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

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