[MockObject]

> Why doesn't dog-whistling count as explicit pandering to white Americans?

Because why do they have to dog whistle about it? Why do they have to resort to subtlety at all?

It's forbidden from public discourse to such an extent that can only be found between the lines, hidden in vague allusions, or more likely, asserted as baseless accusations slandering conservative politicians, while the GOP explicitly tries everything it can to promote their non-white figures.

[lasfter]

If you read the examples I gave above, they're not vague. Dog-whistles are more for plausible deniability than subtlety, and it's because (shocker) white supremacy is frowned upon. If you think liking white people requires openly advocating white supremacy, and anything else is an implicit statement that you don't like white people, then that really says more about you than anything else.

They try to promote their non-white figures because their agenda and campaigning for the most part is so overwhelmingly targeted toward white voters that they have horrible reach into other demographics.

This is like the Black Lives Matter vs All Lives Matter debacle. Minorities are brought into the spotlight because there are systems and large groups of people actively working against them. Meanwhile, you don't need to "promote" whiteness, because that's seen as the default in America.

[MockObject]

> Dog-whistles are more for plausible deniability

But why? If this is really the majority sentiment, why on earth leave any room for plausible deniability?

> their agenda and campaigning for the most part is so overwhelmingly targeted toward white voters that they have horrible reach into other demographics.

Not really, though. Voting levels are low enough that they could conceivably focus their energies simply on getting more non-voting whites to vote.

[lasfter]

> But why? If this is really the majority sentiment, why on earth leave any room for plausible deniability?

If you read the comment you're replying to, it answers that question immediately.

> Not really, though. Voting levels are low enough that they could conceivably focus their energies simply on getting more non-voting whites to vote.

They could, but their agenda fits white people better, for reasons that are evident to anyone with critical thinking skills. Hint: think about the dog-whistling some more.

[MockObject]

Culture is not required to take subterfuge in dog whistles. Only counterculture is.

Culture is what's uncontroversially and fearlessly blasted on front pages, and on mainstream TV.

> They could, but their agenda fits white people better, for reasons that are evident to anyone with critical thinking skills.

Evidently the millions of non-white Republicans, and the millions of white Democrats, all lack these critical thinking skills, then.

[lasfter]

> Culture is not required to take subterfuge in dog whistles. Only counterculture is.

> Culture is what's uncontroversially and fearlessly blasted on front pages, and on mainstream TV.

My comments on dog-whistling were specifically targeted toward the one commenter talking about how politicians don't seem to care about white people.

If you want to go back to the broader discussion, on culture, then yes I agree. And what is blasted on front pages and mainstream TV is overwhelmingly white, with tiny pockets dedicated to other groups. To say that "whiteness" is a counterculture is absurd.

As an aside:

> the millions of white Democrats

The Democrat agenda also fits white people better than non-white people, though they make more effort than Republicans to acknowledge minorities.

As for why non-white Republicans vote that way, maybe they miss the dog-whistles, or maybe they think the racism of the party isn't directed at them (e.g., since they're "one of the good ones") or that it's outweighed by other factors (i.e., they hate taxes), or maybe they think the Republicans are the better of two evils. Not really relevant, since they aren't in this discussion. Do you have the critical thinking skills?