r'hllor's redrum lobster

u.s. politics: a cruel and unusual government

367 posts in this topic

50 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

Sorry, but that's not correct.  I make no claim that "dog whistling does not exist".  I merely took the position that I'm not going to pretend I hear things that, in fact, I cannot hear, merely because others claim to hear them.  

As for whether I misinterpreted what you said two threads ago.  Okay, maybe i did.  It's possible. 

This is some serious bullshit right here. There is a distinction to be made about text and subtext, and how subtext informs the interpretation of the text.

When disseminating information, when making a point or when having a conversation in a textual format, people cannot rely on the normal nonverbal cues that add context to oral communication. Therefore, a reader relies on nonverbal textual cues that are more or less agreed upon, to a greater or lesser extent. These are things like sentence structure, punctuation, certain signifiers like capitalization of certain words, brackets, or quotation marks. This assists a reader in making an informed inference as to the meaning being conveyed by a writer. 

This is the basis of all sorts of textual communication, including the law, journalism, literature and more.

Here's what you said:

Quote

A "Conservative Dogwhistle (TM)" is a secret code used by conservatives, that only a liberal can hear.

Now, while the text of your statement doesn't explicitly say there is no such thing as conservative dogwhistles, the subtext, including the capitalization of "Conservative" and "Dogwhistle", the quotation mark punctuation around that particular phrase and the addition of the "(TM)" stamp, all serve to call particular attention to that phrase, which, when combined with the juxtaposition of a "code used by conservatives" which "only a liberal can hear", allows the reader to make an reasonable inference that you're intending your statement to be interpreted ironically or sarcastically, which in turn allows the reader to reasonably infer that, while you may not outright believe that conservative dogwhistles don't exist, you at the very least don't think highly of the phrase and view it with disdain.

Or, on the other hand, the text of your statement is exactly what you intended, and you think dogwhistles really are a code used by conservatives that can only be heard by liberals, in which case we can safely dismiss any further arguments from you as the ravings of a lunatic.

Edited by The Great Unwashed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

On dog whistle politics, can some just post Lee Atwater’s infamous comment so we can put this debate to rest…..

Ok!  Obviously needs to be edited....

Quote

You start out in 1954 by saying, “N-, n-, n-.” By 1968 you can’t say “n-”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “N-, n-.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

Of course.  Everyone interprets, through the media of their fallible eyes, fallible ears, and fallible brains.

Okay.  However, they are seeing things I cannot see, and hearing things I cannot hear.  If I told you anything else, it would not be being honest.

 

 

Are you blind, or is it that you do not wish to see?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The Night Under the bridge is dark and full of terrors."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

Are you blind, or is it that you do not wish to see?

Or it's something more sinister than that.

There's defending Trump's policies for... reasons. And then, there's debating the very nature of those policies, and denying that they are extreme, or pretending not to see or understand the racist/xenophobic undertones of Trump's campaign and policies.

I'm no fan of xenophobia, but some people manage to make a somehow decent case for it (on principle, I mean). Like, I don't agree with what they say, but i see the logic in their arguments.
However, taking the position that one does not see racism/xenophobia/extremism at this point, after the Muslim ban, after Charlottesville, in the midst of debating DACA... One can only assume that the speaker is trying to present xenophobia as the new normal.
But is it possible to do that any other way than deliberately? I find that hard to believe.

And pretending a moderator has personal grudge against you isn't exactly innocent either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

I have no particular desire to see it.  Perhaps that's the problem.

There's clearly no perhaps about it.  Maybe don't confront people with demonstrably wrong arguments if you're unwilling to face reality though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Ok!  Obviously needs to be edited....

 

You wonder why I asked someone else to do it? I ain't touching that thing with a ten foot pole from my work comp. That said, I personally wouldn't edit it. There's no value added in sanitizing it. 

15 minutes ago, Week said:

"The Night Under the bridge is dark and full of terrors."

Dubya believes it's pronounced "tears". His War on Tearism always confused me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

You wonder why I asked someone else to do it? I ain't touching that thing with a ten foot pole from my work comp. That said, I personally wouldn't edit it. There's no value added in sanitizing it. 

I'm not posting one, let alone six, n-words on a public forum.  That's just me.  I've actually used the quote in class powerpoints - but again, edited.  I don't wanna go viral.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

I'm not posting one, let alone six, n-words on a public forum.  That's just me.  I've actually used the quote in class powerpoints - but again, edited.  I don't wanna go viral.

Gotta protect the paycheck. Either way though it's one of the most important quotes in modern politics. It totally destroys the argument that there are no such things as dog whistle politics. 

ETA:

It also serves as a good example for why trigger warnings can be a good thing (if used correctly).

Edited by Tywin et al.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Gotta protect the paycheck. Either way though it's one of the most important quotes in modern politics.

First - yes, it is a very important quote that I think people should be aware of.  Second - I don't think "sanitizing" it is wrong, even if I am admittedly in part worried about my career in doing so when teaching.  It's an acknowledgment that some may be sensitive to the word and I have no idea how they feel.  Moreover, it's not like anybody doesn't get the point and exactly what he's saying even if you edit it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a particular desire to look at the sun, does that mean it doesn't exist?  If I don't see it, is it really there?  And if I argue against its very existence, do I still get to claim that I'm making the argument in good faith?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A new New Deal wid da Dems:

Considering where the investigations into the Russian campaign and election itself meddling, and where the investigations into the Family's finances are going -- would any of what is happening -- AT THE MOMENT because with him all things are ready to implode at any moment -- be connected with the assumption that getting some Dem support when it comes to the indictments, etc.?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lew Theobald said:

I have no particular desire to see it.  Perhaps that's the problem.

Meaning you are refusing to see the light of the racism (and all the other isms that have been in our politics and all our institutions from the first colonial moments up, and are now allowed again to be overtly stated, as back in the 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th century, and the first 3/4 of the 20th century).

Please, just read Ta-Nehisi Coates Atlantic Monthly piece that's up right now, "The First White President."  It will explain a whole lot for you.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/10/the-first-white-president-ta-nehisi-coates/537909/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Zorral said:

A new New Deal wid da Dems:

Considering where the investigations into the Russian campaign and election itself meddling, and where the investigations into the Family's finances are going -- would any of what is happening -- AT THE MOMENT because with him all things are ready to implode at any moment -- be connected with the assumption that getting some Dem support when it comes to the indictments, etc.?

I honestly don't think he really worries about it and figures he'll just pardon himself if the illegal things he's done ever get that far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Zorral said:

A new New Deal wid da Dems:

Considering where the investigations into the Russian campaign and election itself meddling, and where the investigations into the Family's finances are going -- would any of what is happening -- AT THE MOMENT because with him all things are ready to implode at any moment -- be connected with the assumption that getting some Dem support when it comes to the indictments, etc.?

Eh, I don't see that as being much of a factor really. He should be more concerned with pissing off his own party to the degree that they would consider impeachment. If it were up to the Dems, proceedings would've already begun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Considering where the investigations into the Russian campaign and election itself meddling, and where the investigations into the Family's finances are going -- would any of what is happening -- AT THE MOMENT because with him all things are ready to implode at any moment -- be connected with the assumption that getting some Dem support when it comes to the indictments, etc.?

That's a very long question with very short answer:  No.  In the unlikely event he continues to work with Dems, doing so lays himself bare once Mueller concludes his investigation.  Dems aren't going to provide him the cover that the GOP will be less and less inclined to the more and more he sides with Dems against them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

Is that what I meant?  Good thing I have you to speak for me.  Otherwise there might be misunderstandings.

Don't clarify it yourself.  You might actually say something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Lew Theobald said:

The reasonable interpretation would be that I was suggesting the possibility that liberals sometimes use the phrase "conservative dogwhistle" to refer to certain things that they claim to see, which are neither intended by the speaker nor understood by the audience.

An unreasonable interpretation would be to read it as a claim that a person (such as a liberal) who claims to read between the lines, and perceive messages not obvious to others, is ALWAYS wrong.  That was not my intent.  But I'm sure you will claim to know better than I, and continue to presume to speak for me.

Good thing you're here to clarify what liberals mean.  Otherwise there might be a misunderstanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Interesting point, but does that number seem a bit high? I wonder where that data is coming from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, aceluby said:

Don't clarify it yourself.  You might actually say something.

Exactly.  At this point it's apparent he's utterly incapable of making any declarative statement on any actual beliefs or positive argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.