Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Why do you assume malice?



There isn’t any assumption of malintent. I’m not sure where you’d draw that conclusion from.


You’ve repeatedly used “dog whistle” in your replies, along with “heard this rhetoric before”.


It’s true that I suspect the author views it as an annoyance or irrelevant, but I don’t know that the author holds actual malicious intent.

Said differently: to me the dog-whistle seems to be “this annoying group that I don’t care about won’t leave me alone, they should shut up.”

I don’t think that’s outright malicious, necessarily.


Do you agree with this definition of dog-whistle?

From urban dictionary: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dog+whistle

> Dog whistle is a type of strategy of communication that sends a message that the general population will take a certain meaning from, but a certain group that is "in the know" will take away the secret, intended message.

If so, then that means they're trying to signal a hidden message. From what you've said, I'm assuming that you believe that they're trying to hide the fact that they don't like LGBT people or messages to them. I think that is malicious. I think the non-malicious perspective of what they wrote is that they like product logos being used for visual identification of the product.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: