It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
How about you tell us what rings in your ears when you hear certain words? I'm sure we'll all be the better for it.
If you're not afraid of language Les, why are you so concerned about dog whistles?
If I had realized sooner that this was something that really got to you I would have said it sooner
originally posted by: AmericanRealist
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight
Well, I guess it is true. When a country gives up their guns, they start to lose their free speech too. Australia and much of Europe, being pretty much the perfect example of a glove that fits more perfect than any other ever has.
Get your guns back people, and then you can say whatever you want again.
Why would you say I'm concerned with dog-whistles? I was pointing out your concern for them, not mine. What is interesting is the entire claim of dog-whistle politics, for instance that certain words are dog-whistles for racists, but then it always seems to people like yourself who pick up on them.
originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
I really dislike the term "snowflake". It gets applied to people who so much as voice the idea that they feel offended about something.
originally posted by: odzeandennz
a reply to: SaturnFX
funny, but i think if you asked the man who made the comments, his answers would be real answers, and he would say exactly what he meant. not cowardly grammatical technicalities high priced lawyers would use on defense against possibly someone who acted on what they posted online...
If someone wants to say something without using the words they really want to be able to say - they just dog whistle. But you already knew that
It's not exactly a tough code to crack though - is it? If it were it wouldn't work
originally posted by: Sargeras
Why as you say would " only an idiot would say such a thing publically about a government official "?
I don't get your meaning.
Well no, "dog-whistle" politics is a propaganda technique used to deride the views of others. It only works to pretend people are speaking in secret code. However, the claim that people are speaking in secret code to each other is not only hilarious, but cowardly and meaningless.
Pretty much what I just said Les - what else you got?
Donald Trump has been called the Pied-Piper of Dog-whistle politics, which is fitting since the whole Republican party has been charged for engaging in dog-whistle politics for quite some time. The dubious insinuation in that charge is that Trump and the Republicans are speaking in secret code to racists, whom I wager are hiding in the bushes, like dogs, awaiting the long-awaited sound to bring in the coming race war.
The thing about a dog whistle is that only dogs can hear it. So when I am lead to believe that the right is engaged in “dog-whistle politics”, I have to wonder why these sounds seem to ring so loud in the ears of the left.
According to anti-conservative author Ian Haney Lopez’s book “Dog Whistle Politics”, when Nixon spoke of “Law and Order”, he was secretly passing messages to racist via inaudible code. To the racist hounds who were able to pick up on this covert racism, “Law” meant race and “Order” means anti-activism, as they tend to do.
When Paul Ryan had the audacity to link poverty to a “ tailspin of culture”, especially in the “inner cities in particular”, “of men not working” and “generations of men not even thinking about working or learning the value and the culture of work”, the words magically morphed into the inaudible sound of a racist dog whistle. Rep. Barbara Lee’s recognized this inaudible sound as a “thinly-veiled racial attack”, and that when Ryan spoke of “inner-city” and “culture”, he surreptitiously meant “black”. According to Ryan, race never crossed his mind. Nonetheless, to the ears of racists, he was secretly speaking about black people this whole time.
Jimmy Carter knew all too well that the animosity against President Obama from the right was because he was a black man, and not because of his policies, as has traditionally been the case. Mark Potok from the Southern Poverty Law Center agreed. "I think what President Carter said is precisely what is going on. I am not saying that everyone involved in opposing healthcare reform is a Klansman in disguise, but it is the elephant in the room." Congressman Henry Johnson echoed his statements. "I guess we'll probably have folks putting on white hoods and white uniforms again and riding through the countryside." The RNC chairman at the time and obvious racist Michael Steele denied the accusations.
Alex Hern, technology reporter for the Guardian, wrote on the subject of Republican dog whistles for the New Statesman. When a Mitt Romney aide commented that Romney would be a better president than Obama because be better understood the Anglo-Saxon heritage that Britain and America share, Hern’s ears started ringing. “This sort of statement is known in politics as a ‘dog whistle’,” he wrote. “To most people, it looks innocuous, if a bit weird, but to its target audience – in this case, racists – it reads as a perfectly clear statement that Romney is better than Obama because he is white.” And there you have it.
While it is probably true that there is a pack of racists out there making connections between such statements and racial stereotypes, the insidious assumption that the right are secretly speaking to racists in some sort of hidden inaudible code is a reckless and sloppy fantasy.
Rather, it appears the only racists able to both hear and translate the racist messages are the very same ones who always claim “dog-whistle politics”. To the extent that it is only they and perhaps some unscrupulous racists who are connecting irrelevant words to irrelevant racial stereotypes, it must be conceded that the dogs in tune to the racist dog-whistle are the very ones making such suspicious connections
originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: CynConcepts
You would be even more surprised how they also hide behind anti-defamation laws - they bankrupt you in the courts. We have no bill of rights and only "implied" freedom in our Constitution, Basically we are still a military run colony.
technically we are a constitutional Monarchy and our Government can be sacked by the Governor-General...Appointed by the Queen of England
Maybe you can provide an example, and how that proves your assertion?
Of course not. Unverifiable assertions and bold claims—basically lies—to poison the well of your political opponents. Pushing the agenda of your clan forward, but worse than that, through spineless methods.