[silvat]

I really hate this dog whistle crap that I keep hearing. It's like a more intellectual version of 'so what you're really saying is <something you did not explicitly say>'. I don't know how it ever became a legitimate thing to say but I keep seeing it used to brandish anybody, who's opinion is not completely in line with standard left ideology, as some sort of bigot in hiding.

I don't agree so much with the parts you quoted but it should be obvious to a reasonable person that somebody could have those opinions and not be a white supremecist.

It really is scary to me how quickly people will throw around these accusations

Believe it or not, you do not have to be a white supremecist to be sympathetic with

[woodruffw]

> I don't know how it ever became a legitimate thing to say but I keep seeing it used to brandish anybody, who's opinion is not completely in line with standard left ideology, as some sort of bigot in hiding.

To be absolutely clear: everything I've said (or asserted) as been liberal at most. Nothing about is is particularly left or left-leaning, regardless of my personal politics. This is an important distinction, especially in the context of reactionaries who like to bemoan the death of the West (which, of course, originated political liberalism).

> I don't agree so much with the parts you quoted but it should be obvious to a reasonable person that somebody could have those opinions and not be a white supremecist.

This is why they're dogwhistles. They exist in a space of plausible deniability, and only become obvious to those who (1) keep up with what reactionaries are doing, or (2) are themselves reactionaries.

Standing completely alone, they're merely concerning. With the other components attested in both the posts and this thread, they're clearly intended to signal fellowship with some reactionary group.

[silvat]

I would argue that the concerning thing is that when accused of dogwhistling, while plausibly deniable, is also completely irrefutable. How can I show you that the text is not secret code words?

I have only come across the great replacement theory twice and both times it was in this exact context. Somebody being accused of dogwhistling to it. Small sample size for sure, but also a strange phenomenon no?

I think what you are engaging in is quite dangerous and I believe it must come from a real ignorance of the other side's way of thinking.

You think, to have those opinions, they must have some underlying racist beliefs, and lo and behold, you find the evidence in the most innocuous of places.

This is McCarthyism 2.0.

[woodruffw]

> I would argue that the concerning thing is that when accused of dogwhistling, while plausibly deniable, is also completely irrefutable. How can I show you that the text is not secret code words?

Once again: it’s patterns of phrases and contexts. Dogwhistles only work because of plausible deniability and people like you.

> I have only come across the great replacement theory twice and both times it was in this exact context.

This is a testament to ignorance, not the evidence that you think it is. The existence of this conspiracy theory is well attested online, as are its standard dogwhistles.

> This is McCarthyism 2.0.

If “McCarthyism 2.0” means “having some private schlub call you out on your pseudonymous account for being racist (or playing into racist language),” then the real McCarthyism must have been a real cakewalk. Funnily enough, that’s not how I learned about it.

[silvat]

I apologize if my comments before were a bit on the scathing side. I really am just a bit shocked that this way of reasoning had become commonplace.

I would like to ask you, do you think that somebody could write the article and not have the beliefs you are asserting?

Imagine if I am pushing for some version of universal health care. Most of the rhetoric around such a topic will refer to things like equality, private industry exploiting the people and the poor getting the worst of it. All fairly standard and not necessarily untrue. What would you say to somebody that claims this to be dog whistling to communists. You say, 'no of course that's not he means. He means what he says'. Then they say he's using code words that give these fair normal statements a double meaning that are a signal to those in the know.

I don't see what you can do about this situation. This kind of tactic is really shady. You pass them an unprovable accusation that they can't even defend. But the accusation is usually of something so slanderous that, even if they are absolved of guilt, a certain amount of damage is already done.