How someone detects dog whistling?

@But_a_Jape James
Tue, 03 Nov 2020 18:03:00 +0000

@But_a_Jape wrote:

Ok, I think I can see where you're coming from now and I believe your unfamiliarity with dogwhistling is where our disagreement on this technique lies. Dogwhistling doesn't take place in casual conversation with friends unless the dogwhistler already knows (or strongly suspects) you're on their side. And people don't engage in dogwhistling when they're nervous or uncomfortable, it's a tactic used by people who already know their conversation partners are sympathetic or they're confident enough to try to spread their message to others (either because they're behind a computer monitor or because they're professional communicators, such as politicians or other public thought leaders). If anything, visible nervousness or discomfort in communicating dogwhistles is probably more indicative of someone who isn't confident in their own knowledge and are just repeating what they've heard - when pressed they might change the topic to save face or get angry and defensive or both. But this still doesn't tell you if the person in question was being misled by a dogwhistler or is sympathetic to those views but uncomfortable with publicizing them.

But dogwhistling at its most effective is usually delivered by those who are professionals and have some sort of perceived authority - public thought leaders as I mentioned earlier. These people already have a knowledge of body language and cues, whether instinctual or learned, that can make the cover of plausible deniability stronger.

But I do agree with you on this:

DiegoPalacios:

It takes some degree of familiarity with the person.

But I don't agree that the familiarity is in understanding their body language. It's in understanding the context of where this specific person exists and knowing the history of their personal views. Do they have a habit of being a political provocateur? Are they constantly dipping their toes into progressively more extreme views? If there are people who regularly call them out on certain behaviors and thoughts, what are their arguments and do they hold weight?

The above is a lot of research to do on one person, which is another reason why this type of language is effective. People entering the discourse in the middle of everything will just see two sides fighting but they won't understand the full context enough to determine which side is more credible. It is at this point that the dogwhistler can continue a strategy of "acting civil" and "just asking questions" and win over the uninformed third party.

DiegoPalacios:

Another fact to consider when engaging with a person is any inconsistence between their words and their actions.

That includes double standards favoring themselves and/or people that share their belief system or doing actions that in practice dont help the groups they claim to help and/or harms other ones.

You posted this while I was typing this comment, so I'll offer a short response. This strategy falls under what I was saying as doing research into one specific person. On paper, it sounds effective, and if you're willing to put in the effort, it is. But again, this is just one, specific person and dogwhistles as a whole are a systemic issue that's advanced both consciously and unconsciously.