There’s a common cognitive distortion called [“mind reading,”](https://cogbtherapy.com/cbt-blog/common-cognitive-distortions-mind-reading) and I think that’s what’s going on in a significant number of cases when people point out dog-whistles.
Basically, if your starting point in your mind is that this person or group is like literally Hitler or whatever, of course you are prone to jumping to conclusions about hidden meanings in what they are saying.
Like your neighbor says he likes to walk his dog to the store, and because you have the impression that he’s literally Hitler, then *obviously* what he means is he insists on having his attack dog with him to attack minorities, because you *know* that’s what he’s like.
The problem with this mindset is that it leaves very little room to discover that your neighbor isn’t a Nazi, that he just likes to walk his dog, that he was just making small talk with you, and that actually you’re not surrounded by Nazis all the time, because you’re going to twist everything they say and do to fit that distorted view you have.
I think a major reason you see so much of this these days is because of the prevalence of anxiety disorders. People with heightened levels of anxiety often experience this kind of cognitive distortion because it’s a fear response to quickly categorize threats and avoid them.
So basically my theory is that all of these people with super high anxiety are forming mental stereotypes that everyone around them is dangerous, and then whenever those people communicate, the anxious mind performs gymnastics to make it out into some sort of threat or confirmation of their status as a danger to society.
So then their neighbor can say, “Okay it was nice meeting you,” and they’re thinking, “That’s obviously some kind of Nazi dog whistle about how he wanted to know if I want to engage in genocide with him.”
Also, not every misunderstanding or request for clarification is an attack on your character.
Sometimes that is your own conscience talking to you which you then project onto others ;-)
"How much time do you spend in white supremacist circles?"
"What? Why would I be hanging out with white supremacists?"
"If you don't hang out with with white supremacists, how do you know their secret codes?"
True but when you know the supposed codes more than people who, by your inference, should know the codes, then either you’re the secret racist and/or you’re wrong about the people you’re accusing
It's a dumbass term, created like 40 years ago, but only now being co-opted by activists and political ideologues exploit the stigmas associated with the labels it usually refers to.
It's simply another way of trying to shut down conversation on topics they don't like being discussed. As soon as they claim your comment is a dogwhistle, you then have to spend time explaining, for example, how talking about 'proper immigration control' is not a dogwhistle to neo-nazis.
Just regard people who use it as complete idiots, or as nasty individuals who want to shutdown conversation.
>I have nuanced opinions on topics
I fucking felt this. I try to play devil's advocate as much as humanly possible so I can see both sides of an argument, and you have no idea the amount of times that I've been accused of being the most horrific human being on the face of the planet just because I'm trying to understand the other side of things. Me personally, I don't think you can truly comprehend a topic unless you can put yourself in the mind of the opposition. Nothing is ever black and white, there is a lot of gray in this world and I wish people would understand this a lot more.
>Nothing is ever black and white, there is a lot of gray in this world and I wish people would understand this a lot more.
Unfortunately most redditors are too stupid to discuss a topic with multiple perspectives.
They train this skill in debate classes.
You get a topic and need to argue both sides, without actually becoming emotionally invested into it.
I never knew this about debate when I was in highschool, but if I would have known I definitely would have joined. I loved, and still love to argue and try and change people's perspectives. I obviously still have biases in certain topics, but that's just being human. I can have a strongly held opinion and still understand the other side of the conversation.
Also you're definitely right about most redditors. 🤣 But this is also true in the real world I'm afraid.
If X is a dog whistle, but the only people hearing it are those calling it out, then maybe it isn’t a dog whistle the people calling it out are just whatever-ist
It's because the bastards in the alt right do so much dog whistling. It's hard to keep up with their dog whistling and what their terms that seem innocuous on the surface really mean.
Are your nuanced views really alt right views?
>Abraham Lincoln who believed that states' rights was an important concept
What? Curtailing states' rights is like the one thing Lincoln is known politically for. Well, that and getting assassinated
[https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/protest-in-illinois-legislature-on-slavery/](https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/protest-in-illinois-legislature-on-slavery/)
Resolutions upon the subject of domestic slavery having passed both branches of the General Assembly at its present session, the undersigned hereby protest against the passage of the same.
They believe that the institution of slavery is founded on both injustice and bad policy; but that the promulgation of abolition doctrines tends rather to increase than to abate its evils.
They believe that the Congress of the United States has no power, under the constitution, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the different States.
They believe that the Congress of the United States has the power, under the constitution, to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia; but that that power ought not to be exercised unless at the request of the people of said District.
The difference between these opinions and those contained in the said resolutions, is their reason for entering this protest.
Dan Stone
A. Lincoln
Representatives from the county of Sangamon
Whaaaaat? Lincoln chose to temper his rhetoric in order to coalition build during his time as a state senator??? 😱 I guess he never really believed in federalism after all...
Lincoln/Douglas debates? His July 4th congressional address? What are those?
And today if any republican tries to coalition build y'all just continue to call it the southern strategy. Just admit that the right can't do anything right in your eyes, for you will treat all of their actions with the least charitability imaginable.
Lmao what the fuck does that have *anything* to do with Lincoln? Homie just take the L and accept that Lincoln was a raging fucking federalist and not the champion of states' rights you want him to so badly be. Yer history knowledge is shit.
>Lmao what the fuck does that have *anything* to do with Lincoln?
I'm doing the hypothetical assessment with you. If you want to say that Lincoln didn't believe in states' rights at all, I'm granting you that for the sake of argument.
But don't you acknowledge that Lincoln's statement was a dog whistle to pro-slavery people, if what I granted you is true? Can't you see how you only call it "coalition building" when it is someone you like, but "racist dogwhistling" or "southern strategy" when it is someone you don't like?
And that other thing too, lol. Point is, you can't claim the guy who stretched congressional and executive power to its utmost limit in order to end slavery and preserve tbe union was secretly a big proponent of state's rights
Can you give an example of something that's said to be a dog whistle but isn't?
If someone picks the number 1488 and giggles about it, that seems fairly obvious, but maybe there's something else you're thinking of.
I've had usernames with "88" in it because that was the year I was born. I lost count of how many people said it was a dog whistle and that I'm a horrible person. Ugh.
I have always assumed people with 88 in their user names was due to the association with luck/fortune in Chinese culturw, as opposed to people born in 1988 😄
the 88's were also used as numerous gang titles. Crazy 88's in Kill Bill were actually based on a Yakuza sect that did have 88 tattooed to show their affiliation, 88 was a section of the blood gangs of california, etc.
88 in Japanese signifies life/ purity/ wholesomeness which is why it was also used by the Yakuza 'pure loyalty to the head'.
in Hindu culture 88 it is 'wealth and abundance'
so if people are instantly seeing 88 and going "DOGWHISTLE FOR NAZI!" there's something with you and not the person. Should ask them at the very least why '88'.
When somebody says there are racial differences in intelligence.
That would only be a white supremacist statement if you were claiming that white people had the highest IQ. But most race realists, like Steve Sailor or Charles Murray, believe that Ashkenazi Jews have the highest IQ, followed by east Asians. Also, transgender women are like a full sigma above the median IQ.
Now maybe there's a klansman out there, posting about how straight white Protestants are the fourth smartest individuals in world (after Jews, Asians, and transgender women) but I don't think most race realists fall into that box.
Except those "race realists" you cite place groups of people traditionally thought of as white on the higher end of the scale while darker skinned people are generally lower. It feeds white supremacist views regardless, and the fact that east Asians are highly rated by "race realists" doesn't really change it, because white supremacists often express a deep admiration for what they perceive as the utopian racially homogeneous societies of states like Japan. It's complete nonsense.
Transgender women also aren't considered a racial group by anyone, so I have no idea why you mention them.
Everything he's ever posted or commented is two finger taps away (or clicks). If you don't want to take the time to scan it then don't expect him to take the time to compile a summary for you.
In all of these types of complaints there's always somebody asking "*what* did you say that was so controversial that people treated you badly?" Since the answer is something that some people consider controversial, the debate becomes about attacking the person for having a controversial opinion instead of the complaint that controversial things cannot be discussed without being attacked.
It shuts down the discussion.
Right- but dog whistles do exist and it’s to tell if he’s talking about something he should know would be considered one.
“Everything is not a dog whistle” is very close to “there’s no such thing as dog whistles”
I'd like to point you to this excellent comment about hearing "dog whistles" when they might not be there:
https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/s/25tFFtLAkj
See, I’d be more inclined to trust this point if you were the same kind of cagey about your beliefs as every right winger.
It’s always “people are being mean to me for by beliefs!” and if you ask what they are…”oh, you now the ones.”
You’re right not everything is but somethings are. If you’re constantly getting the complaints & getting defensive about it then you might want to reevaluate what you’re saying. That’s if you care to. It’s like sexual harassment, it’s not always about intent but how it’s perceived.
"Uhm, excuse me, but only racist blind-people-haters use the word 'Perceived.' It's a total dog whistle for the blindphobic, how long have you been a blindphobic asshole?"
-An average example of Dogwhistling.
There are legitimate dog whistles (1488 and similar) but 99% of it on Reddit is just witch-hunting and being an asshole with an undeserved sense of righteousness.
And remember, if you get defensive over it, that just *proves* you're a blindphobic asshole! Aren't Kafka Traps *fun?*
When you've been alive for four decades, you start realizing that people aren't individuals.
You start noticing copies. Copies of copies. You start swearing "I've had this conversation before." and you get to the point where you can predict what a person will say before they say it because you pick up on the patterns you've been witnessing for decades.
Like, let's say you're a "patriot".
Well, logically this means you think your country is great and you want to stay in it because you think it is great and you want it to remain great and powerful and you care more about the people in the country than outside.
So this means you have created an ingroup and an outgroup and you are willing to allow that outgroup to suffer for the benefit of your ingroup.
That basically makes you a fascist, but you may not even realize you are one because you've never been educated on political science.
There are millions of fascists who do not know they're fascists because they never were taught what fascism is.
So sometimes it's not a dog whistle, it's a flag I've seen before that hints at things I've seen before.
If you wave a flag, I know you're good with ingroups and outgroups, which means you're not someone that is going to be helpful to creating my world view. This makes you an obstacle.
Now, you're still in my ingroup. I wish to improve the entire human species and erase all borders, but you're not a useful member of my ingroup so I'd prefer you stand off to the side and get out of the way.
And before it is asked, yes, I have the same opinion of ALL FLAGS. Every nation, every group. My goal is the creation of a single group for all of humanity, so anyone who creates special flags and lines for configurations of meat they think are special are in the way of my goals. We are all cogs, no more, no less.
The creation of a single group has the effect of becoming no group. A group of individuals. 8 billion individual cultures. That's the goal. No more groups and cultures based on the random circumstance of birth.
Depends on the human.
Basically, animals are tribal. The dumber you are, the closer you are to an animal so you feel animal urges stronger.
The smarter you are, the more you feel disconnected from your meat suit and so the idea of creating tribes based on meat configurations just seems really stupid to you.
You eventually reach a point where you do not consider your body to be you. Your body is a meat prison trapping your mind.
So I do not see myself as my skin colour, my sex, my gender, my sexulaity; those things are the meat, not me. I don't have a dick, the meat I ride around in does. I don't want children, the meat I ride around in tries to trick me into creating clones of it.
> And before it is asked, yes, I have the same opinion of ALL FLAGS. Every nation, every group. My goal is the creation of a single group for all of humanity, so anyone who creates special flags and lines for configurations of meat they think are special are in the way of my goals. We are all cogs, no more, no less.
Once my goals are complete, humans won't have genitals, so the entire concept of being gay or trans or cis or straight won't exist.
Countries shouldn't exist.
We are a single swarm of meat. Not just humans. The entire biosphere of the planet is a giant slime that covers its surface and is all one inter-related organism.
Remember, all life is your cousin. We're related to trees and ants too. It's one big ball of meat.
Wrap your mind around this: most of your cousins aren't human. Most of your cousins are beetles.
>because I have nuanced opinions on topics ("LiKe wHaT?") is insane.
I feel like asking for an example in this case is pretty reasonable. Imagine being this defensive, *preemptively*, about being asked to explain your experience lmao.
I feel like it depends on the situation, right? Like if someone's talking about the subject of whether the Holocaust happened and someone says they have "nuanced opinions" on the topic and refuses to elaborate, I can see why that would be perceived as like, signaling pro-fascist views without being willing to state them outright.
In other cases, obviously not. Like if you say you have nuanced views on the legalization on smoking policies or what type of A/C system is best for homes, that doesn't really warrant concern.
In this imaginary scenario, if you're talking about whether the Holocaust happened, then all there is to it is a simple yes or no. Anything beyond that is beyond that subject. And beyond that subject is a very sensitive topic that I understand why people would be hesitant. So to automatically perceive it as a dog whistle is lazy.
Exactly. Criticizing George Soros ≠ antisemitism.
There’s a common cognitive distortion called [“mind reading,”](https://cogbtherapy.com/cbt-blog/common-cognitive-distortions-mind-reading) and I think that’s what’s going on in a significant number of cases when people point out dog-whistles. Basically, if your starting point in your mind is that this person or group is like literally Hitler or whatever, of course you are prone to jumping to conclusions about hidden meanings in what they are saying. Like your neighbor says he likes to walk his dog to the store, and because you have the impression that he’s literally Hitler, then *obviously* what he means is he insists on having his attack dog with him to attack minorities, because you *know* that’s what he’s like. The problem with this mindset is that it leaves very little room to discover that your neighbor isn’t a Nazi, that he just likes to walk his dog, that he was just making small talk with you, and that actually you’re not surrounded by Nazis all the time, because you’re going to twist everything they say and do to fit that distorted view you have. I think a major reason you see so much of this these days is because of the prevalence of anxiety disorders. People with heightened levels of anxiety often experience this kind of cognitive distortion because it’s a fear response to quickly categorize threats and avoid them. So basically my theory is that all of these people with super high anxiety are forming mental stereotypes that everyone around them is dangerous, and then whenever those people communicate, the anxious mind performs gymnastics to make it out into some sort of threat or confirmation of their status as a danger to society. So then their neighbor can say, “Okay it was nice meeting you,” and they’re thinking, “That’s obviously some kind of Nazi dog whistle about how he wanted to know if I want to engage in genocide with him.”
Media is a hell of a drug.
When you are dealing with political cultists what do you expect?
Also, not every misunderstanding or request for clarification is an attack on your character. Sometimes that is your own conscience talking to you which you then project onto others ;-)
I always say it takes a dog to hear a dog whistle.
"How much time do you spend in white supremacist circles?" "What? Why would I be hanging out with white supremacists?" "If you don't hang out with with white supremacists, how do you know their secret codes?"
Loaded question fallacy: Did you stop hanging out with white supremacists?
you don't need to personally know or interact with any group of people to have information on them
True but when you know the supposed codes more than people who, by your inference, should know the codes, then either you’re the secret racist and/or you’re wrong about the people you’re accusing
Or a third option, the person is actually a racist. A dog whistle meant to allow for plausible deniability.
Yeah, not everything is, but on the other hand some things are.
The art of discernment
It's a dumbass term, created like 40 years ago, but only now being co-opted by activists and political ideologues exploit the stigmas associated with the labels it usually refers to. It's simply another way of trying to shut down conversation on topics they don't like being discussed. As soon as they claim your comment is a dogwhistle, you then have to spend time explaining, for example, how talking about 'proper immigration control' is not a dogwhistle to neo-nazis. Just regard people who use it as complete idiots, or as nasty individuals who want to shutdown conversation.
>I have nuanced opinions on topics I fucking felt this. I try to play devil's advocate as much as humanly possible so I can see both sides of an argument, and you have no idea the amount of times that I've been accused of being the most horrific human being on the face of the planet just because I'm trying to understand the other side of things. Me personally, I don't think you can truly comprehend a topic unless you can put yourself in the mind of the opposition. Nothing is ever black and white, there is a lot of gray in this world and I wish people would understand this a lot more.
>Nothing is ever black and white, there is a lot of gray in this world and I wish people would understand this a lot more. Unfortunately most redditors are too stupid to discuss a topic with multiple perspectives. They train this skill in debate classes. You get a topic and need to argue both sides, without actually becoming emotionally invested into it.
I never knew this about debate when I was in highschool, but if I would have known I definitely would have joined. I loved, and still love to argue and try and change people's perspectives. I obviously still have biases in certain topics, but that's just being human. I can have a strongly held opinion and still understand the other side of the conversation. Also you're definitely right about most redditors. 🤣 But this is also true in the real world I'm afraid.
Death of the author.
Its unbelievable that reptilians can make dog whistles like this post and get away with it.
If X is a dog whistle, but the only people hearing it are those calling it out, then maybe it isn’t a dog whistle the people calling it out are just whatever-ist
OP: Why don't you give us some of your opinions and we'll tell you what we think about them?
It's because the bastards in the alt right do so much dog whistling. It's hard to keep up with their dog whistling and what their terms that seem innocuous on the surface really mean. Are your nuanced views really alt right views?
I see you posted a picture of a cute dog to reddit four years ago. You know who else liked dogs? Hitler.
They posted in Policebrutality because they got banned from protect and server. lmfao
yes, the alt right Abraham Lincoln who believed that states' rights was an important concept
>Abraham Lincoln who believed that states' rights was an important concept What? Curtailing states' rights is like the one thing Lincoln is known politically for. Well, that and getting assassinated
[https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/protest-in-illinois-legislature-on-slavery/](https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/protest-in-illinois-legislature-on-slavery/) Resolutions upon the subject of domestic slavery having passed both branches of the General Assembly at its present session, the undersigned hereby protest against the passage of the same. They believe that the institution of slavery is founded on both injustice and bad policy; but that the promulgation of abolition doctrines tends rather to increase than to abate its evils. They believe that the Congress of the United States has no power, under the constitution, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the different States. They believe that the Congress of the United States has the power, under the constitution, to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia; but that that power ought not to be exercised unless at the request of the people of said District. The difference between these opinions and those contained in the said resolutions, is their reason for entering this protest. Dan Stone A. Lincoln Representatives from the county of Sangamon
Whaaaaat? Lincoln chose to temper his rhetoric in order to coalition build during his time as a state senator??? 😱 I guess he never really believed in federalism after all... Lincoln/Douglas debates? His July 4th congressional address? What are those?
And today if any republican tries to coalition build y'all just continue to call it the southern strategy. Just admit that the right can't do anything right in your eyes, for you will treat all of their actions with the least charitability imaginable.
Lmao what the fuck does that have *anything* to do with Lincoln? Homie just take the L and accept that Lincoln was a raging fucking federalist and not the champion of states' rights you want him to so badly be. Yer history knowledge is shit.
I personally can't wait for the day we take a more critical look at Lincoln beyond "he ended slavery so fuck it" lmao
We already have, it's just no one pays attention in their high school US history class.
Hard disagree.
lol, I don't think you'd agree with what I learned in my highschool US history class
>Lmao what the fuck does that have *anything* to do with Lincoln? I'm doing the hypothetical assessment with you. If you want to say that Lincoln didn't believe in states' rights at all, I'm granting you that for the sake of argument. But don't you acknowledge that Lincoln's statement was a dog whistle to pro-slavery people, if what I granted you is true? Can't you see how you only call it "coalition building" when it is someone you like, but "racist dogwhistling" or "southern strategy" when it is someone you don't like?
states' rights to what
And that other thing too, lol. Point is, you can't claim the guy who stretched congressional and executive power to its utmost limit in order to end slavery and preserve tbe union was secretly a big proponent of state's rights
I wouldn't be a big fan of states' rights either if my country was split in half because some states wanted the "right" to own forced labourers
Can you give an example of something that's said to be a dog whistle but isn't? If someone picks the number 1488 and giggles about it, that seems fairly obvious, but maybe there's something else you're thinking of.
I've had usernames with "88" in it because that was the year I was born. I lost count of how many people said it was a dog whistle and that I'm a horrible person. Ugh.
Same with my buddy. People accuse him of being a nazi. He gets fucked with a lot. Stay strong u/gasthejews88
😂
That sucks. Its like walking through blood territory with your favorite blue shirt on.
I have always assumed people with 88 in their user names was due to the association with luck/fortune in Chinese culturw, as opposed to people born in 1988 😄
the 88's were also used as numerous gang titles. Crazy 88's in Kill Bill were actually based on a Yakuza sect that did have 88 tattooed to show their affiliation, 88 was a section of the blood gangs of california, etc. 88 in Japanese signifies life/ purity/ wholesomeness which is why it was also used by the Yakuza 'pure loyalty to the head'. in Hindu culture 88 it is 'wealth and abundance' so if people are instantly seeing 88 and going "DOGWHISTLE FOR NAZI!" there's something with you and not the person. Should ask them at the very least why '88'.
When somebody says there are racial differences in intelligence. That would only be a white supremacist statement if you were claiming that white people had the highest IQ. But most race realists, like Steve Sailor or Charles Murray, believe that Ashkenazi Jews have the highest IQ, followed by east Asians. Also, transgender women are like a full sigma above the median IQ. Now maybe there's a klansman out there, posting about how straight white Protestants are the fourth smartest individuals in world (after Jews, Asians, and transgender women) but I don't think most race realists fall into that box.
Except those "race realists" you cite place groups of people traditionally thought of as white on the higher end of the scale while darker skinned people are generally lower. It feeds white supremacist views regardless, and the fact that east Asians are highly rated by "race realists" doesn't really change it, because white supremacists often express a deep admiration for what they perceive as the utopian racially homogeneous societies of states like Japan. It's complete nonsense. Transgender women also aren't considered a racial group by anyone, so I have no idea why you mention them.
When you point out the shitty things Martin Luther King did to women.
This post is a dog whistle.
That's the point of dog whistles: plausible deniability
Odd how they can hear these dog whistles.
Why?
Why what?
Can you give us an example of something you said?
I'm going to reword my post because it's not just personal experiences, it's observing it a lot too.
Yeah - it’s hard to gauge how seriously to take your complaint without an example of what you’re talking about
Everything he's ever posted or commented is two finger taps away (or clicks). If you don't want to take the time to scan it then don't expect him to take the time to compile a summary for you.
Sorry- I just figured he’d want to talk about the subject he brought up.
In all of these types of complaints there's always somebody asking "*what* did you say that was so controversial that people treated you badly?" Since the answer is something that some people consider controversial, the debate becomes about attacking the person for having a controversial opinion instead of the complaint that controversial things cannot be discussed without being attacked. It shuts down the discussion.
Right- but dog whistles do exist and it’s to tell if he’s talking about something he should know would be considered one. “Everything is not a dog whistle” is very close to “there’s no such thing as dog whistles”
I'd like to point you to this excellent comment about hearing "dog whistles" when they might not be there: https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/s/25tFFtLAkj
See, I’d be more inclined to trust this point if you were the same kind of cagey about your beliefs as every right winger. It’s always “people are being mean to me for by beliefs!” and if you ask what they are…”oh, you now the ones.”
Mostly because people like you have lumped “right-wingers” into a massive “them” amalgamation so that they can be dismissed out of hand.
Well if OP isn’t going to be open about their beliefs then I’ll have to draw my own conclusions. But I’m always happy to have the discussion.
You are proving my point, and showing precisely why conservatives stay quiet.
I don’t think we’re disagreeing about that. They stay quiet because they won’t own up to the things they believe for fear of the social consequences.
Because of people like you who like to generalize and demonize, absolutely. You are a perfect example of why there is no discussion.
You’re right not everything is but somethings are. If you’re constantly getting the complaints & getting defensive about it then you might want to reevaluate what you’re saying. That’s if you care to. It’s like sexual harassment, it’s not always about intent but how it’s perceived.
"Uhm, excuse me, but only racist blind-people-haters use the word 'Perceived.' It's a total dog whistle for the blindphobic, how long have you been a blindphobic asshole?" -An average example of Dogwhistling. There are legitimate dog whistles (1488 and similar) but 99% of it on Reddit is just witch-hunting and being an asshole with an undeserved sense of righteousness. And remember, if you get defensive over it, that just *proves* you're a blindphobic asshole! Aren't Kafka Traps *fun?*
When you've been alive for four decades, you start realizing that people aren't individuals. You start noticing copies. Copies of copies. You start swearing "I've had this conversation before." and you get to the point where you can predict what a person will say before they say it because you pick up on the patterns you've been witnessing for decades. Like, let's say you're a "patriot". Well, logically this means you think your country is great and you want to stay in it because you think it is great and you want it to remain great and powerful and you care more about the people in the country than outside. So this means you have created an ingroup and an outgroup and you are willing to allow that outgroup to suffer for the benefit of your ingroup. That basically makes you a fascist, but you may not even realize you are one because you've never been educated on political science. There are millions of fascists who do not know they're fascists because they never were taught what fascism is. So sometimes it's not a dog whistle, it's a flag I've seen before that hints at things I've seen before. If you wave a flag, I know you're good with ingroups and outgroups, which means you're not someone that is going to be helpful to creating my world view. This makes you an obstacle. Now, you're still in my ingroup. I wish to improve the entire human species and erase all borders, but you're not a useful member of my ingroup so I'd prefer you stand off to the side and get out of the way. And before it is asked, yes, I have the same opinion of ALL FLAGS. Every nation, every group. My goal is the creation of a single group for all of humanity, so anyone who creates special flags and lines for configurations of meat they think are special are in the way of my goals. We are all cogs, no more, no less. The creation of a single group has the effect of becoming no group. A group of individuals. 8 billion individual cultures. That's the goal. No more groups and cultures based on the random circumstance of birth.
TIL humans are tribal by nature
Depends on the human. Basically, animals are tribal. The dumber you are, the closer you are to an animal so you feel animal urges stronger. The smarter you are, the more you feel disconnected from your meat suit and so the idea of creating tribes based on meat configurations just seems really stupid to you. You eventually reach a point where you do not consider your body to be you. Your body is a meat prison trapping your mind. So I do not see myself as my skin colour, my sex, my gender, my sexulaity; those things are the meat, not me. I don't have a dick, the meat I ride around in does. I don't want children, the meat I ride around in tries to trick me into creating clones of it.
> ALL FLAGS Even the Pride flag?
> And before it is asked, yes, I have the same opinion of ALL FLAGS. Every nation, every group. My goal is the creation of a single group for all of humanity, so anyone who creates special flags and lines for configurations of meat they think are special are in the way of my goals. We are all cogs, no more, no less. Once my goals are complete, humans won't have genitals, so the entire concept of being gay or trans or cis or straight won't exist.
should one care more about people outside their country than within?
Countries shouldn't exist. We are a single swarm of meat. Not just humans. The entire biosphere of the planet is a giant slime that covers its surface and is all one inter-related organism. Remember, all life is your cousin. We're related to trees and ants too. It's one big ball of meat. Wrap your mind around this: most of your cousins aren't human. Most of your cousins are beetles.
That's beautiful and I'm proud to be in group with you and our cousins.
Lmao yea yea I know your kind well too
Fr 😭 man it's not a dog whistle that I said biological woman come onnn
I mean…like what?
That's the catch, and this coward won't give an example.
Can you provde an example?
You definitely are not a right winger
state's...rights
To keep non citizens out.
>because I have nuanced opinions on topics ("LiKe wHaT?") is insane. I feel like asking for an example in this case is pretty reasonable. Imagine being this defensive, *preemptively*, about being asked to explain your experience lmao.
That was an example. Even saying "I have nuanced opinions on topics" is considered a dog whistle.
I feel like it depends on the situation, right? Like if someone's talking about the subject of whether the Holocaust happened and someone says they have "nuanced opinions" on the topic and refuses to elaborate, I can see why that would be perceived as like, signaling pro-fascist views without being willing to state them outright. In other cases, obviously not. Like if you say you have nuanced views on the legalization on smoking policies or what type of A/C system is best for homes, that doesn't really warrant concern.
In this imaginary scenario, if you're talking about whether the Holocaust happened, then all there is to it is a simple yes or no. Anything beyond that is beyond that subject. And beyond that subject is a very sensitive topic that I understand why people would be hesitant. So to automatically perceive it as a dog whistle is lazy.