If that’s a whoosh, I’m really not getting it…
I, for one, tend to be distrustful of things that require secret decoder rings. It’s like a faith based argument because it’s, you know, a secret.
Well, starting with descriptive terms a number of savvy posters don’t know and needing a dozen posts to answer.
I know these phrases just as “code words” in a political context. No real need for a new/bizarre/obscure term for them.
One of the reasons I pointedly avoid most political discussions is because they are either wink-and-nod code word exchanges, or incomprehensible code word battles. The great thing about code words is that you can use them and get nods from all the right people… even if not one of them actually holds the same interpretation of the code you do.
My poster-child code word is “middle class,” which always gets knowing nods and hardly means the same thing to any two people - and can be used to include as many or as few representative types as the speaker desires. It’s a next to meaningless phrase that almost everyone accepts at (blank-)face value.
When Bush (Jr) brought up Dred Scott as an example of legal reasoning he would not appoint judges to uphold, is that best understood as
a) Bush railing against a 150+ year old decision, which is not currently in effect, as if it had some bearing on modern politics
or
b) Bush dog-whistling to pro-life advocates who frequently cite Dred Scott as a parallel for Roe v. Wade while attempting to not alienate potential pro-choice voters who don’t equate the two
?
I know my answer, but I have a secret decoder ring.
Thug
Teach the controversy/intelligent design
Family values/preserving marriage
Unsettled science
“Bruce”
This is a great example, because unless you are (or have been) immersed in pro-life circles you literally would not even be thinking about abortion. But to those who read pro-life literature or even attend regular services where a pro-life sermon is likely to be preached, the true meaning of the comment is crystal clear.
You don’t really expect the Italian, Irish, Polish, and German people to all attend the same Catholic church, do you? :eek:
No, really, that went out with the Model T, or at least the Edsel. Marrying within your parish is not “diverse” these days, regardless their ethnic background. You can even marry a member of a different parish these days!
They’re all white Caucasian.
Imagine a room full of Korean, Japanese, Taiwanese, Malaysian and Vietnamese people. Most people would **not **comment, “This is such a diverse gathering of people - Korean, Japanese, Taiwanese, Malaysian and Vietnamese folks!” They’d say, “This is such a homogeneous gathering of people - they’re all Asian.”
“Lawn order” is a classic. Ostensible meaning: Have a society of law-abiding citizens (who could disagree with that?). Real meaning: Vote for me and I’ll give the cops free rein to bust in as many black people’s skulls with their nightsticks as they please.
That’s the beauty of the dog whistle. It requires no proof, and invited exaggeration. If you don’t believe it, then you don’t have the secret decoder ring!
Christian persecution
Creeping socialism
Gay agenda
Is there some official “Dog Whistle Czar” that’s going to decide what another person is really thinking/implying?
Or can we just continue to use the phrase to totally dismiss someone else’s opinion without doing any of the heavy lifting?
“Diversity” can mean, “Suppress overrepresented minorities so underrepresented minorities get a boost.”
It can also mean “Asians don’t count”.
“Free speech” = the freedom to express politically incorrect or unpopular views (which is, indeed, what free speech is)
“Academic freedom” = much the same.
Pretty much, yeah.
(post shortened)
HAHAHAHA. I’m beginning to think that claims of “dog whistles” is a good way to identify those paranoid personalities who need a “secret signal” to guard against. Pointing them out is important. 
I’ve never heard the term “Lawn order”. Is that when the homeowners associations send letters asking home owners to cut their grass, and trim their bushes? 
I’d agree, but I still think “dog whistle” is a kind of stupid term that begs more questions than it answers. Trying to call “dog whistle” on someone who is going on about the Gay Agenda, for example, is just going to turn the debate to mush.
I’d say something like, “Care to explain that code word?” and put the onus on the obfuscator. Very few observers would fail to get my point, and the discussion/argument can stay focused on the topic, not on WTF “dog whistle” means. The goal is to force the speaker to explain their code in three-letter words until it sounds as stupid as it is.