The Canard of Dog-Whistle Politics

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: underwerks

Oh, but what you are talking about is different than a speech laced with a racial "code" that presumably only others who know this code can understand ... oh, the people who bark at the whistle!

Do you know any politician who gives speeches laced with your grandmother's rhetoric?

"And let me tell you ... I am nominating Demetrius Benson to be my AG because this town is full of criminal snakes and he sure can smell snakes!"

No, but the racists where I'm from respond to Trump and Bannon that way.

A good way to tell if something is a dog whistle, is to watch the dog.

originally posted by: introvert
I think one of the best examples of "dog-whistle" politics, which is a term I dislike, was Lee Atwater at the Southern Stragedy.

www.thenation.com...

You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, 'n-word', 'n-word'.” By 1968 you can’t say “'n-word'”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, 'n-word'.”

That seemed to have given way to using phrases like "welfare queens" and such, in regards to poor women, etc.

Dog whistle politics is par for the course.

In that interview, Lee Atwater was talking about George Wallace. Atwater does believe in the theory, sure—and it is probably true that Wallace did see States rights as a principle that could protect his segregationist agenda—but I’m not sure how one example, one believer in the theory, is par for the course.

It does not follow that words—young buck or welfare queen or law and order—are coded racial messages.

a reply to: ketsuko

laced with a racial "code" that presumably only others who know this code can understand

Is that correct?

I’m not sure about that.


I always thought it was an attempt to reach a demographic...
Not necessarily because they understand what you said...
But more because they will take it to mean something that sounds good...

Like;
Trump “they’re rapists” (clearly talking of criminals)
KKK “yeah you tell em Trump, F those Mexican MotherFers”
Or;
Sanders “the top 1% are draining all the wealth” (clearly talking about tax dodgers and hoarders who underpay their staff)
Communist “damn straight Bernie, why won’t people wake up so we can hang these Bankster assholes”...


The vagueness is the dog whistle to reach different groups who will read into a statement however it suits them.

That’s how I always saw it anyways.

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The dog-whistle theory implicates the dog-whistle theorist of racism more than the accused. It proves that the theorist tends to equate certain terms and ideas with certain groups, his own thoughts are his Rosetta Stone, but also evidence of someone else’s intentions.

Being able to recognize racism and dog whistles doesn't make one racist. Seriously? I grew up around entire communities of idiotic racists while seeing racism every day.

That I can notice it in others means I'm racist?

No, what ai said was assuming certain words implicitly refer to racial groups is racist. In the example I gave, the man said it was “pretty obvious” that “welfare queens” refers to minorities. Not only is that untrue, but it is racist.

I think a lot of your ideas about racism in the U.S. stem from having no actual experience with it. Certain phrases are racist, regardless of who uses them because of the history of that phrase and how it's been weaponized against people. Whether the person meant it to be racist or not is irrelevant in that context.

A lot of older people in the U.S. were raised in a time where things that are obviously racist now, were seen as not. My grandmother, who was a foster parent for kids of all colors for over 20 years and doesn't have a racist bone in her body, still makes racist comments, just because she's from a different time and doesn't see it as racist.

But that doesn't mean her comments about black people being able to smell snakes or whatever else she might say aren't racist, in 2017.

I know language and I know what racism is. Words could never be “weaponized”. Two, stuffing “history” into a word is a personal, subjective endeavour.

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
a reply to: ketsuko

laced with a racial "code" that presumably only others who know this code can understand

Is that correct?

I’m not sure about that.


I always thought it was an attempt to reach a demographic...
Not necessarily because they understand what you said...
But more because they will take it to mean something that sounds good...

Like;
Trump “they’re rapists” (clearly talking of criminals)
KKK “yeah you tell em Trump, F those Mexican MotherFers”
Or;
Sanders “the top 1% are draining all the wealth” (clearly talking about tax dodgers and hoarders who underpay their staff)
Communist “damn straight Bernie, why won’t people wake up so we can hang these Bankster assholes”...


The vagueness is the dog whistle to reach different groups who will read into a statement however it suits them.

That’s how I always saw it anyways.

It’s no secret that people can misinterpret another’s meaning and intentions to suit heir own beliefs. But that says nothing about the person who spoke, nor what he intended to convey.

a reply to: underwerks

Again, there is a problem with that line of thought.

Every year at election time, we are given essentially two choices, all of us, even the racists. They will vote for one of them and prefer one of them. That doesn't mean that the person they vote for is trying to lure them in or even that they prefer him or her because the policies in question are even racist.

But we all have to make compromises when we really only have two options. I'll bet no matter how much you might have liked Clinton, she wasn't a perfect match for what you really wanted, either. You simply had to choose what was closest to your ideal ... just like a racist.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The dog-whistle theory implicates the dog-whistle theorist of racism more than the accused. It proves that the theorist tends to equate certain terms and ideas with certain groups, his own thoughts are his Rosetta Stone, but also evidence of someone else’s intentions.

Being able to recognize racism and dog whistles doesn't make one racist. Seriously? I grew up around entire communities of idiotic racists while seeing racism every day.

That I can notice it in others means I'm racist?

No, what ai said was assuming certain words implicitly refer to racial groups is racist. In the example I gave, the man said it was “pretty obvious” that “welfare queens” refers to minorities. Not only is that untrue, but it is racist.

I think a lot of your ideas about racism in the U.S. stem from having no actual experience with it. Certain phrases are racist, regardless of who uses them because of the history of that phrase and how it's been weaponized against people. Whether the person meant it to be racist or not is irrelevant in that context.

A lot of older people in the U.S. were raised in a time where things that are obviously racist now, were seen as not. My grandmother, who was a foster parent for kids of all colors for over 20 years and doesn't have a racist bone in her body, still makes racist comments, just because she's from a different time and doesn't see it as racist.

But that doesn't mean her comments about black people being able to smell snakes or whatever else she might say aren't racist, in 2017.

I know language and I know what racism is. Words could never be “weaponized”. Two, stuffing “history” into a word is a personal, subjective endeavour.

The fact is, certain words and phrases have different connotations depending on when and where they're used.

Do you feel the N word is inherently racist when a white person says it?

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The dog-whistle theory implicates the dog-whistle theorist of racism more than the accused. It proves that the theorist tends to equate certain terms and ideas with certain groups, his own thoughts are his Rosetta Stone, but also evidence of someone else’s intentions.

Being able to recognize racism and dog whistles doesn't make one racist. Seriously? I grew up around entire communities of idiotic racists while seeing racism every day.

That I can notice it in others means I'm racist?

No, what ai said was assuming certain words implicitly refer to racial groups is racist. In the example I gave, the man said it was “pretty obvious” that “welfare queens” refers to minorities. Not only is that untrue, but it is racist.

I think a lot of your ideas about racism in the U.S. stem from having no actual experience with it. Certain phrases are racist, regardless of who uses them because of the history of that phrase and how it's been weaponized against people. Whether the person meant it to be racist or not is irrelevant in that context.

A lot of older people in the U.S. were raised in a time where things that are obviously racist now, were seen as not. My grandmother, who was a foster parent for kids of all colors for over 20 years and doesn't have a racist bone in her body, still makes racist comments, just because she's from a different time and doesn't see it as racist.

But that doesn't mean her comments about black people being able to smell snakes or whatever else she might say aren't racist, in 2017.

I know language and I know what racism is. Words could never be “weaponized”. Two, stuffing “history” into a word is a personal, subjective endeavour.

The fact is, certain words and phrases have different connotations depending on when and where they're used.

Do you feel the N word is inherently racist when a white person says it?

If black people can say it, then anyone else ought to be able to.

If no one else can say it, then it should be so bad that black people shouldn't be saying it either.

I don't care what their rationale is.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: underwerks

Again, there is a problem with that line of thought.

Every year at election time, we are given essentially two choices, all of us, even the racists. They will vote for one of them and prefer one of them. That doesn't mean that the person they vote for is trying to lure them in or even that they prefer him or her because the policies in question are even racist.

What I've seen with Trump isn't some reluctant choice racists are making. A lot of them are flying the Trump banner with pride. With the idea that he represents them. If he doesn't why is that?

Of course politicians court racists, they court any group they imagine will bring them votes. That's politics, and should be obvious to everyone.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The dog-whistle theory implicates the dog-whistle theorist of racism more than the accused. It proves that the theorist tends to equate certain terms and ideas with certain groups, his own thoughts are his Rosetta Stone, but also evidence of someone else’s intentions.

Being able to recognize racism and dog whistles doesn't make one racist. Seriously? I grew up around entire communities of idiotic racists while seeing racism every day.

That I can notice it in others means I'm racist?

No, what ai said was assuming certain words implicitly refer to racial groups is racist. In the example I gave, the man said it was “pretty obvious” that “welfare queens” refers to minorities. Not only is that untrue, but it is racist.

I think a lot of your ideas about racism in the U.S. stem from having no actual experience with it. Certain phrases are racist, regardless of who uses them because of the history of that phrase and how it's been weaponized against people. Whether the person meant it to be racist or not is irrelevant in that context.

A lot of older people in the U.S. were raised in a time where things that are obviously racist now, were seen as not. My grandmother, who was a foster parent for kids of all colors for over 20 years and doesn't have a racist bone in her body, still makes racist comments, just because she's from a different time and doesn't see it as racist.

But that doesn't mean her comments about black people being able to smell snakes or whatever else she might say aren't racist, in 2017.

I know language and I know what racism is. Words could never be “weaponized”. Two, stuffing “history” into a word is a personal, subjective endeavour.

The fact is, certain words and phrases have different connotations depending on when and where they're used.

Do you feel the N word is inherently racist when a white person says it?

If black people can say it, then anyone else ought to be able to.

If no one else can say it, then it should be so bad that black people shouldn't be saying it either.

I don't care what their rationale is.

How things "ought" to be aren't how they are. To base your stance on that is making sure you're going to be wrong.

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The dog-whistle theory implicates the dog-whistle theorist of racism more than the accused. It proves that the theorist tends to equate certain terms and ideas with certain groups, his own thoughts are his Rosetta Stone, but also evidence of someone else’s intentions.

Being able to recognize racism and dog whistles doesn't make one racist. Seriously? I grew up around entire communities of idiotic racists while seeing racism every day.

That I can notice it in others means I'm racist?

No, what ai said was assuming certain words implicitly refer to racial groups is racist. In the example I gave, the man said it was “pretty obvious” that “welfare queens” refers to minorities. Not only is that untrue, but it is racist.

I think a lot of your ideas about racism in the U.S. stem from having no actual experience with it. Certain phrases are racist, regardless of who uses them because of the history of that phrase and how it's been weaponized against people. Whether the person meant it to be racist or not is irrelevant in that context.

A lot of older people in the U.S. were raised in a time where things that are obviously racist now, were seen as not. My grandmother, who was a foster parent for kids of all colors for over 20 years and doesn't have a racist bone in her body, still makes racist comments, just because she's from a different time and doesn't see it as racist.

But that doesn't mean her comments about black people being able to smell snakes or whatever else she might say aren't racist, in 2017.

I know language and I know what racism is. Words could never be “weaponized”. Two, stuffing “history” into a word is a personal, subjective endeavour.

The fact is, certain words and phrases have different connotations depending on when and where they're used.

Do you feel the N word is inherently racist when a white person says it?

It is a racial slur. All racial slurs are racist by definition.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

But that says nothing about the person who spoke, nor what he intended to convey.

Yeah, for sure.

At the same time I don’t think it’s wrong to suspect a politician might use these vague statements for that very purpose.


The fact is politicians are slimey...
Is it really that far fetched to believe they’d use manipulative language to court a vote?
Isn’t that their whole gimmick?


I reckon it would have to be judged on a case by case basis, to be honest.

To rule it out entirely seems like folly to me though.

a reply to: underwerks

If you are referring to events like Charlotte as proudly flocking, you do know there were a few hundred from across the nation and there were more journalists and counter protestors there by far, right?

Racists like that haven't been able to muster more than a few hundred at most for decades now.

They are a tiny margin at most.

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The dog-whistle theory implicates the dog-whistle theorist of racism more than the accused. It proves that the theorist tends to equate certain terms and ideas with certain groups, his own thoughts are his Rosetta Stone, but also evidence of someone else’s intentions.

Being able to recognize racism and dog whistles doesn't make one racist. Seriously? I grew up around entire communities of idiotic racists while seeing racism every day.

That I can notice it in others means I'm racist?

No, what ai said was assuming certain words implicitly refer to racial groups is racist. In the example I gave, the man said it was “pretty obvious” that “welfare queens” refers to minorities. Not only is that untrue, but it is racist.

I think a lot of your ideas about racism in the U.S. stem from having no actual experience with it. Certain phrases are racist, regardless of who uses them because of the history of that phrase and how it's been weaponized against people. Whether the person meant it to be racist or not is irrelevant in that context.

A lot of older people in the U.S. were raised in a time where things that are obviously racist now, were seen as not. My grandmother, who was a foster parent for kids of all colors for over 20 years and doesn't have a racist bone in her body, still makes racist comments, just because she's from a different time and doesn't see it as racist.

But that doesn't mean her comments about black people being able to smell snakes or whatever else she might say aren't racist, in 2017.

I know language and I know what racism is. Words could never be “weaponized”. Two, stuffing “history” into a word is a personal, subjective endeavour.

The fact is, certain words and phrases have different connotations depending on when and where they're used.

Do you feel the N word is inherently racist when a white person says it?

If black people can say it, then anyone else ought to be able to.

If no one else can say it, then it should be so bad that black people shouldn't be saying it either.

I don't care what their rationale is.

How things "ought" to be aren't how they are. To base your stance on that is making sure you're going to be wrong.

A slur is a slur. Don't you think?

I don't see Hispanics running around calling each other by their own racial slurs. I don't Asians doing it. I don't see whites doing it.

The only group I see that thinks they're clever by constantly slurring each other is black Americans.

Why is that?

a reply to: Hazardous1408

And because it's so vague, to try to prosecute someone in the court of public opinion over it also seems like a pretty sketchy tactic too.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The dog-whistle theory implicates the dog-whistle theorist of racism more than the accused. It proves that the theorist tends to equate certain terms and ideas with certain groups, his own thoughts are his Rosetta Stone, but also evidence of someone else’s intentions.

Being able to recognize racism and dog whistles doesn't make one racist. Seriously? I grew up around entire communities of idiotic racists while seeing racism every day.

That I can notice it in others means I'm racist?

No, what ai said was assuming certain words implicitly refer to racial groups is racist. In the example I gave, the man said it was “pretty obvious” that “welfare queens” refers to minorities. Not only is that untrue, but it is racist.

I think a lot of your ideas about racism in the U.S. stem from having no actual experience with it. Certain phrases are racist, regardless of who uses them because of the history of that phrase and how it's been weaponized against people. Whether the person meant it to be racist or not is irrelevant in that context.

A lot of older people in the U.S. were raised in a time where things that are obviously racist now, were seen as not. My grandmother, who was a foster parent for kids of all colors for over 20 years and doesn't have a racist bone in her body, still makes racist comments, just because she's from a different time and doesn't see it as racist.

But that doesn't mean her comments about black people being able to smell snakes or whatever else she might say aren't racist, in 2017.

I know language and I know what racism is. Words could never be “weaponized”. Two, stuffing “history” into a word is a personal, subjective endeavour.

The fact is, certain words and phrases have different connotations depending on when and where they're used.

Do you feel the N word is inherently racist when a white person says it?

It is a racial slur. All racial slurs are racist by definition.

But it's just a word, right? Isn't stuffing history into it a personal, subjective endeavor?

Or is it possible that certain words or phrases carry their own history, regardless of who says them?

a reply to: ketsuko

Black folks aren’t actually using the word as a slur though.
So I’m not sure you could really say they’re “slurring each other”..

It’s being used as a term of endearment to take the slur effect away from the word.
Usually ending in an A rather than ER.

Not many of my black mates even use the word though.

& I don’t feel left out if they do... as it’s not a word I would ever want to use.
That’s one gripe I’ll never understand with some white people.
They act like they’re missing out not saying the word.

That’s bizarre to me.

And because it's so vague, to try to prosecute someone in the court of public opinion over it also seems like a pretty sketchy tactic too.

That could be said of any number of things in political debate.


You want to kill babies.
You hate all Muslims.
You are a nut who does not care about gun crime.
You’re not a true Christian.
And so on...

All used to sway public opinion in the kangaroo court.

I don’t really have any sympathy for politicians, so I find it hard to care if they are judged publicly as well.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

Politicians have and will use rhetorical techniques. They’ve been doing so for thousands of years.

My concern is with the accusation, which is itself a rhetorical trick, a very pernicious and dehumanizing one. It’s picking up use as a dangerous fallacy.

Take this CNN segment.

Was “cherish our history” a Trump Dogwhistle?

The very question is pure speculation, but also evidence of people equating those words to race, not to trump dogwhistling.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

As far as I am concerned, the word has a meaning and the meaning right now is one that is derogatory to black people.

So yes, they are using a slur against each other.

It's like women calling each other slut and claiming it's empowering. No it's not. You're demeaning each other.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

...but also evidence of people equating those words to race, not to trump dogwhistling.

Devil’s advocate time;

Aren’t you doing exactly what you claim they’re doing?
Deriving a certain intent behind the person’s words without knowing their actual motive?

The reason I ask is because I don’t think for one second he actually believes that is what Trump was doing, rather I think that jackass is doing his own dog whistling by virtue signalling to a select base.

& who is to say whether I’m correct, or you’re correct...
We can only really go by our instincts.


Though I do understand your concern, I’m not sure there are many people worldwide who are on the fence anymore...
To me it seems like everyone has picked a side already...

So his accusation isn’t going to harm or help Trump.
It’s not likely to convince anyone of anything they didn’t already believe.