Talk:Dog whistle politics/Archive1

Dred Scott
Why is this here? The Dred Scott case was about blacks in the US and their inability to claim citizenship. 137.165.160.181 (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

... but the cat does exactly what it pleases &mdash; Unsigned, by: 82.44.143.26 / talk / contribs 16:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Lee Atwater
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."”174.77.62.107 (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)
 * Is indicating that oneself is a thing using codewords really a dog whistle?&mdash; Unsigned, by: 70.210.135.61 / talk / contribs

Reverted section
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 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 Zionist can be thrown around attacking anything and anybody vaguely Jewish or Israeli at any fitting opportunity.

So please, let's have a good honest civil discussion on whether antisemitic dog whistles exist and what does or does not constitute them Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 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...   17:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * So if understand your point correctly, you are against calling the term "Israel Lobby" dog whistle - despite it being used as such in most of Europe - but what about the other turns of phrase? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:59, 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. 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)