What phrases are or will be regarded as dog whistles?

[Velocity]

“Holistic approach to admissions” is also often a dog whistle.

[rock_party]

Do Democrats ise dog whistles or are all Democrat politicians completely above board at all times

Sure they do. A classic all purpose dog whistle is, “The Man”

[Shodan]

@Do_Not_Taunt

Bush was known to be pro-life. This was his way of signaling that he would use a pro-life litmus test for Supreme Court justices.

Could you provide a cite that proves this? Please note that “repeating yourself” is not a cite.

Regards,
Shodan

[Czarcasm]

@Velocity

“Holistic approach to admissions” is also often a dog whistle.

In what way?
edited to add: And who uses that term?

[astorian]

Here’s a word I hear liberals using that strikes me as a dog whistle of sorts: “Vibrant.”

Whenever a liberal sings the praises of “vibrant” communities, I’m pretty sure he’s saying, “We need millions more illegal aliens, because white people are boring. We need waaaay more Mexicans to make our cities more lively.”

[Hershele_Ostropoler]

@DrFidelius

Do Democrats ise dog whistles or are all Democrat politicians completely above board at all times,

I have no doubt, but as a liberal who generally finds the intended meaning innocuous or even virtuous, I can’t identify any.

[Czarcasm]

@astorian

Here’s a word I hear liberals using that strikes me as a dog whistle of sorts: “Vibrant.”

Whenever a liberal sings the praises of “vibrant” communities, I’m pretty sure he’s saying, “We need millions more illegal aliens, because white people are boring. We need waaaay more Mexicans to make our cities more lively.”

Really? To us, it’s code for “Lively and active, with lots to do for people of all ages and ethnicities”…but don’t tell anybody, o.k.?

[Do_Not_Taunt]

@astorian

Here’s a word I hear liberals using that strikes me as a dog whistle of sorts: “Vibrant.”

Whenever a liberal sings the praises of “vibrant” communities, I’m pretty sure he’s saying, “We need millions more illegal aliens, because white people are boring. We need waaaay more Mexicans to make our cities more lively.”

I’m pretty sure I’ve never meant that when I’ve said ‘vibrant.’

[Do_Not_Taunt]

@Shodan

Could you provide a cite that proves this? Please note that “repeating yourself” is not a cite.

First of all, I’m not sure it’s necessary. After all, no one in this thread has said that they actually believe that Bush was literally offering commentary only on a pre-Civil War Supreme Court decision with no present-day supporters or effect in law. But even if such a strange creature were to reveal himself, what type of cite would satisfy him? The use of Dred Scott in pro-life circles is citable. The reference to it in the '04 debate is citable. But actually understanding what Bush meant, and who he was talking to, is - by definition - inferential.

[rock_party]

Vibrant generally means functioning, possibly well. Vibrant economy. Vibrant neighborhood.

Neglected can be a dog whistle for run down, poor. Ghetto.

[madmonk28]

@Shodan

Could you provide a cite that proves this? Please note that “repeating yourself” is not a cite.

Regards,
Shodan

Here’s a NYT article about Bush’s reference to Dred Scott during the debate: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/weekinreview/17kirk.html?pagewanted=print&_r=0

To conservative Christian opponents of abortion, Mr. Bush’s reference was clear as a bell: opposing Dred Scott is shorthand for opposing Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that established abortion rights. One day, many social conservatives assert, Roe v. Wade, just like Dred Scott, will be overturned as an erroneous violation of basic human rights.

“We have used that comparison for years and years and years,” said Dr. Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention.

The potential double meaning rekindled speculation among Mr. Bush’s critics that he communicates with his conservative Christian base with a dog-whistle of code words and symbols, deliberately incomprehensible to secular liberals…

[John_Mace]

@madmonk28

Here’s a NYT article about Bush’s reference to Dred Scott during the debate: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/weekinreview/17kirk.html?pagewanted=print&_r=0

You left out this part (from the same article):

But one man’s code words are another man’s vernacular, and whether Mr. Bush is deliberately sending special signals is a matter of debate, to say the least.

[DrDeth]

@John_Mace

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!

“When** I** use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”

[Shodan]

@madmonk28

Here’s a NYT article about Bush’s reference to Dred Scott during the debate: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/weekinreview/17kirk.html?pagewanted=print&_r=0

Having someone else repeat you isn’t a cite either.

I don’t need an opinion piece that echoes what you claimed; I need a cite that shows it.

Regards,
Shodan

[Do_Not_Taunt]

@Shodan

Having someone else repeat you isn’t a cite either.

For some reason, you chose not to answer my questions. So I guess I’ll ask them again. Is there a need for a cite? Is someone actually claiming that Bush was earnestly and straightforwardly referring to a century-plus-old Supreme Court case that no one supported in 2004 and which had no force in law? And if so, what kind of cite would serve to “prove” that Bush was in fact dog-whistling?

[DrDeth]

@Shodan

Having someone else repeat you isn’t a cite either.

I don’t need an opinion piece that echoes what you claimed; I need a cite that shows it.

Isnt a cite that echoes what he claimed = a cite that shows it?

[Shodan]

@Do_Not_Taunt

For some reason, you chose not to answer my questions. So I guess I’ll ask them again. Is there a need for a cite?

Yes, there is. You made a claim, and said that it could be demonstrated. So let’s see the cite.

And if so, what kind of cite would serve to “prove” that Bush was in fact dog-whistling?

How should I know? You’re the one saying that it can be proven. So prove it.

Regards,
Shodan

[Czarcasm]

@Shodan

Yes, there is. You made a claim, and said that it could be demonstrated. So let’s see the cite.
How should I know? You’re the one saying that it can be proven. So prove it.

Regards,
Shodan

How can he show it, if you don’t know what you’re asking for?

[Voyager]

@ITR_champion

I’m of the camp that doesn’t take any claim about dog whistles seriously. I’m particularly amused by the notion that “religious freedom” is a dog whistle; who were Thomas Jefferson and James Madison whistling to when they wrote our nation’s founding documents?

Yup, religious freedom is all about allowing discrimination. It is not at all about allowing mosques to be built in places where the majority Christian population does not want them.

[Shodan]

@Czarcasm

How can he show it, if you don’t know what you’re asking for?

I know perfectly well what I am asking for. I am asking him to prove what he claimed, which he said he could do. So far, nada. The one cite he produced said clearly that it could not prove it.

He said it could be demonstrated. So, demonstrate.

Regards,
Shodan