No. For instance, “nigger, nigger, nigger…” is a dog whistle for “you are the worst kind of racist”.
I’m saying that it’s often impossible to prove.
Say whatever you like. I usually ignore any claims of dog whistles, especially when made against posters on this MB who can be challenged or asked for clarification.
Its not a dog whistle. Its the actual dog.
Well, that’s the funny thing about dog whistles. They’re actually designed to retain plausible deniability for the whistler. Your approach - as it relates to posters on this board - seems to be that you’ll just give it a pass unless the poster cops to it. Which isn’t gnerally going to happen. If that suits you, go for it. But I prefer Kobal’s approach, and I’d like to retain posters like Kobal to continue to do so.
What on Earth are dog whistles? (The metaphorical kind)
I’d just like to thank** Richard Parker** for expressing my views much more clearly than I did. Also, thanks mods for re-thinking the decision and for explaining the previous warnings.
But to be sure, from what you just said, it has become apparent that you don’t actually understand the concept of a dog whistle, so your policy of ignoring accusations of them doesn’t have much force.
The nigger nigger line was not a dog whistle, since it was not meant to have is meaning more immediately responded to by any particular sub community. Rather it was a simple case of an implicit statement, one meant to be clearly and immediately understood by everyone.
I still say don’t claim YOU know what someone is thinking or what they would say if said thing would get them in trouble with the mods if THEY actually posted it. And from a mod and poster point of view that seems pretty straightforward rule of thumb.
First, it’s bullshit mind reading.
Second, it doesn’t add anything to any discussion besides heated emotion and a likely sidetrack.
Third, it’s just just making up evidence that can’t be denied by its very nature.
What’s apparent is that you don’t understand what a joke is.
I understand exactly what is meant by dog whistle, and I understand why it’s so attractive to people who don’t want to be bothered with actually proving things.
Bad jokes are often unrecognizable as such.
BTW I think that Kobal2 either was not calling out a perceived dog whistle, or was incorrectly thinking that he was doing so.
What Davida said he only was able to say because of racism, but I don’t think Davida was intentionally referring to black people, and he would have had to have done so in order to be, you know, blowing the dog whistle or whatever the kids call it.
There is racism in to be called out in Davida’s discourse, but I don’t see evidence that he took himself to be making a point about any particular race.
Even if a poster purportedly uses a “dog whistle” why should a response in GD be “you are nothing but a racist!”? Use that for the Pit. In GD, point out why his “dog whistle” comment is incorrect.
I disagree with the hypersensitivity to the use of the word “nigger” (except, of course, when used as a direct insult to another poster). I still disagree with the lone warning I have received in the eight years here for using it as an analogy to what I perceived to be a double standard.
In my mind, the problem with the post in question was not the use of the word, but the insinuation that the other poster didn’t mean what he said, but was simply a racist. That’s an accusation of lying and an insult. I would have given a warning for it, but not a suspension.
Yes, a snide and sneaky innuendo. That’s so much better. :rolleyes: Followed by racial pejoratives and calling someone a racist. :dubious:
Why not just say “This sounds to be like a dog-whistle phrase”?
Why don’t we all just private message all posts to you so you can proofread them to ensure that they are inoffensively insipid enough to give no offense to anyone? Then, you PM us back with comments and recommendations before we post?
Ok, sounds great. Well, at least yours.
if you dont hear back soon, well…
Or better yet, you know we could have these guys called “moderators” who would detect this sort of jerk behavior…
Imagine there’s a politician who thinks there is a lot of resentment against Jews in his constituency. He figures fanning that resentment will help him get elected. But he also knows that it’s 2015 and overt antisemitism might get donors riled up and might even give some local supporters pause. So He avoids saying “My Friends, elect me and I shall defend you from the baleful influence of the perfidious Jew.” Instead he will lace his speeches with statements about how “International financiers” and “The Hollywood elite” have too much influence in America, and how they are involving us in foreign conflicts in the middle east where no American interest is at stake. If he’s feeling bold, he may refer to “Zionists,” but probably he’ll let that slide. He’ll simply smile and nod and trust that those inclined to vote for him know what he’s really talking about. If anyone accuses him of antisemitism, he will act shocked and point out that you can prove nothing. But his followers know what he really means.
The problem with that line of thinking is that now nobody will criticize or debate the actions of international bankers or the Hollywood elite for fear of being accused of Antisemitism.
In GD, a poster should point out why these Hollywood elite or international bankers are correct (or incorrect) in their actions.
In the Pit, say that the poster is simply masking his hatred of Jews.
And what are we supposed to do if an actual monkey finds its way onto a real porch? Look the other way, I guess!
Are you serious? Do you really think that people are unwilling to criticize Brad Pitt, or Steven Spielberg, or Dominique Strauss-Kahn? Of course people make such criticism.
But wait, you say. These are criticisms of specific people, not broad general criticisms of the institutions.
So we can look for criticism of the low quality of dialogue in modern Hollywood movies, or the deleterious effects of austerity measures in third world countries. Do you really think such criticism doesn’t exist?
Of course it does. And of course it’s not dog-whistling.
Dog-whistling has the nudge and wink aspect. It doesn’t make sense if there’s not some nasty bigotry behind it. Someone might say something like, “Anyone with common sense understands why,” expecting the audience to connect the dots.
I’m not convinced that in this case, it actually was a dog whistle. But it sure had the trappings of one.
Whether something is a dog whistle is usually a highly subjective and tenuous judgment, generally made by someone with a very strong interest in presenting it as being one.