Should we limit the use of the term "dog whistle"?

Question

We've previously discussed flagging dog whistles, but I think we should discuss the use of the term "dog whistle" in questions and answers.

tim gave this answer which says

Generally when people talk about "woke indoctrination", it's a dog whistle. They don't mean woke in it's original meaning ("socially and politically aware").

Later edited to

Generally when people talk about "woke indoctrination", it's a purposefully vague dog whistle*. They don't mean woke in it's original meaning ("socially and politically aware").

• "For decades, Republicans have used somewhat vague terms (“dog whistles”) to tap into and foment resentment against traditionally marginalized groups like Black Americans who are pushing for more rights and freedoms."

And he ends with

"Woke indoctrination" isn't the only dog-whistle in his speech. America-Last for example is a reference to the far-right America First policy (a phrase coined by Woodrow Wilson, used by the pro-fascist America First Committee, popularized by the KKK, and later used by Donald Trump).

The problem is that "dog whistle" is a pejorative term in this context. The clear implication here is that anyone who uses the term "woke indoctrination"

1. Is a racist
2. Is covertly signaling their racist allies

True dog whistles creates a sound that cannot be heard by humans, only dogs. The way the term is being used here, the inverse is true: only those who listen to what the poster says can hear the "true" message and, thus, identify who the dogs are. In other words, the people identifying "dog whistles" are giving the phrase their own meaning and proceeding as if that were the intended meaning. Consider this passage from tim's post

Proponents of the "woke indoctrination" conspiracy theory are of the opinion that schools are teaching white children to be ashamed of being white and are discriminated because of their whiteness (see eg this example featuring Ron DeSantis). Describing the historical and current impact of racism and discrimination is seen as a prescriptive act and indoctrination.

If you go to the provided link, you're not going to see anything at all espousing "the opinion that schools are teaching white children to be ashamed of being white and are discriminated because of their whiteness". In fact, the word "white" doesn't appear anywhere in the press release at all. But the humans have identified the "dog whistle", so it must be true here, right?

There's no way I can see to "good faith" this. The entire post boils down to

Kevin McCarthy is saying this to promote white supremacy within the Republican party, and suppress the education of children about racism

That's... a pretty extreme argument. There is no substance to the post otherwise. Contrast this with Jeff Lambert's answer. I might not agree with it, but he at least makes salient points and admits where other meanings can be had. tim leaves no such room. The ban on asking if a given political figure is fascist is instructive

When we post questions about the political positions of individual people, then we should do so by asking for actual positions on specific issues. We should not ask whether or not abstract labels apply. Why?

1. Abstract labels almost always include a positive or negative connotation. "Fascist" is a label with an especially negative connotation. Our goal is to inform people, not convince them of our views. So applying labels with strong connotations should be avoided on this website.
2. Abstract labels are interpreted differently by different people. It doesn't tell us as much about the political views of the person as it tells us about the political views of the person applying that label.

"dog whistle" appears to be such an abstract label.

I would propose the following rule:

The term "dog whistle" may not be used to assume the poster knows some non-obvious meaning that the original speaker meant to convey to their followers, where saying it explicitly would cause political fallout. Posts that violate the rule are subject to removal.

---

This way, the rule still allows good-faith posts

1. Asking how politicians/pundits define/use the term
2. Asking why someone (not the poster) considers a phrase to be a "dog whistle" (still needs to be good faith and answerable from that person's point of view)

Answer 1

Show, don't tell

Or rather, cite, don't assert. If a post claims something to be a dog whistle, it should support that claim with sources, just like any other claim.

The term is well-defined, see for instance Merriam-Webster:

1. : a whistle to call or direct a dog
   especially : one sounding at a frequency inaudible to the human ear
2. politics : an expression or statement that has a secondary meaning intended to be understood only by a particular group of people

Its second meaning is directly related to politics, so yes, it does have a place here. However, as stated, it should be supported by sources, not merely asserted.

Answer 2

No we shouldn't ban this word because it does have its use even if it makes some people uncomfortable. I would argue that the question/answer that triggered this shows that it is okay to use.

While not trying to get into to much detail about the question it should be noted that what is being asked about tends to make a lot of contradictory claims.

One of the common claims we see around this is talking about families that are not made up of a man/women in school. There are many claims about what this does to the students yet there is no concern about the same talks if they involve a man/women.

Answer 3

While the accusation of a "dog whistle" can certainly be used as an ad hominem fallacy, there's no immediate necessity that it is. It's not even per se a fallacy to point out a sentence might have a second layer or an ulterior motive.

What it is though is an accusation of malicious intent. Which is hard to prove conclusively and would require evidence to back it up beyond the level of an opinion. Though neither is it completely impossible (referencing past accounts for example), nor is it unavoidable, you just need to replace "it is a dog whistle" with "it could be or it is likely a dog whistle". And suddenly it seizes to be a direct accusation and the required level of evidence is still there, but significantly lower as you do no longer claim certainty of malicious intent but just float the option of that.

The general problem that I see with banning calling something a dog whistle is that dog whistles, by definition, are likely to go down unnoticed so the ability to call that out is important.

And I can't quite follow this argumentation:

... makes his case against it without needing "dog whistle" or any other pejorative term. "Indoctrination" has a negative connotation, but it is not pejorative

as to why dog whistle is a pejorative while indoctrination is not. If anything indoctrination is a much more direct accusation of malicious or even criminal intent than dog whistle. First of all it's by default in the same ballpark and could easily serve as a drop in replacement and secondly it has a much more negative connotation.

Moreover, the word is explicit (the GOP believes certain things are indoctrination, which is a statement of face). "dog whistle" means you have to guess at a meaning, and then assume everyone else knows what said "real" meaning is

If it would be an actual statement of fact they'd need to prove that, which is again pretty difficult to conclusively prove malicious intent and is rarely if ever done as a consequence of it. Also, people will probably happily agree that they think this is meant to create a more free and equal society with less discrimination, but that would make the term "indoctrination" sound weird and misplaced. Like that whole negative connotation wouldn't work. Which actually hints at it being a dog whistle in that it tries to transport a message without obvious perception. Which is not a direct analogy to the actual dog whistle but pretty much what you can find as among the definition of "dog whistle (politics)"

In politics, a dog whistle is the use of coded or suggestive language in political messaging to garner support from a particular group without provoking opposition. The concept is named after ultrasonic dog whistles, which are audible to dogs but not humans. Dog whistles use language that appears normal to the majority but communicates specific things to intended audiences. They are generally used to convey messages on issues likely to provoke controversy without attracting negative attention. Wiki

And in terms of the example of Ron DeSantis:

If you go to the provided link, you're not going to see anything at all espousing "the opinion that schools are teaching white children to be ashamed of being white and are discriminated because of their whiteness". In fact, the word "white" doesn't appear anywhere in the press release at all. But the humans have identified the "dog whistle", so it must be true here, right?

Well he doesn't outright state that, that wouldn't be a dog whistle, but you could actually read that between the lines. For example in this handout that is mentioned in the linked material. He's listing what will not be included in Florida's education:

• Members of one race, color, national origin, or sex are morally superior
• A person, by virtue of his or her race, color, national origin, or sex is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive.
• A person's moral character or status as either privileged or oppressed is necessarily determined by his or her race, color, national origin, or sex.
• Such virtues as merit, excellence, hard work, fairness, neutrality, objectivity, and racial colorblindness are racist or sexist.

Which sounds oddly specific and like too much information. Like who exactly else complained about claiming "moral superiority" based on race? But especially point 3 is heavily dubious in that the word "necessarily dependent" does a lot of heavy lifting there. Because if you phrased that any less certain you would be able to object that there are actually statistically significant difference in status and privilege that correspond with race, color, origin and/or sex. So that statement is barely technically true and bordering "lying with the truth" in that you present a narrative that is technically true but practically misleading. Which again would be an example of a dog whistle. And point 4 is also oddly specific.

Like on their face these points offer little subject to objection. Yes concept of inherent and inherited guilt are problematic and one should judge someone's character not their race, gender, sex, origin and so on. That's a pretty obvious nothing burger which which if vigorously defended and presented as great achievement either is a scam (huge package no content) or hints at more stuff hidden behind the obvious.

One also gets a glimpse of what this aims for when looking at the testimonial section:

My kids were sent home with books that encourage them to research an anti-racism book. These benchmark textbooks are not accurate and not appropriate for public-school education

Can you imagine that my children, who are of various shades of melanin, being told that because they are of lighter skin, they are oppressors or because they are of darker skin, they are oppressed. What does that do to them mentally and emotionally? What does that do to us as a family?”

And in general he seems to focus on narratives of individuality and individualism which on it's own wouldn't raise to many concerns, but given his demands also means that he deliberately ignores patterns in society beyond the scope of the individual. By reducing racism to individual malice he can conveniently ignore the lasting effect of a segregated society and of inherited fortune and poverty as the legacy of these systems. That is not the fault of the individual and beyond some fringe examples no one is really making that claim, but it actually prompts question of equality, justice and equal opportunities. Which he also conveniently circumvents with calls for individuality and equality, not in the sense of equal opportunities but in that case in the sense of equal treatment despite different conditions or in other words no change to the status quo. Which he pretty much states explicitly in what should be illegal from there on:

A person, by virtue of their race, color, national origin or sex should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment to achieve diversity, equity or inclusion.

So it's not even that the "coded language" is some obscure cipher or whatnot, it's rather the use of technical truth and nothing burgers to hide counter arguments and open the door for abusive legislation to silence people. How bad it is in practice is something that is again harder to determine, but the vagueness of it and the insinuations made at least warrant some caution.

So much about this case study. In general though the risk of name calling dog whistles is there, but it would also be pretty obvious as a fallacy fallacy which would probably violate another rule already, right?

Answer 4

We should not limit the use of the term "dog whistle".

There is a long tradition of using dog whistles in politics, even though it might not have been labeled as such for more than "just" a few decades (examples can be found on the wikipedia page for instance).

And let me emphasize one example that clearly illustrates how the right have been doing this. In 1981, US Republican Party strategist (i.e. not just some random party member) Lee Atwater said the following:

You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968, you can't say "nigger" – that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. 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 [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me – because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this", is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."

He is literally describing using dog whistle language instead of being openly racist!

Attributing a pejorative meaning to the phrase "dog whistle" when the context is masking over racism is not a problem, quite the oposite, pretending that dog whistle language to cover up racism is a neutral thing, "just a different way of expressing oneself" is a problem.

Just because some people do not like being called out for using dog whistle language to "hide" things that are offensive/disrespectful/morally wrong does not mean that other people should stop calling them out for doing just that or that we should stop discussing how dog whistle language is used.

Answer 5

I think "dog whistle" could be interpreted in a few different ways and to differing degrees here.

I'd say we should avoid the term just because of the ambiguity.

But also, I might suggest generally avoiding the term, as it should be a lot less objectionable and more constructive to stick to the facts and possibly talk about the consequences of what someone does, rather than to make claims about their intent. Intent is very hard to prove, and claims about intent is very easy to dismiss.

The different possible definitions:

• Evil conspirators using secret phrases to communicate with other co-conspirators (as said by Shadow1024)

  Probably not that relevant to what people are actually accusing others of (at least not from what I can see).

• Someone wanting to publicly show support for and solidarity with a group or cause while being able to maintain plausible deniability. This is something Trump has often been accused of, which tim also references in his answer.

  Rather than saying that Trump is intending to signal his support for a cause, one could comment on how people who support that cause are likely to interpret his words. If someone makes a pattern of statements that are likely to be interpreted in a particular favourable way by a particular group, that would imply a lot about that person's intent, but one doesn't have to explicitly make that connection, nor make any definitive statement about intent (see also: this paragraph).

• Someone using intentionally misleading, poorly supported or simply false claims to gain support for their cause.

  I think "indoctrination" would definitely fit here. The left would say they're e.g. teaching children scientific fact and simply including queer people in sex ed that children are already receiving. If that's true, then calling that "indoctrination" would be greatly misleading.

  This is somewhat complicated, because "indoctrination" is already making claims about intent: it's suggesting one is (usually knowingly) teaching children false things. So rather than just saying this is a "dog whistle", and implicitly asserting that they're intentionally making false or misleading claims about intent, one might reasonable say these claims aren't backed up by any evidence, and argue why it's false.

Answer 6

Let's think what "dog whistle" mean:

It's literally claiming that some evil conspirators are using secret phrases to communicate with other co-conspirators, while the rest of society just hears some innocuously sounding phrases, right?

Moreover, when think about it, there is interesting pattern concerning detection of such phrases:

• Ability to spot such evil phrase seems not to be distributed evenly. Right wingers are clearly unable. Centrist are also generally unable to discover it as well. While left wingers are good at spotting dog whistle, the masters who seem to find them everywhere are on the far-left.

• The selected evil code words seem to picked according to an easy to notice pattern. Careless conspirators seem to use as key words phrases typical for right-wingers to describe phenomena that they observe on far-left and those words tend to have negative connotations in those circles.

Looks like a wild conspiracy theory, thus should be treated accordingly.