Read on Twitter
what actually separates clever wordplay from dogwhistling? I'm not sure, but it seems important
take 0: they point at the same concept with opposite emotional valences
take 1: they both point at the same underlying meaning, but a dogwhistler would deny this whereas a clever wordsmith would appreciate that someone Saw What They Did
take 2: the *goal* of the actor is different - dogwhistlers are actively trying to conceal their meaning from most, while wordsmiths are communicating concepts that most can't understand (like how I can't fully enjoy the intricacies of Classical music)
unrelated to any intent of the communicator, a person is much more likely to dogwhistle on accident than they are to cleverly play words on accident?
but if this happens, the dogwhistle is actually dysfunctional
but if this happens, the dogwhistle is actually dysfunctional
as I understand it, dogwhistles are used to find aligned collaborators (think traitor in a mafia game); if they're accidentally blown by enemies, they seem to become counter-productive
