That interpretation would only make sense, charitably, if OP for whatever reason thought that people look like those images anywhere else in France (unless you're joking, and I'm missing out on the irony).
This is a slightly ridiculous position if it is taken genuinely - just look at the other comments in this thread complaining about "melting pots" and "cultural erasure".
More to the point - dogwhistles are meant to give subtexts with plausible deniability. That you can find an alternative meaning for them is precisely their intent. It is not a compelling argument to claim that the original commenter was, in fact, innocent - you should instead be able to absolve them beyond all doubt.
I have a fantasy of Paris as a city of beautiful, elegant people, effortlessly fashionable who walk from outdoor cafe to outdoor cafe where they order espresso and croissants while carrying baguettes under their arms. So when I read the original comment, that (admittedly childish) impression came to mind.
The fact that other people immediate jumped to "melting pots" and "cultural erasure" doesn't indicate that that's what the original comment was referring to.
> More to the point - dogwhistles are meant to give subtexts with plausible deniability. That you can find an alternative meaning for them is precisely their intent.
Human communication is difficult. The original comment wasn't specific and so it acted as a rorschach test. It isn't possible to know what the original poster meant without asking.
> It is not a compelling argument to claim that the original commenter was, in fact, innocent - you should instead be able to absolve them beyond all doubt.
No. It isn't possible to "absolve someone of all doubt" when the accusation is "vague racist dog whistle". You have to deal with uncertainty in these situations and your inability to do that, to understand that the meaning of a sentence as intended by the author is almost always partially undefined and open to interpretation, is seriously disturbing.
> I have a fantasy of Paris as a city of beautiful, elegant people, effortlessly fashionable who walk from outdoor cafe to outdoor cafe where they order espresso and croissants while carrying baguettes under their arms. So when I read the original comment, that (admittedly childish) impression came to mind.
The linked article says:
> Renoux indicates that Japanese media, magazines in particular, often depict Paris as a place where most people on the street look like "stick-thin" models and most women dress in high fashion brands such as Louis Vuitton.
So when OP said he wasn’t talking about size, presumably in reference to that, I read it as a dog whistle too. Especially given the whole “great replacement” conspiracy out there and Trump’s “Paris isn’t Paris anymore.” The whole point of a dog whistle is plausible deniability though, so who knows for sure.
