If you recognize racist dog whistles, does that make you a racist or a snowflake?
Just like the emoji of the eggplant is a symbol for penis - what other types of 'dog whistles' have you heard or wondered what it was really means?
"bad hombres," Pepe the frog, "law and order," "inner cities," "America First," "forced busing," "Inner City, " "Law and order, " "Criminal illegal aliens," "coincidence "
https://mic.com/articles/145105/coincid … .zvLF4SJa8
"white working class," "rural resentment," "drum major instinct," “Make America Great Again,”
"Dog whistling far more than the personal prejudices of one individual — even a president — threatens the nation. It’s socially destructive, intentionally firing the ugliest passions and pitting people against each other. It undermines democracy, manipulating voters through appeals to their worst instincts while distorting the real issues of the day. It’s an economic catastrophe, convincing working people to fear other vulnerable populations and instead to cast their lot with the plutocrats. It shatters the “we,” destroying our commitment to the community and public and instead fostering frightened isolation and anomie." - http://billmoyers.com/story/dog-whistle … cs-racism/
"Dog whistling intentionally uses veiled terms to stimulate racial animosity, whipping up popular fears and stoking dangerous and misdirected resentments."
"Linking dog whistling to personal prejudice reduces the issue to one of racial feelings. Accusations of dog whistling become a debate about someone’s soul, an issue of whether they are prejudiced or not — where no one can know what lies in the heart of another. Thus Trump’s retort: he assured the nation that he felt good about having opened a club in Palm Beach that did not racially discriminate. 'And I’m very, very proud of it. And that’s the way I feel. That is the true way I feel,' he said — and who is to say otherwise?"
http://billmoyers.com/story/dog-whistle … cs-racism/
Since a dog whistle can't be heard by the human ear, I'm not sure what this is all about.
A 'dog whistle' is in effect equivalent to a cipher that can be understood and decoded by certain audience and the message is not recognized for what it is by broader populace, as the general message appears neutral and innocuous on its face.
Oh. Well that must mean I'm not racist. Since I not only don't recognize them but didn't even know what the term meant.
Yay!
Edit. I will say that I am horrified to find out what an eggplant means. What is wrong with people?
"Oh. Well that must mean I'm not racist. Since I not only don't recognize them but didn't even know what the term meant"
Yes, it certainly can mean that.
For for the problem people that were antagonistic on race matters, everybody knew what the term "welfare queen", coined by Reagan, meant, or the 'law and order' cry being passed on by Nixon and George Wallace during the Sixties and seventies. It was anti-black message from those that knew that they could not mutter that sentiment directly. All of this stuff was a reaction to urban riots of the decade.
At the risk of irritating you, the definition for 'welfare queen' is:
'people, usually women, who are accused of collecting excessive welfare payments through fraud or manipulation.'
there is nothing racist in that definition. It can refer to anyone who engages in such activity. I think, there are times where people assume any criticism of the welfare system is somehow a critique of blacks, in general. One shouldn't have to tip toe around a term or a definition simply because others believe that the definition is more inclusive of one group than another.
"Tip-Toing" around any and all terms of language and slang IS WHAT the left wants of all social interactions . They want everything said to be instantly qualified to be one of the following;
- ignorance
-racist
- bigotry
- sexist
- one form of phobe or another.
That way they never actually have to qualify honesty or fact in any political debate .
This practice is never going to unite any two ideologies .
I would have to agree. I think all one need do is look at the last election. You couldn't support Trump for any reasons without being called racist, etc. Bullying tactics have become the way of the left and to justify it they call themselves 'elitist' or 'more educated'; implying that if one doesn't agree with them this makes one somehow substandard.
The left political present and future is in almost total disarray , If I was of the left I would be focusing on the future which they never seem systematically capable of doing- anyway . For them on issues ; if its not a outright lie , its a politically correct stance , if its not a celebrity contrived issue , it's a fake one altogether . If the left can't even elect a viable candidate and maintain that chairman [woman } of the DNC then they don't have chance iota of connecting mission statement to momentum .
-They've lost ever serious entity of political power in the federal and even state governments..
-They're political treasure chest is full of phonies .
-Howard Dean and the social media experiment , didn't work.
-Bernie Sanders copy-catting of the same , didn't work.
-Hillary's obvious phoniness , didn't work
-With Trumps reinvented Reagan-ism they might say say goodbye to 2020 even 2028?
Irritated? On the contrary, I am intrigued.
This excerpt came from the Wikipedia article as as the late Paul Harvey used to say, "now, for the the rest of the story".
There is a lot of truth in what being said here and examples of it are all over..
----------------------
Political scientist Franklin Gilliam has argued that the welfare queen stereotype has roots in both race and gender:
"While poor women of all races get blamed for their impoverished condition, African-American women commit the most egregious violations of American values. This story line taps into stereotypes about both women (uncontrolled sexuality) and African-Americans (laziness)."[2]
The media's image of poverty shifted from focusing on the plight of white Appalachian farmers and on the factory closings in the 1960s to a more racially divisive and negative image of poor blacks in urban areas. All of this, according to political scientist Martin Gilens, led to the American public dramatically overestimating the percentage of African-Americans in poverty.[13] By 1973, in magazine pictures depicting welfare recipients, 75% featured African Americans even though African Americans made up only 35% of welfare recipients and only 12.8% of the US population.[13] In 2016, African Americans made up 39.6% of welfare recipients, and, in 2015, African Americans made up 13.3% of the United States population.[citation needed] However, in a study conducted by Van Doorn he suggested the media repeatedly shows a relationship between lazy, black, and poor suggesting why some Americans are opposed to welfare programs.[citation needed]
From the 1970s onwards, women became the predominant face of poverty.[2][5] In a 1999 study by Franklin Gilliam that examined people's attitudes on race, gender, and the media, an eleven-minute news clip featuring one of two stories on welfare was shown to two groups of participants. Each story on welfare had a different recipient—one was a white woman and the other was a black woman. The results showed that people were extremely accurate in their recall of the race and gender of the black female welfare recipient in comparison to those who saw the story with the white female welfare recipient. This outcome confirmed that this unbalanced narrative of gender and race had become a standard cultural bias and that Americans often made implicit associations between race, gender, and poverty.[2]
I've never really thought about it but since you were so kind as to throw those percentages out there, let me ask you this. Looking at your figures and doing the math would you say that a disproportionate number of black people are currently on welfare, when you look at the percentage of the population they represent? Do you think that a disproportionate number of black people should be on welfare? If so, why?
Yes, there is a disproproportionate of blacks on welfare as blacks as a group are disproportionately poorer relative to the rest of society. If you look at the stats for those that reside in Appalachia, you will most likely find a disproportionate number of whites on public assistance compared to the general population. Is it because they are just lazy or in dire economic straits?
I don't think it is fair to compare statistics within a region with national statistics. There can be quite a few reasons why a region might have a higher percentage of poor people. But, I will say that when a generation is raised within that structure they don't see it as much of a problem as those of us who weren't raised in it.
I wasn't making any statement by the question. I was simply surprised at how disproportionate the numbers were.
I consider inner city areas of our urban metropolises, regions. I also consider much of the impoverished rural South a region as well. If we adjust for this, there would not be these high percentages of blacks on public assistance.
That may be so. But, look at the crime rates within the regions. Look at the proximity of opportunities for advancement within the regions. Does someone living in a hollar in Kentucky have access to public transportation to carry them a few miles down the road to institutes of higher learning with programs set up to help lift them out of poverty? Do they riot in the streets and vandalize businesses? Do they insist that the rest of us are, somehow, responsible for their plight?
Don't get me wrong. I consider welfare, on some levels, to be systematic slavery. But, no one is chained to it. A choice is made. An easy one, if one grows up in it. But it is a choice.
I think what I find distasteful is that opportunities exist but many choose to hate and blame the rest of us while completely refusing to take personal responsibility to change their lives.
That may be so. But, look at the crime rates within the regions. Look at the proximity of opportunities for advancement within the regions. Does someone living in a hollar in Kentucky have access to public transportation to carry them a few miles down the road to institutes of higher learning with programs set up to help lift them out of poverty? Do they riot in the streets and vandalize businesses? Do they insist that the rest of us are, somehow, responsible for their plight?
We all have always been taught that where they is a will, there is a way. Why are the set of circumstances regarding one groups explanation for poverty any more acceptable than another's? These rural downtrodden have no businesses or urban structure to attack, would they express themselves in this way if they did? Drug use has risen to alarming levels in this once quiet region from accounts that I read. Both groups have an attitude that is contrary to those held by more successful people. So, if the resources are there, are they equipped to benefit from them?
It is harder to break a pattern of dependency than most would admit. It takes initiative, self confidence and a dogged determination to succeed regardless of discouragement and obstacles. Yes, it can be done and I still believe that most people prefer to be self sufficient. There are many degrading aspects of just being on public assistance; being told what food you could buy with food stamps, hounding about the pursuit of gainful employment, etc.
For many, while the door to opportunity is open, they fear going through it because now there is an obligation to follow through. I don't see all this 'hate and blame
You don't see all this hate and blame? I'm flabbergasted. Truly.
The entire problem with welfare programs is when SOME needy become entitled to the promise of constant "help " . And it is this larger percent of users that have chosen welfare programs as career choices !
THAT has not only happened but it has become prevalent .
When one becomes self -enslaved to selfish-ism .
I have never supported the idea of anyone abusing provisions under public assistance. Just because I lean left does not mean I support waste, fraud or abuse from any side.
I don't think it is a question of abuse. I see it as a question of why we don't work harder to find ways to ensure no one is on assistance for a lifetime, unless they have a handicap which prohibits them from gainful employment.
"I see it as a question of why we don't work harder to find ways to ensure no one is on assistance for a lifetime, unless they have a handicap which prohibits them from gainful employment"
I am willing to support that.....
But then we need to discuss what to do about those who refuse. Those who go through the motions but don't apply themselves to programs made available. What do we do with those? Simply let them stay on the welfare rolls? Because they are there.There are many who are happy to simply accept what help is available and let that be their lives.
They used to simply exterminate non-workers. Is that what you are suggesting? Oh, if only child labor was legal again.. eh? Is that what you want? Or Kinder-Euthanasie? Perhaps you want a return of American eugenics with compulsory sterilization laws against disabled individuals?
Unless you are thinking of how else to deal with undesirable workers. please let the rest of us know what you know.
[img]https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com
"While Alexander Graham Bell targeted the deaf, and laws on the whole targeted the sexually deviant offenders and the mentally ill, there was another sub-group who fell victim to the forced sterilization procedures. In California, all it took was a doctor to deem you “unworthy” to have the procedure done. And in some cases—as late as 1963—that could simply mean you were an orphan. Men like California’s Charlie Follett were sterilized against their will as children; Follett’s only crime was to be born to alcoholic parents who could not support him, leaving him a ward of the state." - http://listverse.com/2014/02/05/10-thin … -eugenics/
So far the only other "solution" being offered is to force someone else to provide the support for someone that refuses to work.
Perhaps you have a different solution, other than suggesting that old Eugenics programs must be what those dragging their feet on taking on additional dependents want?
I am constantly amazed at the ignorance walking around in the world.
"But then we need to discuss what to do about those who refuse. Those who go through the motions but don't apply themselves to programs made available. What do we do with those? Simply let them stay on the welfare rolls? Because they are there.There are many who are happy to simply accept what help is available and let that be their lives"
Yes, we need to discuss solutions. I think that we need to make available low or no cost trade schools as a form of short term investment rather than the alternative of having people on the dole over a lifetime. People that avail themselves of such programs can break the politics of dependency for their offspring as well. But, on the other hand, I can not save a lazy person. Those that choose to remain idle and are otherwise sound of wind and limb, should pay the penalty. That could mean that their children could be removed as they become irresponsible parents, while they themselves are removed from the welfare rolls. I don't have a problem dealing harshly with the deliberately indolent, but I have to fairly provide serious and realistic options and working alternatives for people who are willing to take the effort.
Applause. It's snowing in Hell again, for we agree once more.
But I think you're missing a very vital part - there are lots and lots of programs out there to help. I come out of the construction industry and see them all the time. I talk to single mothers going to school without paying a dime. I see people, entrepreneurs, taking advantage of SBA loans and the like. GED classes are typically cheap to free.
So there are many options, but few take advantage. I've known people like that, afraid of change, unwilling to put the extra hours or effort into learning, convinced of their inability to learn. They aren't all simply lazy but that does not mean they are willing to try.
And of course you mentioned a major problem earlier in this thread in the difficulty of getting off the charity bandwagon. That most definitely needs changing - to financially ding someone for improving their finances, sending them down the ladder rather than up, is stupidity personified. Or intentional, which is what I believe we're seeing in the system of chains we've developed.
'Applause. It's snowing in Hell again, for we agree once more.'
-------
Yep, one of those odd weather patterns
---------------
'But I think you're missing a very vital part - there are lots and lots of programs out there to help. I come out of the construction industry and see them all the time. I talk to single mothers going to school without paying a dime. I see people, entrepreneurs, taking advantage of SBA loans and the like. GED classes are typically cheap to free.'
--------------------
I have been out of the market place for a while and may not be aware of all that is available. If what you say is true and it is to the extent that you mention, then that is the spirit of reform that I look for in resolving this problem.
-------------------------------------------
So there are many options, but few take advantage. I've known people like that, afraid of change, unwilling to put the extra hours or effort into learning, convinced of their inability to learn. They aren't all simply lazy but that does not mean they are willing to try.
-------------
Part of the curriculum of the education program is to give such people a sense of self confidence, the lack of this, as you say, can hold one back. Many have to be taught basic work habits, like reporting on time, etc. But, I support any such investment to move people from dependence to independence and saving the taxpayer in the long run. This reduces the welfare rolls and, more importantly, can break down the culture of dependency. But sometimes, the baptism of fire, just being thrown into the pool to swim will be necessary for the extremely timid. Those lacking confidence should participate as even modest levels of achievement is an encouragement.
-------------
'And of course you mentioned a major problem earlier in this thread in the difficulty of getting off the charity bandwagon. That most definitely needs changing - to financially ding someone for improving their finances, sending them down the ladder rather than up, is stupidity personified. Or intentional, which is what I believe we're seeing in the system of chains we've developed.'
----------
I agree,
Our programs should always encourage work rather that put up counterproductive barriers for people that are moving in the proper direction. The reward to the participants and to society as a whole is well worth the short term investment.
"Part of the curriculum of the education program is to give such people a sense of self confidence, the lack of this, as you say, can hold one back. Many have to be taught basic work habits, like reporting on time, etc."
This is, I think a big problem. As an example, the facility I worked at once put on a second shift and needed a foreman. I offered the job to one man, with a good raise, but he just wasn't interested. I made it clear I would always be available, that we would work the same shift, but he wasn't interested. Lack of confidence; it scared him spitless to think of supervising other's work.
And too many, given that they don't need to improve, simply refuse to do so. As long as we are willing to provide their support there is simply no need to face the scary experience of learning and changing jobs - it's just too much to contemplate.
Cred, I've now seen reports from two states - New York and Idaho - that are so proud they've found more people to give money to. I don't know if it's because it brings federal money to the state, but I do know that actively searching out people having a tough time of it and throwing money at them isn't the answer. Why aren't we offering training or some other way to provide self-sufficiency instead of simply locking them into the system?!?! We're creating a never ending cycle of dependency, we're doing it intentionally, and it's just wrong.
I agree about the trade schools. I honestly can't see starving the willfully indolent. That's where it gets sticky. I think we have created a class of people who have high self esteem without the accompanying work most of us would feel necessary to attain it. It's like they are too good to do the work they are qualified for, too lazy to become qualified for better.
I am a firm believer in such as those being given the understanding that public assistance is contingent upon work. Even if they are simply sweeping sidewalks they should be forced to work for aid.
"I agree about the trade schools. I honestly can't see starving the willfully indolent. That's where it gets sticky. I think we have created a class of people who have high self esteem without the accompanying work most of us would feel necessary to attain it. It's like they are too good to do the work they are qualified for, too lazy to become qualified for better."
"I am a firm believer in such as those being given the understanding that public assistance is contingent upon work. Even if they are simply sweeping sidewalks they should be forced to work for aid."
-----------------------------
I hear you, L to L
Yes, indeed, I see these sorts of schools as necessary because the kinds of low skilled jobs that one could once eke out a living with simply do not exist today. People need to be prepared to face the reality of a 21st century economy, and that has implications far beyond those just on public assistance or otherwise part of the working or lower middle class.
I have to be tough about people that insist that they will not work. There is no room for the arrogant in the face of the reality, which when it is all said and done, applies, 'those that will not work do not eat'. They have to decide if they are not to participate in upwardly mobility programs then they instead must participate in daily manpower sorts of assignments in exchange for their benefits. This could include litter control along roadways or shoveling snow for example.
I think we also need to accept that the 21st century economy still needs people to cook the fries, pick up the trash and do many, many menial tasks that keep our society moving. How do we fill those lower paying jobs and get people off of public assistance simultaneously? Do we raise minimum wage? Is the public willing to pay more for goods and services in order to ensure people can earn enough to avoid needing public assistance? If not, does the small business owner take a pay cut in order to achieve this? I see that as an option our government could live with (whether those of us in business could, or not, is another story) but I don't foresee large corporations taking pay cuts at the higher levels.
I've always believed that anyone willing to work should be able to earn enough in a 40 hour work week to support themselves and a small family. It doesn't work that way, but it should.
"I've always believed that anyone willing to work should be able to earn enough in a 40 hour work week to support themselves and a small family. "
I can agree with this, right up to the "and a small family". Minimum wage is not, and never was, intended to support a family; rather it is a starting wage for unskilled labor. As such it is sufficient to support a single worker with a little left over but not a family.
As a child in a family of 5, we lived comfortably if not extravagantly. Dad was skilled at carpet laying and when his knees gave out he became a truck driver - still skilled work - and earned well above minimum. Nevertheless, our survival was dependent on Mom's 1/2 acre garden (we purchased very few vegetables) and Dad's hunting (we purchased some meat, but not much). Without those additions to family "income" we would have been dirt poor even though Dad made a good living.
But few people today can do either of those - it's a little tough for an inner city apartment dweller to plant a half acre of vegetables in their living room and even harder to grab the rifle and go deer hunting between high rises. Instead, the time consumed by those activities must be filled with a second income, either a part time job or a second earner. Either way, a single 40 hour job doesn't provide enough now any more than it did 50 years ago. Not for a family wishing more than a bare minimum existence.
I think we also need to accept that the 21st century economy still needs people to cook the fries, pick up the trash and do many, many menial tasks that keep our society moving. How do we fill those lower paying jobs and get people off of public assistance simultaneously? Do we raise minimum wage? Is the public willing to pay more for goods and services in order to ensure people can earn enough to avoid needing public assistance? If not, does the small business owner take a pay cut in order to achieve this? I see that as an option our government could live with (whether those of us in business could, or not, is another story) but I don't foresee large corporations taking pay cuts at the higher levels.
Who are we going to consign to do menial tasks? I guess there will always people that are content with a marginalized existence. I want them to be aware that they take this course because they want to not because they do not have the opportunity to do better. I don't think that a 10 dollar minimum is unreasonable, while I think that 15 dollars is. If all businesses absorb the cost of a $10 per hour minimum and pass the costs to consumers, no one enterprise has an advantage over the other. The corporate class, the big shots, as always are never really affected by a crisis of this nature.
"I've always believed that anyone willing to work should be able to earn enough in a 40 hour work week to support themselves and a small family. It doesn't work that way, but it should"
It is just that compensation for menial labor relative to the cost of living has declined quite a bit over the last50 years. I like to think that those that work full schedules should not be punished relative to those on public assistance.
Hello Live to Learn,
Regarding your closing paragraph - if you really believe that, then, (I think), you are wrong, wrong, wrong.
Of course we will always need those fry cooks and trash haulers, but, consider this extreme example;
A single guy is working 40 hrs. at Burger King. He makes enough to get by; living in a dump apartment in a dump neighborhood. Drives a dump car and eats Ramon noodles for most of his meals.
He gets a girl pregnant, gets married, and has the kid. His dump apartment and dump neighborhood, and certainly not his Ramon noodle diet, are not suitable for a wife and kid too. But he continues working his 40 hrs. at Burger King.
Do you really believe he should be paid enough to support his family - at the same job that supported him as a single guy?
ps. I am just responding - I did not hijack the "dog whistle" aspect of the topic. It is all Live to Learn's fault!
GA
That's when him and his family gets a subsidized rental apartment, food stamps and medicaid. But she would get more $$$ if she just left him. Then he owes the state $$ to reinburse the state supporting child. But of course he can't - still has that shitty job. So the state charges him for not paying child support if 40-60% interest which of course could never pay back even if lived to 70 paying off child support for a kid who was 18 3 decades ago. Has picture put in paper as a "deadbeat dad" that owes millions. Wonderful.
The Urban Institute study found that many parents who owe child support are not “deadbeat dads. - http://californiawatch.org/dailyreport/ … -debt-9929
"Further, child support is an issue that mainly impacts the poor. Based on 2013 data, 76% of parents who owed past due child support earned $10,000 or less per year, while another 9% earned between $10,001 and $20,000. The poverty rate of custodial parents who received child support payments was 28.8%." - https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/20 … t-go-jail/
And of course on top of this - no can get a job because all the paperwork involved with the paycheck docking for the employers. Worked with a guy 2 weeks before he was fired, why? Docked pay for child support & IRS. The cutting truth:
Child support can dock 1/2 of your pay.
IRS docks 100% of pay BEFORE child support docking.
The guy was completely screwed forever.
I'm not sure a 40 hour work week should equate to a dump apartment, and a ramen diet. Unless he is spending large sums on drugs and alcohol.
Yes. I do believe that anyone willing to work should be able to live a decent life on a 40 hour work week.
But how many more people should be able to live off that same wage? How many dependents should every 40 hour week be able to support with a "decent" (whatever that means) lifestyle?
I would say a decent lifestyle would include having income enough to ensure one did not find themselves ' living in a dump apartment in a dump neighborhood. Drives a dump car and eats Ramon noodles for most of his meals. '
As I said. It doesn't matter how well educated we can make our society, how driven we may be, someone has to make the fries. That person should be able to live on the income derived from a 40 hour job. I have no problem with the idea of there being a different minimum wage for kids in school working part time but an adult who is willing to work should have incentive to do so.
If living on welfare would get you a dump car, a dump apartment in a dump neighborhood and plenty of ramen noodles what incentive does that person have to find employment at the level they are qualified to work?
"If living on welfare would get you a dump car, a dump apartment in a dump neighborhood and plenty of ramen noodles what incentive does that person have to find employment at the level they are qualified to work?"
And there is the biggest problem we've created with welfare - as long as we will "gross up" a family of 4 into the $40,000 range there isn't a lot of incentive to improve. And when we take away more than the extra being earned it only makes it worse.
How do you feel about corporate welfare and corporateers - large entities that suck the American taxpayer dry to the bone?
What is the total cost between an individual who is gaming the system versus laws that favor the banks, insurance companies and pharmaceuticals?
"WELFARE FRAUD. One government report says fraud accounts for less than 2 percent of unemployment insurance payments. It's seemingly impossible to find statistics on “welfare” (i.e., TANF) fraud, but the best guess is that it's about the same.
Combined cost of 10 corporate welfare programs is $1.539 trillion per year.
http://usuncut.com/class-war/10-corpora … lood-boil/
I wonder how Trump voters who heard Trump brag about taking advantage of tax loopholes - how they feel about him now since not only is he not fixing these loopholes as President but reversing what little protections there were with Executive Orders.
Public Subsidies For Big Business And yet Big Business still trumpets itself as the American Job Creator Fairy.
"Trump’s proposed tax giveaway will cost about $6.2 trillion in lost federal revenues over a decade, and which mostly benefits large corporations and the wealthy" - https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/12/opin … .html?_r=0
"Or, even worse, subsidies go to corporations that make existing jobs vanish." - http://labornotes.org/blogs/2016/12/vie … te-welfare
Thy Hypocrisy Of Corporate Welfare: It’s Bigger Than Trump - lavished on corporations by Republicans and Democrats alike. - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/thy … 1331050ed3
It's always fascinating to see how tax reductions, given to "buy" specific actions by corporations, become "subsidies". You want to talk subsidies, why not talk about EIC, where more money is available as a "refund" of taxes than was ever paid in the first place? We might start with the $56,000,000,000 in cost, of which around 25% is issued improperly to people not qualifying for it.
Was that a typo? EIC = ETIC? Single, Head of Household or Widowed $14,880 ? Is that whatyou are talking about?
Earned Income Credit, Earned Income Tax Credit, EIC, EITC (but not ETIC) - all the same thing. Google EIC and you get both. The subsidy where you can get a bigger "refund" than was ever paid.
Dog whistles is not a new thing, “Herrenvolk democracy", “The universal freckle”, “Washington playbook”, "Republican Motherhood" - the doctrine of innate and permanent inferiority of non-whites VS the unearned psychological and material privileges of white men. It's been part of the fabric of North American before the revolution.
One of the main influences on the framers of the Constitution was the unwritten democratic constitution under which the Iroquois - bu being British, "all men are created equal" did not include black men who were considered a different species so OK to use them as livestock, and certainly did not include women who were also considered property just like children.
https://www.indigenouspeople.net/iroqcon.htm
"During and after the American Revolution, when the rich white men were writing the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, many people who were not rich, or white, or men thought maybe this was their chance to get equal rights too. They wrote to the men who were writing the Constitution and asked them to give women, and black people, and poor people, Jews, and Native Americans equal rights with rich white men. These people did win some rights for themselves, but they couldn't get equal rights with rich white men."- http://quatr.us/northamerica/after1500/ … htm#topbar
Cred, I like your definition, but, and I'm shooting from the hip here, could you consider that the term itself, "dog whistle," is a code word? A code word for 'Leftie's' use only.
My perception of the use of "dog whistles" is that it is a Leftie's code for criticism of the Right. I don't think many of the terms that are labeled as "dog whistles" are code at all.
For instance; 'inner cities' is an obvious, (to me), reference to Blacks and the problems of crime and poverty. No code or negative inference involved, just an understanding of what is implied. A sort of shorthand. Of course there are Whites, (and other ethnics), in inner cities, but consider the predominance of their populations. Doesn't a Leftie think of that description when they hear or use the term "inner cities?"
One of my favorite examples is 'thug'. I frequently see that referred to as a "dog whistle" for Black hoodlum, yet to me, (my history shows I am more Right than Left), it is a definition of a dumb bad guy, a brute, a leg-breaker. My first thoughts would be of a gangster or Mafiosa - not a Black guy, (yes, I do think of Black hoodlums too), but in "dog whistle" conversations and writings I have seen, it is defined as a primary reference to Blacks.
No secret codes or handshakes, just an understanding of what is generally implied. Does that mean I am part of the uncomprehending populace? I don't think so.
The use of euphemisms is almost universal, and timeless, so I think this "dog whistle" thing is a Leftie concoction to denigrate Righties. . Am I wrong?
GA
Cred, I like your definition, but, and I'm shooting from the hip here, could you consider that the term itself, "dog whistle," is a code word? A code word for 'Leftie's' use only.
------------
GA, I never thought of it as a code word because its actual meaning could not be relevant to the discussion.
------------
My perception of the use of "dog whistles" is that it is a Leftie's code for criticism of the Right. I don't think many of the terms that are labeled as "dog whistles" are code at all.
For instance; 'inner cities' is an obvious, (to me), reference to Blacks and the problems of crime and poverty. No code or negative inference involved, just an understanding of what is implied. A sort of shorthand. Of course there are Whites, (and other ethnics), in inner cities, but consider the predominance of their populations. Doesn't a Leftie think of that description when they hear or use the term "inner cities?"
------------------------------------
Yes, just like 'welfare queen', we all know that this refers to Black folks. Even being a leftie, I never associated the term with White females.
----------------
One of my favorite examples is 'thug'. I frequently see that referred to as a "dog whistle" for Black hoodlum, yet to me, (my history shows I am more Right than Left), it is a definition of a dumb bad guy, a brute, a leg-breaker. My first thoughts would be of a gangster or Mafiosa - not a Black guy, (yes, I do think of Black hoodlums too), but in "dog whistle" conversations and writings I have seen, it is defined as a primary reference to Blacks.
---------
Yes, 'thug' had a far more general meaning as a definition in times past. But, when they spoke of the 'Gay 90's', it wasn't about guys coming out of the closet. When you say inner city thugs, everybody knows to whom it refers to.. it is just a pc way of focusing on black men.
----------------------------
No secret codes or handshakes, just an understanding of what is generally implied. Does that mean I am part of the uncomprehending populace? I don't think so.
No, in truth the uncomprehending part of the population is probably small. We have all been conditioned, cleverly by media and the culture to understand what the terms mean. There have been a couple of posters who said that the teams had no special significance to them beyond the classic definitions. I believe that most of us know the code words, regardless. So why implied rather than expressed?
------------------
The use of euphemisms is almost universal, and timeless, so I think this "dog whistle" thing is a Leftie concoction to denigrate Righties. . Am I wrong?
-------------------
Race issues are sensitive and whether they acknowlegde it or not the Right has been perceived as more hostile to racial issues then the Left. Reagan has been guilty of this with his 'young bucks' comment and Hillary Clinton, too, at one time committed the cardinal sin. It is an infectious part and parcel of American culture. Unfortunately, our perceptions about the Right go beyond code words. So, fairly or not they get more of the blame. Euphemisms that have racist overtones are not to be desired, the problem is universal rather than just Right and Left. You can't live here on either side of the political divide and not be touched by it.
Why is "intentionally using veiled terms to stimulate racial animosity" called "dog whistling?"
My dogs are offended. Doesn't anybody care about dogs?
I think it would be just amazing if the hues of skin color weren't used by some to judge or signify anything at all , either within the assorted shades of color or outside of them . Where I live , a man or woman can actually make eye contact without forming one opinion whatsoever !
That isn't possible in many parts of the country , for whatever reason . And this is actually 2017 . I have been actually known to listen to someone tell a racist joke and simply make eye contact with them without a reaction -after the punch-line unblinking ,unsmiling , with a plain meaningless look on my face . I love the reaction .........Its like they are wondering " Did he even get it "? And just walk away .
by Grace Marguerite Williams 8 years ago
Is the problem in the Black American community the result of external racism or is it an internal psycho-cultural, even sociocultural consciousness, mentality, philosophy, psychology, & outlook of Black Americans? Why are Black Americans behind? Your thoughts?
by Joe Njenga 12 years ago
Can you use a dog whistle to stop barking?There are a number of ways taught by dog behavior experts about stopping barking. I have not heard of any successful people who have used a dog whistle to stop dog barking. I always ignore most of the things I read about non barking training since it seems...
by Credence2 8 years ago
I thought that this article, attached, was most revealing. It might just show that this problem is not just a figment of left's imagination. A politically conservative Black man from a politically Conservative state, South Carolina, explains the points that I have trying to make for some...
by SOBF 15 years ago
Why White Americans who claim to be color blind like to write about African Americans?This is something I've never really understood. They will always start their blog with some example of black people they know and then go on a rant about how black people do this or African Americans do that....
by flacoinohio 12 years ago
Do dog whistles work?My son bought a dog whistle with his allowance thinking he would have better luck getting them to listen to him by using the whistle. He did not understand that he cannot hear the whistle only dogs can hear it. It appears that my dogs cannot hear a dog whistle...
by Don W 9 years ago
The recent DOJ report said there was a 'pattern and practice of constitutional violations (that primarily target African Americans) in stopping people without reasonable suspicion, arresting them without probable cause, and using unreasonable force.'The report is a scathing indictment of the...
Copyright © 2025 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2025 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.
For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy
Show DetailsNecessary | |
---|---|
HubPages Device ID | This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons. |
Login | This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service. |
Google Recaptcha | This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy) |
Akismet | This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy) |
HubPages Google Analytics | This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy) |
HubPages Traffic Pixel | This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized. |
Amazon Web Services | This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy) |
Cloudflare | This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Hosted Libraries | Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy) |
Features | |
---|---|
Google Custom Search | This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Maps | Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Charts | This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy) |
Google AdSense Host API | This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Google YouTube | Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Vimeo | Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Paypal | This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Facebook Login | You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Maven | This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy) |
Marketing | |
---|---|
Google AdSense | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Google DoubleClick | Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Index Exchange | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Sovrn | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Facebook Ads | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
AppNexus | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Openx | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Rubicon Project | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
TripleLift | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Say Media | We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy) |
Remarketing Pixels | We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites. |
Conversion Tracking Pixels | We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service. |
Statistics | |
---|---|
Author Google Analytics | This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy) |
Comscore | ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy) |
Amazon Tracking Pixel | Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy) |
Clicksco | This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy) |