In what substantive way can you prove someone’s motivations? I don’t mean by repeated assertion.
Regards,
Shodan
You can’t. That’s the genius of it. But the audience knows what’s really being said.
Prove? You can’t.
Who are you?
No, you’ve lost the thread of the argument here (and/or possibly misunderstood my post #175). I’ve said that people making dog-whistle arguments generally have some self-interest, and that this in combination with the subjectiveness and tenuousness of the judgment makes it a very weak argument. I’ve not claimed that there is more self-interest in this type of argument than in “many other arguments one might make in GD”, and don’t feel compelled to explain that.
It’s hard to “prove it”. But there are a lot of things that can’t be proved but are still appropriate arguments to make.
A substantive argument in favor of it being a dog whistle might involve showing how the specific lingo used is more appropriate as a coded message than for its ostensible purpose. Or showing that the person making the argument doesn’t actually believe the ostensible argument they’re making and thus must have meant something else. (For example.)
In most cases you’re going to get bogged down in details. But that’s the nature of arguments.
Apparently, “dog whistle” is a little-known feature of message board software.
We also have “zoom in (on quibbling/irrelevant detail) and enhance.”
I knew there was a reason I have my computer speakers turned off. And the CSI photoshop plug in.
Oh, shoot, man, I’m so sorry. I didn’t properly introduce myself. I’m Do Not Taunt. I named myself after the best line from the famous Saturday Night Live Happy Fun Ball commercial. I made this post here in the very thread, just 59 posts before yours, in which I accused davida03801 of a racist dog-whistle. Then I followed it up with this post explaining the reasoning. This kicked off this whole tangent we’re on now about dog whistles. You know, the tangent where you’re attempting to contribute, despite an unwillingness to back up your claims around the motivations of me and people like me or even to follow along with who’s saying what in this very thread. Pleased to make your acquaintance.
I was aware of what you’ve been posting to this thread. What I meant by my question was that I’ve not said anything about you specifically (and have consistently said that my claims were meant “generally”), so your demand that I adress your particular motivation is silly.
In the context of what I’ve been saying, it breaks down like this: If you disagree that the relaxation of policing standards that NYC did raises crime then you have an interest in depicting all claims to the contrary as dog-whistles, so as to impugn those claims and their holders and clear the field for your own view. If you agree that the relaxation of policing standards that NYC did raises crime but nonetheless feel that this particular poster expressed that position in a way intended more as a dog-whistle than as a legitimate expression of that position, then you have no self-interest that I can tell.
If I have to put money on it I know which side I’m taking but I don’t have enough interest in you or your positions to figure it out for certain. Whatever.
Apology accepted. :
:
I don’t see how that follows. It sounds like you’re suggesting that all disagreement carries with it a motivation to impugn or marginalize opposing viewpoints and those who hold them.
Maybe I’m just a romantic optimist, but I find that awfully cynical. And IME incorrect.
Moderator Note
While this current hijack was caused by labeling one of the relevant posts as a “dog whistle”, and therefore a certain amount of discussion of that term is certainly acceptable here, this is veering way too far off course.
Let’s try to focus on the topic at hand. If this thread fails to get back to that, I am going to assume that there are no more ATMB relevant issues and will close the thread.
I don’t see how that follows.
This is about whether people have an incentive to interpret the arguments of those who they oppose in a manner that would favor their own position in the argument. Do you really disagree with this as a general rule?
It happens that in the specific case of the dog whistle the way the interpretation favors their own position is in impugning and marginalizing the other viewpoint. That might not be the case in other disagreements. But this is a subset of the general rule above. You would not want to rely too heavily on someone’s debate opponent for the best appraisal of what someone’s position is, if they themselves disagree with it.
ETA: Mod Note wasn’t here when I opened the reply window.
Heh 
Like I said upthread, “dog whistle” is the ultimate thread derailer.
Don’t close this thread yet. I have a hypothetical and or complaint or two I’d like to post but can’t get to till Friday afternoon.
Since the dog whistle topic is now verboten in this thread (and it’s a pity, because I had a coulple great one-liners), I will bring us back to the ATMB topic of the appropriateness of kobal’s suspension.
Specifically, the statement by Jonathan Chance that his remark by itself qualified for a suspension on its merits, independent of any other posting history.
That is at odds with all prior moderating history and Ed’s stated rules for how this board is moderated. I would like either an acknowledgement from staff that this remains the case, or a prominent announcement that the rules have changed and now one bad post from an otherwise non-offending poster can get you banned.
An acknowledgement from Jonathan Chance that he misspoke would be sufficient.
I can see it.
Do you think somebody that is “recognized” on this board are being more towards the “conservative” side of the board wouldn’t get suspension (and possibly even a ban) for saying nigger five times without good reason in an attempt to be “provocative”?
I know which way I would bet.
And, IMO saying nigger five times so “liberal” Kobal can pretend his “conservative” opponent was thinking nigger nigger niggers niggers niggers is a pretty damn weak reason.
One would hope that context would matter. Calling another poster ‘nigger’? Insta-ban. Calling out another poster for a thinly disguised dog whistle? Hopefully not even commented on, but after this whole kerfuffle, probably also a ban. The whole hypothesis that moderation is biased against conservatives here has never been supported with any data.
Again, many of us disagree that the post was in any way shape or form a “dog whistle”.
Do you NOT get the following point?
There is a difference between calling out a supposed dog whistle and HOW you do it.
Let me repeat that.
HOW YOU DO IT.
Hey, everybody that’s a dog whistle in case you didn’t notice!
Hey, everybody we all know he’s just thinking nigger nigger nigger niggers niggers!
Seriously, you don’t see any difference in that?
Kobal, AFAICT, didn’t get in trouble for saying “hey, dogwhistle!”
Note to mods. I hope you’ll note that the dog whistle part of this post is secondary (but unavoidable) to the actual/main point.
I get that, but it’s irrelevant, and I believe (it was a little unclear) that it’s been ruled off-topic for the rest of this thread. What’s relevant is whether or not that’s what Kobal was trying to say, and if the manner in which he said it was appropriate.