Talk:Dog whistle politics

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Academic Freedom

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: 129.33.1.37 / talk / contribs}

The fact we are saying academia should be "unfree" shows how far down the rabbithole we are now. We've ended up now in a scenario where "freedom of speech/expression" etc is treated as a dog whistle, but censorship and partisan information control are branded "fact checking". (Even when completely subjective)-Albannach (talk) 11:18, 3 December 2020 (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)

Outdated?

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 White Great 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. 204.184.14.150 (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)

Uh, what??? Do you mean to say the people who put this site together did so while drunk? No surprise there. 204.184.14.150 (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

If you have any factual examples, please provide them. However, as you sling the term "SJW" as a knee-jerk pejorative (and have provided none in the intervening 3½ years), I'm willing to bet you actually have nothing. Also fixed your indent for you. Twentydragon (talk) 22:09, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I take it this was a parody post! However, if there are left wing dog whistles, I would include the following - "social construct", "tinfoil hat" (sometimes applied to not so bat-crazy ideas), "fact checking" (which is not always balanced or subjective), internalised X (often someone outside a group criticising someone inside that group for not knowing that group), "no platforming" (often avoiding debate or closing down opposite opinions), and "intersectional".

The main problem with the left is the constantly shifting vocabulary. What's in one week is out the next. A lot of people just say LGBT+ now because that acronym changes constantly and is becoming longer, and some people will attack you for not using the correct term.-Albannach (talk) 18:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

far-right dogwhistles reference page?

would anyone care if i tried to create a comprehensive page of far-right dogwhistles as a reference? i see lots of summaries of what dogwhistles are but no good reference. -B ^{— Unsigned, by: 73.48.181.57 / talk / contribs}

See also Alt-right glossary and Manosphere glossary. FuzzyCatPotato of the Inexperienced Dwarfs (talk/stalk) 07:19, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Create an account, do it in userspace. Evil Zionist (talk) 00:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Naive question

Is "community organizer" really a dog-whistle term? Because I thought Barack Obama was literally a community organizer. ^{— Unsigned, by: 174.214.13.27 / talk}

As with all terminology, including "dog-whistle", context is king. You will find legitimate uses of it but too many times these terms are used to mask the deeper intentions beneath. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 21:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Non-dog whistles

When is a dog whistle not a dog whistle? This article is not sceptical enough in that regard. A common left wing debating technique nowadays is to accuse people of saying all kinds of things when they haven't said them, and then watch then work backwards as they try and defend things they haven't actually said.

If you haven't said something directly, or at all, there is a very good chance that no such meaning was intended in the first place. It's often a form of gaslighting along with being accused of various unconscious biases (which may or may not be real)-Albannach (talk) 11:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

See BabyLuigi’s answer in the section just above this one: Context is crucial here. Depending what you mean by ”When is a dog whistle not a dog whistle?”, I’d say, “when there is no clear subtext being hinted at”. However, if someone uses common dog whistle terms like those listed in the article within the kind of context mentioned, then they’re either being extremely careless in their choice of words or, well, dog whistling.

An example of a sort of “reverse dog whistling” is the claim that any criticism of big finance/Wall Street (e.g. “banksters”) is in and of itself an example anti Semitism, because it must always be coded language referring to the “Jewish banker stereotype”, no matter the context. This attempt at conflating any criticism of financial speculation, big banks, or similar “casino capitalism” with anti Semitism, by “playing the dog whistle card”, regardless of actual context, is a simple rhetorical device to dismiss such criticism out of hand, to tarnish such views in general and thus placing them outside the Overton Window. Oh, and I’ve typically seen this tactic used more on the right than on the left, btw. ScepticWombat (talk) 14:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I can remember when criticism of big business was what the left wing did, now it seems to be linked in with supposed anti-Semitism even when you're referring to non-Jewish businessmen. But when someone has a Jewish background like George Soros, Henry Kissinger etc, then there are still legitimate criticisms of them not related to that fact. I might be doing so for the same reason I would criticise the Koch Brothers, who are not Jewish AFAIK and at the other end of the political spectrum- undue influence, astroturfing etc.-Albannach (talk)