This is how Canada deals with the deep state fear-mongering.

Author: Greyparrot
FBI

Posts

Total: 48
#31
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
I'm just asking what expert. If I click your link, will it tell me what expert?
what? your question doesn't make sense. I am pointing out things he has done that are dog whistles. Why would you want me to find you an "expert" to tell you he dog whistles, when I've already shown you some examples. 

I didn't think Canadians have libertarians. And libertarians are hardly far right.
Canada has lots of far right loons. I have no idea if they refer to themselves as libertarians. 

I made this thread to point out how media uses fake sources to drive their narratives. That's concerning no matter what team you choose to side with.
google search Poilievre and dog whistle. you will find tons of articles about it. It's not like they are making up fake people with fake opinions. The fact that he dog whistles is widely known. Most of the people who interview him probably think he dog whistles. I'm sure that reporter could have pointed to a random reporter in the crowd and said that person thinks so, and they would probably have been right. 

And I mean, what even is an "expert" on dog whistling? The prime minister says he does it. Journalists say he does. Normal people say he does it. What kind of "expert" are you looking for?
Topic's author
#32
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
what? your question doesn't make sense.
Perhaps you need to watch the video again. The media claims there are Experts that deal in these "dog whistles"

#33
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,594
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Greyparrot
Here is a good link for you

Topic's author
#34
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@FLRW
So David J. Climenhaga is an expert?
#35
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,594
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Greyparrot
Well, David Climenhaga is a journalist and trade union communicator who has worked in senior writing and editing positions with the Globe and Mail and the Calgary Herald. He left journalism after the strike at the Calgary Herald in 1999 and 2000 to work in the trade union movement.
David Climenhaga’s Alberta Diary posts are also published on his own website, AlbertaPolitics.ca.
Topic's author
#36
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@FLRW
So he is an expert in "dog whistles"???
#37
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,594
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Greyparrot

Yes, in politics, a dog whistle is the use of coded or suggestive language in political messaging to garner support from a particular group without provoking opposition. The concept is named after ultrasonic dog whistles, which are audible to dogs but not humans. Dog whistles use language that appears normal to the majority but communicates specific things to intended audiences. They are generally used to convey messages on issues likely to provoke controversy without attracting negative attention.
Topic's author
#38
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@FLRW
Ok, at least you answered the question the Canadian politician in the video was asking. That journalists are experts in "dog whistles" and other Journalists rely on those experts as sources.
#39
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
Perhaps you need to watch the video again. The media claims there are Experts that deal in these "dog whistles"
uh huh. And lots of people say it. Politicians, journalists, regular people. It is a common thing to say and believe. So regardless of what an "expert" is to you, there are lots of them that believe and this and say it. This guy has been dog whistling for literally decades. 

All he did in this clip was refuse to answer the question and try to attack the person asking so that he could list off talking points instead.
Topic's author
#40
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
The Journalist refused to answer his question too.
#41
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
The Journalist refused to answer his question too.
his question was stupid. The sole purpose of his question was to deflect. He wanted to attack the journalist so that when the journalist was offput by his attack he could reframe the conversation into the question he wanted and he could just grandstand. And then people, such as yourself, would look at his stupid answer and go "oh wow, he owned the libs" even though he was just being a dick and dodging a valid question.

There are tons of people who say he dog whistles. Journalists, politicians, regular people. The fact that the journalist didn't have a specific name of one of them on hand when they asked the question doesn't mean they refused to answer. They were taken aback at being attacked on the premise of their question rather than the candidate attempting to answer it.

Topic's author
#42
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
 The fact that the journalist didn't have a specific name of one of them on hand when they asked the question doesn't mean they refused to answer. They were taken aback at being attacked on the premise of their question rather than the candidate attempting to answer it.

So next time, the Journalist shouldn't make unsubstantiated claims about experts when pushing a narrative. Then there can be no excuse.
#43
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
So next time, the Journalist shouldn't make unsubstantiated claims about experts when pushing a narrative. Then there can be no excuse.
it isn't an unsubstantiated claim, it is easily substantiated. I've personally shown you examples of him dog whistling. The fact that the reporter couldn't or didn't want to name a specific person making the claim when they asked the question doesn't make it unsubstantiated. A 30 second google search substantiates it. 

The thing there is no excuse for is a politician who would rather attack journalists than answer simple questions. I know you wont see it that way since trump is the king of this kind of bullshit. 

Topic's author
#44
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
Ok, so the journalist was just incompetent. Noted.
#45
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
Ok, so the journalist was just incompetent. Noted.
No, the politician was just a jackass. If you ask someone why they jumped off a bridge they go "Did I?!?! who discovered gravity!! who is the expert who discovered gravity!!!" and then proceeds to ramble about something completely unrelated, you would not think "wow this guy is intelligent". You would think "this guy is a moron". That is basically what he is doing. 

He just wants to distract from the question and hope people fall for it. But this whole thread is proof it works. There is a segment of the population that will cheer, as long as you act like a dick.
Topic's author
#46
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
I wouldn't be jumping through hoops to defend a bad journalist.  It's not a politician's job to forgive them either.
#47
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
I wouldn't be jumping through hoops to defend a bad journalist.  It's not a politician's job to forgive them either.
the journalist didn't do anything bad though. He is well known to be a right wing troll. He dog whistles all the time. Asking him to comment on it isn't bad journalism. So there is nothing to forgive them for. Poilievre is just a dick. 

#48
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Vegasgiants
No one tells the absolute truth.

And you-tube is certainly an opportunity for fantasists.