Bob Long Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 46 minutes ago, The Arrogant Worms said: “Alberta Premier Danielle Smith admitted Monday that the proposed measures around gender-affirming surgeries are not based on current evidence of a problem, but rather a "concern of what will happen." https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/alberta-premier-says-transgender-policies-pursued-out-of-concern-of-what-will-happen-not-evidence-of-a-problem-1.6756959?__vfz=medium%3Dsharebar what a moron 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Mind Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 31 minutes ago, The Lock said: I guess my question for you then is what kind of approach in an interview would have got her to see his points? Like I see what you're saying in a way. I actually think a better interviewer would be someone like Trevor Noah where it's more about 2 people having a journey and figuring things out together. On the other hand, that does take a certain kind of interviewee to be able to go along with that. There are people I've tried to do that with on this very thread and they seem to stop replying as soon as something takes shape only to continue in their ways with other people. However, one thing I will point out is that there are people out there on the fence about a lot of things where an interview like this could still move a needle, but of course they'd have to already be on that fence. 26 minutes ago, Satchmo said: I doubt anyone's opinion was changed by what was said regardless of who they thought won the debate. Mine was not and, though presumptuous of me, I suspect your was not either. Can't say for certain what approach would be effective for her in particular, but I can't see Stewart's approach being effective on anyone. The taking a journey together approach would have a much better chance at getting someone to hear you out. If you make it clear that you're not going to listen to what they have to say, such as Stewart, good luck getting them to listen. The body language, condescending/arrogant tone, inaccurate comparisons, being dismissive, etc. are all going to make him look worse than when he started. It's very easy to make your points while simply avoiding those. It seems clear to me he went in there already thinking he knew more than her and wanted to make that a primary focus, rather than going in there to hear her perspective and/or get her to reconsider. Yes I imagine it won't change most people's opinions, but could maybe sway some people on the fence. What do you think is more likely, he got some people on the fence to understand his side, or he got some people who share his views to mimic his approach, causing a bit more divide? I'd wager the latter, even if both examples are small percentages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rip The Mesh Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 F*ck, man, you can't make this shit up.......... 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lock Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 24 minutes ago, Master Mind said: Can't say for certain what approach would be effective for her in particular, but I can't see Stewart's approach being effective on anyone. The taking a journey together approach would have a much better chance at getting someone to hear you out. If you make it clear that you're not going to listen to what they have to say, such as Stewart, good luck getting them to listen. The body language, condescending/arrogant tone, inaccurate comparisons, being dismissive, etc. are all going to make him look worse than when he started. It's very easy to make your points while simply avoiding those. It seems clear to me he went in there already thinking he knew more than her and wanted to make that a primary focus, rather than going in there to hear her perspective and/or get her to reconsider. Yes I imagine it won't change most people's opinions, but could maybe sway some people on the fence. What do you think is more likely, he got some people on the fence to understand his side, or he got some people who share his views to mimic his approach, causing a bit more divide? I'd wager the latter, even if both examples are small percentages. I think there's not enough to go on to determine how many others are going to actually use his approach. He is, after all, good at that approach and not everyone is going to be as tactful when trying to take a similar approach. Generally, you have to do your research and get your facts straight even before approaching the other person and not everyone is going to go to such measures. That being said, you could argue a lack of facts in that approach as being worse in a way just because then that person could easily run out of whatever limited facts they've gathered and get into trouble if the other person is even slightly more tactful. One thing I would like to point out though. Clearly, we're not debating whether or not he was right in his facts and in whether or not he had a solid attack. We're debating his approach to it. That facts are still there in the end, no matter what approach was made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Arrogant Worms Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satchmo Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 21 minutes ago, Master Mind said: Can't say for certain what approach would be effective for her in particular, but I can't see Stewart's approach being effective on anyone. The taking a journey together approach would have a much better chance at getting someone to hear you out. If you make it clear that you're not going to listen to what they have to say, such as Stewart, good luck getting them to listen. The body language, condescending/arrogant tone, inaccurate comparisons, being dismissive, etc. are all going to make him look worse than when he started. It's very easy to make your points while simply avoiding those. It seems clear to me he went in there already thinking he knew more than her and wanted to make that a primary focus, rather than going in there to hear her perspective and/or get her to reconsider. Yes I imagine it won't change most people's opinions, but could maybe sway some people on the fence. What do you think is more likely, he got some people on the fence to understand his side, or he got some people who share his views to mimic his approach, causing a bit more divide? I'd wager the latter, even if both examples are small percentages. I take it you are no fan of Jon Stewart. I can take him or leave him. I find him big on himself and only occasionally funny. I do not think we can blame him for the divide on this subject or say this interview increased it. I think the divide existed long before and was left unchanged. I'd say his fans would like the interview, his detractors would not, and the needle would be unchanged. BTW - I reply out of respect and courtesy. I don't think this question is really worth our time. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 49 minutes ago, Rip The Mesh said: F*ck, man, you can't make this shit up.......... But...Pierre has literally said this. Someones making $ off of it ( where is that $ going I wonder) It's his campaign slogan in this video as well. You can't make this stuff up because...it's real https://www.redbubble.com/i/sticker/Pierre-Poilievre-Make-Canada-Great-Again-by-LibertyTheFree/125631146.EJUG5 https://m.facebook.com/100087533655957/videos/pierre-poilievre-chilling-speech/461421326147166/ 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lock Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 (edited) 59 minutes ago, Rip The Mesh said: F*ck, man, you can't make this shit up.......... "Canada is broken"... so he wants to make Canada great again. Why else would he state Canada is broken? It literally is in his messaging. This is PP's stance. Edited February 7 by The Lock Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 1 hour ago, Rip The Mesh said: F*ck, man, you can't make this shit up.......... Perfect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satchmo Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 5 minutes ago, Warhippy said: But...Pierre has literally said this. Someones making $ off of it ( where is that $ going I wonder) It's his campaign slogan in this video as well. You can't make this stuff up because...it's real https://www.redbubble.com/i/sticker/Pierre-Poilievre-Make-Canada-Great-Again-by-LibertyTheFree/125631146.EJUG5 https://m.facebook.com/100087533655957/videos/pierre-poilievre-chilling-speech/461421326147166/ Out of curiosity I just watched that whole thing. Apart from cringing at his fear mongering description of the status quo, I was left with the question - if those are the things you want, just what are you going to do to get them? It's the how and when that is lacking any substance. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 7 minutes ago, Satchmo said: Out of curiosity I just watched that whole thing. Apart from cringing at his fear mongering description of the status quo, I was left with the question - if those are the things you want, just what are you going to do to get them? It's the how and when that is lacking any substance. There's so much that the Lib's can use from PP's past and his current YouTube crap that can show him to be a little MAGA wanna be, and not on the side of anyone but the religious right and some fringe anti-vaxxers. The ad's for the next election are going to be brutal. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lock Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 (edited) 1 hour ago, Bob Long said: There's so much that the Lib's can use from PP's past and his current YouTube crap that can show him to be a little MAGA wanna be, and not on the side of anyone but the religious right and some fringe anti-vaxxers. The ad's for the next election are going to be brutal. They could be brutal. It really depends on how much guts the Liberals and other parties have when attacking in those ads in my opinion. I don't think I'm going out on a limb in thinking most Canadians do not want to elect someone making moves similar to Trump, but a lot of the people voting Conservative are unlikely to see this unless if enough connections are made and the right messaging is done. If, however, the Liberals are "too polite" in fighting back, it could be hard seeing the ads being effective at all. And then you also have the ones who hate Trudeau so much they'd rather a toilet seat run for prime minister. Edited February 8 by The Lock 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Mind Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 2 hours ago, The Lock said: I think there's not enough to go on to determine how many others are going to actually use his approach. He is, after all, good at that approach and not everyone is going to be as tactful when trying to take a similar approach. Generally, you have to do your research and get your facts straight even before approaching the other person and not everyone is going to go to such measures. That being said, you could argue a lack of facts in that approach as being worse in a way just because then that person could easily run out of whatever limited facts they've gathered and get into trouble if the other person is even slightly more tactful. One thing I would like to point out though. Clearly, we're not debating whether or not he was right in his facts and in whether or not he had a solid attack. We're debating his approach to it. That facts are still there in the end, no matter what approach was made. 2 hours ago, Satchmo said: I take it you are no fan of Jon Stewart. I can take him or leave him. I find him big on himself and only occasionally funny. I do not think we can blame him for the divide on this subject or say this interview increased it. I think the divide existed long before and was left unchanged. I'd say his fans would like the interview, his detractors would not, and the needle would be unchanged. BTW - I reply out of respect and courtesy. I don't think this question is really worth our time. I haven't watched much of him, and I don't want to say I'm not a fan of him based on one video. However, I can say I wasn't a fan of how he conducted himself in said video. I'm not saying we can blame him directly for anything, or that any imitation is guaranteed. Just saying what I think is more likely to occur. I wouldn't say I agree with all his statements or how he represents them. I was focusing on his approach, as I've seen the video posted multiple times (here and elsewhere), and I don't think it's helpful to view his approach in a positive light. Not saying either of you do, but some people do. Agreed, it probably isn't worth our time to discuss it further -- it sounds like we have a general understanding of each other's points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimist Prime Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 3 hours ago, Master Mind said: Can't say for certain what approach would be effective for her in particular, but I can't see Stewart's approach being effective on anyone. The taking a journey together approach would have a much better chance at getting someone to hear you out. If you make it clear that you're not going to listen to what they have to say, such as Stewart, good luck getting them to listen. The body language, condescending/arrogant tone, inaccurate comparisons, being dismissive, etc. are all going to make him look worse than when he started. It's very easy to make your points while simply avoiding those. It seems clear to me he went in there already thinking he knew more than her and wanted to make that a primary focus, rather than going in there to hear her perspective and/or get her to reconsider. Yes I imagine it won't change most people's opinions, but could maybe sway some people on the fence. What do you think is more likely, he got some people on the fence to understand his side, or he got some people who share his views to mimic his approach, causing a bit more divide? I'd wager the latter, even if both examples are small percentages. I agree with you M.M. I like John Stewart but you are bang on with your analysis. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 28 minutes ago, The Lock said: They could be brutal. It really depends on how much guts the Liberals and other parties have when attacking in those ads in my opinion. I don't think I'm going out on a limb in thinking most Canadians do not want to elect someone making moves similar to Trump, but a lot of the people voting Conservative are unlikely to see this unless if enough connections are made and the right messaging is done. If, however, the Liberals are "too polite" in fighting back, it could be hard seeing the ads being effective at all. And then you also have the ones who hate Trudeau so much they'd rather a toilet seat run for prime minister. Yea at this point the CPC base would elect a sock puppet. Trudeau's team can walk that line in the ads, plus I can't wait to see him use the maga line against PP in a debate. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimist Prime Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 2 hours ago, The Lock said: "Canada is broken"... so he wants to make Canada great again. Why else would he state Canada is broken? It literally is in his messaging. This is PP's stance. The narrative is to tie "canada is broken" to "maga" and draw those comparisons in very clear terms to Canadians. It is good advice, and well worth the cost paid to the consultant who came up with the communication strategy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 1 minute ago, Optimist Prime said: The narrative is to tie "canada is broken" to "maga" and draw those comparisons in very clear terms to Canadians. It is good advice, and well worth the cost paid to the consultant who came up with the communication strategy. Aren't consultants always worth it? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimist Prime Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 8 minutes ago, Bob Long said: Aren't consultants always worth it? In my professional opinion, yes. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post 4petesake Posted February 8 Popular Post Share Posted February 8 1 hour ago, Master Mind said: I haven't watched much of him, and I don't want to say I'm not a fan of him based on one video. However, I can say I wasn't a fan of how he conducted himself in said video. I'm not saying we can blame him directly for anything, or that any imitation is guaranteed. Just saying what I think is more likely to occur. I wouldn't say I agree with all his statements or how he represents them. I was focusing on his approach, as I've seen the video posted multiple times (here and elsewhere), and I don't think it's helpful to view his approach in a positive light. Not saying either of you do, but some people do. Agreed, it probably isn't worth our time to discuss it further -- it sounds like we have a general understanding of each other's points. Sorry I was out for the day but just finished catching up on the discussion. Not much point in me jumping in at this point as you guys seem to have laid out the two views well enough already. My two cents - A Jon Stewart interview is pretty much what you see here and if you agree to a sit down interview with him you know what to expect. The Attorney General knew she would be challenged so if she wants to state things as facts (like the 98% thing) then it’s a good idea to bring some proof if we’re to have something to chew on. To me it’s irrelevant whether one cares for his approach or not as she’s the one trying to present and explain her new laws to the country and she failed miserably. If Smith or PP want to sell the same message to Albertans and Canadians they’ll need to be much better prepared. 3 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimist Prime Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimist Prime Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 Some more of that toxic political tailings pond....in what universe is this okay behaviour? Taxpayers pay to clean it up and then we pay for heightened necessary security and then P.P. blames Trudeau for his security detail expenses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 2 minutes ago, Optimist Prime said: Some more of that toxic political tailings pond....in what universe is this okay behaviour? Taxpayers pay to clean it up and then we pay for heightened necessary security and then P.P. blames Trudeau for his security detail expenses. What is this from? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimist Prime Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 2 minutes ago, Bob Long said: What is this from? Morning news. Some protestors got the idea it was chic to go after the PM, in this case just vandalism but what if he was there at the time? Politicians live and die by VOTES. Go vote, don't be a criminal. You don't like someone in office, organize to vote them out, but don't be a little rat destroying things in a temper tantrum of violent-adjacent activities. I think in this case it was Extinction Rebellion folks...they tried to block Trudeau from speaking in Victoria during an election campaign too. Little criminals. for the record, i understand and agree with their message, but their tactics make them criminals not worth talking to. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 2 minutes ago, Optimist Prime said: Morning news. Some protestors got the idea it was chic to go after the PM, in this case just vandalism but what if he was there at the time? Poilievre is such a toxic little putz. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RupertKBD Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 15 hours ago, 4petesake said: Sorry I was out for the day but just finished catching up on the discussion. Not much point in me jumping in at this point as you guys seem to have laid out the two views well enough already. My two cents - A Jon Stewart interview is pretty much what you see here and if you agree to a sit down interview with him you know what to expect. The Attorney General knew she would be challenged so if she wants to state things as facts (like the 98% thing) then it’s a good idea to bring some proof if we’re to have something to chew on. To me it’s irrelevant whether one cares for his approach or not as she’s the one trying to present and explain her new laws to the country and she failed miserably. If Smith or PP want to sell the same message to Albertans and Canadians they’ll need to be much better prepared. I agree. We seem to be debating on whether Stewart's aim was to convince anyone, or change anyone's mind, but that's not how I see his interviews.....any of them. What he's doing is what he's always done: calling out hypocrisy and dragging it out into the light where people can see it. If that doesn't "change someone's mind", then it wasn't possible to do so, IMHO... 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.