Well, honestly, I wasn't responding to an argument anyway, so why would I present an argument?
You argue: "Well technically a dog whistle is only audible to dogs so that means that you're a dog"
?? ok.
But that's not, to me, an argument - it's a expression of opinion, and you're free to hold one.
If you're saying that I misinterpreted it, maybe consider that it doesn't look like an argument - there's no evidence presented, there's no sequence of assertions, there's no antecedents, no consequence, no logical connectives ...
In short, there's no logic presented, which is why it looks, to me, like an opinion, and not a completely unreasonable one. One that I felt was made in good faith and so I could engage with in good faith.
> You argue: "Well technically a dog whistle is only audible to dogs so that means that you're a dog"
Ever read the last psychiatrist? A favourite phrase of his is "If you're reading it, it's for you." which sort of applies here - the claims of dog whistles/nazis/whatever are not to alert the general audience, but a rallying call to others of the same ideology.
It's a way to say "Come help me fight this argument because we believe the same things."
It is a dog whistle, but it's your dog whistle.
Being able to identify the conclusion that is not being said does not make me the target of the message. It just makes me someone with too much time invested in the 'culture wars' of today.
My observation is that "Dog whistle" is the new "They're a Nazi", which itself is the new "Think of the children".
They're all cognitive kill-switches and all mean the same thing - "I need to shutdown this conversation immediately".
Maybe there's a legit reason for shutting down a conversation, maybe there isn't, but the legitimacy of the reason is irrelevant to the fact that they are intended to shut down the conversation.
It's shaming language, designed to shame the other party into silence.
If it's a dog whistle that you can hear, then it's your whistle, summoning you, not the dogs