silvat

I apologize if my comments before were a bit on the scathing side. I really am just a bit shocked that this way of reasoning had become commonplace.

I would like to ask you, do you think that somebody could write the article and not have the beliefs you are asserting?

Imagine if I am pushing for some version of universal health care. Most of the rhetoric around such a topic will refer to things like equality, private industry exploiting the people and the poor getting the worst of it. All fairly standard and not necessarily untrue. What would you say to somebody that claims this to be dog whistling to communists. You say, 'no of course that's not he means. He means what he says'. Then they say he's using code words that give these fair normal statements a double meaning that are a signal to those in the know.

I don't see what you can do about this situation. This kind of tactic is really shady. You pass them an unprovable accusation that they can't even defend. But the accusation is usually of something so slanderous that, even if they are absolved of guilt, a certain amount of damage is already done.

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.

This is McCarthyism 2.0.

I really hate this dog whistle crap that I keep hearing. It's like a more intellectual version of 'so what you're really saying is <something you did not explicitly say>'. I don't know how it ever became a legitimate thing to say but I keep seeing it used to brandish anybody, who's opinion is not completely in line with standard left ideology, as some sort of bigot in hiding.

I don't agree so much with the parts you quoted but it should be obvious to a reasonable person that somebody could have those opinions and not be a white supremecist.

It really is scary to me how quickly people will throw around these accusations

Believe it or not, you do not have to be a white supremecist to be sympathetic with

Yeah, it was this one: Thank You for Arguing: What Cicero, Shakespeare and the Simpsons Can Teach Us About the Art of Persuasion

From chapter 23. Recover from a screw-up

```Don’t apologize at all. The problem with an apology is that it belittles you without enlarging your audience. Belittling yourself fails to un-belittle the victim. That’s why apologies often don’t work. They rarely seem sincere enough or extreme enough. And many people—especially men—try to couch their apologies in ways that avoid belittling themselves: “I’m really sorry you feel that way.” Apologies like that only increase the belittlement, implying, “I really wish you weren’t such a sensitive flower.” Try this sometime. Shrink your audience to the size of a plant and watch the anger flow.

Whoa, wait. Aren’t we splitting a hair or two here? When I told my boss how terrible I felt about misplacing a volcano, wasn’t that the same as an apology? Actually, no. Look closely and you will find a critical difference. When you own up to falling short of your own expectations, you emphasize your high standards. Focus on the standards, and you can actually make your ethos bigger in your audience’s eyes. Say you’re sorry, and you shrink.```

I wouldn't be so sure. I read a book about rhetoric (basically the bread and butter of politicians, marketing and PR) and it strongly advocated never( or almost never) apologizing. I can't remember the exact reasoning but the the assertion was that it rarely has the desired effect and often weakens your position and your ability to actually fix the situation.

I think pursuing an idea or project with wreckless abandon can be a beautiful thing. The risk of getting injured in the attempt to push limits is the cost of doing business.

That's arguable. You could say, not everybody loves is delighted that the value(to themselves) of their work goes down, the more they do it. I think most people accept some form of taxation but annoyance at idea of diminishing returns is very understandable.

maybe something like: 'cases that asked the court to _return to the practice of: preventing lawsuits against police, unless the law was clearly broken (therefore indefensible)_

Im currently reading a book on this exact topic called Rain Making, pretty good so far. Maybe a little old/outdated, can't really tell because I'm not actually in the business yet, just doing preliminary research

How do you even show that systematic racism exists?

-edit to assuage the presumptuous-

Assuming systematic racism does exist in US industry(I'm not from the US or live there) and a solution is provided to lessen it. At what point can you say that it no longer exists?

I don't think there will ever come a time where the demographics of Executives In Industry will match the demographics of a nation. There are a million different factors at play that have nothing to do with race, I think its not a very useful measure. But without that, what else can you go by?

Chiming in just to say that I do this too and would suspect it actually is quite common

Those low effort questions are often extremely popular though, which would imply that they are useful to a lot of people.

Don't know what to make of this but all trains of thought seem to lead to This Is A Bad Idea

It bothers me that your comment is written well because it lends credibility to a comment that essentially amounts to 'don't stand up for what you believe, it won't work! Be a weasel instead!' I strongly disagree, I think this approach is worse off for pretty much everyone in the long run. I can also tell you that unless you are really good at hiding your opinions/intentions, for some(me for example), your attitude is a repellant and you will be labeled a weasel. There are a number of such types in my office and I really do wonder if they realise how transparent their behavior is. To some people this behavior will be effective, some will tolerate, but for others you will be on a blacklist, prevented from going further because they effectively see you as the type of person who won't say anything that doesn't further your own cause. They just won't trust you and it's really uncomfortable for some people to try to gel with this.

I tried reading catch-22 twice before successfully getting through it. I felt the same as you did. I think my problem the first 2 times was that I was looking for the 'hook' or whatever it was that people were so fanatical about. As a consequence, I think I was glossing over the dialogue and not really ingesting what was going on. The third time I decided to just take it at face value, try and enjoy the dialogue and if no bigger picture emerges, so be it. This approach turned out to be the key. It's an incredibly funny and poignant book and what happens is that while you get through all these seemingly (initally) trivial scenes, a point does in fact start to emerge. The triviality is actually central to the main point. People keep dying off for arbitrary reasons and the being part of the war is so detached from the apparent reasons for the war is actually taking place. It's one of my favorite books. I truly recommended trying to read it again.