Talk:Code word

	This Language related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Unsuitable title

I'm really not sure of this title at all. A "code word" would be a conscious masking of a particular concept, while "dog whistle" accusations take in both that, and things that someone hasn't said.

One tactic of the far left these days is to ascribe certain ideas to anyone who gets in their path, regardless of whether they hold them or not. The opponent is then forced to backtrack and argue according to their framework. The accuser does not have to provide any proof of their accusation other than saying it is "implicit" (which means not directly said) or "unconscious" (usually relying on the accuser pointing to the person's skin colour or gender - without irony).

The danger here is that these accusations are often baseless. Trying to guess everyone's internal life is a zero sum game, because it is frequently wrong. It is also lazy and prejudiced thinking, because the accuser is thinking of the person in a a collective setting with a set menu of ideas, rather than as an individual with multiple influences and the ability to make decisions... Or even be misunderstood.-Albannach (talk) 12:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Almost. It's part of a larger class of rhetoric that comprise an "ad lingua" fallacy, so to speak. Instead of addressing the argument, someone would attack the language it uses - in this case by claiming that one means something entirely different from what one actually said. It's rhetorically effective because the claim is unfalsifiable and reinforced by media exposure, but only if you don't call it out as an unfalsifiable presumption that avoids the argument. Most of these tactics aren't actually hard to defeat. Censorship is the bigger danger. Accumulator (talk) 08:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Historical example

Arising from some of my historical research: politicians and others late 19th-early 20th century would sometimes refer to the inhabitants of the Workhouses (ie the very poor) as being 'pampered' by being given butter rather than (the then very cheap and nasty) margarine. Is this a codeword or 'a sort of snarl world'? Anna Livia (talk) 12:42, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Question in practical applications

Hey, I don't know if this is an appropriate place to ask, but a friend of mine is calling virtually everything he doesn't like 'Marxist'. Liberal policies of Democrats? Marxist. Woke culture and milion genders? Marxist. Every single thing that is being done by politicians that he doesnt like? MARXIST. Whenever asked opinion about something he just calls it 'Marxist' and assumes this is all the argument he needs to denote something as generally 'bad'. Does not describe why something that is Marxist is bad, he just calls it that. Is that dog whistle politics? As in, 'Oooh, its Marxist, obviously it must be horrible then' being his expected reaction. ^{— Unsigned, by: 109.249.179.186 / talk / contribs}

No, that's just intellectual laziness. They could probably come up with a better argument if they made an effort. Accumulator (talk) 09:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

The examples list

To we really need this enourmous, exhaustive list? GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 13:40, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

It's not like there's anything on the page that it's crowding out. But we could purge weaker entries. I'm about to remove one that's practically a duplicate. Chillpilled (talk) 13:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

So, about my recent edits…

Hey @Bongolian, what made you feel the need to rollback my recent edits to this page!? Even if there is something off-kilter there, refinement would be preferable to removal, and a rollback is just throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Again. --Luigifan18 (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Don't you have a topic ban because of that shit? Carthage (talk) 14:41, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that a topic ban is supposed to have exceptions just because you think an edit was good. And indeed, these recent mini-essays suffer from the same problems as the other ones: they are highly opinative and unsourced. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 14:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I can understand if you think that some of the side-notes are of questionable relevance, appropriateness, or factuality. I'm not claiming that my writing is perfect — far from it. I'm open to feedback on how the side-notes could be improved and/or more effectively integrated, and the whole point of a wiki is collaborative writing. But, again, rollbacking and wiping out the grammar fixes along with the side-notes is overkill. --Luigifan18 (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

How about you just don't add them? You've already been sanctioned (and blocked) for this. Carthage (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Carthage. We also went over the problems before, but in a nutshell: 1) stating the obvious ("We'll let you decide…" in the last instance) 2) redundancy (restating what has already been said) 3) no citations. Bongolian (talk) 22:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

@Carthage Uh… scorched earth probably doesn't count as constructive criticism. @Bongolian Unless you're referring to other articles where so-called mini-essays fell flat (e.g. Ark Encounter), I don't recall us "going over the problems" before. --Luigifan18 (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Your failure to listen to others has been noted before. The specific problems I noted above were also mentioned here, "As stated previously, the problem is the proliferation of your opinion in mainspace, which ranges from banal redundancy to unsubstantiated claims." (RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation/Archive74#) Bongolian (talk) 18:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not exactly a "contributive project" if you insist on adding shit to the wiki no other editor wants. Carthage (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

none of these are code words

they are just words. few if any show any attempt at obscuring a supposed intended meaning. most are pretty upfront about what they are they about. some are slogans. most are simply words and phrases used by fucknuts we dont like with a context that gives connotations we dont like or defined in ways we disgree with. these are not 'code words' in the way this article describes them as. the dog whistle examples are mostly fine, but the far too long particular examples section just are not. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:59, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

the new addition of pornography does not really work either imho. when the religious right dont say they dont like pornography, they arent lying, they dont like pornography. when they say they label lgbt materials in school as pornography, yes, they are equating with actual, or more charitably, what we would define as actual pornography, but they are extremely earnest in the belief that lgbt materials in schools is actual pornography. they believed lgbt people to be obscene. to be perverts, actual paedophiles grooming innocent children into a disgusting life of sexual perversion. they believe that lgbt rights is entirely sexual in nature, disgusting perverted sexual nature. charming childrens books depicting gay penguin is literal child abuse. drag queens doing kids books readings in libraries are literal paedophiles. the current focus on trans and lgbt in general is purely thats the current battle field for them. there is nothing coded about talking about porn in schools meaning lgbt books. they dont just say porn and leave it ambiguous, no plausible deniability. they spell it out very clearly so there is no misunderstanding. they are explicit in their hatred of lgbt folk. they really dont need any coded messaging here. they say pornography because they think us obscene and thus they think it is pornography. they also target school materials concerning any aspect of sexuality as obscene and pornographic.

i really dont think im nitpicking here and im really not trying to be, but there should be some kind test for these example we have, to decide is this a good example or is this something else thats close but not quite. dunno what that could be, but i would suggest the message should be hidden or obscured. if the people using a particular term are explicit in what they are talking about and not even remotely shy about, then its probably doesnt count as a code word. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:19, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

the examples in this list are something. they are doing things that should be noted somewhere. just not necessarily here. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:21, 31 August 2024 (UTC)