The latter.
But that reads to me much more like someone who has learned the existence of a new word but not its correct meaning. “Wow! This fresh morning air is quite enervating!”
Because you don’t need to make any claims.
In the 80’s, Reagan couldn’t come out and say “Desegregating our schools is causing white people problems.”, but he could just say the word “Bussing”, and all the racists would know what he meant, most of the democrats would know what he meant, but few people in the middle, the “silent majority” would know what he meant, as it does require some context.
Based on that, can you see how Chronos could come to the conclusion that Miller accusing Acosta of cosmopolitan bias in this particular exchange didn’t make any sense?
Acosta insinuated that only people from Great Britain and Australia spoke English. Miller corrected him and said that people all over the world spoke English and that Acosta stating otherwise showed his cosmopolitan bias. This didn’t make logical sense to Chronos. Does it make logical sense to you?
Here’s the first exchange again…
Um, no.
Comparing Miller’s statements to DoctorJ chatting with friends at lunch is deliberately discounting that Miller is acting in the role of a designated communicator at the highest levels of our government. One does not act as a designated communicator at the highest levels of our government without exhibiting the ability to craft a very specific message using very specific language.
It ain’t amateur time.
I follow you – but Chronos did not say that the line made no sense as delivered. He said, “A coded message is the only possibility that makes sense.”
And that’s not accurate: “This fresh morning air is quite enervating!” is another possibility that makes sense. I would argue even that it makes MORE sense, but reasonable people may differ on that point.
Maybe I can change your mind and maybe I can’t.
Let me first attempt to summarize your current theory. Stephen Miller knows the word cosmopolitan but not its meaning. He awkwardly inserted it into an exchange with a reporter not once but twice for reasons unknown. It is a coincidence that cosmopolitan is in current usage among white nationalists in general, and specifically among white nationalists concerned with immigration. Additionally, it’s not particularly relevant that when in college Stephen Miller worked with Richard Spencer to try to get white nationalist, Peter Brimelow, to come to Duke to debate immigration policy. Finally it is also not relevant that in the same exchange with Acosta Miller advanced an argument about the inscription on the Statue of Liberty that is popular among anti-immigration white nationalists.
As far as I can tell, that’s where you stand now. He just used the word cosmopolitan incorrectly.
However, given the above, do you see how a reasonable person could come to the conclusion that Miller is giving a little wink, wink to that part of Trump’s base that he can’t openly acknowledge?
I posted my last post before reading your most recent post. I’m happy to leave it at the point I quoted above.
I said that this instance made no sense literally. By that I meant that, as the line was delivered, it made no sense: Miller accused Acosta of being too cosmopolitan, when he should have accused him of not being cosmopolitan enough. What explanation is possible for this? The only one I can think of is that Miller had already decided before this exchange that, at the first opportunity he had to say that Acosta was wrong, he was going to accuse him of having “cosmopolitan bias”, in those words, and that it was mere misfortune that the first opportunity he had to correct was actually erring in the opposite direction. And why did he want to use the specific accusation of “cosmopolitan bias”, in those words? I can think of no reason besides the dog-whistle.
You propose an alternate explanation, that Miller thought that “cosmopolitan” meant the opposite of what it actually does, and so thought he was presenting an accurate criticism of Acosta. But this alternate explanation does not hold up. Not only is “cosmopolitan” a much better-known word than “enervating”, but accusing their opponents of being too provincial (the word he actually should have used) is a sentiment which has never been expressed by Miller or his allies.
So, secret words are disseminated. Only the recipients know for sure what they mean. And then people communicate in the open with these secret words instead of through the channels in which the dog whistles are distributed.
Seems risky.
Of course.
I just cannot understand how a reasonable person would feel that this conclusion is the only possible conclusion.
Me too. And, me too. 
I agree here, except in this speaker does very well know what enervating means.
So, your anti-fresh morning air people hear it and silently agree that fresh morning air is a bad thing.
Your pro-fresh morning air people hear it and argue that it shouldn’t make you feel tired.
Your people in the middle look at the pro side, and say “Why do you think it has a hidden meaning, he may have just misspoke.” This is, of course, also the tactic of the anti-fresh morning people to make their position seem more reasonable, and that of the pro’s seem unreasonably caught up on this little mistake.
If someone says “The enervation of the fresh air wakes me up and gives me energy in the morning”, there is a pretty decent chance that they are debating in good faith, and simply used a word incorrectly.
If someone is on the attack, especially with words like "I have to honestly say I am shocked at your statement that you think that only people from Great Britain and Australia would know English. It’s actually – it reveals your cosmopolitan bias to a shocking degree that in your mind "
That’s pretty strawmanning of a debate statement. Did Acosta say “I think that only those from Great Britain and Australia know english.”? No, he said that this gives an advantage to those from those two countries, which is not the same argument whatsoever.
So, with Miller already knowingly violating a pretty basic logical fallacy of straw manning his opponent, it does little good to also make excuses for word choice.
Not precisely “the opposite.”
I suspect he was thinking more along the lines of “the intelligentsia,” a term which can be used in a positive or a more pejorative way, even though its literal meaning does not lend itself to both applications.
Mine was slightly hyperbolic on at least two grounds; I think many Dopers understood that. Do I also need a cite that hyperbole is often de rigueur in GD?
Of course I intended to encompass mildly racist voters deluded by a demagogue, and humbly apologize for the elision. (For the purpose of thread topic, such voters are often of only modest intelligence and wouldn’t understand “dog whistles” if you lectured them on the topic.) Even so, I am pleased to note a recent poll reporting that Trump is now viewed unfavorably more often than favorably among white men. I assume he is still favorable among his peak demographic: uneducated white men.
Anyway, I wrote “some” states. Trump won Wyoming by more than a 3-to-1 margin, and took West Virginia by almost as much. I’d bet real money he’d win these states again, along with Oklahoma, were an Hillary-Trump election staged again today. (He’d probably win handily in Alabama and both Dakotas as well.) If you’re still waiting for a clickable link I’ll go with one of these two non sequiturs.
“I can’t think of any other explanation” is not a valid argument. There is always “he made a mistake”. And that’s the problem with the whole dog whistle argument. As I said earlier, it’s nearly impossible to prove without relying on some sort of fallacious argument like “I can’t think of any other reason he would use that word”, or relying on things his “allies” might have done.
If this were a formal debate with Miller, we could ask him to clarify his use of the term, but we can’t. And even then, do we really want the debate to devolve into an argument about what the meaning of “cosmopolitan” means? Rather, let’s challenge the policy itself and bring on the charges of racism when the speakers starts talking about Wetbacks and Towelheads.
I agree with Chronos’s post pretty much in it’s entirety but would like to add some additional context to the part I snipped.
In the press conference Miller says he’ll take one more maybe two. He gets asked a boring question.
Then he says one more question. Another boring question.
Then he says that question was off topic so one more question. It’s in this exchange where he shoehorns in cosmopolitan. Now I admit that this isn’t super strong evidence, but it certainly fits with the hypothesis that Miller was looking for an opportunity to accuse someone of cosmopolitan bias.
Then he turns the press conference back over to Sanders. The last thing he says is, “I think that was exactly what we were hoping to have happened. Thank you.”
He certainly seems pleased with himself.
Is there a link to the entire transcript so we call all see the full context?
I thought I posted a link earlier when I was quoting excerpts, but it looks like I neglected to do so. My apologies.
Nearly impossible to prove, yes. But given what we know of Miller’s political leanings, the negative interpretation seems the more likely one, no?
Because most people on the left don’t have a problem with stating their beliefs out loud. Listen:
“I think men and women are equal and should be treated equally.”
“I think we should be preserving the environment so future generations can live comfortably.”
“I think people of all races are equal and should be treated equally.”
Now listen to the opposing viewpoints being said out loud:
“I think men are better than women and men are entitled to better treatment.”
“I think I should be allowed to ruin the environment as long as I can make money doing it.”
“I think I’m better than other people because of what color skin I have.”
You can see why people who hold the latter beliefs want to express them with codewords:
“I think we should acknowledge gender differences.”
“I oppose government over-regulation.”
“I think we need to get tough on inner city problems.”