The Canard of Dog-Whistle Politics

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

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.

He was talking about how the dog-whistle tactic has worked and how it related to the Republicans.

That is still in play today.

Dog-whistling, whether about race or any other issue, is par for the course.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

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.

He was talking about how the dog-whistle tactic has worked and how it related to the Republicans.

That is still in play today.

Dog-whistling, whether about race or any other issue, is par for the course.

I’m open to any contrary evidence. Unfortunately I don’t see how repeating a claim lends to its truth.

a reply to: ketsuko

As far as I am concerned...

You might as well have said you don’t believe in the evolution of words.

Fact is, etymology is a very real thing.
& the word we are discussing is not an exception to that.

I don’t think your concerns concern those who are taking he derogatory power away from the word.

It's like women calling each other slut and claiming it's empowering.

It’s actually quite a common thing here in London for groups of female friends to all refer to each other as “bitch”.
Make of that what you will.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

It’s a matter of deduction. The very accusation requires that they themselves connect the words to the racial group. If they didn’t, why would they make the accusation?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I’m open to any contrary evidence.

Contrary evidence to what, specifically?

Unfortunately I don’t see how repeating a claim lends to its truth.

I provided a link to at least one example.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I’m open to any contrary evidence.

Contrary evidence to what, specifically?

Unfortunately I don’t see how repeating a claim lends to its truth.

I provided a link to at least one example.

An example of a dog-whistle, and why it is a dog whistle would be a good start.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The very accusation requires that they themselves connect the words to the racial group. If they didn’t, why would they make the accusation?

I can only repeat myself...

To make that deduction you yourself have to assume they even believe the accusation they are throwing out or whether they’re just virtue signalling to another base.

“Cherish our history” doesn’t even refer to a racial group...
If he actually believes his accusation it’s more likely based on racist culture of the past rather than a victimised group...

So he wouldn’t even be “connecting the words to the racial group”, as you say.

He’d be connecting it to a policy within the “history cherished”, in his mind.
& not because he “cherishes” that part of “history”, but because his paranoia drove him to think the worst...
Maybe the slavery, or the genocide of natives...
Rather than actual cherishable history like civil rights or emancipation.

It makes no logical sense to think that Trump cherishes slavery or genocide...
Nor than when he says that he is targeting the neoNazis.
That’s what actually leads me to believe he is virtue signalling rather than making an accusation he actually believes.


Does any of that make sense?
I feel like I just wrote a bunch of words, but I honestly did try to make sense. Lol.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

An example of a dog-whistle

Again, I provided a link to an example. Here is another one, if you so need:

billmoyers.com...

and why it is a dog whistle would be a good start.

It's a dog whistle because it uses terms or phrases that triggers specific feelings or responses from the targeted audience.

Pretty basic propaganda tactics.

a reply to: introvert

Pretty basic propaganda tactics.

Yeah, I’m pretty sure Hitler used to do it before he had enough power to be overtly demonic.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

But I can call myself all kinds of things and claim that I am "evolving" the language and removing the derogatory connotations by using them myself and if I am the only one doing it and no one else agrees, it doesn't happen.

I would think if you asked a lot of people outside the racial group in question, you might find they hold a different opinion of the use of that word.

Also, women aren't the only ones who freely use the word "bitch" in reference to women and no one apparently seems to care about it. Want to guess which group does it ... again with impunity? Do you think that's empowering? And when you have two groups using the word so prominently, don't you think the language is "evolving" to be rather confusing, especially considering the now quite complex rules of usage and lack of context one has when viewing that word in print.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

An example of a dog-whistle

Again, I provided a link to an example. Here is another one, if you so need:

billmoyers.com...

and why it is a dog whistle would be a good start.

It's a dog whistle because it uses terms or phrases that triggers specific feelings or responses from the targeted audience.

Pretty basic propaganda tactics.

Again, Lee Atwater was speaking about the 50’s And 60’s. A link to Ian Haney Lopez, a believer in the theory, is not an example nor evidence.

How about the phrase “law and order”. How is this phrase racist code?

Just enclose a word in three parentheses. That's a dog whistle for the "Jewish conspiracy".

Dog whistle right there, most people don't know what it means or understand what they're seeing -- but those that do are "clued in".

ITT: A lot of people who likely will get invites to /r/iamverysmart on Reddit.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Again, Lee Atwater was speaking about the 50’s And 60’s.

The time frame in which it occurred is irrelevant to my point. The point is that you asked for an example and were provided it.

A link to Ian Haney Lopez, a believer in the theory, is not an example nor evidence.

That is an ad hom fallacy. You are going after the source without considering the content or substance of their work.

How about the phrase “law and order”. How is this phrase racist code?

That is a loaded question, in that it implies the phrase alone is potentially racist in it's usage. Which it is not.

Whether or not it is used as a dog-whistle depends on other factors, such as the whom is using it, the context in which they use it and the audience that is hearing it.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Again, Lee Atwater was speaking about the 50’s And 60’s.

The time frame in which it occurred is irrelevant to my point. The point is that you asked for an example and were provided it.

A link to Ian Haney Lopez, a believer in the theory, is not an example nor evidence.

That is an ad hom fallacy. You are going after the source without considering the content or substance of their work.

How about the phrase “law and order”. How is this phrase racist code?

That is a loaded question, in that it implies the phrase alone is racist in it's usage.

Whether or not it is used as a dog-whistle depends on other factors, such as the whom is using it, the context in which they use it and the audience that is hearing it.

I asked for an example of a dog-whistle, not someone talking about the theory.

I just read his book not two days ago. My OP is a direct response to it. I don’t need to watch the videos because I’ve already watched all of them.

The Dogwhistle theory stipulates that someone is sending racist messages. What racial message did Nixon hide in the phrase “law and order” in 1968, and what evidence do you have to support the claim?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I asked for an example of a dog-whistle, not someone talking about the theory.

They gave examples.

I just read his book not two days ago. My OP is a direct response to it. I don’t need to watch the videos because I’ve already watched all of them.

Ok, but my assertions still stands.

You used a logical fallacy in your response by going after the source and not providing any claim as to why his assertions are incorrect.

The number of videos you have watched is irrelevant to the point. Simply watching some or all of them is not any sort of argument against his claims.

The Dogwhistle theory stipulates that someone is sending racist messages.

Incorrect. The theory does not stipulate that race has to be an issue at all. It is just one aspect that can be used to push the practice of it.

Dog-whistle politics is political messaging employing coded language that appears to mean one thing to the general population but has an additional, different or more specific resonance for a targeted subgroup. The phrase is often used as a pejorative because of the inherently deceptive nature of the practice and because the dog-whistle messages are frequently distasteful to the general populace. The analogy is to a dog whistle, whose high-frequency whistle is heard by dogs but inaudible to humans.

The term can be distinguished from "code words" used in some specialist professions, in that dog-whistling is specific to the political realm. The messaging referred to as the dog-whistle has an understandable meaning for a general audience, rather than being incomprehensible.

a reply to: ketsuko

But I can call myself all kinds of things and claim that I am "evolving" the language and removing the derogatory connotations by using them myself and if I am the only one doing it and no one else agrees, it doesn't happen.

Sure thing, ketsuko.

However, there isn’t many people who do not “agree” with fact that many black folks use the word to remove the derogatory connotations it holds.

& it’s pretty suspect behaviour to be against their attempts to do so...
What reason would people have not to agree?

There are no “rules of usage”... with the word we are discussing.
Nothing is stopping anyone from saying it, in whatever context they desire...
Nothing but their own preconceived notion of what consequences, if any, may occur.

I’ll say what I said last time, I find it bizarre that anyone who isn’t racist or black would want to even use the word in the first place.
Very bizarre indeed.

Jeez...
We are way off topic now.


Sorry, Les.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I asked for an example of a dog-whistle, not someone talking about the theory.

They gave examples.

I just read his book not two days ago. My OP is a direct response to it. I don’t need to watch the videos because I’ve already watched all of them.

Ok, but my assertions still stands.

You used a logical fallacy in your response by going after the source and not providing any claim as to why his assertions are incorrect.

The number of videos you have watched is irrelevant to the point. Simply watching some or all of them is not any sort of argument against his claims.

The Dogwhistle theory stipulates that someone is sending racist messages.

Incorrect. The theory does not stipulate that race has to be an issue at all. It is just one aspect that can be used to push the practice of it.

Dog-whistle politics is political messaging employing coded language that appears to mean one thing to the general population but has an additional, different or more specific resonance for a targeted subgroup. The phrase is often used as a pejorative because of the inherently deceptive nature of the practice and because the dog-whistle messages are frequently distasteful to the general populace. The analogy is to a dog whistle, whose high-frequency whistle is heard by dogs but inaudible to humans.

The term can be distinguished from "code words" used in some specialist professions, in that dog-whistling is specific to the political realm. The messaging referred to as the dog-whistle has an understandable meaning for a general audience, rather than being incomprehensible.

As I stated, my whole OP is an argument against his claims.

I did not say that race has to be an issue. I’m using race as an example, as it’s the most common one used as an accusation.

An example, as given by Ian Haney Lopez, is “law and order”. Again, what racial message did Nixon hide in the phrase “law and order” in 1968, and what evidence do you have to support the claim?

Awesome thread, LM!

The left have their own whistles too.

Like, "we are a nation of immigrants"

Social justice.

Immigrant rights.

Politically correct.

Comprehensive immigration reform.

Fair share.

Sanctuary city.

It's been debunked.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

People would not agree because of the double standard surrounding the word's usage.

How many times do kids grow up in mixed company with friends using each others' language and slams and then get into trouble because they find out that some words can't be used depending on race? If our aim is to eventually move beyond racism, how does that help?

a reply to: CynConcepts

The fallacy in this in a civil society vs wild nature is what we are seeing more and more in today's world. No one is taking what anyone says at face value...it is all supposedly a secret code for something else.

What the question should be is...how do we get beyond this thought process and trust?

We really can't get past it because this increasing uncivil society has rapidly devolved into identity politics. People are immediately pre-judged by their tribal, (racial or age related) identity.

Alll of which is why when in public, I say nothing at all. It also explains why increasing numbers have lost any interest in what happens to this society of dog eat cat personal politics but rather prefer to remain remote and above the fray, which does at least present interesting optics.