Sure, then tell me one that you heard and was* intended for you.*
Does this suffice?
I hate to break this to you, but you made a flat statement that I disagreed with. And then you for some reason later asked folks to supply examples of stuff they’d heard.
I posted to dispute the flat statement – not to reply to the request you later made.
What *are *you saying? That politicians don’t use coded language? That offensive statements are never uttered in less directly offensive forms? That appeals to the baser natures of voters are never made unless they are completely open and obvious?
You must think you’re making a case of some sort. I can’t figure out what that might be. In fact, I say you’re using coded language to say something you won’t say straight out.
Yes. This thread is a dog whistle for sure. But he will answer that you are not the intended target of his dog whistle so the conditions of his request will not ever be met. The real targets are on here but will never admit there is a dog whistle to be heard.
“When did you hear a dog whistle” is akin to asking “when did you stop beating your wife” or “are you a liar”
“Dog Whistles don’t really occur, they are made up by the opposition, who want to claim that some politician is saying something other than he is actually saying.” There. I said it.
Oh come on now, we have people of every politcal viewpoint, and many who have changed allegiances. We have had poster admit they are pedophiles, crooks, liars and everything.
So, give me one example of a “dog whistle” being heard & recognized by it’s intended audience… and was later admitted.
For so many cynics, it is hard for me to accept that none of you are cynical about something that cannot be shown to exist. :dubious:
So show me.
You’re focusing too much on the original connotation of the term that isn’t used so much now. Most people don’t use it to mean a literal “secret message,” though you are insisting that.
You can point out that french fries aren’t really French, but it doesn’t follow that the little pieces of fried potatoes that people eat “don’t exist.”
When we say dog whistle we don’t actually mean “secret message”–something that only a few people understand. So what? What we mean are terms and phrases that certain groups use to communicate something but avoid opening themselves up to direct censure–to maintain "deniability."
When Donald Trump says “make America great again,” he knows full well that there is a component of the the country that wants to hear someone say “make America white again,” but if he says that directly, the push back will be too much.
Of course they don’t admit it. The whole point of the thing is so that they don’t have to admit it. But it’s clear from the context of the overall discourse how they understand it. Rhetoric by nature is subtle, but you’re demanding some kind of crude, simplistic, black-and-white indicator.
The definition is wrong. It’s not about messages that one group will understand and others won’t. It’s about messages that everybody understands but are couched in indirect language and terminology that allows deniability as to its real meaning.
“Love trumps hate.”
I hear that as an affirmation that Clinton supports equal rights for all people, from same sex marriage to immigration reform. And I like the message.
Goalposts to be moved in 5… 4… 3… 2…
That’s ludicrous noise. There. I said it.
Well, not necessarily. Obama was certainly accused of/employed “dog whistle politics” using phrases that would be more familiar to the black community than the white. Now, whether you want to call that “dog whistle politics” or knowing your audience, it’s all the same to me.
How about Cruz with the term “New York Values”?
When he first used it, it resonated with southern voters opposed to so-called “New York Values”.
He pointed out that “New York” means “focus around money and the media.” – More code for Jewish.
He later explained it using a ‘New York term’ – Chutzpah.
The last one is not a dog whistle. It’s one political marketing term v another. And ‘merit based’ is actually more factually specific than ‘affirmative action’. ‘Affirmative action’ can mean simply acting affirmatively to insure that all the most objectively qualified candidates have been found. I used to hire people, and that was a real consideration (did the headhunters know we really wanted to see diverse candidates, not just saying it; did all those candidates naturally consider a firm like ours? and so forth). In college admissions ‘affirmative action’ means ‘race preference’. One objectively equally qualified candidate gets a leg up on another based on their skin color (for public policy purposes one can argue for, but that’s what it is).
Merit based v. race preferences would be the honest non-whistling comparison.
The other two are euphemisms, but I would say ‘dog whistle’ has a pretty specific US only meaning: where the left claims that the right’s political appeals are really to white bias against non-whites but the right and its audience don’t admit so. I’m not saying that’s never the case (though it’s not in your case 3 IMO) but I don’t think the term has much applicability beyond that situation.
That’s correct.
“States Rights” = “Fucking Niggers!”
“Immigration” = “Fucking Mexicans!”
“Politically Correct” = “Fucking Mexicans and Niggers!”
“Religious Freedom” = “Fucking Homos!”
It doesn’t work that way. If I’m a dog, then to me a dogwhistle just sounds like a regular whistle. I might notice if the opposition pointed it out, but to me it’s going to sound like regular speech.
But then again, I’m not one of those people who thinks that political correctness is suppressing my side from “telling it how it is”. That’s a mindset that breeds dog-whistling as a second language, because of course it’s necessary to get around the speech police.
GWB did this quite frequently, by inserting snippets or phrases of semi-obscure bible verses or hymns into his speeches. This signaled, to the very religious, that he was one of them; he knew their language. And, being highly religious myself, I caught those messages that went over the heads of non-churched people. Other politicians use religious shibboleths all the time that are not caught by non-religious people.
I once heard a politician refer to aiding “the victims of hunger, fear, injustice, and oppression.” Does that mean anything to you? Probably not. But it is a direct quote from the Book of Common Prayer that would sail over the heads of anyone not familiar with that specific tradition.
So, I hope this puts to rest any questions about dog whistles. Here we have Ms. Bartiromo actually not getting when he means, and Ted Cruz saying New Yorkers wouldn’t get it, but South Carolinians would understand. Is there any question that Cruz was doing some sort of dog whistle here when he said New York values?
Yes, I am doubtful. It’s a local term.