That’s not how it works.
It is not that “no one” can hear it. It’s like an inside joke.
The faithful hear it loud and clear, and they nod and wink to eachother and pretend that it was just an innocent turn of phrase. The opposition hears it, as it’s pretty blatantly obvious.
It is that they have plausible deniability for people like you, who are completely fooled by this tactic. That’s what is key, their plausible deniability seems plausible to you.
Then they can come out and make the sort of claims that you are making right now. They get to play the victim game when they are called on their bullshit.
That’s not remotely accurate, but it’s also not relevant to this thread.
Have you ever heard one from your side? Or can you just spot them so very eaily when the other side says them? odd isnt that? And I know several right wingers, they cant hear them either. Nor can I hear them, except of course from the other side.
“My side” doesn’t have to hide its racism.
Are they racists? If not then they are probably fooled by the plausible deniability as well as you are.
If they are racist, then they probably are not going to admit it to you.
I don’t get this, you are saying that you do hear them, then? From who?
Yep. On the left “voting against their best interest” has always seemed like a dog whistle to me.
What’s the hidden meaning?
That they are too stupid to know what’s best for them.
I mean, if you aren’t making over 400k but you voted for Trump because of your taxes, then objectively, you are voting against your best interest. This isn’t due to stupidity so much as a lack of education.
Eta: or the success of insidious propaganda
That’s not a hidden meaning. It’s the plain, obvious meaning.
Nobody on any side is going to hear that and think it means they’re intelligent and perceptive. No Trump voter is going to hear that and not feel insulted.
It’s simply a slightly more polite way of saying that they’re useful idiots, and nobody understands it differently.
It’s not a dog whistle.
When Trump spoke of Hillary Clinton meeting with ‘international bankers’, most people would think he was only criticizing her ties to big finance.
But people who believe in the the Protocols of Zion and a Jewish conspiracy to rule the world would take it to mean that she was part of that conspiracy.
That meaning was calculated and intentional, but deniable.
That’s a dog whistle.
It has historically not referred to one issue (and most Trump voters didn’t care about Biden’s tax plan, or just thought Biden was lying), but, a la “What’s the Matter with Kansas” voting against their economic interests due to social interests. The unspoken part being that liberals just didn’t think the conservative social interests were all that important. Seemed to me to be a very silly narrow way of defining interests (one can argue that well off liberals are voting against their interests when they vote Democratic, but Democrats know that interests are more than simply economic). One may argue that an anti-abortion voter from Kansas may have gotten their interests taken care of in a Trump Administration through Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett.
And yet, plenty of folks deny they mean those people are stupid. Rather they’ve been sold a bill of goods by Republicans.
Ignorant, not stupid.
Often wilfully so. “There’s none so blind as those who won’t see,” and all that.
Is there much of a difference between stupid and willfully ignorant?
I can see a difference between stupid and non-willfully ignorant… there seems to be this undercurrent of if they only knew what was going on, they’d change their tune!
The most canonical example of a dog whistle I can think of is George W. Bush coding his possible SCOTUS picks by saying “I’m not going to nominate someone who would uphold the Dred Scott decision”.
It sounds weird if you aren’t in on the joke. It wasn’t 1857, it was 2004, there was no burning controversy on the docket about whether black people are citizens. The case is now widely held as a bad decision.
But if you understand that anti-choice activists see Dred Scott v Sanford as a template for criticizing and possibly overturning Roe v. Wade, then you understand Bush was signaling anti-abortion activists clearly in a way that they understood, while being as opaque as possible to anyone outside that circle of people.
That’s not an isolated instance by any means, and most dog-whistles don’t involve such elaborate codes. But the Dred Scott abortion reference is about the most illustrative one I can think of.
I guess that’s one message you could take from it.
I see it as more of a cutting off the nose to spite the face sort of deal.
I don’t see this. The liberals absolutely think that the conservative social interests are important, they are just on the other side of them. And the fact that they are willing to hurt themselves in order to hurt others shows an “admirable” commitment to their cause.
Still, they are voting against their best interests. The fact that other people are also being harmed doesn’t change that.
The idea that dog-whistles aren’t real is just bizarre and ridiculous, rendered all the sillier by the air of certainty with which it was asserted. I’m not seeing that it’s what this thread is about, although I get the temptation to refute something so easy to refute. Maybe we get back to talking about how the left and the center of the Democratic party find their way forward?
Yeah. Stupid is slow to learn. Someone is stupid if it takes them a half dozen times to stop touching the hot stove.
Willful ignorance is never to learn. Someone is willfully ignorant if they claim that the burns all over hands simply cannot be explained, even as they are clutching the hot stove.
If they’re gullible enough to be sold a bill of goods, doesn’t that mean they’re stupid? It amounts to the same thing.
Gullible, stupid, uneducated, uninformed, or whatever you choose to call it. There’s no hidden meaning, only a question of how insulting the obvious meaning is.
The far left, is the most vocal portion of the Dems, that doesn’t mean they need to be in lock step. They certainly aren’t a majority of the Democratic party so of course they aren’t going to do all the things the Far Left wants.