On dog whistle politics
Everyone, I'm going to do this on the cheap, because I want to leave time for a lot of other things I have to do, like getting away from the home and putting in some time in wilderness far from human beings and their COVID-19.
From the Wikipedia page for "Dog Whistle Politics":
Dog-whistle politics is political messaging employing coded language that appears to mean one thing to the population of the general public at large while also simultaneously having an additional, different, or more specific resonance for a targeted subgroup. The analogy is to a dog whistle, whose ultrasonic tone is heard by dogs but inaudible to humans.
So when you are listening to, or reading, a particular speaker or writer on a particular topic, and they use a set of terms that identify them as a (D) attacking (R) people or as an (R) attacking (D) people, so for instance:
Republicans and conservatives: you all can move east of the Mississippi River, and you can have Oklahoma and Wyoming too. The rest of us will live in the other states. In 20 years when your economy has devolved into corporate slavery, and your environment has become a toxic waste dump, and your dismal literacy rates and low life-expectancy have you wondering if you made the wrong choice, you can glance over the river at our green, peaceful ideal world and content yourselves knowing that at least someone got it right.
Or on the other hand, from a thread demanding reopening:
More People are coming to realize that this whole mess has been utilized to push agendas that the neo-marxist cult have been trying, and failing, to implement over the past 30 years or more, hopefully many more will come to realize this as well, and the subversive (I would even say terrorist.) network will be exposed. I certainly don't want what happened to russia in 1917 re-happening here.
This is what politics has become, though. It's for the most part dog whistles. Listeners or readers have been duly trained to interpret your message according to what is typically called "selective listening," to try to figure out what your ideology and political-party affiliation is. There's no philosophy to it, and there's no practical sense of there being a problem in need of a solution. It's expression without communication. All of our friends who share our partisan affiliation will cheer us on, the opponents on the other side will respond with their own dog whistle politics, and we'll call it a "debate" when in fact nothing of the sort has happened.
What I'm suggesting, here, is that breaking through the facades of dog whistle politics is really our primary task-at-hand as political communicators.