Simply, I don’t see how you can blanket dismiss one perception of racism and accept another.
Because there is evidence of antisemitism in (for instance) the words of the painter of that shitty mural, the social media posts of a council candidate etc.
Dog whistle accusations just require a glib (mis)interpretation, and a presumption of intent.
In your opinion, which is what matters to an individual. To other people the right-wing dog-whistle stuff is extremely personal and very obvious. In much the same way as people not conversant in anti-Semitic tropes can see the mural and not understand what the problem is.
To other people the right-wing dog-whistle stuff is extremely personal and very obvious.
Then I hope reasoning their argument shouldn’t be difficult, evidence won’t be short and they won’t need to guess at intent or elude to coded language.
Because there is evidence of antisemitism in (for instance) the words of the painter of that shitty mural, the social media posts of a council candidate etc.
Dog whistle accusations just require a glib (mis)interpretation, and a presumption of intent.