4 ms·

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

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.
  - thefaux 2y ago
    I'm not here to change your mind, but dog whistling is a time honored political tradition. Lee Atwater famously explained how it works in a 1981 interview. It gives you plausible deniability to wrap sentiments that would be offensive to some of your supporters if said directly in a more indirect and/or abstract way such that those you're trying to reach will fill in the parts you left out. A relatively small share of people openly identify as racist, but many, if not most, people hold at least some racist views since these are the cultural waters we swim in. Dog whistling lets you have it both ways. When called out, the offender can always say: that's not what I meant or I was just joking. Then they can accuse the others of deliberately misconstruing their statements. And how the listener responds is largely a function of their prior beliefs. Again, most people don't want to think of themselves as racist so they will be generous to the dog whistler since to admit there was racism (or whatever ism) in the statement of someone they support would implicate them. And to the people it was intended, they will believe that the dog whistler is denying it not because they don't believe it but because they need to do so politically.
arp242 2y ago
> Evidently questioning the validity of dog whistle is a dog whistle itself. I don't see anyone saying that.

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.
- thefaux 2y ago
  I'm not here to change your mind, but dog whistling is a time honored political tradition. Lee Atwater famously explained how it works in a 1981 interview. It gives you plausible deniability to wrap sentiments that would be offensive to some of your supporters if said directly in a more indirect and/or abstract way such that those you're trying to reach will fill in the parts you left out. A relatively small share of people openly identify as racist, but many, if not most, people hold at least some racist views since these are the cultural waters we swim in. Dog whistling lets you have it both ways. When called out, the offender can always say: that's not what I meant or I was just joking. Then they can accuse the others of deliberately misconstruing their statements. And how the listener responds is largely a function of their prior beliefs. Again, most people don't want to think of themselves as racist so they will be generous to the dog whistler since to admit there was racism (or whatever ism) in the statement of someone they support would implicate them. And to the people it was intended, they will believe that the dog whistler is denying it not because they don't believe it but because they need to do so politically.

arp242 2y ago

> Evidently questioning the validity of dog whistle is a dog whistle itself. I don't see anyone saying that.