Not sure if this is intentional or if the author doesn’t understand the source they’re parodying, but putting multiple brackets around a word (in this case "job”) in a conspiracy/political context can be interpreted as a antisemitic dogwhistle.
Edit: I hope you’ll read my careful wording in that I did not imply the author meant anything by this. I was simply bringing it up in case it was unintentional. I’ve since learned that some people use <<>> instead of quotes.
You’re the second person today to be complaining about “antisemitic dogwhistles”, (@antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com is the other one), although at least you said what you thought was a dogwhistle, so I’ll give you that credit at least.
The brackets thing is a real and well-known dogwhistle. If I say that the (((city council))) is putting chemicals in the water, then you should know I’m touting an anti-semetic conspiracy theory.
In this case, using «Guillemets» isn’t that, but the thing that they confused it for is real.
Saying something malicious while making it look normal is kinda the whole point of dog whistles. How are we to tell if <<this>> is benign, or just (((this))) with an extra layer of obfuscation?
Different languages have different quotation marks. Using one’s own native language quotation marks is pretty innocuous, but going out of the way to make specific formatting not used in any other language (both human languages and programming/markup languages) is what separates the two.
Not sure if this is intentional or if the author doesn’t understand the source they’re parodying, but putting multiple brackets around a word (in this case "job”) in a conspiracy/political context can be interpreted as a antisemitic dogwhistle.
Edit: I hope you’ll read my careful wording in that I did not imply the author meant anything by this. I was simply bringing it up in case it was unintentional. I’ve since learned that some people use <<>> instead of quotes.
I presume it’s more likely to be the guillemet used in quoting. In that case it’s pretty much a “…”
TIL. Thanks.
You’re the second person today to be complaining about “antisemitic dogwhistles”, (@antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com is the other one), although at least you said what you thought was a dogwhistle, so I’ll give you that credit at least.
The brackets thing is a real and well-known dogwhistle. If I say that the (((city council))) is putting chemicals in the water, then you should know I’m touting an anti-semetic conspiracy theory.
In this case, using «Guillemets» isn’t that, but the thing that they confused it for is real.
Saying something malicious while making it look normal is kinda the whole point of dog whistles. How are we to tell if <<this>> is benign, or just (((this))) with an extra layer of obfuscation?
Different languages have different quotation marks. Using one’s own native language quotation marks is pretty innocuous, but going out of the way to make specific formatting not used in any other language (both human languages and programming/markup languages) is what separates the two.
No clue why you are getting downvotes, you are just objectively right
deleted by creator