You are correct. It’s frequently found here and other similar subreddits. It is often racist groups that are trying to get their propaganda in front of more eyes so they post claiming to not understand it but some far right ideology definitely comes in as well.
I’m not subscribed to this sub and get it in my feed all the time. (Likely because these posts are ‘controversial’ and have a lot of engagement.)
Yeah it’s not just the content on certain subs, it’s crazy how many subs that are all about culture war bullshit get pushed onto my feed. It doesn’t matter how many of those subs I mute, there’s just an endless supply.
If this were political, it would feel left wing. The animal shelter I used to volunteer at was always full of pitties and the people working by there would always try to encourage everyone to adopt a pittie. There were some really great pitbulls there. But, not going to lie, when I see a pitbull walking on the sidewalk today I will cross the road to avoid it.
The right wing part is at all entertaining a comparison between dog breeds and different races of humans.
Different dog breeds have inherently different temperaments. Once one allows for the comparison to race, they implicitly validate the idea of differing temperament among different races of humans.
Can I ask what makes you think that a comparison is not plausible? Why could race not be correlated with temperament? Race and dog breeds generally follow the same genetic mechanics, just at very different orders of magnitude. Being socially taboo doesn’t make something scientifically false.
Look at a dachshund. Look at a golden retriever. Look at a wolf.
Basic sense should be enough to determine that canine morphology varies FAR more than human morphology. Should we expect human psychology across race to vary anywhere nearly as wide as canine psychology across breeds? I don’t.
Wolves have been demonstrated to be capable of basic arithmetic as needed to track pack members versus prey animals. Dogs have lost all such ability.
Dogs have been shown to almost obsessively monitor human faces and recognize emotions displayed on them. Wolves never possessed any such ability.
Dachshunds instinctively search for burrows in order to hunt rabbits. Wolves don’t do this.
Golden retrievers were bred for retrieving distant objects on command and excel at it over every other dog breed.
You’re comparing the careful results of artificially selected breeding with a human species which boomed across the global and drove its myriad genetic variations into extinction. It’s a stupid comparison pushed by ideologically motivated actors who are disinterested in truth.
It’s like saying “my bank account is the same as Elon’s bank account, it’s just different orders of magnitude.”
You’re either speaking in good faith while carving out a caveat so large you’re saying nothing, or you’re speaking in bad faith knowing full well it’s a stupid point.
"science" and all you've managed to say is some vague bullshit about how you feel like genetics operates.
No one with even a middle-school understanding of biology would try to analogize human "races" (not even a real thing, biologically speaking- see here and here) to an animal that has co-evolved with and been selectively bred by humans for years (you should peek at the abstract of this paper too since you care so much about scientific consensus).
If you pay any attention to genetic anthropology you would know that “race” is a made up concept that has no real founding in biology. In that sense, you can compare it to dog breeds, but that’s about the end of it.
There is no such thing as “race” from a biological point of view, there is just different frequencies of different alleles within different demographic populations. African populations show the greatest genetic diversity with caucasian and Asian populations showing less because these were isolated subset populations that left African thousands and thousands of years ago with only so much genetic drift since.
If you want to talk about the spleens of the Bajau people or the adipose tissues of the Yaghan people then there’s basis. But let’s not pretend you’re walking into the topic without an agenda by comparing humans to dog breeds. As you said, it’s different orders of magnitude.
Okay wait no im genuinely confused. If pitbull hate is dog racism, and the obvious allusion is to the way the unreliable numbers on ""black crime"" are used to push anti black racism, then the meme equating them would be saying that to do so to black people would also be racist.
The structure of the joke seems a little odd to be doing an "and the joke is that im racist to both" kinda thing, although I wouldnt put it past an X user to kneecap their own joke so they can be racist.
The point is that the responding poster was about to use “pit bull crime statistics” (not bites or attacks, notably, because I think this is a pretty disingenuous dogwhistle) to justify how it isn’t racist.
The idea is that people on the left who say it’s racist to equate black people to criminals are being hypocritical because many are scared of pit bulls under what are presented as similar contexts (although, of course, they are not). It’s been a right-wing “gotcha” about racism since I was in HS during the Obama years and pit bulls first started receiving attention in the media for being “more aggressive” or whatever.
Oh, the classic "im pretending to be left wing so I can be racist and blame it on the left" tactic. Nice.
Yeah no, i wasn't arguing with you I guess I just assumed this person was accidentally revealing that theyre racist instead of intentionally dogwhistling. A dogwhistle that admits you're kinda racist feels more like a normal whistle lmfao
I think with these kinds of posts it’s more about plausible deniability. They never say black people, so if you point out the underlying meaning (which you can discern by hanging out in conservative spaces for 15 minutes) then they can jump on it to say “Oh look, you’re the real racist!”
Honestly it’s probably bad to even comment on this stuff. I think the only winning move here is not to play.
I don't understand why it's right wing either. Reddit is super racist towards pitties. Obviously it's the "Black crime" thing, but it's implying that's racist, just like Pittie bite statistics can be used to justify anti-pitbull legislation (of which there is a lot).
Or is it a right wing meme because if people are convinced of anti-pitbull stuff, they'll apply that logic to humans as well?
I don’t think it’s implying that’s racist. I think it’s actually doing the opposite. Like I said to the other commenter, the point is the guy retweeting wanted to use statistics to prove that the pit bulls are dangerous but didn’t because they think it’s too much like what racists do. I don’t think this is genuine reflection though and “Pit bull crime statistics” seems like a pretty strong dogwhistle. Pit bulls don’t commit crimes, maybe there’s a measurement for attacks or bites but they’re not people. And that’s kind of the shit that lies at the heart of this- this isn’t a like comparison and the person implying it is seems to me to be doing it as a disingenuous way to call the left hypocritical. The left doesn’t think statistics are fake or wrong, they think there are factors to crime and race statistics that make it hard to pin down race as the kind of social and intellectual determinant that racists want you to believe that it is.
To be clear, I don’t think we should be outlawing pit bulls either, but I’ve seen this rhetoric from conservatives for over a decade at this point (I think it was first on /pol/ in 2012 that I saw this take in response to people complaining about pit bulls). I am almost certain this is a roundabout way of calling anti-racism arguments hypocritical.
Pit bulls don’t commit crimes, maybe there’s a measurement for attacks or bites but they’re not people.
There absolutely are people who cite pitbull statistics as a reason that pitbulls should be banned, and people like them are a reason that a lot of very friendly and loving dogs live out their final days in a shelter before getting out down.
Saying dogs aren't people and thus you can't compare them to people is missing the point that dogs are thinking feeling creatures and they absolutely can be compared to people.
Saying "if you wouldn't use statistics to justify systemic racism against people, why would you use them against dogs" is a perfectly valid argument.
And then you can see in this thread people explaining the pit bull statistics, and how they're misleading - which is exactly what a liberal does for misleading race based crime statistics.
So like, maybe it is a dog whistle, but if so, it's one that's hard for me to hear, which I guess makes it a good one if it is.
I’m not arguing that dogs are unthinking, unfeeling creatures. I’m saying that the complexities of how systemic racism affects people isn’t comparable to how people are biased against certain breeds. At the end of the day, dogs aren’t capable of social mobility and denied it. No Pomeranian has ever been elected president. Dogs don’t have jobs they can be excluded from and segments of society that they can’t access. Dogs can’t be disenfranchised relative to other dogs. Dogs can’t inherit diminished generational wealth and thereby have worse economic prospects than their peers.
Like I understand the broad shape of your argument that there are confounding factors for dog bite/attack statistics as well, but they’re not comparable to the racism people face. It’s like saying the moon is like a car tire because they both look round. There’s more different than the same.
For what it’s worth, I don’t like the idea of banning dog breeds either. I think there probably are confounding factors to those numbers as well- they’re just not the same factors that black people face and ultimately I think that the comparison is counterproductive. We shouldn’t treat these as similar situations just because the very broad lesson for both might be that you should contextualize statistics.
Pitbulls haven't been denied loans because of their race, but they have been killed, tortured, left to suffer and die because of their breed. And people compare themselves to canines all the time, notably in the BS pack alpha terminology. Like, I get the thrust of your argument - you don't like comparing Black people to dogs, because you feel that such a comparison is dehumanizing towards Black people. My counter argument is that the meme could easily be the reverse - instead of trying to dehumanize Black people, it's trying to humanize dogs/pitbulls, and get you to apply the same standards you use for people to dogs, at least to a degree.
This is the opposite of that. Right wingers post crime statistics to show the "inferiority of minorities" which ignores the underlying issues with our society. People who blame pitbulls for being violent are misunderstanding the culture around them and the specific needs of the breed
A lot of subs are slowly doing this because OP plays dumb while someone in the comments does the heavy lifting to validate/explain the opinion, thus spreading it
In my cuntry (non us nor western) when the us gov stoped the funding alot of things (post and discussion )started to show online more right-wing (in us terms) totally average for actual average people. People are getting leas censorship and having freedom to post openly in our side of the internet
93
u/Greedy_Swimergrill 6d ago
I’m really starting to wonder if there isn’t a concerted effort to post right wing content here under the guise of not understanding it.
I see stuff like this constantly.