Beware of Accusations of Dog-Whistling

NOS4A2

The accusation of “dog-whistling” has been used in political discourse for decades, seemingly without any pushback. Used as it is, as a means of accusing an opponent of ulterior motives and secret, often racist messaging, the phrase has become common in politics.

In the book Dog-whistle politics, author Ian Haley-Lopez provides the reader with historical examples of “dog-whistling”. For example, whenever Nixon used the phrase “law and order”, he was implicitly and secretly signalling to white racists that he would protect them from black folk and other minorities. “Law and Order” did not signify law, order, or any combination thereof. Instead it was a wink-wink, nudge-nudge between racists. Nixon, of course, denied the charge, even accusing dog-whistle theorists of reverse racism because it assumes that minorities do not want law and order.

Given Nixon’s plausible deniability and explicit denial, the veracity of the dog-whistle accusation becomes harder to prove. Is there any evidence that his phrase “Law and Order” was intended to appeal to racists? How could such an accusation be proven?

It’s not like they have some Rosetta Stone with which they can translate these secret messages. Nonetheless, according to American linguist Geoffrey Nurnberg, the hidden racism is “pretty obvious”, not a matter of fact but of gut feeling.

“This was a new maneuver in modern American political rhetoric. Even in the South, most Americans had repudiated explicit racism. Now, crude appeals to bias had to be replaced by phrases that obliquely brought racial images to mind. People often describe these phrases as racial dog whistles, which send a signal that's only audible to one part of the audience. But their racial connections are usually pretty obvious to everyone. You don't need a Captain Midnight decoder ring to know that "welfare queens" or "inner-city culture" are references to minorities, no more than to know that "Park Avenue" is a reference to the rich.”

https://www.npr.org/2016/07/28/487560886/is-trumps-call-for-law-and-order-a-coded-racial-message

By Nurnberg’s own admission, his only evidence is that upon hearing the words in question they “brought racial images to mind”. That’s why it was “pretty obvious” to him that “welfare queens” and “inner-city culture” equals minorities, because his own thought process tends to equate the word to the racial images that show up in his mind.

But the racial—indeed racist—images that pop into his head upon hearing certain words is not evidence that the speaker intended him to think that way. “Welfare queen” might just allude to people on welfare, no matter their color. In fact, Nurnberg’s admission that he thinks “racial images” when he hears the phrase “welfare queen” says a great deal more about his own racism than that of the speaker’s. Accusing someone of “dog-whistling” is, in that sense, more an an admission of guilt than an indictment on someone else.

So we should ask: If dog-whistle politics is a thing, why is it the accuser’s ears are always ringing?

HarryBalsagna

I think being unaware or ignorant of the connotations of certain phrases is its own kind of historical or racial insensitivity. I think it depends on who is using them and how they are used. If you’re saying they’re just innocent coincidences when speaking about their use by an experienced commentator or pundit, or an elected official, then you’re deluding yourself. That being said, there are those in the OPed media that will find some crumb of something akin to this and make it into an issue when there is none.. but more often they are calling someone out for using these types of terms in order to avoid full blown overt racism, sexism, or any other bigotry.

Just like with an actual dog whistle, it is not the blower that hears the shrill sound.

ssu

But the racial—indeed racist—images that pop into his head upon hearing certain words is not evidence that the speaker intended him to think that way. “Welfare queen” might just allude to people on welfare, no matter their color. In fact, Nurnberg’s admission that he thinks “racial images” when he hears the phrase “welfare queen” says a great deal more about his own racism than that of the speaker’s. — NOS4A2

You forgot the most important quote from Nunberg:

The important thing is that they leave you room to deny the associations to yourself and to others. And they provide the opportunity for a kind of rhetorical jiu-jitsu in response, where you turn the charge of racism against your critics. Somebody taxes you with racism for a remark about bands of youths in hoodies, and you indignantly point out that Mark Zuckerberg wears a hoodie too — and they're the one with race on the brain.

In my view the whole dog-whistle thing just shows how inflamed and defunct the current debate has become in the US. And we outside of the States are unfortunately mimicking you. In fact, one shouldn't even define it as a debate anymore. It's one of those things in the long line of ways how to dominate the discourse.

BC

↪NOS4A2

Political obsessions come and go, which is not to say they are meaningless or irrelevant factors. Racism, white supremacy, misogyny, "homophobia", transsexuality, any inequality, etc. are the current obsessions of the liberal-left. From the late 1940s to the early 1960s the obsessions of the conservative right were communism, subversion, dangerous homosexuality, beatniks, the sterility (or promise) of suburban housing, and corporate careers.

There's usually some reality underlying the political obsession.

Political obsessions are clubs with which to beat the opposition over the head. The obsessions may have some validity. There were some communists and homosexuals in the State Department in the 1950s. That they were not much of a threat to anyone was beside the point. The USSR did project subversives into the United States--as we did into the USSR. Real Politic business as usual. Beatniks actually were criticizing America in poetry and music. None of the reality remotely merited the hysteria and ruined careers.

Political obsessions are more about appearances than substance. Smashing white supremacy will deliver no material benefits to the brown people who are allegedly being oppressed by white devils. We can bend over backwards to accommodate transsexuals, but the fact is that sex is genetically determined and can not be changed. A good share of gender-talk is just plain bullshit.

tim wood

So we should ask: If dog-whistle politics is a thing, why is it the accuser’s ears are always ringing? — NOS4A2

Ans.: if it walks, talks, and quacks like a duck, then there's a good chance it's a duck, and it is not necessary to be a duck to recognize it.

We're living in an era of modern sophistry, the deliberate attack - war - on and destruction of meaning in service of an agenda. Long ago I wondered why the Greeks got so worked up about it; now I know.

Trolling is just minor key sophistry, but no less hateful for it.

3017amen

↪NOS4A2

I think the accuser's ears are always ringing, as you say, because there's usually wrongdoing of some kind. Take for example, the current President's history viz. racism. Unfortunately, as you pointed out in the article, the codes used by Nixon are very reminiscent here:

A Secret Racist Code

The lawsuit—which Trump Management settled in 1975 with a consent decree, and which they noted at the time did not constitute an admission of wrongdoing—detailed numerous instances of a racial code that Trump-owned buildings allegedly used to indicate if an applicant was black or otherwise “undesirable.”

A super who worked for the Trumps, Thomas Miranda, allegedly told the DOJ that Trump Management staffers had instructed him to “attach a separate sheet of paper to every application submitted by a prospective ‘colored’ renter.”

“Miranda was to write a ‘C’ in order to indicate to management that the prospective renter was ‘colored,’” the DOJ noted in court documents.

Elyse Goldweber, an attorney on the case, claimed Miranda had been reluctant to talk to her and have his name disclosed because “he was afraid that the Trumps would have him ‘knocked off.’” Miranda was also allegedly afraid to reveal to the Trumps that he was Puerto Rican and instead told them he was South American because he thought they “did not want Puerto Ricans living or working in the building,” according to Goldweber’s documentation.

In another instance, Goldweber said, Miranda told another tenant that Trump’s central office did not want him to rent to an Indian man—and that they only agreed to rent to the individual after they found out he had United Nations connections and that a rejection “might cause an unnecessary confrontation.”

I believe this was settled out of court. It's a shame tax dollars were waisted to litigate it. Swamp in, swamp out I suppose.

Do you think the taxpayer deserves better?

Tzeentch

In this era of mudsllinging and false accusations, I'll think twice before believing tales of "hidden messaging."

3017amen

↪Tzeentch

I'm curious, is there something there that doesn't seem right?

god must be atheist

For example, whenever Nixon used the phrase “law and order”, he was implicitly and secretly signalling to white racists that he would protect them from black folk and other minorities. — NOS4A2

For this to be true, some poeple must have told all supremacist whites, that "law and order" is a wonk-wonk nudge- nudge. Without explicitly agreeing on this, or explicitly discolosing this to white supremacists, the meaning would never be transmitted.

This iis a password-type situation, or entry-code situation. In my building there are approx. 50 tenants; there is a passcode which is supposed to be secret, only to be used by building management; and yet at least 10 people in the building know the code.

That means, that the desired amount of people who must know the code, but nobody else, is 1 person. Yet 10 people know it.

Obviously it ahs been leaked.

If Nixon's code was indeed a code, it would have been leaked. But it was not.

So I call bullshit on the opening post. Nixon or his advisors couldn't have approached all white supremacists (WSs) and tell them in secret. If this happened, then some Not WSs would have been approached, and told; they would have clear evidence, which they would have reported. But no report was ever made, and therefore no evidence.

The rumour is an urban legend, a false conspiracy theory.

Tzeentch

↪3017amen

Apart from accusations based on nothing but baked air?

3017amen

↪god must be atheist

Any thoughts on the secret code viz. property management?

3017amen

↪Tzeentch

I'm not following that, could you explain?

Echarmion

For this to be true, some poeple must have told all supremacist whites, that "law and order" is a wonk-wonk nudge- nudge. Without explicitly agreeing on this, or explicitly discolosing this to white supremacists, the meaning would never be transmitted. — god must be atheist

So, If that is how language works, how do children learn the meaning of words?

If Nixon's code was indeed a code, it would have been leaked. But it was not. — god must be atheist

If it hadn't leaked, how would we be talking about it?

3017amen

↪tim wood

"Ans.: if it walks, talks, and quacks like a duck, then there's a good chance it's a duck, and it is not necessary to be a duck to recognize it."

Well said. In life, sooner or later, the truth eventually comes out.

3017amen

↪Bitter Crank

" From the late 1940s to the early 1960s the obsessions of the conservative right were communism, subversion, dangerous homosexuality, beatniks, the sterility (or promise) of suburban housing, and corporate careers"

Agreed. It kind of reminds me of the far-right evangelical base. Do you think they are more, or less, judgmental than they used to be?

"There's usually some reality underlying the political obsession."

I agree. It is safe to say, the 'code' that the OP posits, is apparently alive and well.

Tzeentch

↪3017amen

What's hard to understand?

Radical ideologues will see racism or sexism in anything, and taking unsubtantiated claims of 'secret messaging' seriously gives them a card-blanche to start throwing accusations at anyone they do not like.

Beware of people who urge you to beware of accusations of dog whistling. Especially if they're big supporters of Trump and Brexit.

NOS4A2

↪god must be atheist

It was a fake, invented accusation based on zero evidence beyond the accuser’s skull.

I forget who it was, some Nixon fan, but he asked someone who levied the accusation “How do I say ‘law and order’ and still mean law and order”?

3017amen

↪Tzeentch

I apologize, I'm not following that. Are you saying that those people lied? How do you know? Did you talk to them?

↪NOS4A2

If so, it doesn't make sense. There was a settlement that suggested wrong doing. Mmmm.

Hey NOS, please help shed light on this??? What do you know about this?

god must be atheist

If it hadn't leaked, how would we be talking about it? — Echarmion

By imagining it was a code and acting on our imagination.

If that is how language works, how do children learn the meaning of words? — Echarmion

Okay. You are a bit deft. "ACREW" is the password to my laptop, to my computer, or to my iPhone? If you guess it right, you are a genius.

Coded language only works if there is preagreement on the code. Although I was a child once, I would never have guessed that "law and order" means "Relax, White Supremacists.".

When YOU were a child, and someone said to you, "law and order", was your immendiate reaction to think "huh, this is a message to white supremacists"?

You... don't know how children learn the language, either.

god must be atheist

“How do I say ‘law and order’ and still mean law and order”? — NOS4A2

:up:

Echarmion

Coded language only works if there is preagreement on the code. Although I was a child once, I would never have guessed that "law and order" means "Relax, White Supremacists.". — god must be atheist

And what if someone deciphers the code, who was not a member of the group that originally agreed on it? Clearly, the coded language "works" for them, so there must be a way to establish the code besides express verbal agreement.

Pfhorrest

It's a different matter when we're talking about political officials who should know better as part of their job, but I have a first-hand anecdote about people using things that were very intentionally created as dog-whistles without realizing they were doing so. You know the triple-parentheses thing that racists do around the names of Jewish people, like "(((Zuckerberg)))" and such? I ran across someone on a gaming discord using it, and when I confronted him about it and cited a website describing its usage and origins, he was aghast because he had just seen other gamers using it and thought it was basically a form of emphasis like *asterisks* or /slashes/ or something. Had no idea he was making himself look like a racist and thanked me for informing him.

god must be atheist

Clearly, the coded language "works" for them, so there must be a way to establish the code besides express verbal agreement. — Echarmion

So what is the way to establish the code translation? Please tell us.

Clearly, the coded message works for them, you, @Echarmion say. But how do you know that? You are not only imagining that there is a coded message, but you are imagining that it has an effect on white supremacists, but it has no effect on non-white supremacists, white non-supremasists, and on non-white non-supremasists.

You know all of a sudden claim to know the precise thoughts are of several millions of people.

What is my thought right now? If you know it, I shall cease and desist. If you can't guess it, you cease and desist.

BC

card-blanche — Tzeentch

people hate this, but it' is "carte blanche" -- the 'e's are silent, short or soft 'a'. It means unconditional authority; full discretionary power. It's what Donald Trump thinks he has,

NOS4A2

↪Pfhorrest

It's a different matter when we're talking about political officials who should know better as part of their job, but I have a first-hand anecdote about people using things that were very intentionally created as dog-whistles without realizing they were doing so. You know the triple-parentheses thing that racists do around the names of Jewish people, like "(((Zuckerberg)))" and such? I ran across someone on a gaming discord using it, and when I confronted him about it and cited a website describing its usage and origins, he was aghast because he had just seen other gamers using it and thought it was basically a form of emphasis like *asterisks* or /slashes/ or something. Had no idea he was making himself look like a racist and thanked me for informing him.

Get this, but the “OK” symbol is now a hate symbol, according to the ADL.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/26/us/adl-new-hate-symbols/index.html

Just like one cannot use three brackets, one cannot put his index to his thumb.

god must be atheist

↪NOS4A2

I also heard that "card-Blanche" is used by extreme supremacists only. It is a secret sign to designate their belonging to the group.

I also heard "It's a nice day, isn't it?" is a code between anarchists, communists, and revolutionary bolsheviks (but not Trotskiites!! Very important!) to identify themselves to others in a crowd.

While if someone opens his or her speech with "Ladies and gentlemen", then he or she is secretly a loyalist to the crown crownie, who wants to bring back British rule of the sovereign to North America.

god must be atheist

More revelations to the "Great unwashed":

"Part for the course" is a secret sign among Maoists to identify their stand on "rice or buffalo".

"I'll slap you into next Tuesday" is a verbal way of mothers to protest the recently imposed increases of import tariffs on natural sand, complicating US-Belize trade links.

The general use of "went" instead of "gone" as in "I've went into the store" is a secret sign which means that the person uttering it spent more time daydreaming about sexual relations with the teacher in grade three than reading the text.

Echarmion

So what is the way to establish the code translation? Please tell us. — god must be atheist

Context and non-verbal communication.

Tzeentch

I apologize, I'm not following that. Are you saying that those people lied? How do you know? Did you talk to them? — 3017amen

We do not know if they lie. We do not know if they speak the truth either. Sadly, in this day and age there is plenty of motivation to lie about these things, thus unsubstantiated accusations should be looked at with much skepticism.

3017amen

↪Tzeentch

Sure that's why we have the various processes in place for vetting as it were.

Beware of Accusations of Dog-Whistling

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions