Ship of Fools: hearing, or not hearing, threats

Thread: hearing, or not hearing, threats Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030518

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

I thought it was fascinating that, amongst my Facebook friends, many of them don't hear Trump's words as threatening or inciting violence, and considered this video dishonest, a twisting of his views.

Similarly, many of them don't perceive Dobson's essay about transgender people as a threat directed towards trans people.

Others clearly hear both as threats.

Why the difference in perception? What are people hearing, or failing to hear? And why?

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

It is said that you hear what you are primed to hear -- what you expect. An allied phenomenon -- you see what you expect to see. This is how stage magicians work it. It is also why untrained people freeze, when planes fall or gunmen step into waiting rooms with AKs blazing. To see and hear truly and quickly is something you have to learn -- they teach cops and soldiers.
And so I must assume that if you expect a tiny-handed vulgarian, then you hear vulgarisms and threats. If you see a savior standing one step below the Father and the Son, you hear the word of salvation. There is a long, sad history in humanity of people seeing a savior in persons who were clearly and shatteringly not.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
There is a long, sad history in humanity of people seeing a savior in persons who were clearly and shatteringly not.

One for the quotes file. And for my sig!

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

Brenda is right, and it is a fundamental part of perception (read my thesis if you want more). Everyone interprets what they perceive (see, read, hear) based on what they already believe. Your world-view impacts the way you perceive, and for things you perceive to change your world-view is very difficult.

That is why so many people fail to realise that some people are talking bullshit, while others can clearly see it is manipulative. It is not out of stupidity, it is because people have a view that cannot encompass what they are hearing. It is like most people having to come to terms with the impact of quantum reality on what we see around us.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

This is all good stuff. Though we probably should remind ourselves it applies to "us" as much as "them".

I think there is another point to be made concerning direct and indirect threats. A direct threat is painfully clear to both recipient and observer alike.

But an indirect threat will be read as a threat by an affected party because of the consequences of what is said (and in passing, that also demonstrates why an innocent comment can be seen as a threat too). An observer may have to stop and work through those consequences for any affected party before fully understanding what sort of threat may be implicit.

On that basis, the piece by Dobson is the most tendentious load of high-octane rubbish. But I don't think it contains any direct threats. That has to be worked out if you are not a transperson or otherwise familiar with the issues. The video piece, on the other hand, is I think doing something different - it is trying to link an already threatening series of tropes to a wider foreseeable outcome based on history - thereby showing the risk is wider than is warranted by insisting on sticking to its original context.

Actually, that means the critiques are correct in a leaden sort of literal sense. The Dobson piece doesn't utter a direct threat, and the video does involve de-contextualizing Trump's rhetoric. But we are talking about a constituency that is very literal-minded anyway.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:

Similarly, many of them don't perceive Dobson's essay about transgender people as a threat directed towards trans people.

Doesn't it depend on what you think of as a "threat"? Dobson's essay is not an incitement to violence against trans people. It doesn't encourage bands of self-righteous vigilantes to defend the sanctity of the bathroom (although it gets close in a couple of places), so in that sense it's not a "threat".

His essay is (mostly) something else. It's a denial that trans people exist, and in that sense it's a far more existential threat than the incitement of a spot of gay-bashing. But if you were someone who didn't think trans was a real thing, you're probably going to see that as a a simple statement of fact, rather than any kind of threat.

The threat of physical violence follows a couple of logical steps down the road - because these men dressed as women are weird perverted men, the only possible reason for them to go into a women's bathroom must be sexual, and so therefore they are a threat to your womenfolk (it's Dobson, so it's also male headship through and through). And because these people are a threat, it is your responsibility to protect your wives and daughters from them...

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Do you mean this segment from Dobson:

quote:
If you are a married man with any gumption, surely you will defend your wife’s privacy and security in restroom facilities. 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? What should be done to the pervert who was using mirrors to watch women and girls in their stalls? If you are a dad, I pray you will protect your little girls from men who walk in unannounced, unzip their pants and urinate in front of them. If this had happened 100 years ago, someone might have been shot. Where is today’s manhood? God help us!

?

If so, I can see how it might be read as incitement to violence; certainly he's using the same sort of rhetoric against TG people as your average tabloid paper does against suspected paedophiles, which is pretty ugly as things go. Not sure though that you could make a charge of incitement stick...

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

It's a dog whistle. Let those who have ears to hear, hear. Another practice that has a long melancholy tradition in the US.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
[..] Not sure though that you could make a charge of incitement stick...

Yeah, that's the bit where he walks closest to the line. I agree - it's not quite illegal. Dobson is not an idiot, and he has plenty of lawyers - he knows where the line is.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

Is this the time to point out the confusion in Dobson's rhetoric?

Women's facilities have cubicles (and only cubicles). When he talks about a "man" unzipping and urinating in front of your daughter, it's clear that this can't be happening in a ladies' room, because they don't have anywhere to urinate that is in front of anyone.

There are two places that people "unzip and urinate" in front of other people. In the men's room, standing at the urinals, and when a parent takes his children to the bathroom with him (either at home or in public).

Given the way Dobson thinks, I'm sure the idea of a Dad taking his small daughter into the men's room with him would make his head explode (and in any case, if you do take your small daughter into the men's room, as Dads do on a routine basis, you have to expect that there might be a urinating man in there.)

And if he was talking about a private family bathroom, the whole thing just makes no sense...

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

And he knows how to move the goalposts. Suddenly we're not talking about someone of unknown gender walking into a bathroom, shutting the stall door, and privately doing their business. Something, presumably, that has been going on since time began-- or at least since bathroom stalls were invented. Now suddenly, we're talking about people peering over the stall to spy on you or expose their genitals to you. Things that would be disturbing (at least in a woman's room) regardless of the person's gender.

And then there's the clear implication that Dobson and other opponents of bathroom access will be the ones peering over the stall door to see what you got going on under your skinny jeans... and they're packing.

Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :

I find it strange that one now seems to be expected to choose between Donald Trump as saviour and Donald Trump as antichrist. Whatever happened to just very unsuitable to be president of the USA ?

As far as the video is concerned, I consider it rather likely that any videos made about US politicians by their opponents would misrepresent their views. In the case of someone as much disliked as Donald Trump I would say it was a racing certainty.

I say US politicians because I can't generalise about the whole world, not in order to suggest that my own country is better.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

I would point out that it isn't simply seeing what they want, re Trump. There is a real frustration with the status quo as well. Trump is not the answer to this, but he does play the part of a maverick. Also, regarding sources as in the vid link; Mother Jones is exactly the wrong venue to disseminate anti-Trump info if anyone wishes to change minds in his key demographic. Probably does the opposite.
As far as Dobson's rant, it may be a step or two from actually inciting violence in a legal sense, but it is exactly what it is doing in a practical sense.

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
This is all good stuff. Though we probably should remind ourselves it applies to "us" as much as "them".

No, it doesn't, because we are RIGHT!

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

There is not a whole bunch to be done about Trump; real estate moguls and politicians are wild hairs and are not going to listen to us. James Dobson, however, is billing himself as a voice of Christianity. He horrifies me.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

lilBuddha wrote:

quote:
No, it doesn't, because we are RIGHT!

Right!!

(Just for the avoidance of doubt, I was referring to the cognitive process itself, not any content).

I agree with you about your point concerning the vid's posting origin, and the general function of a maverick that Trump plays also.

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

I agree with the point that the Trump attack video was making, but I did not like how it made it at all.

My main problem was that the music was way too heavy. Immediately, it put my back up as an obvious attempt to manipulate my emotions. It put me on my guard, as it suggested to me that the makers of the video were not going to present a fair view of Trump. To me, that is very bad.

Also, when I was a puppy solicitor, an old barrister said to me that it was better to have the judge focus on your good points than have them work out why your not so good points are wrong. There were some comparisons in that video that were spot on. Others were inapt. This video needs editing.

The barrister, a lovely humble fellow, had a splotch on his head like Mikhail Gorbachev.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Typography as dog whistle. This is frightening.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Fuck that. It makes (((me))) want to sign (((myself))) !!!$$$(((Lamb Chopped.)))$$$!!!

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Josephine

I think the answer to your question may be found in a combination of words from two Pauls.

Firstly, from Paul Simon's great song "The Boxer".

"I have squandered my resistance for a pocketful of mumbles, such are promises. All lies and jests, still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."

Secondly from Paul's second letter to Timothy.

"They will follow their own desires and will look for teachers who will tell them whatever their itching ears want to hear."

I've always been intrigued by that phrase "itching ears". Trump is a peddler of quackery who has tapped into something that a significant number of your citizens actually want to hear.

So the real questions are, why do they want to hear it? What listening appetite is Trump feeding? What has created all these "itching ears"?

Similar arguments apply to the Dobson piece {which Leorning Cniht has effectively demolished BTW).

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

If that is true, B62, it means there has been a catastrophic failure in almost everything save the propagation of the most toxic, racist, bigoted and hateful.

It has to, really. I can't see any other logical conclusion.

So the real question, then, is why what should be the way of hope, fraternity and sorority, love and peace has failed so signally. If that's us (as we would like to think I hope), why have we failed so spectacularly?

Any answers to that would involve things about us. The vile and the repulsive will always be waiting in the shadows. You can rely on that.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Deep waters, Honest Ron. I find it very strange that, within the lifetime of some of us,
the disenfranchised and disregarded African Americans were given dignity, hope and a voice by Martin Luther King. Whereas today's angry WASPs and fellow travellers have been attracted by an egomaniac billionaire with false hair. How on earth has that happened? I find it hard to get my head around it.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

The simple answer to the question is that Trump IS a threat: he is a threat to public order because of the wild and extreme rants which he makes in the full knowledge that some of the people listening to them will see them as giving some sort of green light to pursue their own hatreds and prejudices and to commit violent assaults on others.

As for Mr Dobson, the answer is in his final paragraphs, where he quotes Genesis: If God created Man in his own image "... male and female, he created them..." then God's own image is both male and female. I've used that on a couple of people and it leaves them stranded, usually opening and closing the mouth silently (a bit like a fish on a slab!). Try it.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

L'Organist wrote:

quote:
The simple answer to the question is that Trump IS a threat: he is a threat to public order because of the wild and extreme rants which he makes in the full knowledge that some of the people listening to them will see them as giving some sort of green light to pursue their own hatreds and prejudices and to commit violent assaults on others.

Nobody here would disagree with that (I think). But the question was "why do some people not see such rhetoric as threatening?".

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Because they agree with it, or are clueless, or it isn't on their radar at all?

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

I wonder whether Henry II's angry words about Becket (which were not"Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?", which probably would be incitement)would be treated as incitement: "What miserable drones and traitors have I nourished and promoted in my household, who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born clerk!"

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Why the difference in perception? What are people hearing, or failing to hear? And why?

I think this answer (from a (IMHO) rather underrated Nobel laureate) may be to the point:

quote:
The toad beneath the harrow knows
Exactly where each tooth-point goes.
The butterfly upon the road
Preaches contentment to that toad.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
L'Organist wrote:
quote:
The simple answer to the question is that Trump IS a threat: he is a threat to public order because of the wild and extreme rants which he makes in the full knowledge that some of the people listening to them will see them as giving some sort of green light to pursue their own hatreds and prejudices and to commit violent assaults on others.
Nobody here would disagree with that (I think). But the question was "why do some people not see such rhetoric as threatening?".

Because it was preceded by more than a decade of false persecution complex. The GOP has been peddling fear ever since '01. Fear of blacks, fear of Muslims, fear of gays, fear of women, fear of "godless atheists", fear of immigrants, fear of academics, fear of liberals, now fear of bathroom-stalking trans. It creates a paranoia-- so that when you start spewing hate-filled violent rhetoric it doesn't sound hate-filled or violent it sounds brave and courageous-- defending the weak against the strong. The fact that they've switch the name tags around so that the "weak" are enfranchised, wealthy and privileged and the "strong" are the marginalized, voiceless and powerless escapes notice.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

And calling them out on this is vain. Obama was supposed to take your guns. Boy, he hasn't left himself a lot of time, has he? More than seven years and he's asleep at the switch. Can he get them all by November, or you think January will do it? What about the US Army invading Texas, the prison camps in Walmart parking lots? Did that work out for you? When is that vaunted Sharia law, suspending the U S Constitution, going to be imposed? Haven't seen any sign of it.
There comes a point when all these phantom bogeys shade into mental illness.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

You forgot the death panels to decide granny's fate that are the true end goal of Obamacare. Yes, quite the to-do list for the next 6 months. Too bad he wasted so much time rebuilding the economy and lowering unemployment.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And calling them out on this is vain. Obama was supposed to take your guns. Boy, he hasn't left himself a lot of time, has he?

The fear that the gun-rights crowd has isn't generally quite as simple as "Obama / Hillary / Whoever will take all your guns away." It's a fear of creeping regulation.

You start with some regulation, then you add a little more, then a little more, and eventually the guns are gone. To them, saying "it's just a little common sense regulation" sounds like the proponents of the EEC saying "it's just a free trade area".

So they're defending every inch now - even some people who in private would agree that more regulation would be sensible - because they don't think they can defend their place on the slippery slope.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

It's pathological. If you look at other areas that are regulated, you can see that they do not ignite this angst. People do not vote to save themselves from those evil, socialist side impact air bags. When the meat inspection people insist that diseased animals may not go into your hamburger there is no outcry about how if you want anthrax in your dinner you will damn well get it.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

Well, it's selective. The right-wing will, in fact, decry "bloated government" when it comes time to pay those meat inspectors or "government overreach" when new legislation is being introduced about how to process meat safely. And then when some kid gets sick or dies they will point and say "see! Government is inept! it can't be trusted to keep our kids safe!". Unless of course the kid is black, then it was his mom's fault, obviously.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

There was someone on the radio talking about the US election. His theory is that the distribution of people on the Republican-Democrat spectrum and on the committed-apathetic spectrum is such that it is more effective for candidates to try to encourage their own party supporters to go out and vote than to try to encourage lukewarm supporters of the other party to switch.

So if people are dealing in fear - fear of Mr Trump as some sort of immoral or unstable person on the one hand, or fear of immigrants or heavy-handed government on the other hand - then maybe that's what works.

Which on reflection is an argument for making voting compulsory...

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And calling them out on this is vain. Obama was supposed to take your guns. Boy, he hasn't left himself a lot of time, has he?
The fear that the gun-rights crowd has isn't generally quite as simple as "Obama / Hillary / Whoever will take all your guns away." It's a fear of creeping regulation.

You start with some regulation, then you add a little more, then a little more, and eventually the guns are gone. To them, saying "it's just a little common sense regulation" sounds like the proponents of the EEC saying "it's just a free trade area".

So they're defending every inch now - even some people who in private would agree that more regulation would be sensible - because they don't think they can defend their place on the slippery slope.

But what you've described is really no different from what you said was too simplistic. Why will their position be under attack? Because "Obama / Hillary / Whoever will take all your guns away", of course.

Posted by Khuratokh2312 (# 17634) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Deep waters, Honest Ron. I find it very strange that, within the lifetime of some of us,
the disenfranchised and disregarded African Americans were given dignity, hope and a voice by Martin Luther King. Whereas today's angry WASPs and fellow travellers have been attracted by an egomaniac billionaire with false hair. How on earth has that happened? I find it hard to get my head around it.

Well those angry WASPS felt disenfranchised too around the time of reverend King and have now swarmed around a new mad insect.
I will never forget the Tea Party rally led by Sarah Palin. Who, standing under the Washington monument, made a direct parallel between her movement and that of Martin Luther King...
A crowd made up entirely of angry white people. With the odd placard here and there calling Obama Hitler or the Anti-Christ.

The thing about Trump is, that the things he says aren't that different from what a lot of Republicans say in the corridors of capitol hill, they just tone it down a lot, come election time.

But even if he is elected, he will still have congress to contend with, and the Democrats and most of the Republican party despise Trump. He'll have even more trouble getting his way than Obama.

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
.....Why the difference in perception? What are people hearing, or failing to hear? And why?

Confirmation bias

Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :

quote:

originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi

Nobody here would disagree with that (I think). But the question was "why do some people not see such rhetoric as threatening?".

Actually I don't think that was the original question. Josephine was quite careful to put her question in a neutral fashion, rather than a 'why doesn't everyone feel the same as me ?' fashion.

My reaction to Donald Trump is not the same as L'Organist's. I find the prospect of him being elected president rather alarming and think it would be a threat to American security but I don't find his utterances threatening as such, or think that he wants to encourage violence by his supporters.

I am not sure why I hear things differently but I think that's what Josephine was getting at, rather than hoping to launch another Trump bashing thread.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

I tend to think Trump has finally jumped the shark called the federal judge overseeing the Trump University case a "Trump hater" because the judge is of Mexican heritage. Many of his insiders were trying to tell him to dial it back, but he has refused, instead telling his supporters to double down attacking the judge.

All of the sudden, the recent congressional delegation that endorsed him are running for the exits, decrying the racism of his statements.

There will be some diehards that will continue to support him, but many others are beginning to wake up and realize he does not have what it takes to be president

Now several states attorney generals are being investigated for allegedly taking bribes from Trump if they dropped their investigations of Trump university. Some have come out and admitted it. If proven, this would be an impeachable offense under the United States Constitution should he become the president.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
Actually I don't think that was the original question. Josephine was quite careful to put her question in a neutral fashion, rather than a 'why doesn't everyone feel the same as me ?' fashion.

My reaction to Donald Trump is not the same as L'Organist's. I find the prospect of him being elected president rather alarming and think it would be a threat to American security but I don't find his utterances threatening as such, or think that he wants to encourage violence by his supporters.

I am not sure why I hear things differently but I think that's what Josephine was getting at, rather than hoping to launch another Trump bashing thread.

Thank you, moonlitdoor. That's exactly what I was getting at. I'm trying to understand why different people see or hear the exactly same thing, but react to it so very differently. I suppose confirmation bias is part of it, but I think there's something more going on. I don't really understand it. But I'd like to.

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

I really want to know too. I wish I did, or could say something sensible. Instead, I will thank people who posted above, because large parts of the posts were profound, and parts beautiful.

I do like the person above who tried to dial things down by saying that they didn't think trump was mega-good or mega-bad, just unsuitable for the office of President.

I'm off to listen to some S&G now.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

Hi Josephine,

I'd say that if you believe in free speech then there are a lot of people out there who are allowed to say things that you strongly disagree with and may find unpleasant. There are a lot of nutters out there (saying nothing about how many are "in here") and the Internet gives them all a platform.

One of the accepted limits on free speech is that incitement to violence is a crime. But people are innocent of crime until proven guilty. That's the way the benefit of the doubt goes.

Picking one line out of the Dobson piece, he saye

quote:
If this had happened 100 years ago, someone might have been shot.

which to my mind makes it quite clear that he's not expecting anyone to be shot in these present days, and that the "fighting" that he advocates is political effort only.

He clearly has strong beliefs - that "transgenderism" isn't real, a preference for gender-segregated toilet/washroom facilities, and a belief that deliberately using the wrong facilities is a "peeping-tom" type of misdemeanour. He sees a social trend that he really doesn't like.

But I don't see where he's inciting violence in support of those beliefs.

So from my point of view, if there's something that needs to be explained, it's why other people would consider this piece unacceptable, as having crossed the line that marks legitimate free speech from hate-crime.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
...
Picking one line out of the Dobson piece, he saye

quote:
If this had happened 100 years ago, someone might have been shot.
which to my mind makes it quite clear that he's not expecting anyone to be shot in these present days, and that the "fighting" that he advocates is political effort only. ...

IME, most people who say, "We used to shoot those folks" rarely follow it up with, "I'm so glad we don't do that anymore." Let's change it from the hypothetical general to the 1st and 2nd persons: "We used to shoot people like you." OK, so maybe you won't actually get shot today, but it's still an expression of hostility and regret.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

And there is a cumulative power to these dog whistles. If veiled and indirect threats are mouthed often enough some loon is going to decide it is OK to take his shot. As you may see in your paper today. Which is why it is important to call out even minor aggressions like this. Enough straws, and some camel's back is going to crack.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

Just so. The current score seems to be - attacks by transgender people on others in public washrooms = 0. Attacks on transgender people in public washrooms = waaay too many.

It is sophistical to say a specific utterance must be given the benefit of the doubt if it cannot be linked to a specific attack. We should know by now that it is about creating a climate of fear and hostility in which - inevitably - more and more extreme reactions are made possible and permissable. You don't begin by gassing Jews - you begin by painting them as unpatriotic, cosmopolitan, owing allegiance to a shadowy, transnational conspiracy, enemies within, traitors, outcasts, punishable, threatening, evil...

I see the same mounting hysteria against Muslims: even something written in Arabic script - a decal on a police car saying 'Police' - a sample of calligraphy in a school textbook - is malign and to be feared.

You create the same nimbus around the transgendered - different, weird, perverted...

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Picking one line out of the Dobson piece, he saye

quote:
If this had happened 100 years ago, someone might have been shot.
which to my mind makes it quite clear that he's not expecting anyone to be shot in these present days, and that the "fighting" that he advocates is political effort only.

And in the very next line he says

quote:
Where is today’s manhood? God help us!

so apparently 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!

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

If you don't like where I draw the boundary of what we should tolerate in the name of free speech, where would you draw it ?

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

It's not just a matter of boundaries; it's also a matter of what you mean by "tolerance". If by "tolerance" you mean "legal", I'd agree that the boundary and its enforcement have to respect the other principles of law. If by "tolerance" you mean "give a pass", absolutely not. I have free speech too, and I and every member of my community have a right to use that free speech to call out hateful or threatening speech, even if it is within the bounds of legality. We do not have the right to silence hateful morons - which, all told, is for the best - but we do have the right - nay, an obligation - to raise our voices against them.

For example, one of my neighbours was recently confronted by the nutjob on the third floor, who told her, "I'm going to run you out of this building." That's probably vague enough to evade Canada's laws on threatening speech, but the literal meaning is still pretty vicious. And the context? They were in the elevator. Nobody else. She's 73 and frail, he's a hulk. Threatening? Yes. Call the cops? Not yet ...

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
If you don't like where I draw the boundary of what we should tolerate in the name of free speech, where would you draw it ?

I didn't say Dobson's expression of his opinions shouldn't be protected as free speech. They can be odious but still not beyond the pale.

I was pointing out that it's perverse for you to suggest that his clear praise of past violence and regret that things have changed is nothing more than an indication of his support for peaceful political effort.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
If you don't like where I draw the boundary of what we should tolerate in the name of free speech, where would you draw it ?
I didn't say Dobson's expression of his opinions shouldn't be protected as free speech. They can be odious but still not beyond the pale.

I was pointing out that it's perverse for you to suggest that his clear praise of past violence and regret that things have changed is nothing more than an indication of his support for peaceful political effort.

This gets at my question. I read Dobson's statement exactly the way Dave W does, and I can't for the life of me figure out why others don't see it. It's not threat at the level that would be illegal. But it's threatening nonetheless.

Russ, is the dogwhistle really so high-pitched that you hear nothing at all?

FWIW, I looked to see whether Dobson had anything to say about the Orlando shootings. Turns out, he did:

quote:
I am deeply saddened by the brutal murder of so many young men in Orlando, Florida. Please join us in praying for the wounded survivors and for the families who grieve the loss of their loved ones. Although radical Islamic terror groups claim victory while dispensing death and mayhem, we know the truth.

Eternal life comes only by faith in and obedience to the one true God and His Son, Jesus Christ. As John 13:34 tells us:

"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another."

Which is interesting for a lot of reasons. The biggest thing is that he mentions the young men who were killed. No mention of the women. And one of the victims was 50, which isn't exactly young.

Is that a case of confirmation bias? Did he see "gay night club" and imagine that it was populated exclusively by young men, and never actually read any of the news? Especially the lists of victims of the shooting?

It's also interesting for what isn't there. No mention that the shooting was at an LGBT nightclub, or that the victims were LGBT.

He doesn't speak as plainly as the pastor of the pastor of Verity Baptist, Sacramento. By using dogwhistles instead of plan speech, Dobson maintains plausible deniability. And yet, his expressions of sadness make me think of these words from the Epistle of St. James.

quote:
With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse human beings, who have been made in God’s likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers and sisters, this should not be. Can both fresh water and salt water flow from the same spring? My brothers and sisters, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water.

Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :

The last post does bring into focus one reason why people hear things differently.

I don't believe in the whole concept of the dog whistle, which I consider nothing more than claiming a privileged understanding of what other people mean by their words, which neither the people themselves nor any other hearers can contradict.

If James Dobson makes an explicit statement that he is sorry about something, of course he might or might not be telling the truth. We are entitled to believe or disbelieve him according to our estimation of his character. But to claim a private understanding, whereby we know he in fact means something quite different, is for me completely illegitimate.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

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.'

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

and here is a summary of all the dog whistles revolving around the gay community and its persecution by conservative Christians.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

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.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

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.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

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.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

I'm not quite sure why anyone would reject the idea that dog whistles exist. A dog whistle is just a way of saying something so that part of your message isn't heard by part of your audience.

It's something that advertisers do all the time. Subaru is justly famous for this.

In politics, of course, we're usually talking bout racially charged talk, not cars, when we talk about dog whistles. But they really don't take mind reading to interpret, just a familiarity with the target audience's subculture. One example of an anti-Obama dog whistle.

Six case studies of dog whistles.

[ 16. June 2016, 05:10: Message edited by: Josephine ]

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

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.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

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".

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

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.

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

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.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

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.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

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

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

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 ]

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

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.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

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.

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

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.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

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)

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

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.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

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.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

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.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

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.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

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 ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

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.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

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.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

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?

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

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.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

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.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

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.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

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]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

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

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

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.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

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.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

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.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

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.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

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 ]

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

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.)

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

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.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

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.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

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.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

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 ]

Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :

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.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

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 ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

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.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

That outgoing president of your seemed a bit uppity MT. Know what I mean?

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

And he was so articulate!

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Spot on, you two. And this new Dem candidate seems pretty shrill.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Spot on, you two. And this new Dem candidate seems pretty shrill.

Exactly. Irregular verbs all around.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

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

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

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.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

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 ]

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Not quite sure where to post this; but, since we were discussing North Carolina's bathroom law, I'll try here:

"A transgender student was just crowned homecoming queen in North Carolina and here's why that's a big deal." (Hello Giggles)

So at least the kids get it. [Big Grin]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0