Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. An account of overt intentional dogwhistling.Nicolás Lo Guercio & Ramiro Caso - 2022 - Synthese 200 (3):1-32.
    Political communication in modern democratic societies often requires the speaker to address multiple audiences with heterogeneous values, interests and agendas. This creates an incentive for communication strategies that allow politicians to send, along with the explicit content of their speech, concealed messages that seek to secure the approval of certain groups without alienating the rest of the electorate. These strategies have been labeled dogwhistling in recent literature. In this article, we provide an analysis of overt intentional dogwhistling. We recognize two (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • What’s Wrong with Dogwhistles.Carlos Santana - forthcoming - Journal of Social Philosophy.
    Journal of Social Philosophy, EarlyView.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • The Moral and Political Status of Microaggressions.Heather Stewart - unknown
    This dissertation offers a robust philosophical examination of a phenomenon that is morally, socially, and politically significant – microaggressions. Microaggressions are understood to be brief and routine verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities that, whether intentional or unintentional, convey hostility toward or bias against members of marginalized groups. Microaggressions are rooted in stereotypes and/or bias and are connected to broader systems of oppression. Microaggressions are philosophically interesting, since they involve significant ambiguity, questions about speech and communication, and the ability for our (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Adversarial Listening in Argumentation.Jeffrey Davis & David Godden - 2021 - Topoi 40 (5):925-937.
    Adversariality in argumentation is typically theorized as inhering in, and applying to, the interactional roles of proponent and opponent that arguers occupy. This paper considers the kinds of adversariality located in the conversational roles arguers perform while arguing—specifically listening. It begins by contending that the maximally adversarial arguer is an arguer who refuses to listen to reason by refusing to listen to another’s reasons. It proceeds to consider a list of lousy listeners in order to illustrate the variety of ways (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation