Re:Outraged about the Google diversity memo?
by Karunamon on Thursday August 10, 2017 @10:04AM
(#14979769)
It seems that “dog whistling” is a non contextual argument. If you don’t like someone, you can imply that what they’re writing has all manner of hidden meanings.
Kinda like an awful high school literature teacher.
Re:Outraged about the Google diversity memo?
by zimpenfish on Thursday August 10, 2017 @10:07AM
(#14979797)
> If you don’t like someone, you can imply that what they’re writing has all manner of hidden meanings.
Of course but when many people agree on the same hidden meanings, you surely have to consider that they might be there.
Re:Outraged about the Google diversity memo?
by sbmassey on Thursday August 10, 2017 @08:22PM
(#14985624)
"Only exact literal words count for meaning" is the only fair way of interpreting any given nonfictional writing. Without that, you have nothing to stop yourself from falling into mass hysteria, conspiracy theories, witch burnings and the like, based on nothing more than a bunch of preconceived ideas about people you happen to have in your head.
Re:Outraged about the Google diversity memo?
by zimpenfish on Friday August 11, 2017 @05:47AM
(#14988021)
> "Only exact literal words count for meaning" is the only fair way of interpreting any given nonfictional writing.
We'll have to disagree on that - subtext is an important factor to consider, especially in political / charged contexts.
But, see, it's equally clear to other people that he was dogwhistling like crazy. This is the problem with this "discussion" - one side is doing the "only exact literal words count for meaning" dance (which, for me, is complete bullshit) whilst the other is saying "that's not how the real world works, context and implication is important".
The two sides are never going to agree - which is ok - but one side is going to struggle with this kind of issue forever until they accept how reality works.