Also I think people are missing a pretty important aspect of dogwhistles: not everyone neatly divides into a member of a fringe group or the unaware public. While there are overt racists in the US, there are also people who think that everything is very mysterious and maybe the fringe group is right about some things. That group may actually be the main target for dogwhistle politics because they are the exact group that might be swayed by a cleverly masked appeal to a fringe belief, but may also take offense at having the mask uncovered.
I’ve only skimmed the thread, so please just tell me: Do the Trumpists and their fellow travelers claim that “Dog whistles don’t exist” or that “Liberals do it too” ?
You’re simply casting one side in as charitable language as possible and the other side in as uncharitable language as possible. That’s a rhetorical straw man.
By this logic, a pro-lifer could claim, “The pro-choice side doesn’t want to state out loud, “We support the murder of the unborn,” so they use dog whistle language like, ‘We support a woman’s right to choose.’”
In fairness to that poster, I read your post as “liberals do it, too”. I don’t think it was fair to refer to you as a “Trumpist” or a “fellow traveler”, but it looked like you were trying to understand why certain statements by liberals weren’t also considered dog whistles (statements that you distorted a bit from what liberals actually say, but I assume that was for effect).
Republican Senators (including the Tie-Breaker) voted 51/53 to confirm Betsy de Vos, the most malicious and incompetent person to ever serve in any cabinet. 51/52 Republican Senators voted to confirm Scott Pruitt as head of EPA — a man who detests the environment and any effort to regulate it. The very name Republican Party will be tarnished from this day forth as the “Party of Trump.” I feel very comfortable calling almost all Republicans “fellow travelers.”
Yes, some fellow travelers cast a ballot for Hillary … and enjoy describing how much mental anguish that caused them. The 2016 election causes me much mental anguish also.
The impression I got wasn’t so much “liberals do it too” as it was that **Bricker **was pointing out that the statement was misrepresenting the conservative case.
I disagree. In fact i dont think they ever use them.
I think they are a Urban Legend and a myth.
Look, show me a couple examples where the *planned audience *got the 'dog whistle" message. All i ever read about is where the opposition, the unplanned audience heard the “dog whistle”.
It’s a really crappy “dog whistle” if only cats respond to it and dogs dont.
Exactly. And somehow, rarely do the “whistlers” ever use this great hidden communication method on the liberal base. But it’s always the liberal base that hears it, never the intended audience. Or at least the intended audience never admits it. And we have some pretty reactionary right wingers here, you’d think they would tell us.
That quote is pretty damn bogus. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/06/what-did-lee-atwater-really-say.php So the central point that Atwater made in the interview was the exact opposite of the proposition for which liberals have endlessly quoted him…Liberals like Martin Bashir cite this interview for the proposition that Republicans skillfully conceal appeals to racism in seemingly innocuous policy discussions. Obviously, Atwater said nothing of the sort. And he declined to agree with Professor Lamis’s suggestion that Reagan’s talk about cutting programs like legal services and food stamps “gets to” the racist side of the George Wallace voter, albeit unconsciously. “I’m not saying it.” What Atwater did say, repeatedly and unambiguously, is that racial prejudice no longer plays a significant role in Southern elections, and that Reagan won the South in 1980 on the same issues with which he swept the rest of the country: the economy and national defense. It requires a great deal of dishonesty to twist Atwater’s words into the exact opposite of what he actually said.
I have listened to the entire interview and I agree. The quote is taken totally out of context. Nor do i trust any “journalist” that both quotes when told not to and releases the name of a interviewee that was promised anonymity.
And what is interesting is that this interview, taken out of context - is the ONLY example of such “coded messages” anyone can come up with.
Anyone willing to even consider voting for Trump after watching him ‘debate’ is a fool. Anyone willing to even consider voting for Trump after he promised to torture prisoners and have their families killed is scum who can best improve the world by leaving it.
The argument that Miller didn’t know what the word “cosmopolitan” means is fucking ridiculous.
Miller knows what it means.
Yeah, there are people in the Trump administration that might misuse the word. Like, you know, Trump.
Miller is not one of those people. He used it on purpose, in a context where it doesn’t make sense, because he wanted to accuse a journalist of being a cosmopolitan. And why did he want to do that? Because he thought cosmopolitan mean provincial?
As someone pointed out, a “dog whistle” that attracts the attention of cats better than dogs either isn’t a dog whistle at all, or it’s a cat whistle, or it’s a very lousy dog whistle.
We had another thread a year ago where someone asked for examples of political dog whistles than only the dogs can hear. As I recall it, not a single poster was able to provide an example of one.
Typically we don’t moderate generalized insults against groups, however this is too far. Demonizing people in this fashion, including posters on this board, and suggesting that they kill themselves is not appropriate for this forum.
Septimus wrote: “I’ve only skimmed the thread, so please just tell me: Do the Trumpists and their fellow travelers claim that “Dog whistles don’t exist” or that “Liberals do it too” ?”
Except that logic is absolute nonsense, as I have already pointed out in a previous post. Does anyone really believe that the reason some people are pro-choice is because they want to murder unborn children? Anyone who believes that is literally insane.
Pro-choice people aren’t hiding the truth that they want to murder children because that is not the truth. Their real honest belief is that they think abortion is a issue that should be decided by the woman involved. And that’s what they’re saying out loud.