But that's not, to me, an argument - it's a expression of opinion, and you're free to hold one.
If you're saying that I misinterpreted it, maybe consider that it doesn't look like an argument - there's no evidence presented, there's no sequence of assertions, there's no antecedents, no consequence, no logical connectives ...
In short, there's no logic presented, which is why it looks, to me, like an opinion, and not a completely unreasonable one. One that I felt was made in good faith and so I could engage with in good faith.
> You argue: "Well technically a dog whistle is only audible to dogs so that means that you're a dog"
Ever read the last psychiatrist? A favourite phrase of his is "If you're reading it, it's for you." which sort of applies here - the claims of dog whistles/nazis/whatever are not to alert the general audience, but a rallying call to others of the same ideology.
It's a way to say "Come help me fight this argument because we believe the same things."
It is a dog whistle, but it's your dog whistle.