Talk:Dog whistle politics
I think that the term "academic freedom" fits the description of dog whistle politics. This term is used by creationists and ID proponents for bills that would allow the introduction of materials that question legitimate science (usually evolution, but also can be used to attack climate science or even U.S. history). The bills are introduced under the noble facade of fairness and open-mindedness, but are really used as back doors for teachers to posit religious "theories" as alternatives to established scientific ones.— Unsigned, by: 22.214.171.124 / talk / contribs
I don't feel this page would really be complete without his infamous quote
“You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."”126.96.36.199 (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
fringe christian sects?
First of all, is Pentecostalism as a whole really a fring sect? I'm pretty Pentecostalism is a mainline Protestant group. Second, dog whistle or not, it's not to do with politics, and the title of the article is "dog whistle politics." Maybe we could have a "dog whistle religion article," as I'm sure there are way way more religions than just Pentecostals doing woo-ish or evil shizz and using coded language to sound normal. Rand0 (talk) 10:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Eh, politics and religion are pretty much one in the same. Have been since religion and politics were born. --PosthumanHeresy (talk) 03:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I recently added the following text; it was reverted shortly thereafter. As to give no further ammunition to those calling me a troll, I shall post it below to have an honest discussion as to what is wrong with what I wrote.
Ok here comes:
==Antisemitic dog whistles == Modern day Antisemites like to cloth their Antisemitism in "respectable" words and as such rarely say "Jews". Usually some stand-in is attacked instead. Either the [[Bullshit|huge influence]] of "certain elements on the US East Coast" is bemoaned, or there is talk of an "Israel Lobby" stifling debate. And of course the trusty old word [[Zionism|Zionist]] can be thrown around attacking anything and anybody vaguely Jewish or Israeli at any fitting<ref>and often [[shoehorning|unfitting]] </ref> opportunity.
- I'm gonna crosspost this: Israel lobby? It's America. There's probably a fucking fried Oreo lobby. Unless context very plainly indicated otherwise, I would not take its invocation as a redneck joke... although it would make the basis of a decent one... WalkerWalkerWalker 17:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Anti-semitic dog whistles are already discussed within the article. Avenger, please read articles before adding duplicate content to them or suggesting things should be included that already are. This is at least the second time I've seen you do this. WeaseloidMethinks it is a Weasel 18:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- I guess this is nitpicking, but I think antisemitic dog whistles are common enough to merit their own section. And the current wording only obliquely alludes to the terms commonly employed, without mentioning them... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
The antisemitic dog whistle section
Well first of all the claim that anti-Zionism is a thinly veiled front for antisemitism in most cases was in the article for a long time, without even a hint of the "dubious" tag. Furthermore, the claim of an "Israel Lobby" is not exclusive to German language sources. I was trying to insert the source when some edit warrior unproductively blocked the page. Harrumph Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Is it just me, or have they just completely stopped caring about using this? Donald Trump supports having a nation-wide registry for Muslims and mosques. I mean, that's literally Hitler. You can't even pretend someone's exaggerating with a Hitler comparison. Donald Trump just abused Godwin's Law so hard, I have to understand why some think he's just a troll. --PosthumanHeresy (talk) 16:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- If he is a troll or not, the people who support him seem pretty honest and invested. I almost hope he wins the nomination, or runs independently, in order to show how much of the country would literally elect a Hitler like figure after spending a World War defeating those ideas. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 17:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- Even The Don has felt obliged to use the whistle in his slogan "Make America
WhiteGreat Again!" Bongolian (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
What about leftist dog whistle politics
This article seems slanted towards right-wing dog whistle politics. But what about leftist dog whistle politics? I'm talking about normalizing terrorist Satanic cults masquerading as religions and immoral sexual practices under the guise of TOLERANCE. Seems to me any site calling itself rational would include that under dog-whistle politics. Otherwise, call this site what it really is: BatShitCrazySJWWiki. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 18:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- "But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink!--JorisEnter (talk) 18:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)