One thing I have learned from my experience here is that I was out of my mind to consider voting Republican last time. I hope I never ever think of doing such a thing again.
Actually, I think that the cartoon would be a very effective dog whistle specifically because it does require us to assume and apply outside context. That's how dog whistles work. They are meant to go "over the heads" of non-racist people and communicate to racist people - people who commonly make fun of Black skin color - people who regularly say things like "they say Black skin is chocolate, but it's more like feces". We don't say those things so we would never automatically make that connection. People who do say those sorts of things regularly would make the connection. That's why it's called a "dog whistle." People like us aren't supposed to "hear" it. The question is whether or not the cartoonist intended to highlight the connection. I say "no", but who knows.I've acknowledge it could possibly be racist, though I think the chances of that given the realities of how the cartoon is crafted are extemely low as it would be Avery very ineffective dog whistle given its lack of context that reasonably points one in that direction in any real fashion, but primarily by applyin outside assumptions and contest to portions of the cartoon, of which the cartoon gives zero credence to within its actual design.
This, again, is you misunderstanding what a "dog whistle" is. A "dog whistle" does not make the racist connections for you. It does not wink at you and say, "Get it? Because Obama's Black?" A "dog whistle" rests on PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY. It rests on putting something together that DOES NOT LOOK RACIST, but that its author knows his racist audience will see in it. In other words, a "dog whistle" relies on people placing their outside context in it. That is the point. So when you want to discern if something could be a "dog whistle", you have put yourself in the mindset of a racist and find what THEY, not you, would see in it. Many racists would look at that cartoon, full of contempt for the common analogy that Black = chocolate/sweet, and see it as an argument that Black = feces (a joke that they've probably made among like-minded racists). But again, the question is whether the author intended it to reach those people or if it was just a coincidence.Nothing in the cartoon, what so ever, gives ANY suggestion that the use of the word chocolate is meant to indicate race or that obama's effects on policies is turning them into policy equivalents of "black people". To reach a conclusion that the use of chocolate in that cartoon is to make reference to black peoples one must simply assume that's the case not because of any actual context or evidence within the cartoon, but based on the individual's personal feelings that certain people are racist and thus anything done by someome that in ANY WAY could possibly be racist must actually be racist.
Again, the point of a "dog whistle" is to craft some sentence, cartoon or other form of communication that requires people to insert outside context in order to get the "hidden meaning." The only way something can even be a "dog whistle" is if it requires the audience to place their own context onto it. Otherwise, it's just blatant racism.My argument is not that it absolutely isn't racist. My argument is that it absolutely can't be suggested as racist without inserting outside context or assumptions that are no way actually represented within the comic itself, and that given the multitude of logical issues with claiming it as racist that I've outlined in numerous posts, I think the likelihood of it being racist is slim but at least feasible.
"It ain't what they call you, it's what you answer to." - W. C. Fields
Looking at the poll numbers I am thinking they might have linked the poll over there at Stormfront. That's skewed up!
It's GREAT to be me. --- "45% liberal/55% conservative"
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggy" until you can find a gun.