Bad News, Everyone

[Thaluikhain]

IIRC, the tide pod challenge was more of a stupid joke than something people were doing in any number. Certainly, some people really were that stupid, but I think it was exaggerated.

By contrast, this is a real thing, and the symptom of a much larger problem, so I'd say even more stupid than Tide Pods.

 

[tstorm823]

Surprise, you knew exactly what the dog whistle was.

I missed this when you wrote it. Are you criticizing me for being against racism?

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

These incel guys can't get a woman so they get angry, that anger then scares off women. Its a vicious cycle.

 

[Silent Protagonist]

Surprise, you knew exactly what the dog whistle was.

I missed this when you wrote it. Are you criticizing me for being against racism?

I think the logic is that you were aware of a common argument made by racists, therefore you must be a racist, because only a racist would be aware that racists frequently point to crime statistics as some sort of proof of the inherent inferiority of certain races.

Also,what does "dogwhistle" even mean anymore? Is it just "talking about things I don't like" now? I don't see how pointing out that claiming that the overrepresentation of men in crime statistics is evidence that men/masculinity have some sort of inherent flaw is uncomfortably similar to the claim made by bigots that the overrepresentation of certain minorities in crime statistics is evidence of some sort of inherent flaw in those minorities is a dogwhistle

 

[Thaluikhain]

Also,what does "dogwhistle" even mean anymore? Is it just "talking about things I don't like" now?

No, it has not. Always good to dismiss something that way, though.

 

[Silent Protagonist]

Also,what does "dogwhistle" even mean anymore? Is it just "talking about things I don't like" now?

No, it has not. Always good to dismiss something that way, though.

I'm actually legitimately asking. I understand that may not have been obvious because I loaded that post with a counterproductive amount of snark but I am genuinely unclear what people mean when they accuse others of dog whistling. Some have told me that told me that dog whistles are these open secret code words or phrases meant to signal that you are a supporter of some sort of shameful ideology that needs to masquerade as something else as tin foil hatty as that sounds, but in practice it just seems to mean "argument made by those I politically disagree with". It didn't seem clear if either of those definitions made sense in the relevant post so I asked the question as it seemed like an odd usage of the term.

 

[Kwak]

CM156 is saying that just looking at simple crime statistics accounts for neither different societal circumstances experienced by different demographics, nor bias in the criminal justice system. And racists looking at that sort of data will tell you that black Americans are more criminal than everyone else because they're convicted of more crimes. And no honest and informed person should ever make that argument

My apologies. I've wrongfully accused you. My only excuse is your continued defence of Trump in the face of all evidence to the contrary confused and led me to conclusions that (hopefully) were not justified.

Also,what does "dogwhistle" even mean anymore? Is it just "talking about things I don't like" now?

No, it has not. Always good to dismiss something that way, though.

I'm actually legitimately asking. I understand that may not have been obvious because I loaded that post with a counterproductive amount of snark but I am genuinely unclear what people mean when they accuse others of dog whistling. Some have told me that told me that dog whistles are these open secret code words or phrases meant to signal that you are a supporter of some sort of shameful ideology that needs to masquerade as something else as tin foil hatty as that sounds, but in practice it just seems to mean "argument made by those I politically disagree with". It didn't seem clear if either of those definitions made sense in the relevant post so I asked the question as it seemed like an odd usage of the term.

Implied argument seemed to be 'if you accept this premise, then you must also accept this racially-based argument about propensity for crime'.
Which is definitely a dog-whistle - ie, a way of making racism seem a reasonable reaction to 'basic facts' (which are actually only 'facts' if you ignore a huge chunk of context and extra investigation into surrounding circumstances, which racists are of course extremely eager to do.)

Well that's my interpretation on the term in this context anyway, there are probably variations.

And I am cautiously optimistic that in this case, the phrase was not warranted and I was mistaken. At least I hope.

 

[Trunkage]

Also,what does "dogwhistle" even mean anymore? Is it just "talking about things I don't like" now?

No, it has not. Always good to dismiss something that way, though.

I'm actually legitimately asking. I understand that may not have been obvious because I loaded that post with a counterproductive amount of snark but I am genuinely unclear what people mean when they accuse others of dog whistling. Some have told me that told me that dog whistles are these open secret code words or phrases meant to signal that you are a supporter of some sort of shameful ideology that needs to masquerade as something else as tin foil hatty as that sounds, but in practice it just seems to mean "argument made by those I politically disagree with". It didn't seem clear if either of those definitions made sense in the relevant post so I asked the question as it seemed like an odd usage of the term.

Hey, do you know what a simp is?

 

[McElroy]

It's not surprising you end up with catastrophic expectations if you've been set up to fail by being pushed to pursue something you don't actually want and can't realistically achieve.

I really like this sentence. I have nothing to contribute here, but I wanted to tell you that this is a fantastic sentence that applies to really a lot of situations with societal expectations.

The sexist in me wants to say that women first "realistically" achieve what guys are pushed to pursue (casual relationships) and afterwards when they're done with that women again "realistically" achieve serious relationships with the men that are sad enough to settle for them.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I am genuinely unclear what people mean when they accuse others of dog whistling. Some have told me that told me that dog whistles are these open secret code words or phrases meant to signal that you are a supporter of some sort of shameful ideology that needs to masquerade as something else as tin foil hatty as that sounds

Well, that's something of a misrepresentation, but not a million miles away from what it means, yes. The term "dog whistle" is relatively new, but using innuendo to say something without expicitly saying something is probably as old as language.

 

[Silent Protagonist]

Also,what does "dogwhistle" even mean anymore? Is it just "talking about things I don't like" now?

No, it has not. Always good to dismiss something that way, though.

I'm actually legitimately asking. I understand that may not have been obvious because I loaded that post with a counterproductive amount of snark but I am genuinely unclear what people mean when they accuse others of dog whistling. Some have told me that told me that dog whistles are these open secret code words or phrases meant to signal that you are a supporter of some sort of shameful ideology that needs to masquerade as something else as tin foil hatty as that sounds, but in practice it just seems to mean "argument made by those I politically disagree with". It didn't seem clear if either of those definitions made sense in the relevant post so I asked the question as it seemed like an odd usage of the term.

Implied argument seemed to be 'if you accept this premise, then you must also accept this racially-based argument about propensity for crime'.
Which is definitely a dog-whistle - ie, a way of making racism seem a reasonable reaction to 'basic facts' (which are actually only 'facts' if you ignore a huge chunk of context and extra investigation into surrounding circumstances, which racists are of course extremely eager to do.)

Well that's my interpretation on the term in this context anyway, there are probably variations.

And I am cautiously optimistic that in this case, the phrase was not warranted and I was mistaken. At least I hope.

To be fair I think your interpretation was close but stumbled on the intent at the end. I think the implications was "if you accept this premise, then you also accept this racist argument that uses the same logic" but the intent was not to make racism seem reasonable, but to point out that the original argument was not reasonable. I think, based not only this thread but on the thousands of times I've seen this exact same argument/counterargument play out, is that it was meant to show that justifying sexism against men using crime statistics is wrong for much the same reasons justifying racism with crime statistics is wrong without actually taking the time to explain as the usually progressively minded individual making the former argument should already be aware of why the latter is crap

Also,what does "dogwhistle" even mean anymore? Is it just "talking about things I don't like" now?

No, it has not. Always good to dismiss something that way, though.

I'm actually legitimately asking. I understand that may not have been obvious because I loaded that post with a counterproductive amount of snark but I am genuinely unclear what people mean when they accuse others of dog whistling. Some have told me that told me that dog whistles are these open secret code words or phrases meant to signal that you are a supporter of some sort of shameful ideology that needs to masquerade as something else as tin foil hatty as that sounds, but in practice it just seems to mean "argument made by those I politically disagree with". It didn't seem clear if either of those definitions made sense in the relevant post so I asked the question as it seemed like an odd usage of the term.

Hey, do you know what a simp is?

Not literally but in practice that term appears to be the new version of cuck as best I can tell

 

[Avnger]

Also,what does "dogwhistle" even mean anymore? Is it just "talking about things I don't like" now?

No, it has not. Always good to dismiss something that way, though.

I'm actually legitimately asking. I understand that may not have been obvious because I loaded that post with a counterproductive amount of snark but I am genuinely unclear what people mean when they accuse others of dog whistling. Some have told me that told me that dog whistles are these open secret code words or phrases meant to signal that you are a supporter of some sort of shameful ideology that needs to masquerade as something else as tin foil hatty as that sounds, but in practice it just seems to mean "argument made by those I politically disagree with". It didn't seem clear if either of those definitions made sense in the relevant post so I asked the question as it seemed like an odd usage of the term.

You start out in 1954 by saying, "******, ******, ******." By 1968, you can't say "******" ? that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now, 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 "******, ******."

 

[tstorm823]

My apologies. I've wrongfully accused you. My only excuse is your continued defence of Trump in the face of all evidence to the contrary confused and led me to conclusions that (hopefully) were not justified.

You know, that's fair. I'm not one to defend racist things done by anyone including Trump, but I do defend Trump a lot, and he has done some racist things (that I won't defend), so I suppose I risk running into misunderstandings on that.

Then again, I'm probably about to get accused of defending racists for the next part:

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...

I can never see this Lee Atwater quote and not contextualize it. Lee Atwater gave that interview in 1981, he was a political consultant in the 80s. In the times he was describing, Atwater was a teenager in a garage band. This is not someone saying they personally enacted a dogwhistle strategy, this is someone claiming other people did that, but now he's different:

But the Reagans did not have to do a Southern strategy for two reasons.

Number one, race was not a dominant issue.

And number two, the mainstream issues in this campaign had been ?Southern issues? since way back in the 60s. So Reagan goes out and campaigns on the economics and on national defense, the whole campaign was devoid of any kind of racism, any kind of reference.

---
I'll say this, my generation, you're my generation, we're the first generation of Southerners that's not been racist.

The thesis of Atwater's claims in that interview is that southerners didn't vote based on racial issues by the 1980s.

Atwater was a political sleaze who calculated that it was easier to throw the Republican party of the past under the bus than it would be to convince people that someone like Barry Goldwater wasn't a racist. Which, to be fair, is probably true, that probably is easier to sell, but I wouldn't take his words as having any value.

 

[Avnger]

My apologies. I've wrongfully accused you. My only excuse is your continued defence of Trump in the face of all evidence to the contrary confused and led me to conclusions that (hopefully) were not justified.

You know, that's fair. I'm not one to defend racist things done by anyone including Trump, but I do defend Trump a lot, and he has done some racist things (that I won't defend), so I suppose I risk running into misunderstandings on that.

Then again, I'm probably about to get accused of defending racists for the next part:

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...

I can never see this Lee Atwater quote and not contextualize it. Lee Atwater gave that interview in 1981, he was a political consultant in the 80s. In the times he was describing, Atwater was a teenager in a garage band. This is not someone saying they personally enacted a dogwhistle strategy, this is someone claiming other people did that, but now he's different:

But the Reagans did not have to do a Southern strategy for two reasons.

Number one, race was not a dominant issue.

And number two, the mainstream issues in this campaign had been ?Southern issues? since way back in the 60s. So Reagan goes out and campaigns on the economics and on national defense, the whole campaign was devoid of any kind of racism, any kind of reference.

---
I'll say this, my generation, you're my generation, we're the first generation of Southerners that's not been racist.

The thesis of Atwater's claims in that interview is that southerners didn't vote based on racial issues by the 1980s.

Atwater was a political sleaze who calculated that it was easier to throw the Republican party of the past under the bus than it would be to convince people that someone like Barry Goldwater wasn't a racist. Which, to be fair, is probably true, that probably is easier to sell, but I wouldn't take his words as having any value.

I think I love this post because it so perfectly encapsulates you as a poster. You pretend to be just "giving context" while selectively editing the actual context and merging in your own narrative to come to the opposite conclusion of reality.

The Atwater quote I gave was an attempt to claim Reagan's narrative as no longer counting as racist to the (paraphrased but see full quote here) question "Doesn't Reagan appeal to the racists by using economic language?" Atwater claimed they weren't racists anymore by simple virtue of not using racist language (eg: n-word) or even racist-adjacent (eg: busing, states' rights), but they still win the same voters as everyone knows what they mean when they say "cut taxes" and "cut welfare" because it's coded language (ie: dog whistles).

 

[tstorm823]

I think I love this post because it so perfectly encapsulates you as a poster. You pretend to be just "giving context" while selectively editing the actual context and merging in your own narrative to come to the opposite conclusion of reality.

The Atwater quote I gave was an attempt to claim Reagan's narrative as no longer counting as racist to the (paraphrased but see full quote here) question "Doesn't Reagan appeal to the racists by using economic language?" Atwater claimed they weren't racists anymore by simple virtue of not using racist language (eg: n-word) or even racist-adjacent (eg: busing, states' rights), but they still win the same voters as everyone knows what they mean when they say "cut taxes" and "cut welfare" because it's coded language (ie: dog whistles).

You're right that it does encapsulate me as a poster. Because when I'm giving context, I think this is context [https://www.bradford-delong.com/2017/03/lee-atwater-interview-with-alexander-p-lamis-rough-transcript-weekend-reading.html]. Lee Atwater was patting himself on the back, not for pushing racism while using coded language to hide it, but rather for getting southern racists to vote for issues other than race. Lee Atwater wasn't describing how to secretly keep racism in politics, he was trying to brag about how they were taking racism out of southern politics.

Lee Atwater's conception of the southern strategy was phasing race issues out of politics. His argument was that they embraced racial issues in the 60s to steal voters from the southern Democrats, but afterwards worked to retain those voters while pushing the racial issues out of the discussion. He's not saying what you think he is.

 

[Agema]

Lee Atwater's conception of the southern strategy was phasing race issues out of politics. His argument was that they embraced racial issues in the 60s to steal voters from the southern Democrats, but afterwards worked to retain those voters while pushing the racial issues out of the discussion. He's not saying what you think he is.

I don't think he's saying that either. If anything, he's talking about dropping the more overt racial element to strategy because it doesn't work; it's reacting to changing voter attitudes that are becoming more focused on defence and economics.

So the piece suggests that he doesn't think there's a deliberate strategy - in this instance - to use dog whistles, it's just that Republican messaging is aligning very well with attitudes amongst certain voters on economics and defence. However, he certainly is explicitly accepting some degree of attraction to those voters that Reaganite policies are likely to hit blacks harder.

However, there is a wider pattern of Reagan's rhetoric. Political analysts knew from studies that if you talked about people on welfare to white Americans, they overwhelming tended to think of black people. "States rights" meant laws over race. Reagan was doing plenty that was pressing this sort of button. Sure, Atwater believed that race would ultimately die away as a meaningful vote winner. But it was still, to some degree, a button Reagan was pressing.

 

[tstorm823]

I don't think he's saying that either. If anything, he's talking about dropping the more overt racial element to strategy because it doesn't work; it's reacting to changing voter attitudes that are becoming more focused on defence and economics.

To be fair, for Republicans, that never worked in the first place. There was never a point where Republicans gained a dependable foothold anywhere through overt racial elements. The pre-civil rights racists in the South were also partisan Democrats.

So the piece suggests that he doesn't think there's a deliberate strategy - in this instance - to use dog whistles, it's just that Republican messaging is aligning very well with attitudes amongst certain voters on economics and defence. However, he certainly is explicitly accepting some degree of attraction to those voters that Reaganite policies are likely to hit blacks harder.

Reading the quote in context of the whole interview, that's not something he wants to say. He wants to say that they've changed the culture. That racial issues aren't what's important. That if you ask people what issues they care about politically, racial issues don't make the top 10. That they've taken the segregationist vote and focused them on other issues relevant to them. It's the interviewer who says that it sounds like they're still going after the racist vote, and Atwater on defense saying they took out the racism either way.

And like, if you go further down the piece, Atwater expresses hope of claiming the middle to upper class black vote. His political hopes rested in part on not digging a hole and burying the African American community in it. He wanted race totally out of politics.

However, there is a wider pattern of Reagan's rhetoric. Political analysts knew from studies that if you talked about people on welfare to white Americans, they overwhelming tended to think of black people. "States rights" meant laws over race. Reagan was doing plenty that was pressing this sort of button. Sure, Atwater believed that race would ultimately die away as a meaningful vote winner. But it was still, to some degree, a button Reagan was pressing.

Even if you believe all of that, Atwater definitely wasn't saying that. That's largely why using that quote as an admission of dogwhistle usage is so comical, Atwater was explicitly saying that they weren't racist or campaigning on racism.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Lee Atwater's conception of the southern strategy was phasing race issues out of politics.

What do you think that means?

For example, when Atwater says that racism was not a political issue in the south in the 40s and early 50s, what do you think he means by that?

It's not a hard question because he actually tells us. Racism was not a political issue in those decades because the southern democrat position was so secure, and because southern black Americans had so little political voice that race relations wasn't debated. It does not mean that racism did not exist in politics during those decades, in fact we know that it existed because segregation continued during this time without anyone in the political establishment challenging it.

From Atwater's standpoint, race wasn't a political issue in the 40s and early 50s because there was no explicit, overt political conflict around race. It became an issue in the late 50s, 60s and 70s because there were an explicit, overt political conflicts over segregation and the civil rights act. Atwood's argument is that these conflicts have now morphed into a class conflict, and thus that race is no longer an issue. But again, race was not an issue in the 1940s. Atwood is not saying that racism does not exist in the south, or that it's not a factor in people's voting behaviours, or that politicians don't knowingly exploit it, only that if it is it is "subconscious" (meaning it's not overtly discussed in terms of race).

And, other than misusing the term subconscious, he is mostly correct. Modern dog whistles, at least in mainstream politics, are more abstract than the old southern strategy. The southern strategy was about the explicit issue of segregation and civil rights, and those battles were lost by the time of Reagan. However, Reagan made extensive use of dog whistles to capitalize on the fear among white voters of "undeserving minorities" or stereotypes about black and latinx violence. Reagan popularized phrases like "welfare queen" and "law and order" and was one of the first presidents to campaign heavily on an anti-immigration platform. These are, as Atwood puts it, entirely about economics and security, but they also have clearly racialized meaning and resulted in policies which affected racial minorities negatively. White voters knew this. It might have been "subconscious", but it was definitely received.

 

[Trunkage]

Hey, do you know what a simp is?

Not literally but in practice that term appears to be the new version of cuck as best I can tell

Well, cuck would actually work better. Either way, there is a definition and a way that its used by certain groups. Simp is short for simpleton but is used to denote when someone are subservient to women (i.e. anyone who could be called progressive.) They are virtue signalling without trying to let their opponents know. (Virtue signaller being a lesser dog whistle). It doesn't take to long for the other side to figure out what happening so they have to change words.

'But in practice it just seems to mean "argument made by those I politically disagree with".' Oh wait, did I just quote you again? Too right. All these words are meant to denigrate liberals. Sure, calling them dog whistles might be doing the same thing, except maybe not denigrate - probably more ignore. Virtue Signaller probably is in the same boat as dog whistle, hence it being used more regularly. It more acceptable.

It's also weird that virtue signal, politically correct or dog whistle is only used against one side. Clearly the other side does the same thing (case in point, how transphobia want to regulate the language we use on people's genders, i.e. being politically correct or how lefties definitely have their own language when discussing issue but usually without denigration opponent). But that's a side issue.

 

[tstorm823]

From Atwater's standpoint, race wasn't a political issue in the 40s and early 50s because there was no explicit, overt political conflict around race. It became an issue in the late 50s, 60s and 70s because there were an explicit, overt political conflicts over segregation and the civil rights act. Atwood's argument is that these conflicts have now morphed into a class conflict, and thus that race is no longer an issue. But again, race was not an issue in the 1940s. Atwood is not saying that racism does not exist in the south, or that it's not a factor in people's voting behaviours, or that politicians don't knowingly exploit it, only that if it is it is "subconscious" (meaning it's not overtly discussed in terms of race).

Atwater explicitly says that Reagan was not exploiting racism. "So Reagan goes out and campaigns on the economics and on national defense, the whole campaign was devoid of any kind of racism, any kind of reference." You're welcome to not trust the source, I certainly don't, but it's clear to me he was not saying they used dogwhistles. And like, it's not as though that accusation was new. People accused Reagan of racist rhetoric in his promotion of small government federalism during his campaign a year prior, Atwater was more than aware of those accustions, and he was obviously trying to counter that narrative.

At least in mainstream politics, are more abstract than the old southern strategy.

I don't think there is such a thing as a modern dogwhistle in mainstream politics. I don't think it's possible. The idea behind a dogwhistle, I'll stick to race to make this sentence easier to formulate, is that you say something that signals your support for racists without being explicit so that the racists hear you but the regular people don't notice and aren't turned off by it. Donald Trump could say he likes hamburgers, and someone would figure out a way to make that racist and put it in the New York Times. There is nothing abstract enough to avoid criticism. It's a really common joke how amazing it is that Republicans use so many dogwhistles that only the left can hear.