“States’ rights” and “religious freedom” are already accused of being dog-whistle terms.
In upcoming years, I think “free speech,” “academic freedom” and “personal responsibility” will eventually be considered dog whistles as well.
What else do you think will be considered to be dog whistles?
What do you mean by “dog whistle terms”?
I think “dog whistle” can often be a dog whistle.
“They burn down their own neighborhood…” Translation: Go burn down the neighborhoods of Caucasians instead. I heard many in the media say that following the many racial events in recent times, and, most recently, I heard Lester Holt use said phrase when talking about what’s been going on in Baltimore. And that bothered me because I’ve always liked the guy, thought he was a straight shooter.
Welfare queen
food stamp president
reverse racism
It’s a complex and difficult to answer question, since there are a huge variety. [Here](What else do you think will be considered to be dog whistles?) are a few, however.
Are you going to clarify or expand on this?
Those are the dog. No whistle required.
Again, I think everyone knows exactly what that means (even though I don’t like that term).
“Oh, look. He’s got a dog whistle”, would be dog whistle phrase.
What difference does it make if “States’ rights” and “religious freedom” are accused of being dog-whistle terms? (Accused?)
At this point, neither side cares what the other side thinks.
You’re using dog-whistles. So what, so is your side. Our dog whistles are cheeky and fun! Yeah, and their dog whistles are cruel and tragic. Which… makes them not really dog whistles at all. Evil dog whistles!
Dog whistle terms are loaded terms that are used as euphemisms for what you are really talking about. For example, “States’ Rights”, in the context of the history of US politics, means slavery. It doesn’t refer to the debate over whether a state does or does not have the right to raise highway tolls without the permission of the US Department of Transportation.
Other “dog whistle” terms in US politics:
“Right to choose” - Refers to the right to have an abortion. It’s not about the right to choose what religious group to support and/or attend. Lots of political candidates in the US throw this term around and boast about how they “support a woman’s right to choose” without ever actually explaining that they are not talking about her right to decide what to wear.
“Un-American Activities” - Means Communism. Famous from the “House Un-American Activities Committee”, which spent most of its time trying to identify and persecute Communists and almost none of its time trying to root out Scottish fiddling competitions or Samoan fire-dancing lessons and replace them with baseball and apple pie.
“Family values” - Means the family values that are, or are perceived to be, typical or standard among white Christian patriots.
“Diverse” nearly always means “non-white.” For example, a neighborhood in Detroit that is 90% black would typically be described as diverse, even tho, really, that’s not any more diverse than a neighborhood that’s 90% white.
I disagree. “Diverse” means a mix or races but not necessarily ethnicities. I don’t know anyone who would call a neighborhood that is 90% black “diverse”. If it was a mix of Italian, Irish, Polish and German, it would not be considered diverse.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
If it was a mix of Italian, Irish, Polish and German, it would not be considered diverse.
[/QUOTE]
Whoa…seriously?? Why wouldn’t a mix of that type be considered diverse?
No minorities. “Diverse” = white people + minorities. Or you can leave out the white people, I suppose, but you need more than one minority, at least.
Right. It’s aggravating sometimes to hear people talk about “having a diverse workforce” and whatnot and realizing that it means “we want to hire someone other than you”. Part of me wants to say that I can change this by going to, say, the middle of Louisiana Cajun country and bombarding employers with letters about how they could improve their diversity by hiring someone like me who has a documentable amount of Pennsylvania German ancestry, unlike most people there, and is also descended from Kentucky hillbillies, drunk Irish migrants, and a few other populations. Of course, you and I know that that’s not really what “diverse” really means to them. They don’t actually want a truly diverse workforce, they just want to be able to check the boxes that they have made at least a minimal effort to hire people from the official Federal list of downtrodden peoples, which doesn’t recognize Pennsylvania Germans, Kentucky Hillbillies, or Irish as ethnicities of concern.
Because Italian, Irish, Polish, and German people are all white, and whites are not “diverse”, regardless of how diverse they actually are in a true sociological, anthropological, genetic, cultural, sociocultural, linguistic, or sociolinguistic sense. That’s the very essence of a dog whistle term - you mean something specific while using an apparently much more generic term.
“Diverse” also doesn’t refer to admitting race-car drivers into traditionally non-race-car driver oriented academic degree programs or making sure that the Podunk Police Department has approximately the same percentage of Bronies as the surrounding population, even though doing such things might actually increase diversity.
Hah. We need a term for misinterpreting a dog whistle. Are you seriously saying that people today who argue for "states rights " are arguing to reintroduce slavery? No one needed a “dog whistle” about slavery in the 1850s.
Dog whistles are not the same as euphemisms. Euphemisms are things everyone understands but that lack the directness of the real term. “Diversity” for hiring racial minorities, etc. Dog whistles are specifically intended to heard by a specific audience and not heard by others. Before it became too well known, ‘welfare queen’ was a key example of this. The speaker could signal to the troglodytes in his audience that he would keep the dirty blacks from taking their money, yet still sound to a more mainstream audience like he was only criticizing fraud and abuse in welfare. And who could be against that. “States rights” was much the same - to one audience it meant keeping blacks down, to a wide audience it meant preserving Constitutional federalism.
[QUOTE=doorhinge]
What difference does it make if “States’ rights” and “religious freedom” are accused of being dog-whistle terms? (Accused?)
At this point, neither side cares what the other side thinks.
[/QUOTE]
Because dog whistles are phrases meant to secretly signal a message to one audience that a wider audience would find distasteful, shining daylight on them causes them to lose their effectiveness. That’s why pointing them out is important.
BTW, XT, your link is broken. Actually, it’s more than broken - it completely lacks the URL you intended…
It’s the whoosh you don’t hear… 