I would argue that the concerning thing is that when accused of dogwhistling, while plausibly deniable, is also completely irrefutable. How can I show you that the text is not secret code words?
I have only come across the great replacement theory twice and both times it was in this exact context. Somebody being accused of dogwhistling to it. Small sample size for sure, but also a strange phenomenon no?
I think what you are engaging in is quite dangerous and I believe it must come from a real ignorance of the other side's way of thinking.
You think, to have those opinions, they must have some underlying racist beliefs, and lo and behold, you find the evidence in the most innocuous of places.
I have only come across the great replacement theory twice and both times it was in this exact context. Somebody being accused of dogwhistling to it. Small sample size for sure, but also a strange phenomenon no?
I think what you are engaging in is quite dangerous and I believe it must come from a real ignorance of the other side's way of thinking.
You think, to have those opinions, they must have some underlying racist beliefs, and lo and behold, you find the evidence in the most innocuous of places.
This is McCarthyism 2.0.