 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: hearing, or not hearing, threats
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
It is very common indeed in political speeches. For years, speeches about fighting urban crime (especially addressed to rural white audiences) has meant 'do something to keep those awful black people in their place.'
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
moonlitdoor--
Maybe things are different in the UK. But here in the US, there definitely are dog whistles in politics, religion, etc. Think of them as subtext, cues, and code.
Possible UK examples: British nationalist groups. I bet they have a lot of dog whistles in their messages to their followers. And I bet both sides in Brexit/Bremain do, too. Dog whistles aren't limited to bad causes, and they aren't necessarily bad. Depends on their use.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
moonlitdoor--
Maybe things are different in the UK. But here in the US, there definitely are dog whistles in politics, religion, etc. Think of them as subtext, cues, and code.
Possible UK examples: British nationalist groups. I bet they have a lot of dog whistles in their messages to their followers. And I bet both sides in Brexit/Bremain do, too. Dog whistles aren't limited to bad causes, and they aren't necessarily bad. Depends on their use.
And Dobson has a long history of saying nasty things, and espousing nasty ideas.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Whoops, sorry! There was a connection burp. If a passing H/A has a moment to delete the first of my last two posts, that would be great. Thx.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
For years, speeches about fighting urban crime (especially addressed to rural white audiences) has meant 'do something to keep those awful black people in their place.'
Rural anxiety about urban crime is as old as cities.
Your "dogwhistle" is inferring a racist subtext even when there isn't one.
If you value dialogue then you have to listen to what people actually say rather than indulging in paranoid fantasies about their underlying meaning.
Moonlitdoor is right - this is not good. It's a licence to think others worse than they are. It both reflects and encourages the polarisation of political discourse in the US.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
The person refusing to recognize what Dobson is actually saying is you, Russ:
quote:
If this had happened 100 years ago, someone might have been shot. Where is today’s manhood? God help us!
That screed by Dobson is hardly an invitation to dialog; I think even he would be insulted to hear that was your takeaway from something titled "PROTECT YOUR KIDS FROM TYRANT OBAMA".
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
The other truth is that the victims of dogwhistles are not stupid. They hear the malice and the message. All the veil does is give the perpetrators deniability. It was just a joke, how come women are so sensitive, huh? Those Jews, so picky! (In fact women are well used to this; object to a comment in the street about your boobs and hey, I was just being nice!)
And therefore, if you want to talk with them, maybe you choose your words more carefully. It's a truly lousy witness, to offend and alienate the sheep.
The whistlers aren't fooling anybody: A callout for Christians who demonize and denigrate.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Why the difference in perception? What are people hearing, or failing to hear? And why?
I think a lot of the difference in perception comes from a combination of the linguistic community the person commonly moves in and their past experiences.
IRL, I move in a linguistic community in which far more explicit threats than these are uttered on a regular basis. For the most part, no one takes these threats seriously (they chalk it up to the person talking shit) because few people ever follow through. I know how to code switch and talk like an educated middle class person, but I semi-regularly get in trouble on the ship and get accused of being angry and immediately taking things to DEFCON 1 when I forget to code switch and simply post the way I and the people around me talk.
Black kids are routinely advised to speak middle-class English (especially when talking to white people) because too many people find the color of their skin threatening by itself; it’s even more threatening is when it’s combined with unfamiliar linguistic habits.
Talking and listening to the Trump supporters I know IRL, I think a lot of his popularity comes not from the fact that people agree with his policies, but from the fact that a very small percentage of people (college-educated Americans, particularly those working in the media) have been attempting to impose their linguistic traditions on the majority for far too long, and people are simply sick of it. At this point they’d vote for anyone who said ‘you know what, fuck you, we’re done.’ Accusations of racism, misogyny, homophobia, etc. are thrown around so casually that they no longer mean anything (which is a shame, because these are useful words to describe things that do exist). Talk of dog whistles (the elites know what you’re really saying and what you really mean better than you or your listeners, peon, and btw you’re no better than a dog) don’t help. People are sick of kafkatrapping.
I didn’t think the video was a dishonest twisting of Trump’s views (with that description I was expecting snips of Trump quotes taken out of context). More an example of shameless, blatant, emotional manipulation.
I loathe Dobson, think his opinions on most things are vile, and that he’s wronger than a wrong thing that is mistaken most of the time. But I can’t see the threat in what he wrote. He doesn’t really seem to mention actual transgender people much at all (in reality, I doubt he believes they exist - he likely thinks that anyone who legitimately believes that they are the wrong gender for their biological sex is simply mentally ill). Mostly he seems to be railing against Obama and his rule by executive order, regardless of the needs of any particular community that order affects, and discussing his fear of straight, non-transgender perverts taking advantage of the rule change. And, much as I hate to admit it, that is something we need to be aware of as we move forward. If we’re going to turn all bathrooms and locker rooms into mixed gender environments, we’re going to have to come up with ways to deal with the people who will try to take advantage of that. It’s a cost/benefit analysis: are the number of trans people who will benefit from being able to use the bathroom of their choice greater than the number of people who might be harmed because there are some completely unethical jerks in the world?
But I’m just not seeing a threat directed towards trans people.
And, to be quite honest, I’m extremely nervous at the expanding definition of what counts as ‘violence’ and ‘threatening’. Overuse risks the terms being watered down to the point of meaninglessness (seriously, can’t we say that something is wrong and one ought not to say or do it without describing it as violent or threatening?) And given the disastrous state of our criminal injustice system, accusations of violent or threatening behavior can have serious consequences for the accused. But my perception on that is no doubt skewed from having to answer a bunch of questions from the police about a post on social media where I mentioned that I wanted to know what God wanted me to do (this apparently is the kind of thing people say just before or after they go on a shooting spree, and is therefore threatening). I also live in a city where (mostly) black men are frequently beaten or killed by the police because they’re perceived as threatening. It’s just not the kind of accusation I think should be thrown around lightly.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
For years, speeches about fighting urban crime (especially addressed to rural white audiences) has meant 'do something to keep those awful black people in their place.'
Rural anxiety about urban crime is as old as cities.
Your "dogwhistle" is inferring a racist subtext even when there isn't one.
If you value dialogue then you have to listen to what people actually say rather than indulging in paranoid fantasies about their underlying meaning.
This seems to require us to believe that there is no such thing as euphemism, or if there is it's something universal and not culturally specific.
Let's take a look at a specific example:
quote:
A few years ago*, Starbucks opened a store in Harlem. They decorated it differently and proclaimed it their first "urban" store.
This, despite the fact that Starbucks have infested every major American city for years. They meant something else.
So, did Seattle-based Starbucks mean that none of its stores prior its Harlem location were located in cities? Even minimal familiarity with their corporate history and business model would seem to indicate this to be false. And yet it's the only interpretation open to us if we adhere to your standard of only "listen[ing] to what people actually say", without looking for "underlying meaning". Our problem here is that the claim that its Harlem location is Starbucks' first "urban" location defies a non-euphemistic understanding.
--------------------
*The store in question opened in 1999, but that was only "[a] few years ago" when the passage cited was written.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Rural anxiety about urban crime is as old as cities.
And in Ireland, where both rural and urban populations are overwhelmingly white, you are quite correct. However, there is a very different context in North America.
quote:
Your "dogwhistle" is inferring a racist subtext even when there isn't one.
In North America, we have vast rural areas with sparse populations, most of which are overwhelmingly white. They lean Republican. There are many large urban centres with very diverse populations, and many of them lean Democratic. In North America, "rural" means nice, wholesome, hard-working white people who go to church on Sunday and own several guns. "Urban" means black and Latino, and may also include queer, feminst, liberal, college educated, pro-gun control, pro-choice, etc. When Ted Cruz used the words "New York values", he didn't mean a sale at Macy's; he meant all the things that make New York different from Idaho. (And to be fair, Dinky Donald deserves credit for his response - he hit that one right out of the park.)
Consider the expression, "town and gown". We all know who those folks are - gown is the faculty, staff and students at the university or college, town is everyone else. The social, cultural, political, historical and economic differences between the two groups go far beyond place of employment or level of education. Do you see how those words could be used as a code for different classes? (I have no idea if they are; I'm just trying to find a relatable example.)
quote:
If you value dialogue then you have to listen to what people actually say rather than indulging in paranoid fantasies about their underlying meaning.
Moonlitdoor is right - this is not good. It's a licence to think others worse than they are. It both reflects and encourages the polarisation of political discourse in the US.
I agree, if you value dialogue, you should just say what you mean. So, yeah, conservatives should stop their bullshit about protecting children from perverts and admit they're both freaked out and titillated by sexual minorities and non-vanilla sex and completely ignorant about birth control and their greatest fear is that one of their kids will ask, "Does Mom like cunnilingus?". Then they can ALL go to Home Depot, buy a 10' ladder, and get over it. Yeah, that would be awesome.
And it's not a paranoid fantasy if they really are out to get you.
#orlando #blacklivesmatter
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
... If we’re going to turn all bathrooms and locker rooms into mixed gender environments, we’re going to have to come up with ways to deal with the people who will try to take advantage of that. ...
I hate to break it to you, but cis men already go into women's restrooms for nefarious reasons. Keeping trans women from peeing won't change that.
ETA Once more with feeling: gender is not the same thing as sex. Women are women. Trans women are women. They're the same gender. And don't forget the gender-queer, non-binary folks.
[ 17. June 2016, 00:15: Message edited by: Soror Magna ]
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Free Speech is a constitutional right in the US. Consequently, it has a very wide view of what is free speech. About the two restriction are yelling fire in a crowded room and inciting to riot.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Free Speech is a constitutional right in the US. Consequently, it has a very wide view of what is free speech. About the two restriction are yelling fire in a crowded room and inciting to riot.
But no one here is objecting to Trump's right to say anything he wants. We're talking about why some people (myself included) perceive his statements to be clearly racist, misogynist, zenophobic, and inciting violence-- where others do not. No one is suggesting he not be allowed to make the statements, even if we could all agree on the implications.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
]I hate to break it to you, but cis men already go into women's restrooms for nefarious reasons. Keeping trans women from peeing won't change that.
No shit, sherlock. But do you really believe that turning all school bathrooms and locker rooms into mixed sex environments is going to decrease the number of those incidents?
Like I said, it's a cost/benefit analysis. The benefit may very well outweigh the costs. But it's something people need to be prepared to deal with if we're going to go down that road.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
... If we’re going to turn all bathrooms and locker rooms into mixed gender environments, we’re going to have to come up with ways to deal with the people who will try to take advantage of that. ...
I hate to break it to you, but cis men already go into women's restrooms for nefarious reasons. Keeping trans women from peeing won't change that.
I worked some place where there'd been an incident. Consequently, the women's restroom had a keypad lock. (The restrooms were by the elevators, outside the secure office area. Must've made sense to the engineer...) Eventually, the men's room got a lock, too.
Trans folks absolutely have a right to go to the restroom. I *don't* think that trans folks are dangerous. But if someone who outwardly seems male comes into the women's restroom, I'm going to be uncomfortable, TBH, and possibly unsure of my safety. Because of the pre-existing safety issues and my own baggage.
As to unisex restrooms: (TMI) One problem is that men's and women's restrooms, IME, smell different--presumably due to hormones. I worked at a small company with 8-10 men, and sometimes one other woman. We shared a one-stall unisex restroom. It had a bad smell. (And I'm sure that a restroom with the reverse balance would smell bad to men.) Another problem is that men in a unisex restroom will have to deal with disposed feminine hygiene products and their odors, which will likely be both embarrassing and very unpleasant for the men. (/TMI)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Another problem is that men in a unisex restroom will have to deal with disposed feminine hygiene products and their odors, which will likely be both embarrassing and very unpleasant for the men. (/TMI)
It's a little can built into the wall. Neither embarrassing nor particularly unpleasant. The teacher restrooms at the school I just left were unisex and neither male nor female teachers died from it. Although we did get occasional notes to put the damned seat down.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Another problem is that men in a unisex restroom will have to deal with disposed feminine hygiene products and their odors, which will likely be both embarrassing and very unpleasant for the men. (/TMI)
It's a little can built into the wall. Neither embarrassing nor particularly unpleasant. The teacher restrooms at the school I just left were unisex and neither male nor female teachers died from it. Although we did get occasional notes to put the damned seat down.
I used to go drinkin' in the Bat and Wickets. Muh daughter was friends with the landlady's. I 'ad ter show me presence. Befriended a couple uh paras. Worked out fine. Didn't do me pancreas much good. One night I tottered in to the men's room and it looked like a latrine in Nam that someone had just fragged. I thought 'Bugger this' and went in the ladies'. The spare toilet role had a knitted woollen ballerina on it. Hell. Heaven. Sometimes, you just can't average them out.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
No shit, sherlock. But do you really believe that turning all school bathrooms and locker rooms into mixed sex environments is going to decrease the number of those incidents?
Like I said, it's a cost/benefit analysis. The benefit may very well outweigh the costs. But it's something people need to be prepared to deal with if we're going to go down that road.
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Trans folks absolutely have a right to go to the restroom. I *don't* think that trans folks are dangerous. But if someone who outwardly seems male comes into the women's restroom, I'm going to be uncomfortable, TBH, and possibly unsure of my safety. Because of the pre-existing safety issues and my own baggage.
The phrase "outwardly seems male" is carrying a lot of weight in that paragraph. For example, I'd suggest that someone like Michael Hughes (no, not the footballer) outwardly seems male, but according to legislature of North Carolina and bills proposed in a variety of other American states Hughes is a woman (outwardly or not) and belongs in the ladies room with you.
As far as reducing the number of incidents of bathroom harassment, I'm pretty sure that making Michael Hughes use the ladies room or sending Corey Maison into the boys' room at school is likely to actually increase the number of such incidents.
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
One problem is that men's and women's restrooms, IME, smell different--presumably due to hormones. I worked at a small company with 8-10 men, and sometimes one other woman. We shared a one-stall unisex restroom. It had a bad smell. (And I'm sure that a restroom with the reverse balance would smell bad to men.) Another problem is that men in a unisex restroom will have to deal with disposed feminine hygiene products and their odors, which will likely be both embarrassing and very unpleasant for the men.
This seems like a post facto rationalization that doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. Most married couples manage to share a bathroom without the revulsion you seem to think would be unavoidable in such a situation. A lot of them have children of different genders and very few seem to feel the need to provide them gender-segregated bathrooms.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Unless your domicile is palatial, you probably share a bathroom already.
Public bathrooms are extraordinarily flexible and can be shifted easily. I went once to a meeting of the Romance Writers of America, in a big hotel. You possibly may know that romance writers are about 99.99% female. I went into the ladies' room, and admired the long row of potted palms adorning one wall. When I peeped behind them, I saw they were hiding a wall of urinals. The hotel had changed a men's room to a ladies' room by swapping the sign on the door and camouflaging the urinals. The two or three men in attendance had a long hike to their facilities.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Trans folks absolutely have a right to go to the restroom. I *don't* think that trans folks are dangerous. But if someone who outwardly seems male comes into the women's restroom, I'm going to be uncomfortable, TBH, and possibly unsure of my safety. Because of the pre-existing safety issues and my own baggage.
The phrase "outwardly seems male" is carrying a lot of weight in that paragraph. For example, I'd suggest that someone like Michael Hughes (no, not the footballer) outwardly seems male, but according to legislature of North Carolina and bills proposed in a variety of other American states Hughes is a woman (outwardly or not) and belongs in the ladies room with you.
As far as reducing the number of incidents of bathroom harassment, I'm pretty sure that making Michael Hughes use the ladies room or sending Corey Maison into the boys' room at school is likely to actually increase the number of such incidents.
Exactly. It would seem to me that the only way to determine if someone is of the "wrong" gender trying to get into the woman's bathroom or just a rather "masculine-looking" woman, is to do a quick genital check. Which, has been noted by others, seems to be swapping out a perceived, potential threat of sexual invasion with an actual sexual invasion. As pretty much all women's stalls have doors that close and lock, I'll take the perceived & potential over the actual, thank you very much.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
One problem is that men's and women's restrooms, IME, smell different--presumably due to hormones. I worked at a small company with 8-10 men, and sometimes one other woman. We shared a one-stall unisex restroom. It had a bad smell. (And I'm sure that a restroom with the reverse balance would smell bad to men.) Another problem is that men in a unisex restroom will have to deal with disposed feminine hygiene products and their odors, which will likely be both embarrassing and very unpleasant for the men.
This seems like a post facto rationalization that doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. Most married couples manage to share a bathroom without the revulsion you seem to think would be unavoidable in such a situation. A lot of them have children of different genders and very few seem to feel the need to provide them gender-segregated bathrooms.
Exactly. In my almost 60 years walking around in a woman's body and sharing bathrooms with father, brothers, husbands, and sons, as well as working in a mostly male workplace with unisex bathroom, I've never noticed it. I do notice a difference in odor among bathrooms that are regularly cleaned and those that are not, regardless of the gender of those using the facility.
[ 17. June 2016, 15:06: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
A question like "Would you remain passive after knowing that a strange-looking man, dressed like a woman, has been peering over toilet cubicles to watch your wife in a private moment?" is quite deliberately encouraging you to accept that there is in fact some risk of a strange-looking man dressing like a woman and watching your wife.
As a tactic it's old as the hills. The whole transgender bathroom thing is a textbook case of selling you tiger repellent and not wanting people to ask whether there were any tigers in the city to begin with.
Salesmen do these things all the time. It's rather more worrying to realise that preachers and public policy makers also do it.
But everything else flows from whether you buy into the premise or not. If you buy into the notion that there's a threat, then of course women need defending from that threat. And defence of others is a situation we legally accept some kind of violence.
Whereas if you think it's a load of nonsense and there is not threat to women, you're going to interpret reaction to that "threat" not as a legitimate form of defence, but as an unwarranted notion of violence.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
A question like "Would you remain passive after knowing that a strange-looking man, dressed like a woman, has been peering over toilet cubicles to watch your wife in a private moment?" is quite deliberately encouraging you to accept that there is in fact some risk of a strange-looking man dressing like a woman and watching your wife.
As a tactic it's old as the hills. The whole transgender bathroom thing is a textbook case of selling you tiger repellent and not wanting people to ask whether there were any tigers in the city to begin with.
Yes.
And I would be equally disturbed if a very feminine-looking woman with (I presume) all the properly feminine body parts were peering at me over the stall... Perhaps instead of a body-part check we can all just agree not to do that.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
And I would be equally disturbed if a very feminine-looking woman with (I presume) all the properly feminine body parts were peering at me over the stall...
Something like this?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally quoted by Dave W
quote:
If this had happened 100 years ago, someone might have been shot. Where is today’s manhood? God help us!
You think he's trying to say that shooting unarmed perverts is manly ?
It's a possible interpretation of the proximity of those two sentences. But I don't think it's the intended meaning.
quote:
I think even he would be insulted to hear that was your takeaway from something titled "PROTECT YOUR KIDS FROM TYRANT OBAMA".
Reference to Obama in the title tends to confirm my view that what Mr Dobson is arguing for is protecting our womenfolk by voting small-c conservative. Rather than by getting out the guns.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally quoted by Dave W
[qb]
quote:
If this had happened 100 years ago, someone might have been shot. Where is today’s manhood? God help us!
You think he's trying to say that shooting unarmed perverts is manly ?
Yes.
quote:
It's a possible interpretation of the proximity of those two sentences. But I don't think it's the intended meaning.
Of course it's what he meant. Why do I think this? Because that is what he SAID. Address yourself to the task of understanding that well-known figure of speech, the Rhetorical Question.
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally quoted by Dave W
quote:
If this had happened 100 years ago, someone might have been shot. Where is today’s manhood? God help us!
You think he's trying to say that shooting unarmed perverts is manly?
It's a possible interpretation of the proximity of those two sentences. But I don't think it's the intended meaning.
Interestingly the references to violence and calls for men with "gumption" to "defend their wife's privacy" closely mirror the language found in various pro-lynching tracts and pamphlets (now a thankfully obscure literary genre) about resolute manly men defending the flower of white womanhood from black savagery. Given that James Dobson grew up in segregated Louisiana I don't think we should automatically dismiss this as entirely coincidental, especially given the overall context of Dobson's call to segregate a minority.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Reference to Obama in the title tends to confirm my view that what Mr Dobson is arguing for is protecting our womenfolk by voting small-c conservative. Rather than by getting out the guns.
But in the text Dobson claims that people like Corey Maison are perverts from whom little girls need protection, and in rather more immediate circumstances than can be done in a timely manner by voting.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Various responses:
--FWIW, lots of people live on their own, and don't have any current experience of sharing a bathroom at home.
--The odor I mentioned wasn't one of simple uncleanness.
--I'm not in any way, shape, or form in favor of forcing someone to use a restroom that corresponds with their birth certificate gender.
--IME, unisex public or workplace restrooms are unusual in the US, with the exception of accessible one-stalls for people with disabilities. So they're not an experience most Americans have had.
--My mention of men's possible discomfort with women's odors and disposed products wasn't any kind of rationalization. I thought through what the experience was apt to be like; comments heard, over several decades; cultural attitudes, etc.
--All I'm saying is that there would be difficulties with universal unisex restrooms and locker rooms. When you've grown up experiencing an exclusively binary construct of who uses what restroom; when it's a serious rule that you stay out of each other's restrooms and locker rooms; when there are *occasional* incidents of abuse and assault in restrooms; when you've had to learn to be very aware of your surroundings and who's in them, wherever you are; and culturally and personally, your binary gender's restroom has usually been a safe, private place*, with its own culture, then unisex restrooms can be daunting.
I'm fine with everyone continuing to do whatever they're currently doing, as long as that's safe enough for trans folks. If it isn't safe enough for them, then something safe needs to be worked out. I just think that *universal* unisex restrooms and locker rooms isn't a good way to go about it.
We now return you to the dog whistle discussion.
*Aside from some bad times in school.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
I suspect universal unisex bathrooms will cause a momentary kerfuffle as we're seeing now, lots of political hay to be made selling "tiger repellant" but then a few years later we'll all settle down and forget what the fuss was all about. The exception would be if someone actually does get attacked in some way in a restroom. The assailant need not be trans of course, just as the fact that the Orlando shooter was a U.S citizen hasn't stopped Trump using the shooting to stir up barriers for immigration
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
Speaking as a person with a penis, I appreciate the efficiency that urinals offer to penis-equipped urinators. In a high-use facility, urinals are simply more efficient.
(It's a question of avoiding queuing. It takes twice as long to use a stall vs a urinal, but I don't urinate often enough for that to make a difference to my day. If one were to replace urinals with stalls, you'd need to swap two stalls per urinal to get the same capacity, which is probably more like a factor of 4 in footprint.)
In a low-use facility, the problem does not arise.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
[QUOTE]In North America, "rural" means nice, wholesome, hard-working white people who go to church on Sunday and own several guns. "Urban" means black and Latino, and may also include queer, feminst, liberal, college educated, pro-gun control, pro-choice, etc.
If that were the universal usage in the US, you wouldn't be calling it a dogwhistle. It would just be the ordinary meanings of the words "rural" and "urban".
Dogwhistle, if I've understood the term aright, is coded sub-text.
It's like a political double-entendre. And you're one of the filthy-minded people who immediately sees the dirty meaning.
If you want to have the equivalent of a good snigger in the corner, that's fine. I'd hate to stand in the way of private enjoyment.
But it's neither true nor charitable to say that the dirty meaning was necessarily intended. However obvious that meaning may seem to you.
And if some people are innocent, corrupting them by teaching them the dirty meaning may not be the best thing to do.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Speaking as a person with a penis, I appreciate the efficiency that urinals offer to penis-equipped urinators. In a high-use facility, urinals are simply more efficient.
(It's a question of avoiding queuing. It takes twice as long to use a stall vs a urinal, but I don't urinate often enough for that to make a difference to my day. If one were to replace urinals with stalls, you'd need to swap two stalls per urinal to get the same capacity, which is probably more like a factor of 4 in footprint.)
In a low-use facility, the problem does not arise.
This is probably the true gender difference. I could never understand how men could tolerate the exposure of a urinal. I would-- and have-- quite willingly stand in line for the privacy of a stall. Perhaps this is behind the difficulty some men have reportedly urinating in public restrooms? (OCD being another factor of course...)
So perhaps instead of labeling bathrooms "men" and "women" we can find some euphemistic label for stalls vs. urinals or private vs. exposed. Those who favor the quick efficiency of the urinal w/o the line, go for it, those who desire privacy go for the stalls.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
This might be the time to remind non-US shipmates that American toilet stalls have far less privacy than you are probably used to; there is normally a large gap between the door panel and the floor (often virtually level with the seat) and the gaps between door and sidefront panel, sidefront panel and side panel (four in all) can be negligible or as gaping as nearly two inches. It all depends on how shoddy the craftsmanship was (often very) and what space challenges they were working with, often retrofitting things to new local codes.
Truly, if you HAVE a door of any sort at all, you should count your blessings; there is a public park near me which has no stall doors at all in the women's, and I flat-out refuse to make use of it at all. Ain't nobody needs to see that. Particularly during menstruation or diarrhea or ...
It's also true that not every door-to-the-outside is placed in a sensible way. In some cases you can stand outside the restroom altogether and get an eyeful, though one hopes the stall doors (such as they are) will block that.
And then there are the two-hole outhouses found in various state parks, scout facilities, etc. where there is no separation whatsoever from your shitting neighbor, not even a curtain. Even the scouts I take out flatly refuse to use those when anyone else is present--which of course reduces them to one-holers.
None of this architectural nonsense makes unisex multi-occupant restrooms a practical choice in the US.
Add to that the fact that the public restroom is pretty much the ONLY place left where you daily find yourself in an enclosed, nonpublic area without windows or oversight, but WITH random strangers coming in and out. Which makes it a prime location for basically any kind of crime--mugging, theft, rape, what have you. If we ever DO go to unisex restrooms in the US (ain't gonna happen, consider the expense of retrofitting!), but if we do, I sincerely hope they remove the outer door to the facility or make it entirely glass, much as they do with classroom and office doors nowadays to prevent crime.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I could never understand how men could tolerate the exposure of a urinal.
Most urinals are single-use[r] and have little walls on either side, so unless you crane your neck noticeably you're not going to see what the next guy is packing.
But for those without such privacy walls, the answer is easy: You keep your eyes straight ahead, and simply don't give a fuck what some random stranger whom you'll never see again thinks about your prick.
[ 18. June 2016, 06:39: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally quoted by Dave W
quote:
If this had happened 100 years ago, someone might have been shot. Where is today’s manhood? God help us!
You think he's trying to say that shooting unarmed perverts is manly ?
So when I previously paraphrased Dobson's language with quote:
"the lack of shooting is regrettable, another sign of the moral degeneration of the times. But perhaps God will help us, we'll regain our manhood, and the bullets will once again fly their righteous, God-sanctioned paths!"
you weren't sure what I meant?
quote:
It's a possible interpretation of the proximity of those two sentences. But I don't think it's the intended meaning.
I'm sure you don't, Russ. I'm beginning to think one of us would make a wonderful substitute receptionist for Lestercorp (but opinions may differ as to which one of us.)
(I'll be away for a week, so this will have to serve as my Parthian shot. I was thinking of saying I hope you don't misunderstand my lack of further responses, but at this point that hope seems wildly unrealistic.)
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
If that were the universal usage in the US, you wouldn't be calling it a dogwhistle. It would just be the ordinary meanings of the words "rural" and "urban"....
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
"Scare quotes"
Choosing to ignore dogwhistles is one thing, and a valid personal choice. However, to deny they even exist is something else. Google coughs up about 590,000 results for "dog whistle politics". It's in the dictionary, FFS.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
If that were the universal usage in the US, you wouldn't be calling it a dogwhistle. It would just be the ordinary meanings of the words "rural" and "urban"....
"Scare quotes"
Choosing to ignore dogwhistles is one thing, and a valid personal choice. However, to deny they even exist is something else. Google coughs up about 590,000 results for "dog whistle politics". It's in the dictionary, FFS.
Really, "dog-whistles" are just one particular version of the common understanding that all words have particular connotations in addition to their precise dictionary definitions. It's why we have multiple words to describe the same thing-- each takes on a slightly different shading/ implication.
We recognize this on the Ship with the oft repeated "irregular verbs"-- e.g. I am outspoken, you are assertive, he is hostile, she is bitchy. Different ways of describing the same behavior (expressing displeasure) with very different connotations. Appeals to "just take people at what they say" seem silly when it's pretty obvious that we all make these sorts of stylistic choices all the time with the unconscious or conscious intent to convey a general tone and/or elicit approval/disapproval.
Politicians in particular are sensitive to these slight variations that color our perception of events. "Dog-whistles" as noted above, allow them to color the way we look at someone or a class a people without using explicitly racist, homophobic, or misogynist language. The effect may be subtle, and will obviously vary greatly, depending on how much the hearer has been exposed to the particular connotations the speaker is trying to elicit. In any particular instance, we could argue whether or not the "dog-whistle" was intentional (since, of course, "deniability" is the whole point of a "dog-whistle"). But to suggest that there is no such thing as "dog-whistles" in general is to deny the normal linguistic pattern present in all human languages to convey subtle shades of meaning/connotation beyond rigid dictionary definitions.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
In any particular instance, we could argue whether or not the "dog-whistle" was intentional (since, of course, "deniability" is the whole point of a "dog-whistle").
If it's not intended, is it a dogwhistle ?
In other words, are you using the term "dogwhistle" to mean a word or phrase with an intended sub-surface meaning ? So that if the speaker is innocent of that intention then it isn't a dogwhistle ?
Or do you use the term "dogwhistle" of any word or phrase in the political realm where you recognise that multiple interpretations are possible ?
I wouldn't dream of denying the subtlety of language. Or denying anyone's lived experience of having heard words used in particular ways.
What I'm arguing against here is the abuse of language that allows
the premise "I hear a derogatory sub-surface meaning here" to lead
via the ambiguous intermediate "it's a dogwhistle"
to the conclusion "that meaning was intended".
As if dogwhistling is a charge of which no-one could possibly be found innocent.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
In any particular instance, we could argue whether or not the "dog-whistle" was intentional (since, of course, "deniability" is the whole point of a "dog-whistle").
If it's not intended, is it a dogwhistle ?
In other words, are you using the term "dogwhistle" to mean a word or phrase with an intended sub-surface meaning ? So that if the speaker is innocent of that intention then it isn't a dogwhistle ?
Yes, you're correct, My point was that we can argue about whether or not a particular statement w/ negative connotations was intended or not-- iow, whether it is a true "dog-whistle" or just an unfortunate word choice.
So yes, "dog-whistles" as a particular subgroup of language are intentional-- but the intent is to appear unintentional, in order to convey negative impressions w/o the social cost of making a more direct negative statement.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
In any particular instance, we could argue whether or not the "dog-whistle" was intentional (since, of course, "deniability" is the whole point of a "dog-whistle").
I
I wouldn't dream of denying the subtlety of language. Or denying anyone's lived experience of having heard words used in particular ways.
What I'm arguing against here is the abuse of language that allows
the premise "I hear a derogatory sub-surface meaning here" to lead
via the ambiguous intermediate "it's a dogwhistle"
to the conclusion "that meaning was intended".
As if dogwhistling is a charge of which no-one could possibly be found innocent.
Well, yes, as I said before, "deniability" is one of the key distinctives of a "dog-whistle". Which means, then, one can never be sure if the negative impression was intentional or not.
Which is not the same thing as asserting that there is no such thing as "dog-whistles". It's just that they are by definition, unproveable. That's the whole point. One can never be certain if the unspoken, subtle implications of any one statement were intentional or not. That would argue for a bit more humility/ hedging in the way one makes the accusation, but it should not mean one can never make the accusation. Not bringing the accusation means the "dog-whistler" won-- was able to get away with maligning a group w/o any social hazard.
So, yes, use some tentative language-- e.g.: "the phrase 'urban values' sounds like you're trying to imply..." rather than "that's racist!" Give the speaker & yourself room to back down if the impression was unintentional or your hearing too paranoid. But we should not be afraid to speak out when we think that's what's going on, nor should we deny the reality that "dog-whistles" exist, simply because they're, by definition, hard to nail down. By raising the issue if the implication was unintentional, it gives the speaker a chance to correct the impression. Note that Trump tends to "double-down" in such situations rather than correcting, hence all the more likely that he is intentionally engaging in dog-whistles.
[ 19. June 2016, 14:13: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
I certainly don't believe that the meaning of speech is as simple as the plain meaning of the words. But nor do I believe that subcontextual meaning comes only from the conscious or unconscious thoughts of the speaker, I see it as coming just as much from those of the hearer.
That is why I do not believe in the dog whistle concept, which presents the hearer as an unbiased observer, while all the manipulation is done by the speaker.
This thread is a good example. I hear an unspoken meaning that it's not acceptable for me and Russ to hold a view different from that of the majority of posters. But that might come from my own imagination because I don't like conflict and am uncomfortable with the strength of feeling with which people discuss political subjects.
Golden Key said that things might be different in the UK from the USA. It is true that I haven't heard the term dog whistle used here, but I am quite familiar with the phenomenon of people attributing certain views to politicians, although the politicians have never expressed those views explicitly.
In a lot of cases, though not all, I think this is part of a tendency to cast politicians of parties we do not support as pantomime villains. ( I hope that term is meaningful beyond British English ).
Some time back a poster started a thread where people were asked to name a policy they liked which had been put forward by a party they did not like. It was evident that some people were very reluctant to do this, and did not like the idea that they share any values and beliefs with that party's supporters.
My perspective is the opposite. I am quite happy with the idea that I share some values with James Dobson, even though I do not like him. Although springs do not give a mixture of salt and fresh water, as that quoted passage from James said, I think most people do. I certainly do. Most people I don't like, or whose views are different from mine, are sad to see people shot dead in a night club, in exactly the same way as people I do like are. So I have no reason to look for a meaning behind his words on that subject.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
That is why I do not believe in the dog whistle concept, which presents the hearer as an unbiased observer, while all the manipulation is done by the speaker.
It can be. And that's a problem. Which is why I said:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
One can never be certain if the unspoken, subtle implications of any one statement were intentional or not. That would argue for a bit more humility/ hedging in the way one makes the accusation, but it should not mean one can never make the accusation...
So, yes, use some tentative language-- e.g.: "the phrase 'urban values' sounds like you're trying to imply..." rather than "that's racist!" Give the speaker & yourself room to back down if the impression was unintentional or your hearing too paranoid... By raising the issue if the implication was unintentional, it gives the speaker a chance to correct the impression.
moving on...
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
Golden Key said that things might be different in the UK from the USA. It is true that I haven't heard the term dog whistle used here, but I am quite familiar with the phenomenon of people attributing certain views to politicians, although the politicians have never expressed those views explicitly.
In a lot of cases, though not all, I think this is part of a tendency to cast politicians of parties we do not support as pantomime villains. ( I hope that term is meaningful beyond British English ).
I think we have strong feelings about political issues because they impact us and the people we care for directly. And for people of faith, it is one way that we live out our values in the real world. When a politician or pastor frames views that are repugnant to us in religious terms-- suggesting that an offensive view is "Christian"-- this becomes even more amplified, as we feel our most cherished beliefs are being misrepresented. Sort of like having your mother's face superimposed on a smut picture in a porn magazine.
So, yeah, we feel strongly. That's OK. It's good, I think. Passion is good. We should feel passionately about justice, about compassion, about caring for the least among us. But of course, anger-- even righteous anger-- is a two-edged sword that bears some spiritual danger. So we should be careful-- very careful-- when we feel our emotions rising. Not because the emotion is wrong-- it's not-- but because it comes with moral hazard. It's very easy to cross the line into all sorts of ungodly behavior-- false witness, bitterness, contempt, etc. I'm quite sure I've crossed that line many many times myself--- I know the way by heart.
But the remedy is not to avoid all conflict. That is a cowardly path, and it allow evil to triumph. In the above post I described a bit why I think it's important to say something when we believe "dog-whistles" are at play, even though we must do so tentatively. The remedy is to tread carefully, in prayer, and with humility.
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
My perspective is the opposite. I am quite happy with the idea that I share some values with James Dobson, even though I do not like him. Although springs do not give a mixture of salt and fresh water, as that quoted passage from James said, I think most people do. I certainly do. Most people I don't like, or whose views are different from mine, are sad to see people shot dead in a night club, in exactly the same way as people I do like are. So I have no reason to look for a meaning behind his words on that subject.
This is certainly the case for me. As an American evangelical, I'm well aware that Dobson is my spiritual brother. I like to describe him (and Robertson, Falwell, even Piper) as the crazy uncles who spout all sorts of racist, homophobic c**p, but you still gotta invite them to Thanksgiving dinner cuz they're family. Dobson, God help me (literally), is my family. We share a common faith.
But this is all the more reason why I MUST speak out. Because Dobson is a leader in my movement, my Church, with a very big megaphone. He is perceived by much of the world as speaking FOR me and my people. Lord, have mercy.
The challenge, again, is to speak out in a way that doesn't lead me into sins of pride, contempt, false witness, and self-righteousness. I don't always (or even often) succeed.
[ 20. June 2016, 15:34: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
That is why I do not believe in the dog whistle concept, which presents the hearer as an unbiased observer, while all the manipulation is done by the speaker.
But that's not what the dog whistle concept says. It says a group of people have a code language which they understand and which outsiders do not (or at least the insiders think the outsiders do not), which they can thus speak in public and only the insiders will know what's really being said.
It has nothing at all to do with manipulation.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
That outgoing president of your seemed a bit uppity MT. Know what I mean?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
And he was so articulate!
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Spot on, you two. And this new Dem candidate seems pretty shrill.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Spot on, you two. And this new Dem candidate seems pretty shrill.
Exactly. Irregular verbs all around.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
Back in April 2015, Wayne LaPierre of the NRA said the following:
quote:
"Eight years of one demographically symbolic President is enough"
"Demographically symbolic" - what does that mean? He can get away with this because he can plausibly say, "Well, we shouldn't vote for someone just for symbolism; we should vote for the best leader." Is he racist? "Of course not!" Is he sexist? "Of course not! How dare you accuse me! You horrible person, you see horrible things everywhere!" That's the plausible deniability.
IMNSHO, what he's actually saying - and what his audience cheers for - is that only white males should hold the Presidency, although he'll make an exception for an orange male.
NRA's Wayne LaPierre On Clinton And Obama
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
That is why I do not believe in the dog whistle concept, which presents the hearer as an unbiased observer, while all the manipulation is done by the speaker.
But that's not what the dog whistle concept says. It says a group of people have a code language which they understand and which outsiders do not (or at least the insiders think the outsiders do not), which they can thus speak in public and only the insiders will know what's really being said.
It has nothing at all to do with manipulation.
I think it is also deniability. Both for the speaker and their audience.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I think it is also deniability. Both for the speaker and their audience.
Yes, that's true. And then they howl when you call them on their racism. "I wasn't being racist. YOU are being racist by making what I said about black people."
[ 21. June 2016, 11:44: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages in this thread: 1 2 3
|
Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
