The Canard of Dog-Whistle Politics

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

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.

Actually, yes you did. This is what you said:

The Dogwhistle theory stipulates that someone is sending racist messages.

That is factually incorrect. But at least you seem to have corrected that.

It is very difficult to have a decent discussion if people rely on factually incorrect statements and logical fallacies.

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?

I cannot say anything in regards to that specific term until I have looked in to it a bit more.

What I can say is that there are other terms or phrases used that do impart a racial aspect when used in certain contexts and depending upon the audience that is hearing it.

That is the term "thug".

While in and of itself it is not a racially-connected term, it is a dog-whistle term that, depending on the recipient of that term, can be used to refer to a criminal black young man.

a reply to: introvert

I cannot say anything in regards to that specific term until I have looked in to it a bit more.

You don’t need to. The words “law and order” do not nor could not contain coded racial messages.

CNN asked if “cherish our history” is a white supremacist dog whistle, and by doing so tacitly accused trump of sending secret messages to white supremacists, without any evidence that he was doing so.

The word thug can refer to any thug. The images that pop up in your head upon hearing the word represent your own thoughts, not someone else’s. That’s why we cannot accuse others with dog whistling without their explicit admission.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You don’t need to. The words “law and order” do not nor could not contain coded racial messages.

They very well could, depending on the recipient of the message and the context in which they understand the word is being used.

The word thug can refer to any thug.

True.

The images that pop up in your head upon hearing the word represent your own thoughts, not someone else’s.

Exactly. That is why dog-whistling works. Specific terms and phrases used in a certain context do appeal to those that will use that to create, in their own minds, certain "images".

While I understand that you are trying to turn it around back on those that discuss dog-whistling and point out it's usage, in doing so you are admitting that it does exist and it does work and could very well contain certain coded messages.

It's all about directing the specific terms and phrases to the specific people that will hear that dog whistle, knowing full well how they will interpret that message.

a reply to: introvert

They very well could, depending on the recipient of the message and the context in which they understand the word is being used.

According to Ian Haney Lopez, the recipients of the messages were his white supporters. The context was the 1968 elections. Nixon denied he was dog whistling.

Haney Lopez doesn’t explain how he know the words “law and order” are a dog whistle, or how he know that’s how Nixon intends it, he just makes the accusation. He assumes, without evidence, that “law and order” was meant to convey anti-black, anti-activist sentiment.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

According to Ian Haney Lopez, the recipients of the messages were his white supporters. The context was the 1968 elections. Nixon denied he was dog whistling.

Of course he would deny it, but even his own adviser, HR Halderman, admitted they employed this tactic. A quote from his own diary:

“You have to face the fact that the whole problem is really the blacks,” Nixon once explained to his chief of staff, H.R. Haldeman. “The key is to devise a system that recognizes that while not appearing to.”

www.thenation.com...

Haney Lopez doesn’t explain how he know the words “law and order” are a dog whistle, or how he know that’s how Nixon intends it, he just makes the accusation. He assumes, without evidence, that “law and order” was meant to convey anti-black, anti-activist sentiment.

I would disagree that there is no evidence. Unless Nixon's adviser's words are not considered as such.

Anyway, the point is that dig-whistling is real, it does work and there is no "canard" to speak of.

You have even admitted it.

a reply to: introvert

Of course he would deny it, but even his own adviser, HR Halderman, admitted they employed this tactic.


“You have to face the fact that the whole problem is really the blacks,” Nixon once explained to his chief of staff, H.R. Haldeman. “The key is to devise a system that recognizes that while not appearing to.”


www.thenation.com... 

That’s false. This is not a reference to the rhetorical tactic, but to a “system”. Given that in the next sentence he references Liberia, it’s clear he’s speaking about policy, not word tricks to appeal to racist voters.

Anyway, the point is that dig-whistling is real, it does work and there is no "canard" to speak of. 

You have even admitted it. 

I admitted no such thing. You said it was par for the course long before you started scouring google for examples. You simply reiterated the theory and used the same examples proponents of the theory use, and pretended it was a refutation of my arguments, none of which you have addressed.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

This is not a reference to the rhetorical tactic, but to a “system”. Given that in the next sentence he references Liberia, it’s clear he’s speaking about policy, not word tricks to appeal to racist voters.

It is reference to a mindset, which lends itself to the dog-whistle tactic.

You recognize a perceived problem, which in Nixon's case was black people, without appearing to refer to the color of people being part of the problem directly.

So you have the racial aspect proven, by his own adviser, and a tactic in which race is referred to, but not directly.

I admitted no such thing.

Yes, you did. This is what you said:

The images that pop up in your head upon hearing the word represent your own thoughts, not someone else’s.

And my response to it:

Exactly. That is why dog-whistling works. Specific terms and phrases used in a certain context do appeal to those that will use that to create, in their own minds, certain "images". While I understand that you are trying to turn it around back on those that discuss dog-whistling and point out it's usage, in doing so you are admitting that it does exist and it does work and could very well contain certain coded messages. It's all about directing the specific terms and phrases to the specific people that will hear that dog whistle, knowing full well how they will interpret that message.

You said it was par for the course long before you started scouring google for examples.

Yes, you were provided with links to many examples. And instead of refuting the examples you used a logical fallacy against the source.

You simply reiterated the theory and used the same examples proponents of the theory use, and pretended it was a refutation of my arguments, none of which you have addressed.

Your arguments appear to be rooted in logical fallacies. The biggest one being that saying a politician or person used the tactic is only a matter of assumptions or guesswork, unless the person admits to using the tactic.

The examples you cite as being only theory show how the tactic has been used.

a reply to: introvert

It is reference to a mindset, which lends itself to the dog-whistle tactic.

You recognize a perceived problem, which in Nixon's case was black people, without appearing to refer to the color of people being part of the problem directly.

So you have the racial aspect proven, by his own adviser, and a tactic in which race is referred to, but not directly.

It is no secret that Nixon harboured racial views. The racial aspect needs not be proven. What needs to be proven is that he or anyone else is speaking in coded phrases in order to appeal to a segment of the population. Your example proves no such thing. Even if it did, it says nothing to your sweeping claim that dogwhistles are par for the course, a claim which you have yet to back up.

Yes, you were provided with links to many examples. And instead of refuting the examples you used a logical fallacy against the source.

I provided links with many examples of people accusing others with dogwhistles. In each case, none of the could prove the intention of the accused. In each case they attribute motive.

Your arguments appear to be rooted in logical fallacies. The biggest one being that saying a politician or person used the tactic is only a matter of assumptions or guesswork, unless the person admits to using the tactic.

Every single argument you've made was fallacious. For instance you say something is a fallacy without showing how.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

What needs to be proven is that he or anyone else is speaking in coded phrases in order to appeal to a segment of the population.

Halderman said it best. Devise a system that recognizes certain aspects while not appearing to do so. That has been used in dog-whistle tactics for some time, and not just the Right.

Your example proves no such thing.

It is proof that Nixon used the same rhetoric and tactics that appealed to a section of the population with such phrases as "states rights", etc. That term is directly tied to states rights in relation to segregation.

Even if it did, it says nothing to your sweeping claim that dogwhistles are par for the course, a claim which you have yet to back up.

Even if it did, that would make your point moot. Which it is.

There is no "canard". There is only willful ignorance.

I provided links with many examples of people accusing others with dogwhistles. In each case, none of the could prove the intention of the accused. In each case they attribute motive.

Ok. In the case I mentioned you resorted to a logical fallacy in response.

Every single argument you've made was fallacious. For instance you say something is a fallacy without showing how.

I showed you earlier. You used an ad hom fallacy followed with a loaded question.

a reply to: introvert

Even if it did, that would make your point moot. Which it is.

There is no "canard". There is only willful ignorance.

There is a canard and here you are supporting it without evidence.

Your fallacies are false. Again, you yelled out fallacy without showing showing how it is a fallacy. You're imputing fallacy to a view with which you disagree but without doing anything to show that the view rests on any error of reasoning.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

There is a canard and here you are supporting it without evidence.

You've been shown evidence and even given an example in which the tactic was employed.

Your fallacies are false. Again, you yelled out fallacy without showing showing how it is a fallacy.

I explained the fallacies and even gave their proper name. Ad hom and an informal fallacy in the form of a loaded question.

You're imputing fallacy to a view with which you disagree but without doing anything to show that the view rests on any error of reasoning.

No. I am pointing out your logical fallacies and giving you examples/sources in which your basic assertion is incorrect.

What you are doing is sticking your fingers in your ears and refusing to "listen". Dog-whistling in politics is not something new. It's been around for a long time. As I said earlier, it's a very elementary propaganda tactic. What you are saying is that it cannot be true because we cannot or do not know the intent of the person accused of dog-whistling.

Which of course is illogical in and of itself.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You've been shown evidence and even given an example in which the tactic was employed.

You have provided no such thing. You searched google for things that affirmed your predetermined belief, yet neither piece of your evidence show how any of the words I provided as examples is a dogwhistle, or that they were intended to be a dogwhistle.

I explained the fallacies and even gave their proper name. Ad hom and an informal fallacy in the form of a loaded question.

Nowhere did you show an error in my reasoning. You just falsely listed fallacies as if that was enough.

No. I am pointing out your logical fallacies and giving you examples/sources in which your basic assertion is incorrect.

False.

What you are doing is sticking your fingers in your ears and refusing to "listen". Dog-whistling in politics is not something new. It's been around for a long time. As I said earlier, it's a very elementary propaganda tactic. What you are saying is that it cannot be true because we cannot or do not know the intent of the person accused of dog-whistling.

Which of course is illogical in and of itself.

Again that is untrue. It is not a very elementary propaganda tactic. Neither did I say something cannot be true because we do not know the intent. This is what I said if you need to jog your memory:

There is zero evidence beyond explicit admission that people are speaking in secret code, nor any rational reason to believe “dog-whistle politics” is a real phenomenon. Used as it is, in combination with guesswork and projection and question-begging, the mere suggestion of “dog-whistle politics” is not a statement regarding states of affairs, but is a form of surreptitious sophistry used to draw relatively reasonable people away from considering the arguments of their opponents.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You have provided no such thing. You searched google for things that affirmed your predetermined belief, yet neither piece of your evidence show how any of the words I provided as examples is a dogwhistle, or that they were intended to be a dogwhistle.

I believe that is called an unwarranted assumption fallacy. You have no way of knowing if I googled it or not.

Nowhere did you show an error in my reasoning. You just falsely listed fallacies as if that was enough.

I did so in the 6th post I made in this thread. You are welcome to read it again.

False.

Denial with no explanation of the error in reasoning.

Again that is untrue. It is not a very elementary propaganda tactic.

Now I understand this better. You are not up-to-date on propaganda and the techniques used.

ok.

Again that is untrue. It is not a very elementary propaganda tactic. Neither did I say something cannot be true because we do not know the intent. This is what I said if you need to jog your memory:

You also said this:

That’s why we cannot accuse others with dog whistling without their explicit admission.

So we cannot know it to be true unless they admit it, or openly express their intent.

a reply to: introvert

I believe that is called an unwarranted assumption fallacy. You have no way of knowing if I googled it or not.

That's true. That also applies to people who believe the dogwhistle theory. They have no way of knowing the intentions of the speaker unless they admit it.

Now I understand this better. You are not up-to-date on propaganda and the techniques used.

ok.

I'm very up to date. I think it is the other way around.

So we cannot know it to be true unless they admit it, or openly express their intent.

That's more like it.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

They have no way of knowing the intentions of the speaker unless they admit it.

So intent is important, huh?

Anyway, I've grown bored of the logical fallacies, false accusations and lack of basic understanding of propaganda. Not to mention that you just completely contradicted yourself. I'll move on and hope to find a conversation a bit more honest and stimulating.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

They have no way of knowing the intentions of the speaker unless they admit it.

So intent is important, huh?

Anyway, I've grown bored of the logical fallacies, false accusations and lack of basic understanding of propaganda. Not to mention that you just completely contradicted yourself. I'll move on and hope to find a conversation a bit more honest and stimulating.

Yes if I intend to mean one thing, and you take it to mean another, that’s your own fault. And if you accuse me of sending racist codes, you are further culpable. That’s the whole point.

You have nothing. You don’t know what fallacies are. You do not follow the most basic logic. You perpetuate a myth and lie to support it.

I suspect “stimulating” conversation for you is whatever serves your self-interests.

Here’s some recent dog whistle theorizing, and it sounds a thousand times worse than the theory they are attempting to mock. They are goading each other into fits of laughter over nothing beyond the fantasies they are espousing.