I like the idea but I'm not sure I see the correlation between your two examples?
The 'It's OK to be white' thing works because they're taking one side of an issue and devolving it into something so basic that it's impossible to refute. By associating something irrefutable like "It's OK to be white" (which only the most blatant racist would argue against) with all their other more controversial positions, they're basically setting a trap that you have to carefully maneuver around instead of being able to just bluntly refute their point with logic or facts.
The misandry thing seems like something else. Like other extreme positions, it's existence benefits the opposition more than the more mild supporters on their side. It's just a low hanging fruit that the opposition can use to snipe more mild supporters by association. Similar to how the left can take potshots at actual Nazis to discredit conservative positions.
They’re not really the same thing; I’m just kind of riffing on the kinds of layered irony that these subcultures develop.
I think “it’s OK to be white” is literally just a slogan used to troll people. Developed and reasoned arguments are not the point. The point is the layered irony. Layer 1 is the literal meaning. Layer 2 is this particular slogan being proposed by a white nationalist as a white nationalist slogan. Layer 3 is the notion that the white nationalist himself is merely a prankster inventing the Layer 2 narrative from whole cloth. Hence, you have a perfect troll because people will argue about this slogan and talk past each other because they are on different layers of irony.
Misandry Tumblr has different layers:
1. The author of this Tumblr unironically hates men.
2. Anti-feminists unfairly and hyperbolically accuse feminists of misandry. The author of this feminist Tumblr reclaims the term ironically. (Parallel: “deplorables”.)
So you get some people saying “hey, look, all of those feminists really do hate men!” because they missed the ironic aspect of misandry, while the ironic misandrists reply “none of us actually hate men”, denying and covering for the unironic misandrists. But maybe some of the unironic misandrists are still being ironic, but just excessively committed to never acknowledging the irony in a weird kayfabe sense. That way, they can basically gatekeep the conversation to keep it between people who are hip to the irony. But then the truly unironic misandrists can still slither into the community under assumption of good faith, and end up talking past their own purported allies.
In a sense, I think the “white nationalist dog whistle” troll is another gatekeeping mechanism. If you’re on the level of irony where you’re not a white nationalist but you like tweaking moral panics over white nationalism, you get to have a chuckle at the panicking progressives who take it unironically. If you are a white nationalist, you are almost as much a butt of the joke as the panicking progressive, but you have a similar smokescreen as the unironic Tumblr misandrist. Unless the original joker really was a white nationalist at which point he gets to chuckle at the naive useful idiots who are giving him this free smokescreen.
The 'It's OK to be white' thing works because they're taking one side of an issue and devolving it into something so basic that it's impossible to refute. By associating something irrefutable like "It's OK to be white" (which only the most blatant racist would argue against) with all their other more controversial positions, they're basically setting a trap that you have to carefully maneuver around instead of being able to just bluntly refute their point with logic or facts.
The misandry thing seems like something else. Like other extreme positions, it's existence benefits the opposition more than the more mild supporters on their side. It's just a low hanging fruit that the opposition can use to snipe more mild supporters by association. Similar to how the left can take potshots at actual Nazis to discredit conservative positions.