What are some dog whistles of the American left?

In My Humble Opinion
82

Because that’s not how it works, neither in the scale of the store or the more macro scale of society.

A burger flipper makes more for McDonalds than he is paid, so right off, he is contributing more value to his employer than he is receiving and that alone is enough to completely invalidate your assertion.

Second off, if you want to have Mcdonalds cheesburgers, then someone has to flip them. If no one can flip them while affording to live off the pay offered, then no one can flip burgers.

Maybe you do not consider McDonalds to be a contribution to society, but that is the case for any low paying job. If it doesn’t pay enough to live on, then it just isn’t going to get done.

We allow employers to have access to a pool of workers willing to work for cheap, to ask employers to actually pay enough of what they make off of them so that that employee is capable of living a basic lifestyle is not offering them more than they contribute.

If you are not willing to do the job at the pay that they receive, then they are contributing more to society than they are being paid.

Just because there is less demand for lower skilled jobs than there are people who need a job, and so they can pay less, does not mean that they are not necessary and useful to society, it just means that we can exploit them for less than they are worth. Then, those who believe that someone’s worth is tied to their paycheck, can see that they don’t make much, and so therefore, aren’t worth as much as they are paid. It’s an ugly, circular logic, but it’s a great way to justify treating those who are less fortunate as though they deserve their misfortune.

Having low paid workers gives the consumer cheap goods and services, and gives the employer profit off of their labor. You can clearly see that a low wage worker contributes far more to society than another six figure paper pusher whose pay comes from the profit off the burger flipper’s labor.

Then third, what a person contributes is also tied to what they spend. If Someone has $10 in their pocket to spend, then that is what they contribute to the economy. If they have $20, then that is what is contributed. From a logical, macroeconomic perspective, they are always contributing exactly what they earn.

Sorry, we are discussing left wing dog whistles in this thread. What are you doing bringing up right wing dog whistles?

83

I hope there’s a dictionary on the floor. Maybe you’ll roll into it and accidentally discover what a dogwhistle actually is.

84

This just shows off your ignorance. BLM is against all violence, including criminal activities. They have vigils and events to raise awareness of those harmed by crime.

The difference is, is that there is no one to protest. You can’t go to the criminals, and ask that they stop committing violence. You can’t get criminal policies changed to stop them from escalating situations.

You tell me who BLM should be addressing their grievances to when it comes to criminal violence, and I’ll probably show you that they already are.

Maybe you have a good idea that they haven’t thought of yet that will solve all violence. We will never know until you share it. So please, since you know so very very much, and care so much about the issue, share with us your idea on how to fix criminal violence.

85

I shouldn’t reward this kind of drivel with attention, but BLM’s stated purpose is to end police violence against black people. They aren’t trying to hide the ball or fool anyone. They’ll happily explain what BLM’s mission is, and why people like you don’t get to redefine it according to your own sabotaged definition.

86

While I agree with you that that is their stated purpose, it is not as if they do not address the issues of gun violence.

Black Lives Matter reiterated that all black lives matter, not just those who are killed at the hands of police, and advocates and community leaders are trying to turn pain into purpose.

But yeah, to complain that that is not their focus is like complaining about the low quality of the full body massages offered at McDonald’s.

87

Because sometimes “let’s peacefully go thru the established processes” is a euphemism for “we’ll wait you out several lifetimes over”. But we can always do it old school and call upon Malcom X: “by any means necessary” – refreshingly direct and easier to understand for most people.

That last bit is very important:allowing for that when someone calls you on it, YOU can be the one to act all offended that THEY are misrepresenting you or looking for somehting that’s not there.

88

I disagree with the notion that liberals don’t use dog whistles because they don’t need to disguise their speech. That only applies when liberals are in the majority, or feel that their view is safe. When liberals are the minority in an environment where they could face serious consequences for their views, they are prone to disguising their language just as much as conservatives.

I’ve attended a very conservative college and used to grow up in a very Christian fundamentalist background. In that environment, being liberal was not safe. Liberals would use terms like “love” or “don’t judge” to denote “support or condone homosexuality or gay marriage” (the point not being that Christians need to be gay, but that a loving Christian shouldn’t judge or prevent others from living a gay-married life as they want to, etc.) Actually, it applied to some other political topics, too. “Love” or “judge not” in general was often a coded dog whistle that one was a liberal in the midst of conservative Christians. It was one of those words that no Christian could object to (after all, it’s frequently touted as the most Christian value of all), but in which often had a political subtext to it.

89

I think “common sense gun reform” is a good example. What it really means is turning a Constitutional Second Amendment right into a privilege, with the eventual goal of just banning guns altogether. And has the added bonus of suggesting anyone that doesn’t support it doesn’t support common sense.

90

Its clear that you simply don’t understand what the concept of a dog whistle is.

91

I’ve always seen common sense gun reform used to mean “we aren’t actually going to do anything but a bunch of people just got shot so we have to say something”. But you’re right, common sense would dictate banning guns altogether

92

Dog-whistling is when you straight-up deny your position to opponents, while your are stoking enthusiasm among the in-group. I don’t see it in your given example. If everyone, pro and con, realized that “love” is a synonym for “gay marriage”, and nobody ever denied that, then it’s not a dog-whistle, it’s just a euphemism.

93

If. But I think the point is that to conservative christians, it just sounded like their usual blather. Only to fellow liberals did it signal a pro-gay viewpoint.

94

Reading Velocity’s post, it sounds like this was widely known both inside and outside the in-group.

95

I didn’t read it that way, but I can see how one could.

96

You are, probably, taking it the wrong way. The last time I heard ZPG used was a long time ago (like the 1970s). And it meant exactly that – the goal of stopping the population explosion. How that was going to be attained was a matter of debate but it all turned out to be nothing more than a rhetorical exercise as that was about four billion people ago. It wasn’t a dog whistle.

97

Fair enough, I was trying to give the OP something. I guess I’ve always just heard it as a bit more sinister than it was generally presented.

So, in the end, then, did we come up with anything for the OP at all?

98

Yeah, that Jesus guy. How dare he tell us to love our neighbors and to not judge others.

I think that the case here is that the conservative Christians considered “love” and “judge not” to be parts of the bible that they didn’t really care for, and so therefore, to talk about love and not being judgmental towards others became a liberal position.

99

Maybe, but that’s a separate discussion. My point was, when liberals are in a hostile environment, many of them tend to disguise their speech just like conservatives do when surrounded by liberals. They’re not socially suicidal, after all; self-preservation is a human instinct. If they can’t come out and say “I support LGBT” directly or “I’m pro-choice,” they will hint at it or try to use oblique ways to communicate a point across while not suffering consequences.

100

Ah, so you think that talking about love or other teachings of Christ around conservatives is like the fish symbol back in Christian persecution days. A way to communicate with like minded people without persecution. I can see that.

But, it’s still not a dog whistle, as it is has a plain meaning which is the one that is meant.

101

They also don’t just focus on black victims of police violence. Basically no part of Tim’s post was accurate.