You know, I am rather suspicious of this. A Dog whistle is supposed to be something your fans can hear.
"in which certain phrases have a particular meaning to a segment of the audience that passes unnoticed by the rest. This allows a candidate to surreptitiously signal agreement with that group, without alienating the rest of the audience, among whom the ideas might be unpopular if plainly stated." XKCD explained.
“Dog-whistle politics is political messaging employing coded language that appears to mean one thing to the general population but has an additional, different or more specific resonance for a targeted subgroup.” wiki
But every time here on this board- it is always *the opposition *that can hear this supposedly secret phrase that ONLY has meaning to a specific audience.
So, I’d like to have examples of where the* target audience*- being YOU- could hear the dog whistle in the public phrase.
Easily explained. You’re on a board with (some) pretty sophisticated people who know enough history to catch the references that might get past some other people.
A lot of times the speaker will build enough ambiguity into what they say to provide them with deniability even if the “dog whistle” is pointed out. "I meant this and if you think I meant that, then you’re the one with the problem.
Per the OP, “A Dog whistle is supposed to be something your fans can hear”, but “every time here on this board- it is always *the opposition *that can hear this supposedly secret phrase that ONLY has meaning to a specific audience.”
So I guess I’m taking issue with that part, instead of getting to the bit that came up later. Though, having said that, that later bit was phrased like this:
If you’re going to nitpick my reply, I guess I’m going to ask whether it’s legitimate to read a sentence minus a part of it that’s set off from the rest by parentheses or hyphens. It’s my understanding that, as a basic rule of grammar, a sentence can be legitimately read in exactly that way: I’d Like To Have Examples Of Where The Target Audience Could Hear The Dog Whistle In The Public Phrase.
*But every time here on this board- it is always the opposition that can hear this supposedly secret phrase that ONLY has meaning to a specific audience.
So, I’d like to have examples of where the target audience- being YOU- could hear the dog whistle in the public phrase. *
Just because some people are lousy at keeping their subtext suitably sub doesn’t mean that subtext doesn’t exist or that people don’t try to deploy subtext as a conversational tool.
Next time I hear an example I’ll link it for you.
Uh, yeah. And, from my post, my understanding of the basic rules of grammar tells me that a sentence containing a phrase set off by parentheses or hyphens can legitimately be read minus said phrase set off by said parentheses or hyphens.
I’m dubious, too, because you seem to be deliberately misinterpreting the phrase.
A dog whistle in modern political usage is merely a message transmitted through oblique language. It does not at any time mean that no one outside the intended audience can ever make sense of the language.
Of course, if you went farther down the Wiki page you cited, you’d see exactly the examples you claim to be looking for.
Maybe the intense rebuttal you’re getting here is because of your misuse of language, not that of others.
Most of us don’t see ourselves as gullible or bigoted enough to be a dog whistle recipient. It is a pejorative term, both for the thing itself and it’s target.
The closest we get is to make threads about it I suppose.
But having said that if you say that’s my kind of people when you hear Donald, and you are a white supremacist, you have been dog whistled.
Your OP includes several explanations of dog whistles, none of which states that it has to be secret or exclusive. There are many reasons it’s the opposition that usually calls it out, but the simplest one is that the sympathizers already understood the signal.
When George W. Bush was considering candidates to fill the SCOTUS vacancy, he said “I’m not going to nominate someone who would uphold the Dred Scott decision.” Most of us (at least I) needed someone to explain that some pro-lifers regard this 150-year-old slavery decision as a possible attack vector against Roe vs. Wade, but pro-lifers got the message immediately. That’s why you always hear the opposition highlighting dog-whistle politics - the sympathizers see it as straightforward communication possibly softened by political correctness.