(08-21-2018 01:27 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-21-2018 12:43 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-21-2018 11:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You know you're being overly-pedantic about the definition of a "dog whistle" phrase, but I'll continue to indulge. It applies to more than just racism, but that is where I most frequently see the term being used.

"Overly pedantic"? How so. It's a term with a very specific meaning--the dog can hear it, nobody else can. That's pretty much the opposite of how you are applying the term.

Quote:But a better, clearer definition is "messaging employing coded language that appears to mean one thing to the general population but has an additional, different, or more specific resonance for a targeted subgroup." I hope that clears it up for you.

OK, so what is the coded message? What is the meaning for the targeted subgroup that is different from the message you are getting? And how and why does it differ?

Quote:Cabinet/senior staff composition can be an indicator of a racial bias because there are certainly qualified POC who could do almost any, if not all of, the jobs Trump has filled by people who are not POC. So it could be a coincidence that Trump just happened to avoid choosing many POC for senior positions, but it could also be evidence of racial bias on Trump's part. It's certainly not a definitive piece of proof, but it's another brick in the wall.

"Can be an indicator" is vastly different from "does indicate." That's the problem here. You are building a wall solely by cherry-picking bricks that "could be an indicator," while ignoring a big old stack of bricks that say "no such thing." I could accept it if you said, "Trump is a racist because there has been a long string of lawsuits successfully alleging racism in the running of his apartments." But as far as I know, that's not factually correct. I have a problem with, "Trump is a racist because there was this one (or even a few) lawsuits alleging racist behaviors many years a go, but none since." Do you see the difference? Which fits the facts?

Quote:And you still didn't answer the question - do you think he has said things that are racially charged? You said that they could be attached, but that isn't what I asked. I'm asking if you think he actually has done that. Ironic that you're willing to say Obama did, but not Trump.

I thought I made it pretty clear. Hell, yes, he's said things that could be interpreted as racially charged. So have I, so have you, so did Obama. Whether they were in fact indicia of racism depends on the larger body of work. And I don't see that with Trump. Based upon that whole body of work, I would say Obama exhibited more racism than Trump. That may be a perception bias, because the potentially racially charged statements that Obama made were directed primarily against a race of which I am a member. But I haven't seen anything from Trump that struck me as being as racially charged as Obama's frankly deplorable rant at the memorial service for the Dallas policemen.

Lad has changed the goalposts from Trump is racist to Trump is an ******* who makes racially insensitive statements.

I guess that since we all can pretty much agree on the latter, then in Lads mind the former is quod erat demonstrandum.

I've not changed the goal posts at all. If you think I am, you completely misunderstand that phrase.

As I said to Owl#s and Frizzy Owl, I'm trying to understand where y'all are coming from.

So I'm starting at the bottom from my perspective, and building a foundation to figure things out. I started with something that is inarguable, and possibly connected to racism: the use of racially charged language by Trump. When I was able to get people to tell me that they believed he has used that type of language, the next line of questioning I had was for Frizzy, which was whether or not Trump was intentionally making those racially charged statements.

If one felt he was intentionally making those racially charged statements, the next question is, why was he intentionally doing it? Is it just because he views that as a tool to increase his support? Or does he buy into the things he's saying? And that's when you get to the question about racism - and to the goal posts we've been debating. Because if he buys into the things he's saying, that's a good indication of racism. If he doesn't, then one has to wonder what that says about someone who continually is willing to rely on racially charged language to garner support. But it doesn't necessarily mean they're a racist.