Meh, I still don’t understand the wisdom in helping to increase the air time of a loaded term designed to create an emotional reaction every time it’s heard. Remember the polls of support for the “Affordable Care Act” vs. “Obamacare”?
So a dog whistle is a way to say socially unacceptable things out loud to people for whom those things are acceptable. Usually in a search for votes or influence at least.
The whole Fox network is a series of dog whistles.
Fair and balanced and No spin zone are dog whistle enablers as well as Big Lies.
Calling it out isn’t lazy.
I’ve noticed elsewhere on the internet people asking “does <x> like trains?” or “do you like trains?” It’s an incredibly veiled attempt to insult someone by calling them “autistic” based on a stereotype that autistic people really like trains. It’s the sort of thing where unless you’re familiar with the insinuation you’d never notice.
Is that a dogwhistle?
Captain Oveur: Joey, do you like movies about gladiators? …ever been in a… in a Turkish prison?.. ever hang around a gymnasium?
“cling to guns and bibles” -> white trash
I think White Trash is a derogatory term for people who cling to guns and bibles. Not using it is a way of speaking truth to insanity, and being accurate.
As we all know, the original Religious Freedom Restoration Act passed Congress in 1994 with near unanimous support from both Democrats and Republicans. Bill Clinton signed it into law. Numerous states have passed Religious Freedom Restoration Acts since then, usually with bipartisan support. Were the Democrats who supported those laws simply playing to their base? Appealing to bible thumping yahoos?
I asked a young relative the other day if he had ever seen a grown man naked.
Bad idea.
I expect the authorities any day now.
Well, at the time, the main issue was supposedly the right of Indian tribes to use drugs like peyote in their rituals.
Today, Bill Clinton and CHuck Schumer would probably tell you, “We didn’t mean to protect CHRISTIANS’ rights!!!”
I think you mean Christians’ or any religion’s right to discriminate.
It was a different time in 1994, democrats weren’t so conscious of trampling gay rights. The purpose of the Religious Freedom laws were for Indians rights with peyote, and the occasional mention of business regarding employees’ days off for holidays.
The new and improved laws have been attempts to allow businesses to deny services to people that they feel don’t respect their religion. It’s very open to interpretation, but the designers of the law gave examples such as a Christian business wouldn’t have to serve the GLBT’s or their community if they deem it would be ______ to their religious beliefs.
He didn’t admit to “dog whistles,” he described the Southern Strategy of the Republican Party in the 1960’s. Which, you’ll all recall, was wildly successful and handed republicans presidential victories in 68, 72, 80, 84, and 88 and turned the South solidly Republican.
Moreover, being “opposed to forced busing” is not a dog whistle, nor is “cutting welfare.” They both mean exactly what they sound like. And tens of millions of Americans agreed with the Republicans. Hell, they still do, liberals included. (If forced busing was such a great plan, why don’t suburban, liberal whites drive their kids to inner-city schools? They could do their bit for integration. Why don’t they?)
Since Welfare ended in 1996, I think it’s pretty much a dog whistle. Or they are just ignorant.
Atwater died in 1991. How did he dog whistle welfare?
theres a mystery for ya
Welfare “ended” in 1996? Could’ve fooled me!!
Maybe at one point, in the same way the ichthys used to be a code. Nowadays I think someone would have to be particularly ill-informed not to recognize the rainbow flag for what it is. Not so much the Human Rights Campaign equals sign, but it’s stylized enough that it’s clearly a logo of some sort.
DrDeth is trying to play semantic games, but he isn’t very good at it. “Welfare” ended in 1996 only in the sense that the previous program, from 1940, AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children), became TANF (Temporary Aid to Needy Families). But the program was never called “welfare”, which is a general term in English-speaking countries for gov’t assistance to the poor.
DrDeth is wrong about “welfare” ending in 1996. If his claim is that AFDC ended in 1996 and that was “welfare” he’s wrong because that was never called “Welfare” and if his claim is that “welfare” ended in 1996 because public aid to the poor ended then he’s wrong because public aid still exists; it’s called TANF.
The only other possibility I can fathom is that his claim emanates from Bill Clinton’s promise to “end welfare as we know it.” In which case he’s still wrong because an obscure political promise from two decades ago does not change the English meaning of the word “welfare.”
Welfare still exists and we all know it.
You quoted a answer given by Atwater in 1981. While Wiki is a good starting point, it’s often not the best place to find the whole story.
You may have noticed that Atwater didn’t identify his strategy as a “dog-whistle”. So who did?
The very next Wiki paragraph mentions Reagan’s 1976 and 1980 campaigns. It mentions, “His dog-whistle politics extended to field-testing language in the South referring to an unscrupulous man using food stamps as a “strapping young buck.”[47]”
The note [47] is attributed to Aistrup, Joseph A. (2015). The Southern Strategy Revisited: Republican Top-Down Advancement in the South. University Press of Kentucky. p. 44. ISBN 0-8131-4792-1.
And yet a search of Airstrup’s book doesn’t turn up the line - His dog-whistle politics extended to field-testing language in the South referring to an unscrupulous man using food stamps as a “strapping young buck”. So the yellow-dog Democrat Aistrup didn’t identify the words of either paragraph as a “dog-whistle”.
I guess whoever wrote the Wiki article resorted to a bit of artistic license to insert the term “dog-whistle” so you could later point to the article as proof that there was a “dog-whistle”.
One dog whistle I increasingly hear is the phrase “low information voter.”
Objectively, I suppose it simply means a voter who performs little research or reads little news on the issues.
However, i have heard liberals and conservatives use the term to denigrate the stereotypical base of the opposing side.