> 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?
Once again: it’s patterns of phrases and contexts. Dogwhistles only work because of plausible deniability and people like you.
> I have only come across the great replacement theory twice and both times it was in this exact context.
This is a testament to ignorance, not the evidence that you think it is. The existence of this conspiracy theory is well attested online, as are its standard dogwhistles.
> This is McCarthyism 2.0.
If “McCarthyism 2.0” means “having some private schlub call you out on your pseudonymous account for being racist (or playing into racist language),” then the real McCarthyism must have been a real cakewalk. Funnily enough, that’s not how I learned about it.
Once again: it’s patterns of phrases and contexts. Dogwhistles only work because of plausible deniability and people like you.
> I have only come across the great replacement theory twice and both times it was in this exact context.
This is a testament to ignorance, not the evidence that you think it is. The existence of this conspiracy theory is well attested online, as are its standard dogwhistles.
> This is McCarthyism 2.0.
If “McCarthyism 2.0” means “having some private schlub call you out on your pseudonymous account for being racist (or playing into racist language),” then the real McCarthyism must have been a real cakewalk. Funnily enough, that’s not how I learned about it.