“Diversity of tactics” It is a dogwhistle from part of the strongly activist side of the left. There is the Ghandian notion of nonviolent activism and action. Then there is diversity of tactics which is an expression of a willingness to take actions beyond the limits of nonviolence when they offer benefit. It sounds relatively benign to most on the left who are unaware of the meaning. Those willing to or looking to use violence generally know just what is being said, though.
Okay, see, that is a dogwhistle!
This is the problem with the whole concept of dog whistles. It may be true that when anti semites hear bankers they think jews but there are lots of reasons people criticize bankers without being antisemitic at all. Thus when someone criticizes them it is best to assume that the person is appealing to the tens of millions who dislike bankers for other reasons and not the thousands of antisemites.
Likewise for the Trump Shirt, pretty much every American is familiar with the eagle as symbol of the country and relatively few are familiar fascist iconography beyond the most famous symbol. It takes an extraordinary amount of bad faith to interpret the shirt as a fascist symbol and then uses that bad faith as proof of the evil of others.
Gandhi, not Ghandi
I guess I’m not in with the cool kids because this is the first time I’ve heard the term dog whistle to mean anything other than an actual dog whistle.
I was aware of the 88 reference and a couple of others that I can’t recall right now from watching cop shows on TV.
But is it really a dog whistle if it’s that much of an open secret?
To a degree that’s right, but even an open secret can have dog-whistle like qualities if there is potential for genuinely non-dogwhistling it, like having an 88 in your screen name because that’s the year you were born. White supremacists love it when people get flack for innocently using 88, and same thing goes for the upside down OK sign, although I’m okay (heh) with jumping to conclusions about that because most of the rest of the time it’s the circle game which is stupid anyway.
I guess if nazis have 
the socialists have 
It takes an extraordinary amount of naivete and willful blindness to attribute that symbol in good faith as harmless from this administration. I’m not usually a reactionary person, but c’mon.
The term dog whistle, while an acceptable term, is not a descriptive term.
A better description would be an inside joke. I’m sure that all of us at some time have addressed an audience, with at least some comments in our speech with a meaning that only friends would get.
This can be innocuous. At a swim team function, one of the team members gives a speech, and says, “And remember that special swim practice!” and he is referring to the time when they wiped out white water rafting but all lived to laugh about it later.
It could also be harmful, he could instead be referring to the time that they sexually assaulted a co-ed in the locker room.
Dog whistles are of the latter kind.
Either way, people not in on the joke will not be laughing, nor cringing, but will only wonder why others are. “They are on the swim team, of course they will remember their swim practices.” they say.
And that’s the whole point of an inside joke. To delight your friends, upset your enemies, and gaslight anyone who doesn’t already know what’s going on.
That’s, IMHO, what a the basis of what dog whistle is. A statement that you know will mean nothing to the majority of people, but that your friends will get, and as a bonus, will upset your enemies as you protest your innocence against their accusations.
That said, there are fewer than on the right, but still some on the far left that I could mention. Zero population growth would probably be the most concerning.
No, the plausible deniability and blurring of boundaries is a feature of the dog whistle, not a bug. Sure, sometimes people have actual criticisms of bankers. If someone is ranting about the 2008 financial crash, and blaming bankers, yeah, they mean bankers, because the job they did in their role as bankers led to an actual problem. OTOH, if someone is ranting about 9/11 and bankers and globalists, you know who they really mean.
I’m deaf to this one. What is ZPG a dogwhistle for?
I presume genocide of minorities.
Population control.
This is an example of my point. People think it is a dog whistle because of all the dog whistles in the past. It is a castle built on air. It starts with the assumption and then searches for evidence of that assumption in otherwise anodyne statements. .
It is like ;the rumor that the Beatles were trying to tell everyone that Paul was dead. There was lots of evidence for that idea if you looked hard enough, but it all rested on taking lots of unrelated details and using them to craft a narrative.
While it’s slightly possible that that iconography was 100% innocent, I’m sure that there was someone involved in the creation of it that got a good chuckle as they intentionally made suggestions that mimicked Nazi propaganda. The reversal of the head is also a dog whistle to me. The eagle on the presidential seal was made to always face to the right, in the direction of olive branches, to symbolize a nation at dedicated to peace. The fact that this eagle faces the other way, I see as a message that those who promote it do not see our nation as being dedicated towards peace.
No, that’s not a dog whistle; that’s the literal meaning. To control population such that it doesn’t grow. Perhaps you mean this in a more sinister way, but I’m still not clear what the dog whistle is or who hears it.
Okay, involuntary population control.
Sterilizations, forced abortions, stuff like that.
Maybe I do take it the wrong way, but I get the very distinct impression that those who advocate for ZPG are not just planning on it being a recommendation.
So who hears it that way and thinks more favorably of the speaker? IE, who is it a dog whistle to?
I actually thought this was going to go a different way: ZPG is often racist, in that it’s usually ‘them’ (usually Africans) who need limit their population growth. And I’m certainly aware of the usages of ZPG as anti-immigrant rhetoric. But those would seem to be dog whistles to the right, so I was a bit confused there.
Those who would think favorably of the speaker would be others who agree that we need to reduce our population by any means necessary.
I have usually seen ZPG in connection with environmental causes, which tend to be left leaning. I didn’t get the impression that it was racial in nature, just wanting there to be fewer people on this planet.
Well thanks for clearing that right up!
I would suggest a more neutral way of putting this e.g. “Living wage means pay them more than the current market value of their work”.
The value of what someone contributes to society is subjective (I don’t think sports and TV celebrities contribute as much as great scientists or engineers, and our spending preferences do not automatically reflect a specific opinion on that). Furthermore, even extrapolating from pay packets is not that simple, since, for example, would we seriously argue a person doing the exact same job in a more affluent country or region which can pay higher salaries is necessarily contributing more?