Did they? What exactly did he mean? No one can be sure and he’s not saying.
His vagueness allowed each listener to fill in that blank however they saw fit. Homophobes heard an anti-gay message. Anti-semites heard something else entirely. Fundamentalists knew that New York values are values held near and dear by godless smartypants communists.
That’s the beauty of the dog whistle.
That it doesn’t do anything?
New York City Values = bad.
Did anyone think he meant “good”?
It’s a Jewish guy who married a Greek shiksa.
Same goes for, “New York values.”
However, if we can’t agree that what I think is the canonical example of a dog whistle is, in fact, a dog whistle, then any discussion of Stephen Miller’s dog whistle is likely to go nowhere since we apparently do not even agree on the definition of the term.
So, wait a minute. “Ghetto” is now a dog whistle?
You need a new name for it, then. Gee, how about “euphemism”? When the humans can hear the dog whistle, it’s not a dog whistle. It’s just a whistle.
No, he meant different. And indeed, New Yorkers do often have a different outlook on life than the rural South. Hell, Big City residents pretty much are a different breed than Rural folk.
I dont see any “dog whistle” here at all. Rural South vs City North. It’s not in any way a hidden meaning.
You’ll have to argue with him about that:
Saying he meant “different” is like saying Gandalf and Sauron are “different”. While true, it misses the entire point of why they are different.
Feel free to pick whatever name for it that you’re comfortable with, and then please mentally substitute that name into my posts whenever I post the words, “Dog whistle.”
No thanks.
A dog whistle that everyone can hear is an EX-dog whistle!
Then it appears we are at an impasse. Take care.
Nope. Indeed the "liberal values of Democratic politicians" are quite a bit different than the conservative values of rural Republicans. Where’s the dogwhistle or surprise there? Nothing hidden- its plain and out and open. And, correct, even.
Where’s the dog whistle? Perhaps you should ask someone who thinks “New York Values” is one! I made it quite clear that I didn’t think it was.
Just so I understand what you are saying…let’s say that Ted Cruz says that we have to do something about the ghettos in the inner cities. Are you suggesting that Cruz uses that word on purpose because he knows that the KKK will hear his statement and think “shiftless blacks”; that his proposed policy will screw over blacks.
Now, again if I understand your belief, this is purposely done, and both Cruz and the KKK know it is being done. Further, Cruz doesn’t really want to do something about ghettos, he secretly agrees with the KKK and wants to persecute blacks.
However, since most people would abhor the idea of going after racial minorities, Cruz can deny that he meant blacks, even though he really did?
If that is the belief, it is simply a bald assertion with no proof. It is similar to when those on the right say that liberals when they talk of taking care of the poor they simply want Soviet-style communism.
If you no longer wish to debate because I refuse to accept your unreasonable demand about substituting words in your post, then so be it. Not sure why that’s an impasse, but I’ll accept your feeling that it is.
You, too. Sincerely meant.
Maybe the second amendment people should take care of these dog whistlers.
I’ve been posting thinly veiled Posadist references for years. I don’t think it’s working.
I think I’ll just leave this as food for thought. But I’m sure it’s impossible for statements aimed at plausible deniability to really be meant to communicate something else. It’s not like those groups are flagrantly saying that’s exactly what’s happening.
In the ear of the beholder.
But to me, it is difficult to think that Blabbermouth Trump is carefully constructing his outbursts.
If he pardons a convicted abuser of power and racial profiler Joe Arpaio, as he is considering, it will show what Trump really wanted to say.
I will have to agree with some on the board that Trump is really like a kid that because he did not get praise for taking his medicine that he will break something else just for spite.
Dogwhistles like that aren’t exactly hard. And he has Bannon to write his speeches for him, especially when concerning the alt-right’s affairs.
But this is just the most flagrant example I could find, which was also conveniently recent. If Drumpf can manage it, however hamfisted, don’t you think slightly more intelligent politicians who’s career and fortune rides on doing exactly that might manage?