> (the dog whistle used to be 'we don't want a skyline of cereal boxes')
Out of curiosity, what was the actual reason behind the dog whistle? "Segregate black people by... having smaller floorplates"? That doesn't make much sense to me.
> You are trying to tell me that the phrase is supposed to make me think in racist terms, right?
No, "dog-whistle" terms seem mundane and can be played off as having the dictionary definition, but to certain people they have a very specific meaning. Your neighbor might say he wants to keep "thugs" out of your neighborhood, which you can naively infer to mean "violent criminals," but to other racists it's a synonym for "niggers." Or maybe you do know what he means, so you call him on it... and he asserts that it just means "violent criminals." That's what makes a dog-whistle.
> You are trying to tell me that the phrase is supposed to make me think in racist terms, right?
No, I am saying the phrase is meant to be interpreted in a racial context by the target audience while passing off as non-racial. Non of the phrases I listed are racial by the dictionary definition.
The difference between a dog-whistle and a regular whistle is that dog-whistles are inaudible to humans and go unnoticed, hence the "dog-whistle" tag for such coded language.
it seems pretty obvious to me what he was doing was contrasting what someone imagines race relations being like and what his actual experience is as a black man in the south
It's quite annoying that it needs to be explained like this, since it should be pretty painfully apparent, but yes.
Sorry but I'm (personally) not particularly inclined to favorably entertain what someone "imagines" about dog-whistle terminology. Their proximity to the ebbs and flows of southern racial 'charm' doesn't hold a candle to what I actually lived through and experienced first hand for 30 years-as a direct recipient of aggressive, racially loaded behavior and speech.
People are entirely capable of articulating what phrasing is racist dog whistle; when I read, say Ta-Nahesi Coates he is able to elaborate his point even to an audience with a very different context. It happens all the time. I'm asking for someone to actually explicitly explain to me the classist dog whistle in the article so that I can learn something.
> Honestly, why take things like that personally? Why liken it to a ghetto?
Man, it's beyond irritating to see this kind "what's the big deal? just chill" type rhetoric used in this context. Particularly because it's a hard-fought (and ongoing) battle to stop this _same exact logic_ from being used to deflate complaints about what it's like for underrepresented minorities in the workplace.
It is appalling that calling out an obvious dog-whistle phrase is either not understood or unwelcome here. This is what leads to "race realism" becoming an acceptable topic in some circles.
> Black Lives Matter is also a pretty benign sounding expression that received a lot of vitriol.
Because on both sides of the barricade, there are partisans that interpret everything as dog whistling. Whether it is "Black Lives Matter" or "It's OK to be white", same thing.
> There is not a damn thing offensive about a combination of <color><noun>.
Do I ever have a new word for you. Have you ever heard of the term 'yellow peril'? Color coding is a remarkably easy and efficient way to encode racial stereotypes and spread propaganda.
Nowadays the association with said color is lessened (though some elements still appear among racists) but it seems rather ignorant of history to ignore the uses of color coding for racial dogwhistles.
At the time her response was that she doesn't necessarily believe in black superiority... it's just something people should address.
Does this sound ok to your ears? If this was a white supremacist, we would all correctly be shouting about how it's a dog whistle and not an acceptable response.
I wish more people would read 'How to Be an Antiracist.' I believe he's absolute right in that the only way forward is to call out racist beliefs from everyone, not selectively.
Selectively excusing racist beliefs from "our side" will only open the door to more racism.
The poll doesn’t prove anything, especially that black people as a race are a hate group. The idea an entire race should be considered a “hate group” is absurd on its face. So one should approach results indicating as such with a big question mark, because they are surprising. That the phrase in question is a white supremacist dog whistle fully explains the results actually.
But to take this poll credulously and throw your hands up in the air as Scott does says a lot. He doesn’t stop there though, he runs with it. With a full throat he declares an end to the idea of our integrated multicultural society. He implores white people to purposefully segregate and insulate themselves from black prior as an act of safety.
I think it’s been pointed out a couple times in this thread how polls can be deceptive. That Scott doesn’t even really grapple with this possibility and instead dives straight to “white flight” mode… well, for his sake I just hope he can get over this phase.
Because a minority of black people responded negatively to a poll question about a racist, dog whistle phrase, Adams now considers black people a hate group. And he recommends white people avoid black people.
In the Jim Crow era, black people were called "colored people." You would see "whites only," and "colored" written on signs everywhere. It was and is generally considered a racial slur. It fell out of favor after the Civil Rights era for good reason. I find it really peculiar and unfortunate that term has been reborn today, albeit slightly modified in the term "People of Color."
>It can only mean one thing, the elephant in the room, black-on-asian violence
Is there anywhere I can read about this elephant in the room? I'm not sure why the label is important here; is the implication that black people are ideologically motivated to attack Asians? Are you sure this was a hate crime (the driver was attacked because was Asian) or a crime of oppurtunity (the driver was attacked because he was an easy target)? Unless you are sure it was the former, the rhetoric sounds awfully close to the 13/52 dog whistle.
> this person’s contribution was not the reason for the naming but the fact that black people were supressed
As opposed to all those other buildings, all of which were uniformly and fairly named after people with unimpeachible accomplishments in a purely meritocratic system, you mean?
I mean, come on. People name junk after stupid things All. The. Time. And no one cares. Seriously, go to your local campus or government center or NASA facility or whatever and look up the names on the buildings and lecture halls and bathroom stalls. Tell me those people "really deserved" that recognition.
Until you name something after a black woman. Then all of a sudden the white men get all meritocratic on your ass.
They are, but their usage is limited to linguistic segregation. Nothing better to keep people in check than enforcing a correlation between the words they are allowed to use and the color of their skin.
Out of curiosity, what was the actual reason behind the dog whistle? "Segregate black people by... having smaller floorplates"? That doesn't make much sense to me.
reply