Our new moderator chez (I like chez btw) has indicated a goal of making the forum more PC. To a point I am fine with that. Where's the dividing line for me where I think enforcing PC is limiting free speech/open discussions? I am not sure tbh. Finding using perjoritives to describe ethnic groups/racial groups/gender/sexual preferences as unacceptable is fine, I am all for it. Of course most political leaders/pundits and what have you attempt to be PC. However, a lot of times these same people are accused of using coded words, "dog whistles" if you will. So we'll end up arguing whether or not a leader/candidate is really using a "dog whistle." So hope fully we can discuss when something is a "dog whistle" and when it isn't. Accusations of dog whistles includes but is not limited to the below. Feel free to add your own.


—Using angry when describing a black Democrat.

—Citing crime statistics in Chicago, Baltimore, and/or Detroit.

—Using original intent of the Founding Fathers when interpreting the Constitution.

—Citing a black Democrat office seeker's lack of experience.

—Citing food stamp, Medicaid, and welfare statistics especially when mentioning increases.

—Criticism of Obama for playing too much golf.

—Using the term "holding down the fort," referring to the NFL team representing Washington D.C. as the Redskins, wearing a baseball cap with the Chief Wahoo emblem.

—Mentioning the cost to government for Obamacare subsidies. Actually most criticism of Obamacare.

—Using the term "you people."

—Stating that Mexican is a nationality and a Muslim refers to a religion

This is simply a terrible, terrible argument that people use to excuse prejudicial statements:

"It's not racist to say all Mexicans are lazy rapists because Mexican isn't a race."

Perhaps you should explain to stupid racists that "Mexican isn't a race" because they get FURIOUS if you refer to Hispanics as white.

You forgot one of your favorites adios...

- comparing Mexicans to cockroaches

- circus music?

A 'dog whistle' contains an implicit message which isn't apparent by it's explicit message. Simply posting a collection of explicit messages doesn't reveal any implicit messages which may or may not be contained in the collection. A dog whistle is a vehicle for endless arguments as the implicit nature of the message they contain allows for plausible deniability.

Good post Spank! I think dog whistes are clearly a thing, and there are valid reasons for noticing and pointing them out as code for a speaker's true malicious intent, but like so many things, the concept can be misused and become just one more way to twist words and smear those you dislike.

Interesting piece on dogwhistles here:

Dog whistles are real, but only when the person blowing the whistle has intent to pass the code along. Not everyone who wants to talk about Chicago killings is blowing a dog whistle. Some people actually care about what's going on.

Show me post where I stated that. Btw do you think Vincente Fox takes offense at being called Mexican?

Yes it is bigotry but it is more about ethnicity rather than race. Splitting hairs too much IE too PC? For me there is a difference and it has a lot to do with the motivation of people. A white supremacist has a different mindset than someone like BruceZ making disparaging remarks about Mexicans. If you want to change people's views then you need to understand their mindset. I suggest that changing the mind set of BruceZ is easier than changing the mindset of say Dylan Roof.

Ethnicity vs. Race

Most of the racist sh*t that i hear against Mexicans are from other Hispanics (e.g. Cubans and Puerto Ricans). Not complaining, just saying.

That would be more about being about ethnic bigotry than racism in my view. Similar to someone from Japan disparaging Chineese people. There's a difference.

Ok.