If you’re comfortable describing the intentions of people who label dogwhistles, I’m pretty comfortable describing the intentions of people as dogwhistles.
There is no logical connection between these two things.
Well, sure there is. Can we reasonably infer intentions from the words people say? I believe that we can. And so do you. But for some reason, when our inference is that someone is engaging in dog-whistling, you object.
You are making a logical error. It’s not an either/or here. It’s not like all inferences about intention are valid or all are invalid. Some inferences are more valid than others, and the validity of one is not dependent on the validity of another. And the specific problem with dog-whistle type inferences is, again, that:
But your implicit conclusion is that we ought not make highly subjective inferences in situations in which the inference suits our biases.
And yet, you do not apply such a criterion to the inferences you make about the motives of those who call-out dog whistles, which are also highly subjective and suited to your biases.
Even assuming that either judgment would be equally subjective, tenuous, and biased, the burden is on the one who is trying to establish that something exists. The default would be to leave things at face value.
Well, no, that doesn’t make any sense. You’re using a highly subjective inference (about the motivations of those who identity dog-whistles and the level of evidence available before they tend to call them out) in order to establish that another inference (the identification of a dog whistle) is highly subjective and usually biased.
Since you’re the one trying to prove that that type of inference is suspect, you cannot use the same type of inference to establish that.
You appear to be confusing things.
The assertion about the self-interest of those calling things dog whistles is not an inference altogether, let alone a subjective one. It’s fairly obvious - and is probably accepted by all, in most cases - that someone confronting a position that they disagree with is helped in countering it by characterising it as a dog-whistle. (Ditto for the self-interest of those denying that it’s a dog whistle - this too is not a “highly subjective inference”.)
What you can call a subjective inference is whether this self-interest is the basis of their conclusion that the specific instance is a dog-whistle. But this subjectivity and inferential aspect of it is entirely derived from the initial judgment about whether it’s a dog whistle or not. Meaning, either it is a dog whistle and thus the judgment is legit and not entirely based on self-interest, or it’s not a dog whistle and the judgment is not legit and likely based on self-interest. And since that initial judgment is what’s hopelessly subjective, the accusation remains a very weak one.
If your argument is just that identifying a dog whistle is more likely to be subject to error than some other kinds of inferences because of the plausible deniability nature of a dog whistle, and that those identifying them will tend to do so when it benefits that person’s argument, those are both true. But that’s an entirely trivial observation. All arguments are self-interested in that narrow sense. And many inferences are equally subjective.
The force of your argument really rests on your belief that there is a “very strong” self-interest in those identifying dog whistles, somehow different in kind from the interest present whenever someone makes an inference in support of a position they hold. I don’t know exactly what you mean by that phrasing, but it seems to be a bit of mind-reading on par with the inference you’re criticizing. You can’t have it both ways.
It’s not a trivial observation.
If you have something else that’s equally subjective and tenuous, and equally colored by self-interest, then that’s equally weak on the same grounds. You can point that out if we happen to be discussing that topic. But here we’re discussing dog whistles, so this is what’s relevant.
Really… What’s my self-interest in calling out the dog-whistle again?
That’s just an assertion. Where’s your evidence?
It’s trivial in the sense that it does not distinguish the identification of dog whistles from many other common types of inferences that you condone, including your own inference that those who use dog whistle inferences have a “very strong” self-interest.
This I absolutely agree with. I think the post that got warned and started all this was rightly warned. A dogwhistle accusation is perfectly apropriate, as long as it’s backed up with substantive argument. (And, of course, is made in a non-nasty way.)
As I’ve pointed out earlier, the idea that those who decry dog whistles generally have a very strong self-interest is not an inference (more like an observation, actually). If anyone is in denial to the point where they dispute that this is the case (and you’ve not made clear whether you yourself deny it or are just using a rhetorical device) then there’s not really much more to talk about, and I’ll just leave it as my opinion.
I agree with this.
Sometimes the people with the dog whistles are honest enough to explain how they work:
That’s Lee Atwater, Republican Party strategist, in a 1981 interview.
No, you have not explained why you think the “self-interest”–which is a very weird term for what you’re actually talking about, which is that the argument serves the intellectual position of the one asserting it–is stronger as to this particular argument and not the many other arguments one might make in GD.
You can call it self-evident and claim that anyone who disagrees is “in denial,” but those aren’t arguments.
I did not make that particular claim, so there’s nothing to explain. You’re the one who came up with that formulation.
I called the post a dog-whistle. Why won’t you tell me what my “self-interest” is? Is it because you’re just bullshitting here, and not intending to be taken seriously?
You’ve lost the thread of the argument if this is your response. Happy to leave it there.