What phrases are or will be regarded as dog whistles?

[Kobal2]

@ITR_champion

And yet Kobal claims that “religious freedom” refers to a specific subset of a specific religion, and only deals with discrimination against gays.

That is, of course, not what I claim. But you know that.

At the risk of derailing the thread, I honestly wonder what your motivation is, sometimes. Because apparently you always have to put your arguments forward (be they valid or not) nestled within a dense web of misdirection, obfuscation and half-truths. And it always bites you in the ass because, of course, anybody with passing knowledge of the subjects being discussed will precisely identify these half-truths, misdirections, handwaves and clouds of ink for what they are. Which, in turn, makes people much more likely to dismiss your entire argument because of its representative and their rhetorical tactics of choice.

Case in point :

Under Indiana state law, it was legal for business owners to decide whether they would or wouldn’t serve at gay weddings (or straight weddings) prior to the passage of the RFRA, outside of a couple cities. It still is now. So obviously the law changed nothing, and therefore cannot have been intended solely to deal with discrimination against gays, despite what ThinkProgress says.

This sentence egregiously forgets to mention that the sole reason the law as it is now written does not allow businesses to discriminate is because, following vocal backlash by both the LGBT community, Republicans and corporate backers who are tired of having to lug around the increasingly politically deadly mass that is the vocal anti-gay crowd (of which Schwarzie would be an example, and far from the only one), said law had to be amended to specifically prohibit discrimination against gays.

Everybody knows this who has been paying even the most *token *attention to LGBT issues over the past six months.

Same goes for your draping yourself in the Founding Fathers or their usage of the phrase, which as rock party countered, has nothing whatsoever to do with what politicians do with the language in 2015. It’s transparent handwaving. And it’s almost insulting of you to bald facedly argue the way you do. It never works, it always turns other posters in the thread against you, and ultimately everybody always roll their eyes at your disingenuous pile of poop and walk away. Which is the opposite of winning a debate.

And yet you keep doing it. So, I mean, **why **? Do you convince yourself that there’s a silent mass of readers who are won over to your pet cause du jour thanks to your antics ? Do you just enjoy being contrary and “sticking it to the librulz”, no matter how flimsy your argumentation is, even to you (because I refuse to believe you don’t realize what you’re doing) ? Do you genuinely think you’re being clever, subtle, tricksy and are fooling anybody ?
I’m seriously puzzled here.

ETA : eh, maybe this would have better fit the Pit, I dunno.

[BrainGlutton]

@ITR_champion

Do things automatically become true just because Arnold Schwarzenegger says them?

Probably, where “says” means “admits.”

[Bone]

@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

If I am in favor of a woman’s right to choose, can I also be against Dred Scott and use that as an example of when the Supreme Court later reversed itself? I’m sure people on this board have refereced Dred Scott in such a way without any intention of making abortion references. Why is this case so clear?

[madmonk28]

@Bone

If I am in favor of a woman’s right to choose, can I also be against Dred Scott and use that as an example of when the Supreme Court later reversed itself? I’m sure people on this board have refereced Dred Scott in such a way without any intention of making abortion references. Why is this case so clear?

Once again, my point was to show that the Dredd Scott case had particular relevance to the anti-abortion movement at the time Bush made his comment during the debate because Shodan seemed to be contesting that point. I am not arguing that Dredd Scott is only mentioned by anti-abortion activists, or that people who support access to abortion are in fact also in favor of forced re-enslavement of black Americans.

[marshmallow]

I was trying to think of Dem/lib dog whistles but came up empty. There’s plenty of euphemisms and propaganda style terms (pro choice, kinetic action, revenue raiser, sustainable living, paying your fair share, diversity) but I don’t think any of them have the critical playing for two audience characteristic. I gotta be missing one.

For the right, it’s less a whistle nowadays but “family values” is deep into 1984 territory.

[ITR_champion]

@ITR Champion

And yet Kobal claims that “religious freedom” refers to a specific subset of a specific religion, and only deals with discrimination against gays.

@Kobal2

That is, of course, not what I claim. But you know that.

At the risk of derailing the thread, I honestly wonder what your motivation is, sometimes. Because apparently you always have to put your arguments forward (be they valid or not) nestled within a dense web of misdirection, obfuscation and half-truths. And it always bites you in the ass because, of course, anybody with passing knowledge of the subjects being discussed will precisely identify these half-truths, misdirections, handwaves and clouds of ink for what they are. Which, in turn, makes people much more likely to dismiss your entire argument because of its representative and their rhetorical tactics of choice.

Are you denying that you posted this in #66?

@Kobal2

Did they mean “the freedom to discriminate against and/or bash gays” ? Because that’s pretty much what the word means now. “Religious freedom” in 2015 refers to a very specific subset of a very specific religion.

[Shodan]

It must have been a dog whistle, and therefore there is no way to prove he didn’t mean something completely different.

Regards,
Shodan

[ITR_champion]

@rock_party

We’re talking about now. When the right is busy passing “Religious Freedom” laws in the 21st century, they are doing it to discriminate.

This is just the same claim that you posted before. Posting it over and over again won’t turn it from false to true. In post #118, I offered several specific arguments against your claim; would you like to try addressing them?

When Thomas Jefferson and James Madison made religious freedom a founding principle, it was to keep religion the hell out of government.

It was also to make sure that government didn’t interfere with people’s practice of their chosen religion.

@James Madison

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

@Thomas Jefferson

Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities. And though we well know that this Assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of Legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding Assemblies constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare that the rights hereby asserted, are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.

[rock_party]

There’s more examples of dog whistles on the right because there’s more politically incorrect nut jobs that are being placated by the whistles. They can’t come right out and say they want discrimination against GLBT’s to be ok…they know how they sound if they call Obama a Muslim outright…so they come up with ways to get the ideas out there more subtly.

I’m having trouble thinking of examples on the left. In general the left’s appeal would have to be more blatant, but I’m sure there’s some examples.

[rock_party]

It was also to make sure that government didn’t interfere with people’s practice of their chosen religion.

And at the time atrocities like slavery were legal, so they were ok with some people’s practice of their religion trampling the rights and beliefs of anothers.

[Buck_Godot]

I was trying to think of good dog whistles on the liberal side (since I’m liberal, I figure I’m most likely to know what the secret meaning was) but all I could come up with was the pro-hemp movement. I mean what straight laced conservative could be against rope?

[Jonathan_Chance]

@Kobal2

That is, of course, not what I claim. But you know that.

At the risk of derailing the thread, I honestly wonder what your motivation is, sometimes. Because apparently you always have to put your arguments forward (be they valid or not) nestled within a dense web of misdirection, obfuscation and half-truths. And it always bites you in the ass because, of course, anybody with passing knowledge of the subjects being discussed will precisely identify these half-truths, misdirections, handwaves and clouds of ink for what they are. Which, in turn, makes people much more likely to dismiss your entire argument because of its representative and their rhetorical tactics of choice.

Case in point :
This sentence egregiously forgets to mention that the sole reason the law as it is now written does not allow businesses to discriminate is because, following vocal backlash by both the LGBT community, Republicans and corporate backers who are tired of having to lug around the increasingly politically deadly mass that is the vocal anti-gay crowd (of which Schwarzie would be an example, and far from the only one), said law had to be amended to specifically prohibit discrimination against gays.

Everybody knows this who has been paying even the most *token *attention to LGBT issues over the past six months.

Same goes for your draping yourself in the Founding Fathers or their usage of the phrase, which as rock party countered, has nothing whatsoever to do with what politicians do with the language in 2015. It’s transparent handwaving. And it’s almost insulting of you to bald facedly argue the way you do. It never works, it always turns other posters in the thread against you, and ultimately everybody always roll their eyes at your disingenuous pile of poop and walk away. Which is the opposite of winning a debate.

And yet you keep doing it. So, I mean, **why **? Do you convince yourself that there’s a silent mass of readers who are won over to your pet cause du jour thanks to your antics ? Do you just enjoy being contrary and “sticking it to the librulz”, no matter how flimsy your argumentation is, even to you (because I refuse to believe you don’t realize what you’re doing) ? Do you genuinely think you’re being clever, subtle, tricksy and are fooling anybody ?
I’m seriously puzzled here.

ETA : eh, maybe this would have better fit the Pit, I dunno.

Yes, it certainly would have. You should know by now not to attack another poster. Warning issued. Sin no more.

[ITR_champion]

@rock_party

And at the time atrocities like slavery were legal, so they were ok with some people’s practice of their religion trampling the rights and beliefs of anothers.

How that’s related to anyone’s practice of religion, or to anything in this thread, is unclear.

I note that you still haven’t responded to my points in post #118.

[rock_party]

How that’s related to anyone’s practice of religion, or to anything in this thread, is unclear.

The laws that allowed slavery were justified and based on biblical passages. For slavery to exist, many people, including lawmakers and law enforcement had to accept the word of the bible as true. They called themselves Christians. Christianity is a religion.

In post 118, you declare that religious freedom laws are presently being used to defend many members of many religions against many types of government intrusion, and I’m sure that’s true.
But it doesn’t change the fact that some religious freedom laws are produced to allow people of certain beliefs to discriminate against people that they find don’t adhere to their conduct. Even when that conduct is allowed and perfectly legal.

The drafters of the Indiana law admitted it. They back peddled quite strongly when called out, but the intent of their “religious freedom” law was clear.

[Acsenray]

@robert_columbia

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.

Most of the things you list are not dog whistles.

[doorhinge]

@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? 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?

It appears that you’re admitting that you can’t provide any evidence that Bush was, in fact, issuing dog-whistles.

How do you know Bush was issuing dog-whistles? Who told you Bush was issuing dog-whistles?

[doorhinge]

@BrainGlutton

:dubious: You do understand how dog-whistle politics works, don’t you?

Would that be where a political group arbitrarily decides to “create” a list of “dog-whistle words” that should/must be ridiculed by other members of that same political group?

[Hershele_Ostropoler]

I love how no one, including me, is willing to say “actually, no, liberals don’t use dog whistles,” despite the fact that no one can think of any. Closest is rock party speculating as to why it might be that left-wing dog whistles don’t exist, without committing to the claim that they don’t.

[Bone]

@madmonk28

Once again, my point was to show that the Dredd Scott case had particular relevance to the anti-abortion movement at the time Bush made his comment during the debate because Shodan seemed to be contesting that point. I am not arguing that Dredd Scott is only mentioned by anti-abortion activists, or that people who support access to abortion are in fact also in favor of forced re-enslavement of black Americans.

If Dred Scott is mentioned by non anti-abortion activists, then how do you conclude that Bush didn’t fall into that group when he mentioned it? That seems to undercut your argument.

[DrDeth]

@Hershele_Ostropoler

I love how no one, including me, is willing to say “actually, no, liberals don’t use dog whistles,” despite the fact that no one can think of any. Closest is rock party speculating as to why it might be that left-wing dog whistles don’t exist, without committing to the claim that they don’t.

Umm, actually some dudes who support Marijuana legalization use some terms that are pretty damn close. Buck Godot pointed this out.

But pretty much, Liberals dont need dog whistles. They just up and say it.