It's concerns like SSC's which led to the section titled "Delineation: How do you determine when someone is dogwhistling or horsewatering?"
It's good to take people at face value when they make their beliefs and prescriptions very explicit. But most pundits have incentives to mislead in order to broaden their appeal or effectiveness -- and so most pundits are not fully explicit.
I agree that it being a costly signal counts in favor of this belief. However, I don't think it's very reasonable to expect this. Take one example: lots of conservatives accused Obama of being a communist. This was idiotic, of course--but I don't know if Obama has ever explicitly denounced communism. If he hasn't it's not reasonable to call him a communist. Thus, while I think this costly signal is probably sufficient to refute charges of dog-whistling, it's certainly not necessary.
I think a fundamental problem is this: often one won't have a settled position on some issue. For example, I have no opinion on whether IQ differences between races are entirely environmental--I lean towards the view that it is just from a vague sense that that's the scientific consensus, but ultimately I haven't looked into the issue. If accused of dog-whistling, I wouldn't have some specific credible denunciation of it, and I certainly would fail this denunciation test, but nonetheless, I haven't been dog-whistling.
Take the example of the politician who makes a silly statement that seems to imply that the holocaust killed fewer people than we know. Should they be expected to delve into the historical evidence that the holocaust killed around 6 million Jews?
Politicians are a poor counterexample: Politicians should be judged by their actions (votes and coalition choices) which are themselves fairly costly signals, even for failed votes. That's why the "Congressional Leftist Tracker" -- which just looks at Y/N votes -- is a good proxy for socialist sentiment of congresspeople: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gPBdBrqVCbtuy7f1bjOdCDUzEv5RqbbU1yYAr3KoHYE/edit#gid=1289123714
Pundits are different. Their *job* is to find the strongest version of an opinion and promote it. They have the time and incentive to research political beliefs. They have a lot more de-facto ability to speak or not speak, and so their speech should be weighted higher. Example: If a pundit constantly trashed capitalism but never endorsed socialism, you could plausibly assume them to be a socialist or socdem.
Okay, sure, if you think that dog-whistleism shouldn't be lobbied at politicians, that is more reasonable. But what do you make of the other cases that I gave?
I am sympathetic towards the claim that dog whistle accusations are perhaps a tad too common, but after the Dobbs ruling it has become indefensible to claim that Trumps policies have been pro-women or that the best way to judge a politician (/potential supreme court judge) is to take what they say at face value?
"Results: Over time, the general public learns that promoting [m2] often implies supporting [m1]. If you won, that's because they also support [X] -- also known as death of the euphemism. If you lost, that's because people learned to identify your misleading rhetoric."
Interesting post. I'm pretty against the whole idea of dog whistles--and I think similar considerations would apply to horsewatering--for the reasons laid out here. https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/06/17/against-dog-whistles/
It's concerns like SSC's which led to the section titled "Delineation: How do you determine when someone is dogwhistling or horsewatering?"
It's good to take people at face value when they make their beliefs and prescriptions very explicit. But most pundits have incentives to mislead in order to broaden their appeal or effectiveness -- and so most pundits are not fully explicit.
I agree that it being a costly signal counts in favor of this belief. However, I don't think it's very reasonable to expect this. Take one example: lots of conservatives accused Obama of being a communist. This was idiotic, of course--but I don't know if Obama has ever explicitly denounced communism. If he hasn't it's not reasonable to call him a communist. Thus, while I think this costly signal is probably sufficient to refute charges of dog-whistling, it's certainly not necessary.
I think a fundamental problem is this: often one won't have a settled position on some issue. For example, I have no opinion on whether IQ differences between races are entirely environmental--I lean towards the view that it is just from a vague sense that that's the scientific consensus, but ultimately I haven't looked into the issue. If accused of dog-whistling, I wouldn't have some specific credible denunciation of it, and I certainly would fail this denunciation test, but nonetheless, I haven't been dog-whistling.
Take the example of the politician who makes a silly statement that seems to imply that the holocaust killed fewer people than we know. Should they be expected to delve into the historical evidence that the holocaust killed around 6 million Jews?
Politicians are a poor counterexample: Politicians should be judged by their actions (votes and coalition choices) which are themselves fairly costly signals, even for failed votes. That's why the "Congressional Leftist Tracker" -- which just looks at Y/N votes -- is a good proxy for socialist sentiment of congresspeople: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gPBdBrqVCbtuy7f1bjOdCDUzEv5RqbbU1yYAr3KoHYE/edit#gid=1289123714
Pundits are different. Their *job* is to find the strongest version of an opinion and promote it. They have the time and incentive to research political beliefs. They have a lot more de-facto ability to speak or not speak, and so their speech should be weighted higher. Example: If a pundit constantly trashed capitalism but never endorsed socialism, you could plausibly assume them to be a socialist or socdem.
It's pundits who the test works best for.
Okay, sure, if you think that dog-whistleism shouldn't be lobbied at politicians, that is more reasonable. But what do you make of the other cases that I gave?
I am sympathetic towards the claim that dog whistle accusations are perhaps a tad too common, but after the Dobbs ruling it has become indefensible to claim that Trumps policies have been pro-women or that the best way to judge a politician (/potential supreme court judge) is to take what they say at face value?
"Results: Over time, the general public learns that promoting [m2] often implies supporting [m1]. If you won, that's because they also support [X] -- also known as death of the euphemism. If you lost, that's because people learned to identify your misleading rhetoric."
I think m1 and m2 should be swapped here