Have you ever, as the intended audience, heard a political dog whistle?
No one has ever admitted using one.
None of the intended audience has ever admitted hearing one.
I have not.
David Duke has.
(Man, am I ever glad you tacked that unrelated sentence on! If you’d stopped with the question, I’d have come up empty – but then you offered up another sentence, just floating there waiting to be considered on its own merits!)
Every time some conservative on this board defends the GOP or Trump with “that’s not racist” or “that’s not treasonous”, its an example of an attempted dog whistle that was caught
Post 31.
So, you believe anything that comes out of David Dukes mouth?
Looks, it’s like those subliminal messages in ice cubes. WB Key said he could see them, but only smart people could, so more and more people who thought they were smart could see them. But that was debunked.
But afterwards all those who were fooled, *refused to believe they were fooled. *
It’s the Emperors New Clothes all over again.
Hardly a dog whistle. What’s hidden?
Well, that’s quite the neat trick, there: say that you’re only interested in the opinions of those who’d be the intended audience for a reprehensible dog whistle – and then disregard them, because they’re the sort of people who’d be the intended audience for a reprehensible dog whistle. It gives a bloke pause.
(Oh, and, for the record, yeah, I believe him when he says he doesn’t much like blacks or Jews; he seems sincere. Does that count?)
It’s a phrase that:
(a) stands out very strongly among all the other words being used in the same speech
(b) reassures me that Clinton views civil rights in the same terms I do
(c) the text does not address any specific issue, but supporters infer from it her position on a broad swath of issues, from immigration to same sex marriage to racial equality
How does that not qualify as a dog whistle? Or are you resorting to the Reaganesque bickering over terminology, like, “Hey, those Contras aren’t BAD TERRORISTS, they’re GOOD FREEDOM FIGHTERS!”
Here isa claim: “But social media quickly lit up with criticism for Mr. Trump’s use of “jive” — common slang associated with black American jazz musicians in the 1940s and ’50s — instead of “jibe,” the word Mr. Obama used. Many viewed Mr. Trump’s language as a coded racial “dog whistle” to some of his supporters.”
You can’t win once he’s used the “No True Scottish Terrier” fallacy.
Allow me to recast this thread onto a slightly different topic:
DrDeth: Has ANYONE ever actually enjoyed a cupcake?
Ravenman: I have. It was chocolate with a bit of gooey stuff in the middle. It came from a nice bakery.
DrDeth: https://www.quora.com/What-does-a-10-cupcake-taste-like-Is-it-worth-it
And now that I look at your link more carefully, and even your “rebuttal” doesn’t contain a single fucking word of what I was talking about – civil rights, same sex marriage, racial equality, and so on.
Nice retort. Seriously. You say the phrase has no hidden meaning, and you link to an explanation of the phrase that does not contain any reference to the “hidden” meaning that I see in the phrase.
So, Doctor, I ask you: how is that phrase NOT a dog whistle? Seems your cite has clenched it.
But you havent shown is was a Dog Whistle in the first place. A dog whistle isnt a phrase with many meanings to many people. It’s one where the “in crowd” recognizes at once, and that no one else is supposed to realized means anything but it plain meaning.
I mean, then you can claim “I have a dream” or “ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” or “I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat.” are all dogwhistles as they use poetic language .
That’s not a dog whistle, and you know it.
It is a dog whistle, and you’re moving the goalposts as I predicted.
You asked a question of whether any specific person here has heard a dog whistle targeted at them. I replied.
Now you’re saying that there isn’t a hidden meaning to the phrase, when I have said that I have inferred one, and you have posted a link to an explanation of the phrase that doesn’t mention my inferred meaning at all.
I’m saying that the phrase goes beyond an artful and moving phrase, to have a meaning that is specific and not merely inspirational. And you think that I do not read the “love trumps hate” phrase and think that it has a subtext of a strong policy statement on Clinton’s civil rights views? Because, what, you’re in my head and you think you can tell me what I am, or am not, hearing?
Is this thread for real? I mean, are we actually having a debate on what I am inferring from a specific phrase?
OK, I’m wading back in for just this post, and this was mentioned earlier:
I remember when this happened. George Bush mentioned the Dred Scott decision, and most people I knew were all, WTF? It turned out that it was a dog whistle to abortion opponents. Now, you may retort, well Slate knew what it meant, but they were not the intended audience. However, many people had no idea what he was talking about. However, Slate references several anti-abortion folks who also referenced Dred Scott.
So, there’s a dog whistle that most people didn’t get but the intended audience did. And, as a bonus, it wasn’t even racist. OK?
drops mic
I thought the rick-roll in Melania Trump’s speech could be a dog whistle put there purposely by a speech writer to let those of us who would get it know that she was being trolled by her speech writer.
False premise. A dog whistle isn’t something only your fans can hear. It’s something your fans can hear, and most everybody else hears too - but you can paint the opposition as insane when they call you on it because it’s so very innocent. Like talking about “urban people” when you really mean “nigger”.
It’s pretty much the polar opposite of political correctness - using euphemistic or lateral language to really mean horrible shit ; rather than using euphemisms to *soften *horrible shit.
There are plenty of Trump supporters that have said they got the real message of the Star of David picture. Claiming dog whistles don’t exist is apologist bullshit.
Makes you wonder why someone would claim they don’t exist.
Yes, and the “something” has to be socially unacceptable in the society at large–at least in that society’s public discourse. It has to constitute punching down in the context of the power structure.
To continue your example: in the USA we have a founding document that says “all men are created equal,” to which all Americans are supposed to subscribe. Americans who believe that some men are by their demographic characteristics inherently inferior can’t say that out loud because it is (so far) socially unacceptable in a nation founded on the opposite view. So pols who make sweeping negative generalizations about “urban people” can claim innocence–‘I was referring to all city dwellers!’–when in reality they are assuring their white-supremacist fans that they’re on the same side.
Whereas stating, say, “white men can’t dance” isn’t a dog whistle because putting down white men isn’t punching down–white men are at the top of the power structure. There’s no shame in taking a swipe at those who are at your same level or above it. But taking a swipe at someone who’s less advantaged by birth is dishonorable, and therefore can’t be done out in the open.
A dog whistle always concerns a viewpoint that is ugly toward those who are lower in the power hierarchy.