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?
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?
Because the benign thing is standard as fuck in many languages, it’s also in Unicode as a single character.