• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

Extremist dog whistles: history, harms, impact, and identification

someguyontheinternet

someguyontheinternet

Sr. Moderator: NS&PD, CD
Staff member
Joined
Jul 9, 2023
Messages
5,882
Location
😘😘😘
I've compiled a series of mostly academic sources on dog whistles, these provide a good introduction to the topic of how these dog whistles evolve to avoid detection in order to continue spreading hate content online and in the recruitment of new neonazi or other extremists.

Generally the tactic is to evolve language to use semantically neutral speech with messages encoded that signal to specific subpopulations in order to more easily mask the true intention of the content. This allows them to fly under the radar on social media platforms and continue to spread hate content and minimize bans.


This paper serves as a comprehensive intro to extremist dog whistles online:


White nationalists and dog whistles on twitter:
link.springer.com

Covert Hate Speech: White Nationalists and Dog Whistle Communication on Twitter

Dog whistling, a form of symbolic communication through seemingly innocuous terms is a common practice for members of far-right movements. This chapter examines how dog whistling was used on Twitter during the 2016 presidential election through a virtual ethnographic...
link.springer.com link.springer.com

Open access:




The development of racist dog whistles during the BLM protests within politics:



Information on LGTBQIA+ related dog whistles:
swu-union.org.uk

Part 4: Dog whistles in context – transphobia - SWU Social Workers Union

jane fae shares her knowledge and perspective of the ongoing issue of transphobic dog whistles in the UK as part of this educational blog series for social workers.
swu-union.org.uk swu-union.org.uk


More on gender related harm encoded in semantically neutral speech:
link.springer.com

Pronouns, Gender, and Harm

Recent work in linguistics and philosophy extensively explores the way in which speech can harm others. Most of this research focuses on expressions such as slurs which encode harm or derogation in their conventional meanings. But it is also possible to harm and...
link.springer.com link.springer.com



Computational science paper on the identification of novel dog whistles:


Book on Nationalism and Populism and the use of dog whistles in various countries:


Canada specific example of a eugenics dog whistle:




Study showing that claims of antichristian bias can serve as a racial dog whistle:
 
someguyontheinternet said:
Not really, that is cherry picking and dismissal which is not evidence of anything
Click to expand...
It’s not cherry picking, it’s an example (which you asked for). The fact that someone would include such nonsense in their paper is evidence enough that they’re living in a dreamland.

The same abstract goes on to claim that saying ‘globalism’ or ‘big pharma’ is transphobic and that they are also antisemitic. Of course this is not based on any evidence, its just presented as fact and then people like you lap it up because it fits your victim mentality worldview. It is the ramblings of a madman.

Of course it’s dismissal, that’s the entire thrust of my argument, which is to say that this stuff is all meaningless drivel compiled by chin stroking malcontents who have zero connection to reality.
 
  • “Globalism” / “big pharma” are used as anti-trans dog whistles to imply that the trans community is a powerful, monolithic and international cabal operating in the shadows. These awful two-for-one dog whistles echo the antisemitism of “international finance” and historic anti-Jewish slurs, and are an example of antisemitism manifesting in anti-trans rhetoric.
How the fuck is Globalism or Big Pharma an anti-trans dog whistle? This makes zero sense. I cannot see any correlation, nor does the author elaborate.

THECATINTHEHAT said:
One of the papers you have quoted is trying to suggest that ‘adult human female’ as a definition of woman is inaccurate, that says it all.
Click to expand...
I was once derided on reddit for having the gall to refer to women as "females", ironically in a post where I was defending women. But the same crowd has no problems if people refer to women as "bad bitches". Very strange.
 
I glossed through a few of the links. I don't really see the point in much of this. Seems like "Thought Police" and 1984 type thinking.

There will always be bigots, assholes, hateful people. Always. Forever. It's part of our nature as a species. Trying to silence people you don't like, or people who don't like you, will always end poorly.

"God grant me the strength to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference."

A war on hate speech is a war on an intangible enemy that is as futile as it is absurd.
 
someguyontheinternet said:
The entire point is hiding the hateful language in semantically neutral speech, the papers explain it quite clearly.
Click to expand...

Yes they explain it, but it’s bullshit. Saying that a woman is an adult human female is not hateful or transphobic it’s a statement of reality. Using the phrase big pharma is not transphobic or anti-Semitic, to make that claim is deranged and based on zero evidence. They don’t put any forward at all, if I’m wrong then quote it.

The whole thrust of their arguments is that they are just going to assume that this neutral speech is intended as hateful because it fits their ideology. It is the work of the obsessive victim mentality who desires to see hate everywhere.
 
One of they key features of dog whistles is the ability to easily deny the intended meaning, that's precisely what it means to use semantically neutral language. Its signaling one thing to one group that seems innocent at first glance.

The entire purpose is to deny it because generally people that hold such extremist positions are afraid to say anything because they know they will generally be shunned. Using this sort of language allows them to normalize the hateful content of their messaging which helps it to enter public discourse.
 
So you’re not capable of presenting any evidence then? Righto. Let me guess, you haven’t actually read the studies.

Everyone knows what a dog whistle is fella, you don’t need to explain that. For the claims being made to hold any weight then there needs to be evidence that those neutral phrases are expressions of hate, and there isn’t any presented. You can’t just pick any phrase you like and say it’s a hateful dogwhistle and then when asked to justify that say oh it’s neutral that’s the whole point, that’s circular reasoning.

Let’s say that there is some truth in some of these though (as there may be amongst the rest of the bullshit). What’s the point? We all know hateful people exist, what are these papers achieving?
 
No I read them, I posted them here for other people to read as well.

The purpose of identifying hateful content is to benefit online communities by ensuring that platforms don't unintentionally allow their platforms to be used for spreading hate speech or white supremacist propaganda which is illegal in several nations.

Identifying and removing hateful content allows a community to remain a safe and supporting place for its members while ensuring that the organization responsible for managing the platform is shielded from legal risk.

If you look at the computational paper on identifying novel dog whistles you can see an example of methods used for identification, the methods were the primary reason I posted that paper.
 
Best thing is to say nothing, so you don't say something wrong.

Or take forever to analyze if "A glass of wine, please" might be triggering or offensive to someone.
 
You can find hidden messages in anything if you look hard enough. If some nazi dude recognizes another nazi dudes fascist dog whistle in public, they are probably perfect for eachother and should immediately make sweet sweet gay love.

I have had my verbalized love of the gym and my adoration for my (and the) traditional family unit be described as a "dog whistle" so when I see a compendium of dog whistles I think to myself "how do you know that's what they meant?".
 
someguyontheinternet said:
No I read them, I posted them here for other people to read as well.

The purpose of identifying hateful content is to benefit online communities by ensuring that platforms don't unintentionally allow their platforms to be used for spreading hate speech or white supremacist propaganda which is illegal in several nations.

Identifying and removing hateful content allows a community to remain a safe and supporting place for its members while ensuring that the organization responsible for managing the platform is shielded from legal risk.

If you look at the computational paper on identifying novel dog whistles you can see an example of methods used for identification, the methods were the primary reason I posted that paper.
Click to expand...
Ah I see it’s so we can forward the Orwellian nightmare whereby anyone who doesn’t agree with the status quo can be erased from existence, what a noble cause.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top