One of the more distressing features of the US political system is the heavy reliance on what has been termed “dog whistles” by reactionary and regressive politicians and political candidates. A “dog whistle” is a message that is designed to activate a positive emotional response in the candidate’s core supporters, whilst plausibly appearing either anodyne or completely different to uncomitted listeners.
“Dog Whistles” are in some ways a form of innuendo, another form of indirect speech that I am very familiar with, having grown up in the UK in an era where you were not allowed to directly mention or talk about sex on radio or television. As a result, innuendo became a standard device for introducing sex into programs, while allowing the performers to plausibly (if deceptively) answer in response to objections “I have no idea what you’re talking about. What did YOU think I was talking about?”.
Historians and fans of old English literature will recognize the same underlying indirect speech pathology in the old story of the murder of Thomas Beckett in 1170, after the King of England, in exasperation, uttered the classic line “Will nobody rid me of this turbulent priest?”. Another excellent example of indirect speech (drawn from the London East End gangster world), showing the sinister potential, is on display starting at 01:46 of this comedy sketch from Monty Python about a shakedown.
One of the classic early political “dog whistles” in the US political process was “States Rights”, a mantra first used by George Wallace when he ran for President. Supporters of Wallace hearing “States Rights” heard “I will permit states to continue with racial and ethnic discrimination”. The fundamental logical nonsense that states do not have rights, only people have rights, was never really discussed. This rhetorical sleight of hand, still used today, allowed candidates to signal to supporters that they still tacitly supported discriminatory practices.
To bring us bang up to date, Donald Trump used a “dog whistle” today, when talking about Hillary Clinton. I am pasting the Twitter exchange that sort of explains it. This example of indirect speech, when translated from the dog whistle, is revealing and sinister in equal measure. He seems to be basing his wish on the (false) premise that Hillary Clinton wants to abolish or modify the Second Amendment regulating the possession and use of firearms.

@anamariecox @jeffjarvis An excellent example of what Stephen Pinker terms "indirect speech"

— gshevlin (@gshevlin) September 17, 2016

I am not sure what the best response is to something as sinister as this. Ideally nobody would pay it any attention. However, in the current election cycle, where Donald Trump’s whole campaign seems to be predicated on old-style rabble-rousing, ignoring it may not be an option.
UPDATE – Jim Wright at Stonekettle has the best response so far:

So basically he's saying that gun nuts are dangerous and can't be trusted not to kill people they disagree with https://t.co/EBFqSXO4Ba

— Stonekettle (@Stonekettle) September 17, 2016

Folks, i know I am going to make myself unpopular with what I am about to say. But that is OK.
If your response to people doing things that you disapprove of is to endorse, propose or agree with the idea that they should go live somewhere else,
STOP.
Right there.
Really?
You really think that somebody should remove themselves from the USA just because they did or said something that you don’t like?
Let me spell it out.
Your views on this topic are unserious.
If somebody’s failure to stand for the Anthem, recite the Pledge of Allegiance etc. etc. offends you, that’s your problem. Not theirs. Nobody can be forced to do either activity (SCOTUS has ruled on this more than once). Unless they were making direct threats to the safety of individuals, or engaging in sedition, they have a perfect right to take those actions and/or make those statements. Dissent is not disloyalty, unless you are dealing with a dictatorship or an extremely thin-skinned and insecure person or group.
For a country that prides itself on being King Of The Heap, a lot of you sure seem to be horribly insecure. Somebody refused to stand for the National Anthem and this is some sort of mortal insult? Do you know how hyper-sensitive and thin-skinned that looks?
The only countries that enforce obeisance to symbols are totalitarian dictatorships, the kinds of countries that would disappear you in a heartbeat if you said something that the government didn’t like. If you want to know more about totalitarian dictatorships, go read some 20th Century European history and gain an understanding of which countries enforced saluting of flags and recitals of loyalty oaths. You probably wouldn’t want the USA to be spoken of in the same breath as those countries.
Now, before some of you start up with the “but I’m entitled to my opinion!” comeback, let me say that I have no problem with people expressing opinions. However, saying “if you don’t like it, leave the USA” is not an expression of opinion. If’s actually a form of eliminationist rhetoric. You want that person gone because they upset you? Sorry, but no. It makes you sound like a spoiled entitled little brat. If you disagree with them, try a cogent argument instead. It might not make you feel so emotionally fulfilled, but it stands a better chance of getting you taken seriously.

I pointed out that many of the people on Twitter who have modified their Handle name to include the word “deplorable” are, based on their recent tweets, meeting the general definition of “deplorable”.
Here is an excellent example from my Twitter timeline today. This person is not a recent sockpuppet account or any type of false-flag account, the account dates from November last year, around the time that Donald Trump began dog-whistling to nativists and white supremacists.
If you are thinking of self-identifying as “deplorable”, this is some of the company you are associating with.

White men should not be race mixing either, in my opinion. If a White man has mixed kids, they are not White. https://t.co/kkqilVyy6S

— Deplorable Mary (@marylovefreedom) September 14, 2016

No mystery goes unsolved w/ 24/7 video. Carpooling = good. Car in pool = bad. #MysterySolved https://t.co/RyLShHMVce pic.twitter.com/8IM65vtzOg

— Nest (@nest) September 12, 2016

I have one word of advice for anybody offended by Hillary Clinton’s statement about a percentage of Donald Trump’s supporters being in her words, “deplorables” who is thinking of changing their social media handle to include the word “deplorable” as a prefix, or is thinking of posting some meme proudly announcing that they are part of the deplorables.
Don’t.
There are at least three reasons that I can think of why that would be a really really bad idea. Here they are in no particular order of importance.
(CAVEAT – Of course, you may read this and are already shouting out loud “I don’t give a ****, I don’t care what some whiny-ass xxxxxx thinks about me. ” In which case, hey, it’s a free country, you can go right ahead and do whatever the hell you want. )

1. You are not your social media handle
You have a real name, which should help to identify you, and your name and your social media presence, whether you realize it or not, defines you in the eyes of any stranger that finds you on social media. If you insist on labeling yourself with a slogan, not only are you not providing any unique insight into You, you may be giving people reading your handle a first impression that is not good. If your slogan is a self-identification as part of a large group, they will tend to see you as part of a herd, a large internet group, and if they are of the opinion that (for example) Deplorables are not the sort of herd people that they want to interact with, you probably just lost an opportunity for interaction.

2. The term “deplorable” has now become a stereotype, and nobody lives up to stereotype
All of the stereotypes used in the world function as exaggerated shorthand slogans for well-known behavior pathologies. Think “jock”, “Jewish Princess”. Those words conjure up ideas about behavior that are rarely flattering. Quite the reverse.
So, if you want to self-identify as a Deplorable, yes, you can do that, but you are not positively elevating yourself on social media or distinguishing yourself. All you are doing is engaging in tribal bonding or affiliation. The term is now a perjorative shorthand stereotypical description. People do not live up to stereotype..

3. You are, whether you like it or not, associating with a large number of people who are currently, in many of their interactions, proving Hillary Clinton’s statement to be correct
Here are a couple of examples from my Twitter feed today from self-identified Deplorables who are definitely showing that they are either about to graduate from, or have graduated from Asshole School. These people are demonstrating that, given a keyboard, they too can be assholes in online forums. If they wanted to demonstrate that they are part of a group that is worthy of being described as deplorable, well…they just provided the proof that the use of that word is appropriate for describing them. Either they are immune to understanding the word “irony”, or they are, bluntly, being damn stupid.

Striking resemblance! https://t.co/wF9enDDA7y

— Deplorable B Monkey (@brassmonkey3434) September 12, 2016

DARK. CONSPIRACY. THEORY. GO.

-Earlobes
-Body shape#HillarysDouble pic.twitter.com/GrJRKf6n38

— Deplorable (@JaredWyand) September 12, 2016

What a deplorable, sick, evil, despicable anti American hag. #BasketOfDeplorables pic.twitter.com/4HvuvNinNp

— deplorable mike (@hokiedokiemike) September 12, 2016

Oregon man hangs Clinton effigy along interstate, says "vote Trump" https://t.co/zXhshB50rN pic.twitter.com/2yyIsqDjlW

— Talking Points Memo (@TPM) September 13, 2016