4 ms·

> ...high-trust society, which at least one prominent nation seems to be backsliding on For those not living in the true north (Canada), 90% of the time, this

> ...high-trust society, which at least one prominent nation seems to be backsliding on For those not living in the true north (Canada), 90% of the time, this is dog-whsitle phrasing preferred by the Canadian right wing to complain about Indian immigrants. Canada does have issues with immigration fraud, but this phrasing of complaint pretty exclusively is used by people who don't like Indians.

pluralmonad 11mo ago
While this may be true in some contexts, what reason do you have to believe it is here? All of these supposed "dog whistle" call-outs do not feel constructive to me. I would never have though the parent comment was deriding Indians (and still don't).
- dghlsakjg 11mo ago
  This is a US site, patronised seemingly by mostly non-Candians. My purpose is to contextualize who and what the subtext of this phrase's use in Canada within the context of this Canadian story. > All of these supposed "dog whistle" call-outs do not feel constructive to me. I would never have though the parent comment was deriding Indians (and still don't). The point of a literal dog-whistle is that the intended audience (dogs) can hear and understand the whistle perfectly, while other people do not hear anything at all. Figuratively, a dog-whistle phrase leaves room for debate (like this), and provides cover for people to say unsavory things while still being able to deny the meaning. Well-meaning folks can say things like "I would never have though the parent comment was deriding Indians" because that is the whole point of the dog-whistle in modern rhetoric. The analogy holds well here as well. You can wade into any right wing space in Canada and you will hear the phrase "low trust society' and "high trust society". It is ALWAYS used in the context of immigrants (low trust) and white Canadians (high trust). It is almost always used in reference to Indian immigrants specifically. The whole point of a dog whistle is that you can take them at face value and see nothing explicitly wrong with the statement. Is it possible that this commenter simply blundered into this phrasing without understanding that it is used specifically against Indian immigrant cultures by the extreme right? Yes. Do I believe that they happened on the exact same particular phrasing and argument that anti-Indian/anti-immigrant groups use was made by pure coincidence? No. If OP did blunder into their statement, they can easily reply and correct their true intent. If I accidentally used a racially loaded statement that signals allegiance with certain groups, I would absolutely want someone to point it out so I can clarify. You can believe whatever you want.
  - pluralmonad 11mo ago
    Thanks for taking the time to respond. How should someone discuss those topics without tripping a dog whistle alarm? That is my issue with that sort of discourse, it fences off things that have literal meanings and makes them verboten.
    - dghlsakjg 11mo ago
      Use your own words, and understand what other phrases mean if you are using phrasing that you picked up somewhere else. Its totally fine if you don't pick up on someone else using controversial 'dog-whistle' phrasing, that's kinda the point of a dog whistle. Don't hide your meaning in implications. If you think that high levels of Indian immigration are causing a conflict between dominant Canadian culture that relies on "high-trust" transactions because the immigrants come from a "low-trust" group that take advantage of it, then say that (or whatever it is that you actually believe). Phrasing it like OP has, leaves room for multiple interpretations. It is possible that they think this is a transition from high to low trust that Canada is making entirely independently of immigration policy. Because they chose to use ambiguous phrasing preferred by a specific polity, we are forced to interpret for ourselves. In short: say what you mean clearly in plain language. "[this] cancellation policy only really works in a high-trust society, which at least one prominent nation seems to be backsliding on" is not clear or using plain language.
      - pluralmonad 11mo ago
        I guess I still struggle with what amounts to the opposite of "assume positive intent" which can make communicating significantly less productive. I do generally agree with the preference for plain and direct language.
        dghlsakjg 11mo ago
        > For those not living in the true north (Canada), 90% of the time, this is dog-whsitle phrasing preferred by the Canadian right wing to complain about Indian immigrants. I'm not sure I have assumed ill intent. I didn't say anyone was categorically wrong or racist. I simply pointed out that they are using phrasing mostly used by people who dislike Indian immigration. If that is not what they intended, I have left plenty of room for them to say they are not part of that group, and the phrasing was coincidental, or that they did not understand that the phrase is a reference to the superiority of one culture over another.
xethos 11mo ago
It was an attempt to be less political, while pointing a finger at America, actually.
- dghlsakjg 11mo ago
  Gotcha. Just wanted to make you aware that you are using the terms and framing preferred by anti-indian immigration people in Canada that push a theory very similar to "great replacement" theory in the US. Essentially the claim is that Canadian culture is fundamentally changing from "high-trust" to "low-trust" because we have too many immigrants from "low-trust" societies. Oddly enough, the societies they think are low trust with too much immigration are pretty much always non-white. I was thrown off by the ambiguity and this being a story about Canada.

pluralmonad 11mo ago

While this may be true in some contexts, what reason do you have to believe it is here? All of these supposed "dog whistle" call-outs do not feel constructive to me. I would never have though the parent comment was deriding Indians (and still don't).

dghlsakjg 11mo ago
This is a US site, patronised seemingly by mostly non-Candians. My purpose is to contextualize who and what the subtext of this phrase's use in Canada within the context of this Canadian story. > All of these supposed "dog whistle" call-outs do not feel constructive to me. I would never have though the parent comment was deriding Indians (and still don't). The point of a literal dog-whistle is that the intended audience (dogs) can hear and understand the whistle perfectly, while other people do not hear anything at all. Figuratively, a dog-whistle phrase leaves room for debate (like this), and provides cover for people to say unsavory things while still being able to deny the meaning. Well-meaning folks can say things like "I would never have though the parent comment was deriding Indians" because that is the whole point of the dog-whistle in modern rhetoric. The analogy holds well here as well. You can wade into any right wing space in Canada and you will hear the phrase "low trust society' and "high trust society". It is ALWAYS used in the context of immigrants (low trust) and white Canadians (high trust). It is almost always used in reference to Indian immigrants specifically. The whole point of a dog whistle is that you can take them at face value and see nothing explicitly wrong with the statement. Is it possible that this commenter simply blundered into this phrasing without understanding that it is used specifically against Indian immigrant cultures by the extreme right? Yes. Do I believe that they happened on the exact same particular phrasing and argument that anti-Indian/anti-immigrant groups use was made by pure coincidence? No. If OP did blunder into their statement, they can easily reply and correct their true intent. If I accidentally used a racially loaded statement that signals allegiance with certain groups, I would absolutely want someone to point it out so I can clarify. You can believe whatever you want.
- pluralmonad 11mo ago
  Thanks for taking the time to respond. How should someone discuss those topics without tripping a dog whistle alarm? That is my issue with that sort of discourse, it fences off things that have literal meanings and makes them verboten.
  - dghlsakjg 11mo ago
    Use your own words, and understand what other phrases mean if you are using phrasing that you picked up somewhere else. Its totally fine if you don't pick up on someone else using controversial 'dog-whistle' phrasing, that's kinda the point of a dog whistle. Don't hide your meaning in implications. If you think that high levels of Indian immigration are causing a conflict between dominant Canadian culture that relies on "high-trust" transactions because the immigrants come from a "low-trust" group that take advantage of it, then say that (or whatever it is that you actually believe). Phrasing it like OP has, leaves room for multiple interpretations. It is possible that they think this is a transition from high to low trust that Canada is making entirely independently of immigration policy. Because they chose to use ambiguous phrasing preferred by a specific polity, we are forced to interpret for ourselves. In short: say what you mean clearly in plain language. "[this] cancellation policy only really works in a high-trust society, which at least one prominent nation seems to be backsliding on" is not clear or using plain language.
    - pluralmonad 11mo ago
      I guess I still struggle with what amounts to the opposite of "assume positive intent" which can make communicating significantly less productive. I do generally agree with the preference for plain and direct language.
      - dghlsakjg 11mo ago
        > For those not living in the true north (Canada), 90% of the time, this is dog-whsitle phrasing preferred by the Canadian right wing to complain about Indian immigrants. I'm not sure I have assumed ill intent. I didn't say anyone was categorically wrong or racist. I simply pointed out that they are using phrasing mostly used by people who dislike Indian immigration. If that is not what they intended, I have left plenty of room for them to say they are not part of that group, and the phrasing was coincidental, or that they did not understand that the phrase is a reference to the superiority of one culture over another.

xethos 11mo ago

It was an attempt to be less political, while pointing a finger at America, actually.

dghlsakjg 11mo ago
Gotcha. Just wanted to make you aware that you are using the terms and framing preferred by anti-indian immigration people in Canada that push a theory very similar to "great replacement" theory in the US. Essentially the claim is that Canadian culture is fundamentally changing from "high-trust" to "low-trust" because we have too many immigrants from "low-trust" societies. Oddly enough, the societies they think are low trust with too much immigration are pretty much always non-white. I was thrown off by the ambiguity and this being a story about Canada.