhaps the nation’s division is evidence of the lack of genuine sharing of ideas? Where would one go to have an intellectual discussion in safety? Workplace? Obviously not. Online forum? Downvotes, brigadding, and generally lack of tolerance. Small wonder that I’m not being persuaded and neither are you.
        shadowgovt 2y ago
        > Do you expect young adults to come out of school with the correct doctrine in place so that no further thinking or discourse is necessary? Definitely not. I do expect them to listen before speaking out. It was a hard lesson I myself had to learn when I was one of those young adults coming out of school. Sometimes, conventional wisdom is just accrued prejudice. Sometimes it is accrued experience and people are as they are for a reason. It's probably best to have enough information to know before staking a position openly and pushing other people off their own. > Where would one go to have an intellectual discussion in safety? Traditionally? The bar. I'm not even kidding. This is the kind of thing people discuss face-to-face most effectively. We do less of that these days.
- arp242 2y ago
  > Evidently questioning the validity of dog whistle is a dog whistle itself. I don't see anyone saying that.
samatman 2y ago
Dog whistling is when a politician from the outgroup says something, and the ingroup wants him to have said something else, so they say "dog whistle" and put the offending meaning in his mouth as a replacement for what was actually said.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

kevingadd 2y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_whistle_(politics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_whistle_(politics) To simplify, dog whistles make a sound that's too high pitched for most humans to hear, but only dogs can hear it. So it's speech that the speaker's ingroup recognizes as meaning something other than what the literal interpretation would mean. It's coded speech, usually for racist, sexist or even violent purposes. An adjacent concept is giving orders without giving orders, i.e. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_no_one_rid_me_of_this_turbulent_priest%3F https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_no_one_rid_me_of_this_tur...

drivebyhooting 2y ago

Yes I too can google. And in fact I did. Evidently questioning the validity of dog whistle is a dog whistle itself. Meanwhile a small consolation is that https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/06/17/against-dog-whistles/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/06/17/against-dog-whistles/ agrees with me. So I’m in decent company.

Lerc 2y ago
Ever watch the West Wing? The first episode should do it. One of the signs of dog whistle use is the situations in which the term is used that raises probability beyond the credible level of coincidence.
- drivebyhooting 2y ago
  I don’t watch TV. To my mind, this dog whistle moniker is more of a tool for suppressing dissenting views than identifying covert bigotry. Apparently all the critical thinking has already been done off stage and now only those whom we agree with are tolerated. The others are shunned as racists or worse.
  - neaden 2y ago
    This is a world where Donald Trump, the man who calls his political opponent mentally disabled among other things is a serious front runner for the highest office in the nation. I have no idea how you can look at contemporary America and say people aren't allowed to say offensive things.
  - shadowgovt 2y ago
    > Apparently all the critical thinking has already been done off stage In general, yes: there is a long history of conversation on various topics, actions that have caused trust levels to be preset among various groups, and meta-symbols constructed atop that information. Those new to the conversation may be unaware of the context. > and now only those whom we agree with are tolerated I'm not sure who "we" is in that context. In the US, currently, the polity is very divided because sevaral key events have, in a sense, caused "mask off" to occur in the mainstream of both political parties that makes it difficult for anyone to believe one of them is willing to share power. (as a side note: rhetorical questions don't usually convey well through text media. If you didn't literally mean "I really don't get it" when you said you didn't get it, making clear you are being rhetorical could be considered polite).
    - drivebyhooting 2y ago
      “Those new to the conversation” I find this hilariously un-inclusive. Do you expect young adults to come out of school with the correct doctrine in place so that no further thinking or discourse is necessary? Perhaps the nation’s division is evidence of the lack of genuine sharing of ideas? Where would one go to have an intellectual discussion in safety? Workplace? Obviously not. Online forum? Downvotes, brigadding, and generally lack of tolerance. Small wonder that I’m not being persuaded and neither are you.
      - shadowgovt 2y ago
        > Do you expect young adults to come out of school with the correct doctrine in place so that no further thinking or discourse is necessary? Definitely not. I do expect them to listen before speaking out. It was a hard lesson I myself had to learn when I was one of those young adults coming out of school. Sometimes, conventional wisdom is just accrued prejudice. Sometimes it is accrued experience and people are as they are for a reason. It's probably best to have enough information to know before staking a position openly and pushing other people off their own. > Where would one go to have an intellectual discussion in safety? Traditionally? The bar. I'm not even kidding. This is the kind of thing people discuss face-to-face most effectively. We do less of that these days.
arp242 2y ago
> Evidently questioning the validity of dog whistle is a dog whistle itself. I don't see anyone saying that.

samatman 2y ago

Dog whistling is when a politician from the outgroup says something, and the ingroup wants him to have said something else, so they say "dog whistle" and put the offending meaning in his mouth as a replacement for what was actually said.