It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Everyone who disagrees with me is Dog Whistling!

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 05:05 AM
a reply to: Grambler

only response appropriate :

35khz for 1.5 seconds at 95db

posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 05:32 AM
a reply to: Grambler

The public shift towards religious and racial intolerance has semi-legitimised a few voices. You should be careful who share your platform with.

We've got triumphant Trump supporters on ATS who aren't racists and who sincerely believe that he's going to make America a better place. When he's talking about deporting the illegal immigrants, they're on cloud nine and thinking it'll boost their income and quality of life. It isn't necessarily based on a hate or prejudice against South Americans per se.

He's talking about banning Muslims from entering the US. Some of our Trump fans dislike the religion and cheer for that even if they aren't racist.

The thing is, the policies above are also favoured by white supremacists.* We've got them in the UK, France, Sweden and Germany. The Chinese and Indians have similar groups of ethnic supremacists. "Deport foreigners and block all immigration." This means you're sharing common ground with a section of society that most people revile. They aren't your friends; they are fellow travellers.

The occasional charges of 'dog whistling' exist because of this. You and others might be celebrating the planned deportations of x millions for utterly nonprejudiced reasons and a percentage are joining you because they want a race war. I've heard the dog whistle on ATS and elsewhere. You're wrong to say the argument of dog whistling is 'unacceptable' because it's a reality.

Your politics might have only slightly overlapped those of supremacists in the past. Here in 2016 the overlap is much greater and makes a portion of your support base active, card-carrying and proud racists...and they are dog whistling.

ETA - * 'nationalists'
edit on 9.3.2016 by Kandinsky because: added extra term

posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 09:42 AM
a reply to: Kandinsky

Again, read what I said.

Only the dogs hear the whistle.

If someone says something, and you are the one who hears the racism, what does that make you? It doesn't necessarily make the person who speaks the racist, but it's pretty clear what you heard or think you heard.

Now, let's be clear. I am not calling you a racist because I can't read your mind, but I am saying that you are viewing things through a racial lens. You are very much reading others' intent based on the impact you allow them to have on you, and when you start going down that route, it is impossible for anyone else to ever speak freely around you again.

Because no one can read your mind or heart. I cannot know for sure what words or terms or phrases you will hear a "whistle" too that will then cause you to label me a racist or some other unsavory term.

Do you understand that danger?
edit on 3-9-2016 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 10:04 AM
a reply to: ketsuko

I hadn't read your post in the first place but I will.

The point I'm making is, yes, there are actual racists. They exist and want one-colour nations. They don't like people with other coloured skin and they really hate immigration. I'm not making this up. There are actual groups of people who live by these ideas.

For the first time in a long, long time some of their beliefs are overlapping with some of the current popular political sentiment.

It means that whilst some non-racist people are whooping about Trump's immigration policies so are the ones who celebrate racism. I'm not sure how you can't see the point and find myself blaming my ability to write coherently.

The platform of anti-immigration is a broad one. It not only includes rational, non-racist also includes hateful, racist people.

I'm not seeing racism in everyone's posts nor elsewhere around the internet. I'm not saying every Trump supporter is a closet hater or white nationalist. Never have either. What I'm saying is there are some amongst the supporters who have a more extreme agenda and, yes, some are dog-whistling away. Don't forget that staff remove posts you might not see so this argument I'm making is not based on the wishful thinking and projections of a racist-in-denial.

If this helps you...I also think there are people on the Left who extremists too. Moderates of whatever political bias are fine. We should be wary that extremists sometimes share the same platform.

posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 10:11 AM
a reply to: Kandinsky

Yes, but you can very much say the same about Hillary's supporters too.

If there are real racists hiding behind a politician, then it happens, but you can't say unsavory people only support one politician or another. There are some very hateful elements in the LGBT, Feminist, Latino, Black and similar advocacy groups who line up to support Clinton.

So I'm not sure what your point is.

You could just as easily be lecturing both sides for having backers who support ugly ideology, but you make it a point to lecture one?

Out of 350 million people in this country, there are going to be ugly ones, no doubt. So I guess my question is who embraces it. I guess you think Trump does because you again hear the "whistle" in his words, but you know what? I hear "whistle" in Hillary's words too. I don't think I like the things her words imply either and I think she encourages the ugly elements of those movements I mentioned above to support her.

So perhaps we are at an impasse with this?

posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 11:31 AM

originally posted by: ketsuko
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.

The term obviously comes from an analogy to actual dog whistles. I assume we can at least agree on the meaning of analogous?

Are you autistic? I won't bother debating the issue with you if you've got some form of impairment that renders you incapable of conceiving of anything in all but the most literal sense. That would certainly explain your apparent inability to appreciate that words have meaning beyond their denotations.

If that's not the case then I can only assume that you're being intellectually dishonest.

Of course people other than the intended audience can pick up on dog whistles used in rhetoric because unlike actual whistles designed to produce tones in frequencies humans can't hear due to physiological limitations, political dog whistles have nothing to do with physics or human physiology.

This ain't rocket science folks. In fact, dog whistles at their most basic are something as simple as the use of words and phrases which carry particular connotations among members of a specific group.

Are you going to argue against the existence of connotations next? How about inneundo, intimation, insinuation and implication? Completely inaudible to you as well?

posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 11:42 AM
a reply to: theantediluvian

Well, duh, it's analogy and I just spent that entire post explaining why it's a BAD one.

If hearing the so-called "secret code" is what makes it dog whistle, then if everyone hears it BUT the so-called racist, it's a piss poor code. So more or less, in order for something to be dog whistle, you have people outside the so-called code "cracking" it by claiming a word or phrase or position is "dog whistle" because they can hear it.

But if they hear it and the code, which is supposedly secret, keep in mind *wink, wink, nudge nudge*, is that easy to crack and never changes, then what is the point of it? Does it actually exist outside the minds of those who claim they "hear" it?

And that implies THEY are the ones who are the real racists viewing everything through their own, personal racial lenses.

Can I make that anymore clear or do I need to figure out how to use words of single syllable?

posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 12:39 PM
a reply to: ketsuko

Can I make that anymore clear or do I need to figure out how to use words of single syllable?

Says the person feigning ignorance of the nuances and complexities of human speech.

But if they hear it and the code, which is supposedly secret

Still pretending?

You can't acknowledge any racial component to right-wing political rhetoric in general so how the hell could you own up to the existence of dog whistles?

I bet if I said that Clinton making reference to hot sauce in her bag was a dog whistle to black voters, you'd undersand exactly what I meant and you'd probably agree. Funny that because I'm not black and neither are you.

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in