Yeah, I thought it was eye-opening as well and it obviously stuck in my mind. If you judge speech based on the worst possible interpretation that could be made by the worst or most delusional people in society, there is nothing that can pass the test.
Certainly doesn't help that Donald Trump did in fact employ dog whistles and subtext during his time as president.
I'm not sure where this leaves us aside from in a post-factual reality where imagination can't be differentiated from the real world. People are compartmentalized by their priors and have no common facts worth discussing
"If you judge speech based on the worst possible interpretation that could be made by the worst or most delusional people in society, there is nothing that can pass the test."
That is precisely what they did. "(Objectively innocuous statement X) is being understood by certain people to mean (Y) instead".
Count how many times weasel words like "is being understood as" or "could mean" are used. Understood by who? How many people? Based on what? "Could" mean? This kind of unsourced and unsourceable fuzziness is a telltale sign that you are reading someone's opinion, not a recounting of facts.
Well they certainly didn't read his mind, and they certainly didn't interpret it the way I would come from any other English speaker.
If all just comes back to my point about lack of common ground. You and I can read the exact same press release and come to vastly different conclusions, and we don't even have a republican in the room
Certainly doesn't help that Donald Trump did in fact employ dog whistles and subtext during his time as president.
I'm not sure where this leaves us aside from in a post-factual reality where imagination can't be differentiated from the real world. People are compartmentalized by their priors and have no common facts worth discussing