You want the FCC to issue fines for… A number? If this was in any way linked to other nazi points, it would be a loud whistle, but as is it looks innocuous. They don’t seem to be signaling anything to nazis with this.
That’s-… Uhh… That’s the entire fucking point of dogwhistles. They’re visible to the people who are in-the-know, to quietly signal support. But they fly under the radar for anyone who isn’t looking for them. It creates a layer of plausible deniability. If anyone challenges them on it, they can go “Oh I’m not a Nazi, I just grabbed a random stock photo. I didn’t know what that means.”
While I agree that an FCC fine would be odd, it’s not out of the realm of possibility to assume that someone on the production knew what it means, and quietly slipped it in. But again, due to the plausible deniability, they can all just deny responsibility and move on.
No problem, from what I understand of your comment, you were saying that something as innocuous as a number can’t be taken seriously as a dog whistle.
I was countering this by asking you to apply that same logic to other groups which might use a dog whistle of sort (which the hole point of a dog whistle is that most people don’t pick up on it and it’s only for the intended preverbal ‘dogs’) and see if you still felt the same way.
Was just meant to provoke thinking about other stuff you might not have considered or overlooked is all
Big yikes.
Doesn’t the FCC fine for this shit or is that just for saying no no words on air while they suck off every major telco in the states
I think when this stuff happens they should be forced off air for a day and play anti-hate_group_here documentaries or specials for that day.
Take your punishment and make up for it.
You want the FCC to issue fines for… A number? If this was in any way linked to other nazi points, it would be a loud whistle, but as is it looks innocuous. They don’t seem to be signaling anything to nazis with this.
That’s-… Uhh… That’s the entire fucking point of dogwhistles. They’re visible to the people who are in-the-know, to quietly signal support. But they fly under the radar for anyone who isn’t looking for them. It creates a layer of plausible deniability. If anyone challenges them on it, they can go “Oh I’m not a Nazi, I just grabbed a random stock photo. I didn’t know what that means.”
While I agree that an FCC fine would be odd, it’s not out of the realm of possibility to assume that someone on the production knew what it means, and quietly slipped it in. But again, due to the plausible deniability, they can all just deny responsibility and move on.
This argument again ugh.
Words have meanings, whether or not they’re prevalent to you is irrelevant to the problem.
How would you feel if this was “thug gangster rappers” saying a silly little reference I wonder.
I want you to expand on that last sentence, because I genuinely cannot parse what you mean
No problem, from what I understand of your comment, you were saying that something as innocuous as a number can’t be taken seriously as a dog whistle.
I was countering this by asking you to apply that same logic to other groups which might use a dog whistle of sort (which the hole point of a dog whistle is that most people don’t pick up on it and it’s only for the intended preverbal ‘dogs’) and see if you still felt the same way.
Was just meant to provoke thinking about other stuff you might not have considered or overlooked is all
Okay, but what do you mean by “thug gangster rappers” and “a silly little reference?” What thug gangster rappers? What silly little reference?
The specifics aren’t important, and I just stated what I was getting at…
Are you being hyper specific for a point or something? I dont have specifics for you