It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Everyone who disagrees with me is Dog Whistling!

page: 1
20
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
+3 more 
posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 08:38 PM
link   
What do you do when you are having an argument with someone, and you can’t or don’t want to argue with the facts they are presenting? What if I told you that there is something that you can do that would be able to answer just about any argument that the person you are conversing with made? All you have to do is lump all of the arguments that this person makes together, and claim that they are all…

A DOG WHISTLE!!!!

That’s right. No need for facts, or polite discussion. You don’t have the time or energy for that! You throw out the term dog whistle, and not only do you feel like you have won the argument, but you have also insinuated that your opponent is a racist, thereby ensuring that you also win any future discussion with them. With on rhetorical tool, who have made it possible to not have to take any argument seriously that that person ever makes again.

This is where we are at today, particularly when it comes to political discussion. Although someone on the right may occasionally try to resort to this, it doesn’t have the power or the frequency that it does from the left. This is because the left is the ideology of fighting racism (just ask them!). It has long been in style for people on the left to scream racism, sexism, or any other ism to people that they disagree with. The problem is that people were getting wise to this, and these charges started meaning less and less. Not only that, but some people were able to prove that they were not racist. So now we seeing a pivot in this strategy, that of accusing the other of dog whistling.

For those of you that may not know, accusing someone of dog whistling is saying there is a hidden racist meaning in their message. The beauty of this is that you don’t have to prove racism, you just assert that you feel like the other person is secretly being racist. Even if the person accused claims they have said nothing racist at all, but are only arguing facts, you are able to say that you know better, and that there were secret racist tones to your argument.

We see this increasingly with Hillary and her supporters, particularly in the media (apparently after barking like a dog, she has the ability to hear these whistles that normal people can’t). Anything that Trump or a conservative says can be called a dog whistle, and then ignored, no matter how factual it is. Rather it be immigration, drugs, violence, terrorism, or other topics, all arguments that are not totally in line with the progressive point of view is dog whistling.

As a result, the person who has been charged with dog whistling has to put all of their efforts into denying it or risk being labeled a racist, and thus the original argument is lost. This stifles constructive debates, and ensures that problems are never solved. How can we solve things like illegal immigration if every argument on one side is considered a secret code for racism? The only way to avoid this charge is to totally agree with the progressives, or to grovel to them.

There is nothing more nefarious than claiming to know what is inside people’s heads, and then judging them for that. Well, maybe the concept of a micro aggression is worse, because it takes it a step further and says even if you didn’t mean for your comment to be a dog whistle, it still was racist, so everyone who disagrees with progressive is a racist even if they don’t know it. (but that is a discussion for another time)

The irony of the person claiming things are a dog whistle is that they have to be thinking about race all of the time to come to the conclusion that people are speaking in secret codes to be racist. Hence, the person most likely to treat someone unfairly due to race is the very progressive that is claiming the dog whistle.

It’s time we start calling out these tactics for what they are, excuses to not debate the issues. I will not grovel to anyone for forgiveness for supposed dog whistles. I will recognize that the person saying this has no valid arguments, and is desperate to change the topic.

Let me make it clear that this type of argument is unacceptable no matter what side is using it. Even though this particular tactic works on the left, I won’t pretend that there aren’t bad behaviors on the right. But I feel like this dog whistle business is growing in popularity, and no one is pointing out what a joke it is,

It’s one thing for everyday people to use this poor debate tactic, but the fact that this has been the main attack on things like Trump’s immigration speech by Hillary and her MSM allies is truly disgusting.




posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 08:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

(* Crickets chirp *).



edit on 2/9/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 08:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


This is where we are at today, particularly when it comes to political discussion. Although someone on the right may occasionally try to resort to this, it doesn’t have the power or the frequency that it does from the left.


I know you are but what am I?

Have you missed the decades of the Right using claims of "political correctness" to dismiss and delegitimize those who aren't on the political Right? How ironic then that you're complaining about the exact same sort of tactic used by "your team" and prentending that the scoundrels on the Left.

"You're pulling the race card!" "that's just liberal white guilt!" "what a triggered SJW!" "snowflake!"

The Right wrote the playbook — or no, I take that back — it's "Saul Alinsky tactics!" — how many times have I read that drivel?

Hypocritical conservative whining.


edit on 2016-9-2 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 09:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

A very articulate essay. The difficulty is in people admitting that they may be wrong.

Look forward to the comments in this thread.



posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 09:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian


I know you are but what am I?

Have you missed the decades of the Right using claims of "political correctness" to dismiss and delegitimize those who aren't on the political Right? How ironic then that you're complaining about the exact same sort of tactic used by "your team" and prentending that the scoundrels on the Left.

"You're pulling the race card!" "that's just liberal white guilt!" "what a triggered SJW!" "snowflake!"

The Right wrote the playbook — or no, I take that back — it's "Saul Alinsky tactics!" — how many times have I read that drivel?

Hypocritical conservative whining.



Sure the right makes those claims, and I will be the first to admit they are sometimes overused. You must have missed the part where I said the right has bad actions too. But there are big differences between claiming someone is being politically correct, and someone is dog whistling.

The first is saying you are PC isn't saying you have some sort of secret code in what you are saying. If I say you are PC, I have to point how how you are based on what you have said. I don't get to claim,"well, you didn't say anything that was PC, but I know you secretly meant it".

Second, this is far different than accusing someone of racism. Saying someone is PC or a snowflake isn't potentially life ruining. But if someone takes charges of racism seriously, it can devastate their life.

Lets use an example. You say we need to have safe spaces on campus. Person A calls you an sjw, or politically correct. They would then have to explain why, and you can counter that by arguing how important this issue is and how safe spaces would be a great thing. No matter how many times you are called a SJW, your facts still stand and must be dealt with. You could theoretically say, "So what, I am a social justice warrior." and that wouldn't hurt the strength in your argument.

Person B says that you are dog whistling, and that this is code for you being racist to Asian people. You would say that this has nothing to do with Asians, but Person B knows that deep inside you are a racist that hates Asians, and therefore your comment must be a code for hating Asians. A large chorus of people agree, and now no matter how many facts you bring up about why safe spaces are good, these arguments have no weight, because you are a racist. You cannot say, "So what, I am a racist".

You have zero recourse because how can you prove you didn't have a secret code? And so your argument falls flat. Oh, and the next time you have an argument, it is garbage too, because you are a racists that uses secret code to spread your racist ideology.



posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 09:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Are you trying to make up a viral term like the new "alt-righters" tag?



posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 09:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Grambler


This is where we are at today, particularly when it comes to political discussion. Although someone on the right may occasionally try to resort to this, it doesn’t have the power or the frequency that it does from the left.


I know you are but what am I?

Have you missed the decades of the Right using claims of "political correctness" to dismiss and delegitimize those who aren't on the political Right? How ironic then that you're complaining about the exact same sort of tactic used by "your team" and prentending that the scoundrels on the Left.

"You're pulling the race card!" "that's just liberal white guilt!" "what a triggered SJW!" "snowflake!"

The Right wrote the playbook — or no, I take that back — it's "Saul Alinsky tactics!" — how many times have I read that drivel?

Hypocritical conservative whining.



Except that "the right" has been right about all of that. Actually anyone who sees things clearly knows it to be true.



posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 09:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

Nope. The left has already done that.

thinkprogress.org...

www.theguardian.com...

www.nbcnews.com...

www.washingtonpost.com... -voter-id/

www.salon.com...

www.huffingtonpost.com...

time.com...

www.msnbc.com...

www.realclearpolitics.com...

www.dailykos.com...

www.slate.com...

That took me 3 minutes to find. All links criticizing Trumps "dog whistles". Notice how many main stream media groups on in those links. Notice how Hillary is on them too.

This is why I made this thread. These accusations are becoming main stream, and its time to call them out.



posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 10:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


The first is saying you are PC isn't saying you have some sort of secret code in what you are saying. If I say you are PC, I have to point how how you are based on what you have said. I don't get to claim, "well, you didn't say anything that was PC, but I know you secretly meant it".


I don't see much relevance to the distinction in the grand scheme of things considering the principal intent when employing any of these as tactics is to delegitimize political opponents. Also, it should be noted that just as there are people who do "play" any of the various "cards" that people are accused of playing, there are those who do use dog-whistles.

I suppose we'll have to disagree about who engages in what more.


Second, this is far different than accusing someone of racism. Saying someone is PC or a snowflake isn't potentially life ruining. But if someone takes charges of racism seriously, it can devastate their life.


How often do non-racists have their lives ruined by being falsely accused of racism really? I don't know and I'm guessing neither do you but you and a whole lot of other folks sure seem to have the impression that it happens all the time. My opinion is that this is mostly a bogus concern that is largely the result of political manipulation. Identity politics is nasty business.


You say we need to have safe spaces on campus. Person A calls you an sjw, or politically correct. They would then have to explain why, and you can counter that by arguing how important this issue is and how safe spaces would be a great thing. No matter how many times you are called a SJW, your facts still stand and must be dealt with.


It's interesting that you went straight for "safe spaces" which is some garbage that mostly dumbass college kids and professors of critical race theory blather about. How many people have you debated with on ATS who ever defended the concept of "safe spaces?" Honest question.

At any rate, it's not a very realistic scenario and it's also one of the least problematic that you could have selected for your argument. Let's try something a little more apples to apples.

How about when somebody is legitimately pointing out discrimination only to be accused of "pulling" a "card." That person is not only having their concern dismissed but there's also an implicit allegation that the person is an unscrupulous liar who is maligning an innocent person or persons for some benefit.

That's a far cry from ridiculing a person for promoting "safe space" nonsense and on par with falsely accusing a person of racism.



posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 10:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Grambler

Are you trying to make up a viral term like the new "alt-righters" tag?



The term alt-right is neither new (relatively speaking) nor is it a pejorative created by the Left. I pointed this article out in another thread and I think it is something that should be read by everyone. It was co-written by prominent alt-righter Milo Yiannopoulos and if you were wondering (I know you weren't) it was published more than five months ago on 3/29 (way before Clinton ever used the term) on Breitbart, one of the most influential alt-right media sources on the Internet.

An Establishment Conservative’s Guide To The Alt-Right

Give it a read.

You'll have to forgive me for digressing here but it was just too good to pass up on. As I was opening the link above, intending to excerpt a few paragraphs to demonstrate alt-righters referring to themselves as "alt-right," the absolute most hilarious bit of synchronicity occurred:



Take note of the video. It's an advertisement for a GPS device for dogs called "Whistle."



posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 10:17 PM
link   
hmm, another black thread in disguise.

remarkable. not a day goes by...
edit on 2-9-2016 by odzeandennz because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 10:18 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Fine we will use your example. Lets say you point out discrimination. The person who points it out says you are using the race card. You can then point out the relevant facts that prove discrimination. This isn't claiming that there is a secret code you are using. You are not being called a racist.

Now a second person claims that by you pointing out the discrimination, you are secretly using a code because you are a racist that hates Asians. You would be puzzled thinking what does this have to do with asians. But people know you are a racist against asians, and so everything you say is code for your hatred.

Now the next time you want to argue about say climate change. Calling you PC won't have any effect. BUt ah, you are again dog whistling against Asians! See we know you hate asians, so you are using climate change as code for the fact that Asia pollutes a lot. So we are going to ignore your arguments here to.

But now you want to talk about abuse by the police. But you are dog whistling again. See Asians are not attacked very much by the police, so you are secretly pointing out how privledged they are because of this.

But now you want to talk about helping the veterans. Dog whistle again! After all, people in Asia have fought us in many wars.

And on and on and on. Just being called PC would not affect any of those issues. But once it is insinuated that you speak in a secret code and are racist, nothing you say matters.



posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 10:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: odzeandennz
hmm, another black thread in disguise.

remarkable. not a day goes by...


Thanks for proving the point.



posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 10:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

I see this as a rebuttal against the slew of stories in the past months about leftists trying to ban words, phrases, Trump campaign signs, etc.

Many of us called them SJW's and exposed a disregard they held for the 1st Amendment.

Now when someone calls any of us "anti-PC", they insinuate that anti-PC is racist simply because of the backlash they received when banning, censoring didn't work as planned.

There is also the whole nationalist versus globalist aspect. They connect nationalism with racism in order to promote and encourage globalism.

At least that's where I've seen this evolve from.

imho



posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 10:32 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Honestly?

I just don't care. I'm not voting this year, again. I won't vote in 4 years, or the next 4 years, or the next, and so on.

It's fun to participate in threads concerning elections though. People actually get riled up and feel a sense of duty...once every 4 years.

I'll start voting again once there are term limits on congress, because the president is simply a figure-head.



posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 10:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

See my last post to Vector99. All of those are from the last six months. The term "alt-right" isn't a recent invention by the media and I'd think a guy whose avatar is Alex Jones would be aware of this.

Here's Paul Joseph Watson using the term back in April on Twitter my bold:


Paul Joseph Watson @PrisonPlanet
Feminist & SJW websites are losing traffic & revenue while alt-right explodes in popularity. We are winning.


Have you read that Breitbart article from Milo yet? It's so unapologetically white nationalist that it largely doesn't qualify as dog-whistle rhetoric but some paragraphs are less overt and you can clearly see them testing out new dog-whistles (my bold):


In fairness, many establishment conservatives aren’t keen on this stuff either — but the alt-right would argue that they’re too afraid of being called “racist” to seriously fight against it. Which is why they haven’t. Certainly, the rise of Donald Trump, perhaps the first truly cultural candidate for President since Buchanan, suggests grassroots appetite for more robust protection of the western European and American way of life.


The "protection of the western European and American way of life?"

Protection from what? What is the "European and American way of life" exactly? Is my whiteness a way of life? Is it under threat? When are people orbiting the periphery of the alt-right going to grow some balls and start being as honest about their racism and xenophobia? At least we could have an honest conversation rather than:

"Trump's a racist!"
"No he's not!"

Give it a read. They're not even arguing that the alt-right isn't primarily about racism and xenophobia, they're arguing that racism and xenophobia are natural and virtuous — just don't call it bigotry — call it "natural conservatism."
edit on 2016-9-2 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 11:19 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

I follow Milo and quite like him, and so I have read this article. I will be the first to admit that he sometimes is very extreme in an attempt to be funny. People on the left do the same thing to be funny, and I have no problem with it. I like humor regardless of rather or not I agree with the presenter.

I did just reread this article. First, if you notice, the author shows many groups within the alt right. They are as diverse as fighting organized religion, being anti- war, wanting to preserve culture, pranksters, and full on out right racist. The term "alt right" is just a hodge podge of people. The left is now using the term alt right to say ignore issues. Illegal immigration? "Well some people in the alt right are racist, and they hate illegals, so therefore anyone making an argument about illegals is a dog whistling racist."

It would be no different than saying "far left" which could include pacifists, socialists, violent anarchists, environmentalists, and racists that hat white people. So am I justified in saying something like, "Oh, Hillary is arguing for amnesty, which is something the far left likes. The far left has anarchists that want to destroy the US government, and racists that hate white people, so therefore Hillary is dog whistling for these things."

And you appear really hung up on the fact that alt right wants to "protection of the western European and American way of life" because of whiteness. So I assume that you are equally disturbed by any group wanting to protect there way of life. Muslims, black, Hispanics, gays, women; if any of these groups want to preserve their way of life are racists or bigoted and xenophobic, right?

It sounds to me like you are dog whistling that you hate white people.



posted on Sep, 2 2016 @ 11:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

*sigh*
When will people learn? "Someone who I disagree with and who's opinion really doesn't mean jack squat to me just called me a racist/sexist/bigot/Raider fan/Snuffalupagus/turd/etc."

WHO CARES?!?!?!? Why are intelligent people getting fussed over the opinions of unintelligent morons? The only logical answer to this crap is "You think I'm a racist? And?" Followed by complete and total dismissal, moving back to discussion with those who's opinions matter and who use their brains for something more productive than figuring out the complex posting processes on Tumblr.



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 12:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

I understand your argument — anyone could claim that virtually anything is a dog whistle and the accused cannot easily disprove the claim.

It's the nature of the beast. Dog whistles are used because they can be disavowed in the face of criticism while nonetheless resonating with a particular audience. That reliance on subjective interpretation is what makes their usage as equally hard to prove as to disprove.

This difficulty isn't unique to dog-whistle allegations.

Have you ever tried to disprove your "white guilt" before?


It's not only politicians on the Right accused of using dog whistles nor are allegations of coded language always in regards to issues of race/religion/ethnicity:

Townhall - America’s Sick of Obama’s Racial Dog-Whistles
HuffPost - Hillary’s Hypocrisy: Clinging to Obama After Her Racist Dog Whistles in 2008
The Atlantic - Obama’s Troubling Dog Whistle on Encryption
ScienceBlogs - Jill Stein and left wing antivaccine dog whistles
Washington Examiner - Is Obama's 'Australia' a gun grabber's dog whistle?
Breitbar t - Right On Cue: Establishment Uses Putin Dog-Whistle As Similarities To Brexit Campaign Deepen
Breitbart - Andrew Breitbart Called It: Mitt Romney's 'Racist Dog Whistle' World Tour
Breitbart - Roger Stone: Clintons Have Long Record of ‘Very Deep Dog Whistle Politics’

Nice to see Trump's longtime political henchman is now a source for Breitbart stories. That's very hand in glove.



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 12:58 AM
link   
Dog Whistle is quite probably the very worst term ever for this idea as the left wants people to think of it, but it is ironically appropriate.

If the idea is that I am speaking in a "secret racist code" that only other racists hear and understand, then when I speak, I am effectively blowing the whistle. Yes?

Well, how many people when they blow a dog whistle actually hear it? I don't. It's not designed for me to hear at all but only designed for the dogs to hear. It blows in a different language (different frequency than human ears can hear in reality). So, if the "code" of a dog whistle is one only racists can hear, and the person who blows it cannot hear it ... then what does that make the person who CAN hear it?

Think about that.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<<   2 >>

log in

join