Abstract

Risky politically manipulative speech has unexpectedly been on the rise. This paper investigates the role that the phenomenon of linguistic plausible deniability plays in the increasing prevalence of politically manipulative speech through dogwhistles, racial figleaves, and generic stereotypes. The paper unfolds in three main stages. First, it suggests that these linguistic devices share the phenomenon of plausible deniability, which, by offering cover for their overtness, mitigates (some) risks of such political speech. Second, it argues that the plausible deniability of these linguistic devices makes them powerful tools for politically manipulative speech as it helps it to spread more efficiently and appear more acceptable. Finally, it elevates the ethical and political dimensions of language to a more central position within the philosophy of language by discussing two normative claims stemming from conceptual engineering: (i) we should combat such pernicious political manipulation, and (ii) we should exploit the effects of plausible deniability for beneficial purposes.