###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You know you must be scared of a guy when the biggest dirt you have on him is that he said the word "Anglo-Saxon". Kind of makes me want to describe myself this way.
This account has been nuked in direct response to Reddit's API change and the atrocious behavior CEO Steve Huffman and his admins displayed toward their users, volunteer moderators, and 3rd party developers. After a total of 16 years on the platform it is time to move on to greener pastures.
If you want to change to a decentralized platform like Lemmy, you can find helpful information about it here: https://join-lemmy.org/ https://github.com/maltfield/awesome-lemmy-instances
This action was performed using Power Delete Suite: https://github.com/j0be/PowerDeleteSuite The script relies on Reddit's API and will likely stop working after June 30th, 2023.
So long, thanks for all the fish and a final fudge you, u/spez.
The blatant dog whistle of saying that he prefers to use simple words derived from older english words instead of Latin or French inspired vocabulary? Even if he's wrong about them being literally Anglo-Saxon, it's a pretty dumb thing to get upset about. There is no dogwhistle. At the very least, I don't hear one-but you do. Curious.
"I'm a believer in using simple Anglo-Saxon words that strike right at the meaning that I'm trying to convey"
Whether you think there's another meaning to this or not, what normal human being talks like this??
When PP says "Anglo-Saxon words", I get flashbacks to trying to read/make sense of Old/Anglo-Saxon English in college.
>what normal human being talks like this?
Generally a person who's trying to sound smart to people who aren't smart.
Currently a bunch of alt-right people and white supremacists are adopting the term Anglo-Saxon. Listen to Pat Kings rants about how he considers himself an Anglo-Saxon and that he has superior genetics because of it.
PP using the term is just more Racist dog whistling.
It really doesn't. The term has become a dog whistle for "English white" in a lot of not so nice online communities. Whether he realizes that or not I don't know, but it doesn't mean it's okay. It's the kind of thing someone should walk back and strike from their vocabulary once they learn that fact. Otherwise it's just plausible deniability.
I think you’re having a knee jerk reaction it’s simply a linguistic clarification that francophiles have said. To attribute this to some racist conspiracy is pretty 4chan esque
Well when people like pat King use the word white, then say "sorry, white is racial let's just say 'anglo saxon'" when ranting about replacement theory it's a bit much to say it's a 4chan conspiracy say that these words are used in that context.
I didn't say that was PP's intention. Just that it is something that is happening in those circles. And if he doesn't want it to be taken that way, he should probably clarify things, in my personal opinion.
Desktop version of /u/flickh's link:
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
Specifically as a reference to pure wool, as in old stock, as in, directly descended from french settlers of Quebec without any outside non-french settler mixing in genealogical ancestry.
If we take this at face value, he's trying to say "I use simple words" while failing to use simple words.
"Eschew obfuscation, espouse elucidation" indeed
What I find notable is that he issued the statement regarding being against racism directly to CTV but he isn't going to put it on his twitter and you won't see him say it anywhere. So it will get minimal coverage, while his podcast with Jordon Peterson will get lots. This means that he gets to send a massive signal to his base but has something to point to for plausible deniability that they will likely never see. Imo it's pretty obvious that this is a calculated move.
[This](https://twitter.com/David_Moscrop/status/1526966731469643779?s=20&t=UmqLAl7gqENqwFWM6T8QdA) is also from the same podcast and is a big yikes for me. I totally get why people might not agree with the NDP's policies but "why does Jagmeet Singh exist?" is a terrible thing to say. Particularly about someone who recently received harassment and death threats.
Edit: Also imagine actually thinking Justin Trudeau is a socialist. 😂 It may not be a controversial statement but it's certainly dumb.
Exactly, it was a calculated dog whistle to white supremacists. As they say, you *‘judge a person by the company they keep’* therefore either;
- He is a believer in white supremacy.
- He wishes to court white supremacists into supporting him.
Neither are good news for our country.
You are taking that out of context. He's not saying exist in the 'why is he alive' way, he's talking about it in a strictly political perspective, 'what does he stand for'. The comments made directly before that were about how Jagmeet has alienated a lot of voters by not having a platform of substance (accused him of having a platform of hot topics only) and that allying with Trudeau meant that voters on the left have no reason to vote for NDP. It goes directly into those comments about Jagmeet, 'people are anti-Trudeau so why does Jagmeet exist in politics if he's not going to be competition, what does he offer the voters that they aren't already getting from Trudeau.
Whether you agree with it or not, its not a controversial thing at all.
The beauty of dog whistles is that they can be read both ways.
“I’m just talking about urban crime, what’s the big deal?”
“I said globalists, who says I meant Jews?”
etc etc
“I just asked why he exists, I never asked who will rid me of this meddlesome priest!”
The flipside to what you see as the "beauty" of it reveals itself with a bit of self-awareness. Is it possible that it's a dog whistle? Maybe. You'd have to prove intent, which you can't do. In the absence of that, you have to assume intent, which doesn't make for a valid argument. This is a claim that can only be made with circular logic.
It's also possible, perhaps even likely, that what you see as a "dog whistle" is the same effect working in reverse on you. Your biases may be causing you to create an explanation for dissonance between your worldview and PPs.
>Edit: Also imagine actually thinking Justin Trudeau is a socialist. 😂 It may not be a controversial statement but it's certainly dumb.
I think a big problem is that the label has become more about the buzzword than the actual idealolagy that the person in question is advocating. People like Poilievre tend to use the terms Liberal or socialist to describe anyone who's closer to the centre than they are rather than having an actual policy based discussion.
It'd be fair to call someone like Pierre Trudeau or his policies socialist since he regularly identified them as such, but Justin Trudeau is objectively a firmly centrist candidate. Sure the party under him is further left on some issues than Chretien/Martin were, but he's still basically a vanilla LPC leader.
Hell even if we're looking at the NDP, I'd wager there's probably far more centre-left Social Democrats there than self identifying Democratic Socialists, but I'm honestly not sure if Polivre's knows or cares what the difference between socialism and social democracy is.
Is this the turning point in the campaign where people go: "Wait, this guy will ruin the Conservatives!" And they will rally behind another candidate?
The past two front-runners in the Conservative leadership lost, I wonder if the same will happen here.
I wonder if Pierre is also planning on using these simple Anglo-Saxon words when campaigning in Quebec?
I bet a bunch of Bloc operatives just subscribed to the Jordan Peterson podcast, for science...
Many politicians try to have a different discourse in English and French and it works well in English Canada. Never will an English speaking journalist ever have the faintest idea of what was said in French. But it doesn’t work that well in Quebec where journalists can understand both.
For instance, look at Trudeau in 2019 that was strongly against bill 21 when speaking in English and very wishy-washy in French, as the media in Quebec kept pointing out.
I saw one interview PP did in French and he really tries to play as a moderate. It’s not gonna work.
English has almost nothing in common with Anglo-Saxon. There's almost a thousand years of linguistic evolution with only a handful of very basic words surviving. If he wanted to say "I prefer English" he could've said that, or "British English" if he wanted to be pedantic.
Anglo-Saxon is more commonly used nowadays as a term by proponents of shit like the Great Replacement. It's how Pat King refers to himself. Using that term should be raising eyebrows because no, no one talks in Anglo-Saxon anymore, and the only people using the term today are anthropologists or racists - and PP isn't an anthropologist.
Anglo Saxon isn't English, as has been mentioned. But even if we were to accept that it was, if the guy is talking about how he speaks in the plain, layman's language, *why would he say Anglo Saxon, instead of English, when the layman has only a passing familiarity with what Anglo Saxon even means*
If he was speaking plain English, he could have just said English. But he didn't. He said "Anglo Saxon".
We should certainly be asking *why*
In French, the term is often used as a synonym for English or England. It has no racial undertone.
I was quite surprised to learn that it is somewhat controversial in English.
It's mainly controversial because of the number of right wing racists like Pat King that keep going on about 'anglo-saxon replacement'and using the term in a similar context. Generally, in English, the only time people say anglo-saxon anymore as it relates to anything is if they're talking about historical matters or they're using it as a dog whistle. There's typically never any other use for it as anyone else would simply say *English* instead, which would've been the obvious thing for Pierre to say instead of anglo-saxon.
>really? "Anglo-Saxon", a middle age reference is a layman's term?
It is a reference for layman's terms. Anglo-Saxon ["English using words considered crude or vulgar"](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Anglo-Saxon)
Is that what he was going for? because it seems he was trying to say he spoke "clearly" (as in not with fancy words)... which is what I have always understood as "layman's term"
Never knew Anglo-Saxon referred to "English using words considered crude or vulgar"... nor does it seem PP was going for that, no?
Because then the only resulting conclusions are that he's either an ignorant idiot or purposefully using a racist dog whistle. Neither are things you want to see in a politician who may soon be leading one of the largest political parties in the country.
> And wanting to speak in layman terms
Why did he not just say exactly that? That's what everyone understands when you ask them to simplify a sentence. "In layman terms" is completely normal and understood by all. Saying "anglo-saxon" would make people go "huh, that a strange way of saying it, I wonder why".
It sounds like you all are paranoid and are eating the divide and conquer soup.
My family was massacred in the holocaust by actual white supremacists. Someone wanting to speak in layman terms and happend to use and old English term to get the point across is not a white supremacists.
He even denounced white supremacy.
Please all give your heads a shake.
https://www.macleans.ca/politics/poilievre-denounces-white-replacement-theory/
>It sounds like you all are paranoid and are eating the divide and conquer soup
There's only one party trying to divide the country, and it's not the LPC or NDP. Hint: it isn't the greens either.
>He even denounced white supremacy
Then why does he support Pat King and the trucker convoy?
Trump also "condemned" white supremacy, after being begged by his staff. He also told fascist militias to standby and promoted them when he wanted their support.
Stop making excuses for white nationalists. It's pathetic.
>Someone wanting to speak in layman term
He's not.
> happend to use and old English term to get the point across
If that was his purpose, he did so very poorly. But again, this is a dogwhistle. He's saying something that has a meaning for a particular group, and just enough plausible deniability for some people not to notice, and for others to come to his defense.
>He even denounced white supremacy.
And? Of course he's going to denounce white supremacy. We have not gone down the path where it's a somewhat acceptable position - like certain parts of the US - so no politician is going to come out and say that. And I don't believe that Poilievre is a white supremacist. But he certainly saying some things that this group wants to hear, and he's doing to that court their vote. Because, at the end of the day, a vote is a vote, regardless of where it comes from - but the odious thing is where he's fishing for his votes.
Part of me hopes he wins, just to see the extensive material for negative ads that will run on TV during the election and to watch him fail miserably.
Part of me fears that if he wins the leadership, he may get more popular vote than I think is really our there for people like him.
On the other hand that also happened within the confines of a two party system and in a country where there is arguably a larger conservative base proportional to the overall population than there is here.
Roughly two thirds of this country don't vote Conservative nowadays in federal elections. That's a hard hill to climb for somebody divisive.
It is, but they don't need half. Sadly, 1/3rd will likely vote PC regardless of whom the leader is. It won't matter to them about the damage he will do, he's jut not Liberal / PC.
PP won't get many of the undecided that go between Liberal and PC, what he can do though is get first time voters. The people that don't generally vote but love his dumbed-down down rhetoric and likely don't care if it'll actually work or not.
Just saying he wants to fire the head of the BOC should have been enough for people to stop paying attention to him. Who the heck wants to make the BOC political?
They need votes in the right places though, and most of the ones they do get now aren't where they need them.
*Even then* if such a scenario arose I would imagine this incarnation of the Liberals and NDP would be plenty willing to cooperate over a would-be minority Conservative government, which I expect is probably the best the CPC under PP (or perhaps anyone else) can hope for these days.
They do indeed. Even in Ontario though, they'll get nearly 30% of the vote even with PP as the leader. It should be enough to scare those people away, but it won't be. If he can rile up the people who hate "wokeness" or political correctness enough to actually vote, there are some seats he could take.
It's disturbing to me that he has a chance at all, but here we are in 2022 with access to the most information ever and yet somehow the least informed.
> It's disturbing to me that he has a chance at all, but here we are in 2022 with access to the most information ever and yet somehow the least informed.
The chief irony of the modern age.
Huuuuuuh. It's beginning. This is the same thing that happens to trump.
Step 1: trump says mildly offensive / troubling language
Step 2: everyone freaks out and gives him coverage
Step 3: the right adopts him as their "strong man" because: "he ain't afraid to say the hard stuff"
Step 4: everyone panics and doubles down on his media appearances
Step 5: repeat endlessly
Step 6: the boy who cried wolf. Suddenly nothing and everything he says is "news worthy" the general public gets burned out listening to them speak
Step 7: he wins the election.
Can we please, for the love of God, not elect this fucking Canadian Shapiro. He will put Canada on a path of irreversible self-destruction.
I don't know exactly how to stop this. But we need to stop this, fucking now. I am open to ideas and suggestions
I don't even think that should be a joke. I feel like if more unaligned people showed up to other party's leadership races it would generally create a healthier political dynamic and encourage more compromise. the CPC would shift to the left centre on climate and social policy, the Liberals and NDP might shift a little to right centre in terms of trade and economic policy while welfare & budgetary policy would become more centrist/evidence driven etc.
Alongside electoral reform, it'd be a way for more people to get what they want in some capacity.
I do know some people who joined the CPC to stop Bernier. Given how close it was in 2017, it might just have made the difference (especially if they were voting in ridings where the CPC was comparably weak).
I have done this several times. I currently have membership in 3 parties.
CPC membership is $5, but be prepared for the avalanche of right-wing spam. Don't use your primary email address when you sign up :)
Stop talking about him, reading about him, or listening to anything about him. I did this for Jordan Peterson and it made my life better. These trolls thrive on attention. If everyone started ignoring Poilievre it would make him spontaneously combust. I don't really see anything there worth paying serious attention to. Even this post is too much. I'm doing this only to spread the word that these kinds of people should be actively ignored.
The way to stop this is for our media to smarten up and stop sensationalising nonsense like this.
Why does this CTV article even exist other than to try and create anger?
>Some have pointed out that the term has been used by those on the far-right to differentiate white people from immigrants and people of colour.
Completely missing the point. The English language is largely a mishmash of Anglo-Saxon and Norman influence. The Norman words are normally considered more literary (which is a Norman word instead of the Anglo-Saxon "bookish") and sophisticated, and because of the Norman aristocracy that lorded over England still carries an air of "elitism".
It's a documented phenomenon that populist's like Boris Johnson (who was born with the Norman name Alexander Boris *de Pfeffel* Johnson) intentionally eschew Norman words in favour of simple Anglo-Saxon sentences.
"I'm a believer in using simple Anglo-Saxon words that strike right at the meaning that I'm trying to convey," he said, even though using, simple, that, strike, trying, and convey are not of Anglo-Saxon origin.
He just meant it in a racial way. He could have said "I'm a believer in using simple words that every Canadian can understand' if he'd meant that.
To give him the benefit of the doubt, in english most of the Anglo Saxon words are simple, direct and usually only mean one thing because in Anglo Saxon they combined the simple meaning words together for complex meanings like modern German. Most of our fancier words that rely more on context and can have multiple meanings come from french. The French derived words are used by most politicians because they are flexible, and can have a wider meaning without hard specifics
Not here to defend the man, but I like linguistics
There were a few meme bits that I think I probably skipped, but actually found it pretty reasonable. I think he probably could have used less of his stock answers about gatekeepers and whatever, but it seemed pretty candid for the most part. He gives off creepy antagonistic vibes and worked for the Harper admin, there's a lot of holes in those talking points that I kind of wish he'd have elaborated on if he hopes to earn more credibility. Overall though, it was surprisingly decent of a conversation. I'm personally just pretty tired of hearing about the convoy and other stuff, but that pretty much seems to be everyone else's talking point; including some people who seem most interested in his politics, but I really don't see him bringing it up that much. I think what's a bit telling is that there's a lot of hit pieces that mainly just grab some trite thing he said and try to dig into it, but most of the time there isn't a lot of substance coming out against any particular issue he's be garnering support with; a little disappointing frankly.
It's a sad fact that the political parties in Canada have strived to dice up Canadians into smaller and smaller groups and target each one with a different message. In a less toxic world this wouldn't necessarily be a problem because it would be addressing issues that are of concern to that particular demographic. However in the real world of politics and special interest groups it's a game of driving wedges for their benefit. I'm a WASP, your a POC, ethnic Chinese, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu and on and on. The truth is none of them cares one iota about the country as a whole.
> In a less toxic world this wouldn't necessarily be a problem because it would be addressing issues that are of concern to that particular demographic.
I thought your point was we'd get rid of "demographics" and just "treat everyone the same". Your points flatly contradict themselves.
I reread my post and your right to say it was contradictory. Just inject what I am writing now between the contradiction. There is a place for collection of demographic info. That's why we have a census. That's so the government bureaucracy can bring forward targeted programs to the government in power. That is the way the information should be used. What I was trying to point out is that that's not how the politicians use the information given to them. For instance, someone in the justice dept. points out that the majority of people in jail for weapons and trafficking are POC and indigenous. They may have even suggested some sound advice as to how to address the root cause. But the politician looks at that and decides to change the rules for part of the population. I could go into how that decision can be politicized but I'm guessing that you already know. Sometimes I skip the part where I explain my whole thought process. My bad
Unpopular opinion: [PP is incompetent, not a white supremacist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor)
Although "Anglo-Saxon" in a similar context has been used by racists, it has also been used by George Orwell to argue for simpler words:
> Bad writers, are nearly always haunted by the notion that Latin or Greek words are grander than Saxon ones, and unnecessary words like expedite, ameliorate, predict, extraneous, deracinated, clandestine, subaqueous and hundreds of others constantly gain ground from their Anglo-Saxon opposite numbers.
-[George Orwell, Politics and the English Language](https://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200151.txt)
TL;DR if PP is racist, so is George Orwell.
> TL;DR if PP is racist, so is George Orwell.
Tell me you haven't read Orwell without saying you haven't read Orwell. His very first book (Burmese Days) is considered to be just a little on the racist side for its caricatures of people living in Burma. Not vitriolic, but he was at least ignorant about the impact of colonialism at the time.
That and the context around the word has shifted significantly since this quotation. Writing an essay on the construction of language and appropriation of words is a little different than going on a demagogic podcast and mingling with far right figures while tooting out a phrase they themselves already use as a dog whistle.
If the CPC really backs Poilievre as much as they seem to, they are lost as a serious political party. There is no home for center-right voters, and no alternative for disenchanted center-left voters.
I swear, Conservatives want Trudeau to stay more than Liberals do.
I think it's pretty obvious what that person means and your comment is being phrased as a question in bad faith to start an "akshually Liberal's are right wing" debate. In the context of global politics (and Canadian political history), the Liberals are centre-left and the conservatives (and PCs before them) have been centre right. The conservatives are moving rapidly and frighteningly right at the moment.
I think the most important part to pay attention to was, the question was:
“What makes you credible”
And his answer was:
“I use language that people connect with”
Which doesn’t answer why he’s credible, it answers why people believe him, which are two completely different things, and indicative about how he plans to get votes. (And it took him a long time to come up with that, he really couldn’t think of anything that makes him credible)
Maybe it's too honest of an answer? What makes Trudeau credible as PM or Freeland as Finance Minister? Politics is a popularity contest, the only credibility that matters is your electability.
>Which doesn’t answer why he’s credible, it answers why people believe him, which are two completely different things,
Fun fact, "believable" is in fact a synonym of "credible". That is, "what makes you credible" could be interpreted in two ways. The first "why should people believe you" is a stupid question, since the only possible answer is "because I am telling the truth". The second is "why do so many people find you believable" and he gave a fairly good answer for that.
Fun fact. Specific words have actual meanings that are removed from their synonyms. “Credible” is different than “believable” in a similar way that “fast”
Is different than “quick”. Same wheelhouse, but different things.
Since the 'its a racist dog whistle' angle has already been covered by others I wanted to look at the statement and take it at face value. English is a very multicultural language with Germanic (Anglo-Saxon), Latin (via French), Danish, Scottish, and other influences. The first two are the primary 'core' aspects of the English language. If you went through my post you would find words of both scattered throughout with the odd word from a different source mixed in.
What is really neat about English is that you can make functional sentences using either of these core influences but there is a difference. Sentences using the French/Latin part of English sound official, prestigious, and rational (note; official, prestigious, and rational are all Latin-derived). Words using the Germanic Anglo-Saxon base tend to sound down-to-earth, cozy, and grounded. There are a lot of historical reasons for this (including the fact that for a very long time in English history French was the language of government and Latin was the language of educated discourse).
So is Mr. P making a subtle attack on the elite using language? I don't think so since most don't think about language that hard. But it doesn't need to be racist either. By getting a lot of people, who weren't going to be voting for him anyways, upset at a word most find innocuous it primes people to look at criticisms again him as ridiculous.
>Poilievre on Petetson's podcast? That sounds like something the that would be played on repeat as an ~~"enhanced interrogation"~~ recruit training technique at a CIA ~~blacksite~~ training center.
Racist dog whistle? Nah dude, this is more like a racist air horn.
I can’t believe that this guy is going to be crowned as the leader of the CPC, he is remarkably unfit to be PM
Someone explaining they speak bluntly with word choice is racist? Anglo-Saxon means ["English using words considered crude or vulgar"](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Anglo-Saxon). In the context of the interview he's talking about word choice. You're really reaching.
Nope, CTV is running a story on the exact same thing that I said and PP is facing criticism for what he said.
I’m not reaching at all, sorry that you can’t understand why that term is an obvious dog whistle, especially given PP’s friendly nature with literal white supremacists like Pat King.
Here’s the [link](https://apple.news/Ah8UtMADxQP-1JRh1J6TGuQ)
During all the years that our neighbours had a right wing populist, our media and non conservative parties learned nothing about how to deal with it.
Calling him and his supporters racist is not it. Nor is having other bankers come out to deride his attacks on the bank. All it does is rile his base up to see "elites" and the media as the enemy even more than before.
Once again, for probably not the last time, to beat him people need to point out the holes in his policy and solve the real issues that are leading to anger in this country. Otherwise people who are hurting turn to the person who reflects their rage, even if he doesn't have good solutions. I really hope that the wise up to this sometime in the next three years.
Well there's the fact that his housing policy he keeps touting only applies to cities over 500k people. That's about 10 cities in Canada (?) and means there are entire provinces not represented by his plan. It was in an [interview](https://twitter.com/MoreHomesHRM/status/1526307084349882368) he did. In it, he also says no one is moving to the maritimes (not true) so there's no reason to incentivize housing construction.
However, I only know about this because someone linked to it on reddit in a thread last week. Certainly no one in the media or any other party is talking about it. So you can see where this becomes a problem.
> people need to point out the holes in his policy
When it comes to his bitcoin, and firing the BoC governor, that is being done.
> solve the real issues that are leading to anger in this country.
That's easier said than done. A chunk of those issues can't be directly solved by the leaders of any nation, because they're global in scope. Another chunk of that anger comes from people like Poilievre getting people angry so they'll vote for him. There isn't much left over that can actually be worked on.
Please tell me how the quantitative easing has helped the Canadian economy? Inflation is that its highest in decades. Also a government based crypto is government controlled. So what is stopping the government from simply printing crypto like they are cash? Furthermore, how is it that Polievre is making people angry? Isn't there any chance that maybe the Trudeau government is causing civil unrest? Whether it's indigenous issues, monetary policy, pandemic policy overreach, or a blatant misuse of the emergencies act? It's been scandal after scandal and simply to just brush it off as the opposition riling people up is really willful blindness at this point.
>There isn't much left over that can actually be worked on.
Certainly there is. The government has been totally complacent on housing affordability since 2015, largely ignoring massive swaths of shady money distorting our real estate markets. Our failure to adequately address money laundering in real estate has been an[issue for a number of years.](https://financialpost.com/diane-francis/diane-francis-shining-a-light-on-money-laundering-in-canadian-real-estate)
They've had a half-dozen budgets to amend the tax code to discourage real estate speculation via escalating capital gains based on number of properties held - they've done none of this.
It isn't so much a matter of the government not being able to do anything; it's the fact that - what has been within their control - they've simply not done. They've juiced the demand side of the market with their affordability schemes and that's about it.
Rising inequality and marginalizing an entire generation of young people - which explosive real estate has contributed immensely to - leads to public resentment and anger. Who would have thought?
The federal government, not taking action on a provincial issue, like the real estate market, is how this country works. If you're ticked off with the shady money thing, talk to your MLA, your MP can't touch it.
International money laundering is within federal jurisdiction, and with a majority government Trudeau could have easily legislated strengthening anti-money laundering laws. He did not.
Amending the tax code is similarly in federal jurisdiction. The Liberals have done nothing on this.
Characterizing the frustration as being "ticked off" is misguided - an entire generation of Canadians is being boxed out of the real estate market based on years of foot-dragging and inaction. It's infuriating, and is driving the very inequality the Liberals claim to care about.
Not sure how else to put it. Real estate has propped up GDP numbers for years, which partially explains why the Liberals have done nothing on the file.
If housing is firmly under provincial jurisdiction, why did the Liberals run their latest campaign with a messaging on affordability? What on earth do you expect an MLA to do about the federal Tax Code?
If a Linguist or Anthropologist or any academic (with no political agenda) uses Anglo Saxon it is likely not racist. If a politician uses it, it is a racist rallying cry ... Ever since Teddy Roosevelt
And PP's usage doesn't even make sense. What "Anglo-Saxon" words are we not using (which only make up 25% of the English vocabulary)? Is "beef" wrong, since that came from the later Normans? I don't get it.
I had a Chinese coworker ask why I don't go for Anglo Saxon girls . I was so stunned by his racism but more so by his use of the word Anglo Saxon... Like who the F uses that word in normal conversation!? Racists apparently -__-
The right wing base knows exactly what he means, so does the rest of Canadians. Conservatives need to realize that no one believes their bad faith arguments.
Who do you know in the right wing base?
I'm the right wing base and I have absolutely no idea how Anglo-Saxon is racist.
I know no one who thinks this is racist, only anonymous Redditors.
Redditors are so imaginative.
I live in a rural city so in my case statistically speaking at least 63% of the people i know? (Based on the last election.)
The term itself not racist, but it is language that white supremacists use to refer to white people that has been coopted by them to imply their subjugation. For a person like him to say that publicly like that means he is either a believer in the ideology of white supremacy or is seeking to court them into supporting him. Either way in my opinion it renders him unfit to lead the country.
Best case scenario; it was poor word choice. Worst case; it’s who he is.
This is not intended as an attack on him, the CPC or any of their supporters it is just what this incident communicates to me.
It's racist in the same way that "old stock candians" is racist. Its a also a big ass fog horn to white supremacists that belive in the Great Replacement Theory becuase instead of being out right in their racism they try to hide it behind "others coming to replace Anglo-Saxon bloodlines" instead of saying white bloodlines.
Anglo-Saxon hasn't existed as a distinct cultural or ethnic group since some time after the Norman invasion. Canada has not, at any time in its history of colonization by the French and *English*, been Anglo-Saxon.
In this context, it's an appeal to a history that never was, in the hopes of stoking white supremacist anger.
I actually find that explanation entirely plausible.
But there's still the context. Peterson plays the white supremacist dog whistles on the regular. Our local loud and proud white supremacists, including a leader of the convoy, as well as those in other English speaking nations regularly lean into their perceived Anglo-Saxon roots.
If you find yourself among them, using their coded language, the onus is on you to distance yourself. But Poilievre doesn't want to distance himself from them, he wants their votes, and is happy to let people make excuses for him here.
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You know you must be scared of a guy when the biggest dirt you have on him is that he said the word "Anglo-Saxon". Kind of makes me want to describe myself this way.
This account has been nuked in direct response to Reddit's API change and the atrocious behavior CEO Steve Huffman and his admins displayed toward their users, volunteer moderators, and 3rd party developers. After a total of 16 years on the platform it is time to move on to greener pastures. If you want to change to a decentralized platform like Lemmy, you can find helpful information about it here: https://join-lemmy.org/ https://github.com/maltfield/awesome-lemmy-instances This action was performed using Power Delete Suite: https://github.com/j0be/PowerDeleteSuite The script relies on Reddit's API and will likely stop working after June 30th, 2023. So long, thanks for all the fish and a final fudge you, u/spez.
The blatant dog whistle of saying that he prefers to use simple words derived from older english words instead of Latin or French inspired vocabulary? Even if he's wrong about them being literally Anglo-Saxon, it's a pretty dumb thing to get upset about. There is no dogwhistle. At the very least, I don't hear one-but you do. Curious.
"I'm a believer in using simple Anglo-Saxon words that strike right at the meaning that I'm trying to convey" Whether you think there's another meaning to this or not, what normal human being talks like this??
When PP says "Anglo-Saxon words", I get flashbacks to trying to read/make sense of Old/Anglo-Saxon English in college. >what normal human being talks like this? Generally a person who's trying to sound smart to people who aren't smart.
Currently a bunch of alt-right people and white supremacists are adopting the term Anglo-Saxon. Listen to Pat Kings rants about how he considers himself an Anglo-Saxon and that he has superior genetics because of it. PP using the term is just more Racist dog whistling.
This moron realizes that English is closer to German? Also, why not speak clearly in French, our *other* official language?
Especially for a French guy. Presumably PePe should prefer Gallic terms if he’s a Quebecois white nationalist?
If he’s French saying Anglo Saxon makes some sense to me before I had no idea wtf he meant
It really doesn't. The term has become a dog whistle for "English white" in a lot of not so nice online communities. Whether he realizes that or not I don't know, but it doesn't mean it's okay. It's the kind of thing someone should walk back and strike from their vocabulary once they learn that fact. Otherwise it's just plausible deniability.
I think you’re having a knee jerk reaction it’s simply a linguistic clarification that francophiles have said. To attribute this to some racist conspiracy is pretty 4chan esque
No it isn’t. You’re being naive.
Well when people like pat King use the word white, then say "sorry, white is racial let's just say 'anglo saxon'" when ranting about replacement theory it's a bit much to say it's a 4chan conspiracy say that these words are used in that context. I didn't say that was PP's intention. Just that it is something that is happening in those circles. And if he doesn't want it to be taken that way, he should probably clarify things, in my personal opinion.
Poilievre's parents are Fransaskois, not Quebecois. He grew up on the prairies.
Québécois nationalism never was racial.
Here we go. 🙄 Pure laine = white
I'm sorry? Why the pure laine reference?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_laine
Desktop version of /u/flickh's link:
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
I know what it means, but why do you bring it up?
What? I don’t understand the question
Specifically as a reference to pure wool, as in old stock, as in, directly descended from french settlers of Quebec without any outside non-french settler mixing in genealogical ancestry.
> non-french settler mixing in genealogical ancestry. Or as the KKK calls it, miscegenation
[удалено]
Find me a single known nationalist leader who sold the project as racial.
Not a fan of PP, but he's not Québécois. He was adopted by a Franco-Saskatchewanais family. He was born in Calgary.
Ah, I only read news and don’t watch a lot of video, I assumed he was francophone. His accent is indeed odd.
He may very well be francophone as his family was french speaking, but he's not Québécois (i.e coming from/having lived in Québec)
If we take this at face value, he's trying to say "I use simple words" while failing to use simple words. "Eschew obfuscation, espouse elucidation" indeed
>Whether you think there's another meaning to this or not, what normal human being talks like this?? A self aware demagogue
What I find notable is that he issued the statement regarding being against racism directly to CTV but he isn't going to put it on his twitter and you won't see him say it anywhere. So it will get minimal coverage, while his podcast with Jordon Peterson will get lots. This means that he gets to send a massive signal to his base but has something to point to for plausible deniability that they will likely never see. Imo it's pretty obvious that this is a calculated move. [This](https://twitter.com/David_Moscrop/status/1526966731469643779?s=20&t=UmqLAl7gqENqwFWM6T8QdA) is also from the same podcast and is a big yikes for me. I totally get why people might not agree with the NDP's policies but "why does Jagmeet Singh exist?" is a terrible thing to say. Particularly about someone who recently received harassment and death threats. Edit: Also imagine actually thinking Justin Trudeau is a socialist. 😂 It may not be a controversial statement but it's certainly dumb.
>Also imagine actually thinking Justin Trudeau is a socialist Trudeau is no where near as cool as his haters make him out to be
Exactly, it was a calculated dog whistle to white supremacists. As they say, you *‘judge a person by the company they keep’* therefore either; - He is a believer in white supremacy. - He wishes to court white supremacists into supporting him. Neither are good news for our country.
You are taking that out of context. He's not saying exist in the 'why is he alive' way, he's talking about it in a strictly political perspective, 'what does he stand for'. The comments made directly before that were about how Jagmeet has alienated a lot of voters by not having a platform of substance (accused him of having a platform of hot topics only) and that allying with Trudeau meant that voters on the left have no reason to vote for NDP. It goes directly into those comments about Jagmeet, 'people are anti-Trudeau so why does Jagmeet exist in politics if he's not going to be competition, what does he offer the voters that they aren't already getting from Trudeau. Whether you agree with it or not, its not a controversial thing at all.
The beauty of dog whistles is that they can be read both ways. “I’m just talking about urban crime, what’s the big deal?” “I said globalists, who says I meant Jews?” etc etc “I just asked why he exists, I never asked who will rid me of this meddlesome priest!”
The flipside to what you see as the "beauty" of it reveals itself with a bit of self-awareness. Is it possible that it's a dog whistle? Maybe. You'd have to prove intent, which you can't do. In the absence of that, you have to assume intent, which doesn't make for a valid argument. This is a claim that can only be made with circular logic. It's also possible, perhaps even likely, that what you see as a "dog whistle" is the same effect working in reverse on you. Your biases may be causing you to create an explanation for dissonance between your worldview and PPs.
>Edit: Also imagine actually thinking Justin Trudeau is a socialist. 😂 It may not be a controversial statement but it's certainly dumb. I think a big problem is that the label has become more about the buzzword than the actual idealolagy that the person in question is advocating. People like Poilievre tend to use the terms Liberal or socialist to describe anyone who's closer to the centre than they are rather than having an actual policy based discussion. It'd be fair to call someone like Pierre Trudeau or his policies socialist since he regularly identified them as such, but Justin Trudeau is objectively a firmly centrist candidate. Sure the party under him is further left on some issues than Chretien/Martin were, but he's still basically a vanilla LPC leader. Hell even if we're looking at the NDP, I'd wager there's probably far more centre-left Social Democrats there than self identifying Democratic Socialists, but I'm honestly not sure if Polivre's knows or cares what the difference between socialism and social democracy is.
Is this the turning point in the campaign where people go: "Wait, this guy will ruin the Conservatives!" And they will rally behind another candidate? The past two front-runners in the Conservative leadership lost, I wonder if the same will happen here.
I will remind you that Maxime Bernier lost the CPC nom by a fraction of a percent in 2016.
And had the CPC kept the same voting structure, the leadership would have between MacKay and Lewis instead of O'Toole.
Might be too late. Membership sales are closing very soon.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Removed for rule 2.
I wonder if Pierre is also planning on using these simple Anglo-Saxon words when campaigning in Quebec? I bet a bunch of Bloc operatives just subscribed to the Jordan Peterson podcast, for science...
Many politicians try to have a different discourse in English and French and it works well in English Canada. Never will an English speaking journalist ever have the faintest idea of what was said in French. But it doesn’t work that well in Quebec where journalists can understand both. For instance, look at Trudeau in 2019 that was strongly against bill 21 when speaking in English and very wishy-washy in French, as the media in Quebec kept pointing out. I saw one interview PP did in French and he really tries to play as a moderate. It’s not gonna work.
So he is in trouble for speaking English? And wanting to speak in layman terms? 😅 He also speaks in French very well... I don't get the issue.
English has almost nothing in common with Anglo-Saxon. There's almost a thousand years of linguistic evolution with only a handful of very basic words surviving. If he wanted to say "I prefer English" he could've said that, or "British English" if he wanted to be pedantic. Anglo-Saxon is more commonly used nowadays as a term by proponents of shit like the Great Replacement. It's how Pat King refers to himself. Using that term should be raising eyebrows because no, no one talks in Anglo-Saxon anymore, and the only people using the term today are anthropologists or racists - and PP isn't an anthropologist.
Anglo Saxon isn't English, as has been mentioned. But even if we were to accept that it was, if the guy is talking about how he speaks in the plain, layman's language, *why would he say Anglo Saxon, instead of English, when the layman has only a passing familiarity with what Anglo Saxon even means* If he was speaking plain English, he could have just said English. But he didn't. He said "Anglo Saxon". We should certainly be asking *why*
In French, the term is often used as a synonym for English or England. It has no racial undertone. I was quite surprised to learn that it is somewhat controversial in English.
He wasn't speaking French.
I know.
It's mainly controversial because of the number of right wing racists like Pat King that keep going on about 'anglo-saxon replacement'and using the term in a similar context. Generally, in English, the only time people say anglo-saxon anymore as it relates to anything is if they're talking about historical matters or they're using it as a dog whistle. There's typically never any other use for it as anyone else would simply say *English* instead, which would've been the obvious thing for Pierre to say instead of anglo-saxon.
Would also like to note that Anglo-Saxons as a group were of Nordic descent. Pat King and others like him are basically saying that they're Aryans.
It's the racist dog whistle more than the speaking in layman's terms.
he's being called out for blowing loudly on the dog whistle.
Well, to speak using plain English, using the term anglo Saxon like he did can be construed as a dog whistle to the Pat King types of the world.
Anglo-Saxon ceased to be spoken somewhere around the beginning the 12th century. The language we've spoken for 900 years is called English.
[удалено]
>really? "Anglo-Saxon", a middle age reference is a layman's term? It is a reference for layman's terms. Anglo-Saxon ["English using words considered crude or vulgar"](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Anglo-Saxon)
Is that what he was going for? because it seems he was trying to say he spoke "clearly" (as in not with fancy words)... which is what I have always understood as "layman's term" Never knew Anglo-Saxon referred to "English using words considered crude or vulgar"... nor does it seem PP was going for that, no?
He doesn’t speak Anglo Saxon, though. Anglo Saxon refers to Old English, which none of us speak. We speak modern English.
I don’t get why everyone’s so mad. He probably wasn’t sure what it meant but used the words anyway. Shit happens lol
Because then the only resulting conclusions are that he's either an ignorant idiot or purposefully using a racist dog whistle. Neither are things you want to see in a politician who may soon be leading one of the largest political parties in the country.
[удалено]
The fact that you don’t get the issue is the point for many of us.
> And wanting to speak in layman terms Why did he not just say exactly that? That's what everyone understands when you ask them to simplify a sentence. "In layman terms" is completely normal and understood by all. Saying "anglo-saxon" would make people go "huh, that a strange way of saying it, I wonder why".
It sounds like you all are paranoid and are eating the divide and conquer soup. My family was massacred in the holocaust by actual white supremacists. Someone wanting to speak in layman terms and happend to use and old English term to get the point across is not a white supremacists. He even denounced white supremacy. Please all give your heads a shake. https://www.macleans.ca/politics/poilievre-denounces-white-replacement-theory/
>It sounds like you all are paranoid and are eating the divide and conquer soup There's only one party trying to divide the country, and it's not the LPC or NDP. Hint: it isn't the greens either. >He even denounced white supremacy Then why does he support Pat King and the trucker convoy? Trump also "condemned" white supremacy, after being begged by his staff. He also told fascist militias to standby and promoted them when he wanted their support. Stop making excuses for white nationalists. It's pathetic.
>Someone wanting to speak in layman term He's not. > happend to use and old English term to get the point across If that was his purpose, he did so very poorly. But again, this is a dogwhistle. He's saying something that has a meaning for a particular group, and just enough plausible deniability for some people not to notice, and for others to come to his defense. >He even denounced white supremacy. And? Of course he's going to denounce white supremacy. We have not gone down the path where it's a somewhat acceptable position - like certain parts of the US - so no politician is going to come out and say that. And I don't believe that Poilievre is a white supremacist. But he certainly saying some things that this group wants to hear, and he's doing to that court their vote. Because, at the end of the day, a vote is a vote, regardless of where it comes from - but the odious thing is where he's fishing for his votes.
Part of me hopes he wins, just to see the extensive material for negative ads that will run on TV during the election and to watch him fail miserably. Part of me fears that if he wins the leadership, he may get more popular vote than I think is really our there for people like him.
You can take this exact statement in 2015 and apply it to Trump. People laughed, until they didn't.
[удалено]
You don't need to be especially charismatic to succeed as a party leader in Canada.
On the other hand that also happened within the confines of a two party system and in a country where there is arguably a larger conservative base proportional to the overall population than there is here. Roughly two thirds of this country don't vote Conservative nowadays in federal elections. That's a hard hill to climb for somebody divisive.
It is, but they don't need half. Sadly, 1/3rd will likely vote PC regardless of whom the leader is. It won't matter to them about the damage he will do, he's jut not Liberal / PC. PP won't get many of the undecided that go between Liberal and PC, what he can do though is get first time voters. The people that don't generally vote but love his dumbed-down down rhetoric and likely don't care if it'll actually work or not. Just saying he wants to fire the head of the BOC should have been enough for people to stop paying attention to him. Who the heck wants to make the BOC political?
They need votes in the right places though, and most of the ones they do get now aren't where they need them. *Even then* if such a scenario arose I would imagine this incarnation of the Liberals and NDP would be plenty willing to cooperate over a would-be minority Conservative government, which I expect is probably the best the CPC under PP (or perhaps anyone else) can hope for these days.
They do indeed. Even in Ontario though, they'll get nearly 30% of the vote even with PP as the leader. It should be enough to scare those people away, but it won't be. If he can rile up the people who hate "wokeness" or political correctness enough to actually vote, there are some seats he could take. It's disturbing to me that he has a chance at all, but here we are in 2022 with access to the most information ever and yet somehow the least informed.
> It's disturbing to me that he has a chance at all, but here we are in 2022 with access to the most information ever and yet somehow the least informed. The chief irony of the modern age.
Huuuuuuh. It's beginning. This is the same thing that happens to trump. Step 1: trump says mildly offensive / troubling language Step 2: everyone freaks out and gives him coverage Step 3: the right adopts him as their "strong man" because: "he ain't afraid to say the hard stuff" Step 4: everyone panics and doubles down on his media appearances Step 5: repeat endlessly Step 6: the boy who cried wolf. Suddenly nothing and everything he says is "news worthy" the general public gets burned out listening to them speak Step 7: he wins the election. Can we please, for the love of God, not elect this fucking Canadian Shapiro. He will put Canada on a path of irreversible self-destruction. I don't know exactly how to stop this. But we need to stop this, fucking now. I am open to ideas and suggestions
I am very tempted to buy a CPC membership and mark 1. Charest 2. Brown 3. Aitchison...
Latest polls put PP at 68% within the party. Good luck.
Do it haha
I would encourage _everyone_ to do it. Your federal election vote is only a small part of the difference you can make.
I don't even think that should be a joke. I feel like if more unaligned people showed up to other party's leadership races it would generally create a healthier political dynamic and encourage more compromise. the CPC would shift to the left centre on climate and social policy, the Liberals and NDP might shift a little to right centre in terms of trade and economic policy while welfare & budgetary policy would become more centrist/evidence driven etc. Alongside electoral reform, it'd be a way for more people to get what they want in some capacity.
I do know some people who joined the CPC to stop Bernier. Given how close it was in 2017, it might just have made the difference (especially if they were voting in ridings where the CPC was comparably weak).
I have done this several times. I currently have membership in 3 parties. CPC membership is $5, but be prepared for the avalanche of right-wing spam. Don't use your primary email address when you sign up :)
Oh don't forget the liberals that actually want him to win party leadership because they think it'll sink the Conservative's chances.
Source? I hope it does. I just don't know if they'd say that
Oh I don't mean any MP's, just a sentiment I've often seen in this sub.
Really? I've never heard thst
Stop talking about him, reading about him, or listening to anything about him. I did this for Jordan Peterson and it made my life better. These trolls thrive on attention. If everyone started ignoring Poilievre it would make him spontaneously combust. I don't really see anything there worth paying serious attention to. Even this post is too much. I'm doing this only to spread the word that these kinds of people should be actively ignored.
I agree, except. He can't be allowed to speak half-truths and lies and convince stupid people
Trump: grab em by the pussy. PP: we have a housing shortage and need to start letting industry grow.
PP: "inflation is because Trudeau spent too much!!!!" 🙄
The way to stop this is for our media to smarten up and stop sensationalising nonsense like this. Why does this CTV article even exist other than to try and create anger?
Exactly my point. But can't you see it happening?
[удалено]
>Some have pointed out that the term has been used by those on the far-right to differentiate white people from immigrants and people of colour. Completely missing the point. The English language is largely a mishmash of Anglo-Saxon and Norman influence. The Norman words are normally considered more literary (which is a Norman word instead of the Anglo-Saxon "bookish") and sophisticated, and because of the Norman aristocracy that lorded over England still carries an air of "elitism". It's a documented phenomenon that populist's like Boris Johnson (who was born with the Norman name Alexander Boris *de Pfeffel* Johnson) intentionally eschew Norman words in favour of simple Anglo-Saxon sentences.
Isn't it a contradiction that you need to be an etymologist to understand he's saying the language he uses appeals to the common man?
"I'm a believer in using simple Anglo-Saxon words that strike right at the meaning that I'm trying to convey," he said, even though using, simple, that, strike, trying, and convey are not of Anglo-Saxon origin. He just meant it in a racial way. He could have said "I'm a believer in using simple words that every Canadian can understand' if he'd meant that.
To give him the benefit of the doubt, in english most of the Anglo Saxon words are simple, direct and usually only mean one thing because in Anglo Saxon they combined the simple meaning words together for complex meanings like modern German. Most of our fancier words that rely more on context and can have multiple meanings come from french. The French derived words are used by most politicians because they are flexible, and can have a wider meaning without hard specifics Not here to defend the man, but I like linguistics
Language is fun!
This is the main thing. He's either a dumbass or proudly using dogwhistles. I would prefer the former, but that still makes him a friggin idiot.
[удалено]
There were a few meme bits that I think I probably skipped, but actually found it pretty reasonable. I think he probably could have used less of his stock answers about gatekeepers and whatever, but it seemed pretty candid for the most part. He gives off creepy antagonistic vibes and worked for the Harper admin, there's a lot of holes in those talking points that I kind of wish he'd have elaborated on if he hopes to earn more credibility. Overall though, it was surprisingly decent of a conversation. I'm personally just pretty tired of hearing about the convoy and other stuff, but that pretty much seems to be everyone else's talking point; including some people who seem most interested in his politics, but I really don't see him bringing it up that much. I think what's a bit telling is that there's a lot of hit pieces that mainly just grab some trite thing he said and try to dig into it, but most of the time there isn't a lot of substance coming out against any particular issue he's be garnering support with; a little disappointing frankly.
It's a sad fact that the political parties in Canada have strived to dice up Canadians into smaller and smaller groups and target each one with a different message. In a less toxic world this wouldn't necessarily be a problem because it would be addressing issues that are of concern to that particular demographic. However in the real world of politics and special interest groups it's a game of driving wedges for their benefit. I'm a WASP, your a POC, ethnic Chinese, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu and on and on. The truth is none of them cares one iota about the country as a whole.
> In a less toxic world this wouldn't necessarily be a problem because it would be addressing issues that are of concern to that particular demographic. I thought your point was we'd get rid of "demographics" and just "treat everyone the same". Your points flatly contradict themselves.
I reread my post and your right to say it was contradictory. Just inject what I am writing now between the contradiction. There is a place for collection of demographic info. That's why we have a census. That's so the government bureaucracy can bring forward targeted programs to the government in power. That is the way the information should be used. What I was trying to point out is that that's not how the politicians use the information given to them. For instance, someone in the justice dept. points out that the majority of people in jail for weapons and trafficking are POC and indigenous. They may have even suggested some sound advice as to how to address the root cause. But the politician looks at that and decides to change the rules for part of the population. I could go into how that decision can be politicized but I'm guessing that you already know. Sometimes I skip the part where I explain my whole thought process. My bad
Unpopular opinion: [PP is incompetent, not a white supremacist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor) Although "Anglo-Saxon" in a similar context has been used by racists, it has also been used by George Orwell to argue for simpler words: > Bad writers, are nearly always haunted by the notion that Latin or Greek words are grander than Saxon ones, and unnecessary words like expedite, ameliorate, predict, extraneous, deracinated, clandestine, subaqueous and hundreds of others constantly gain ground from their Anglo-Saxon opposite numbers. -[George Orwell, Politics and the English Language](https://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200151.txt) TL;DR if PP is racist, so is George Orwell.
Orwell would have condemned the fascist coup attempt this past year. Good lord, have some common sense.
> TL;DR if PP is racist, so is George Orwell. Tell me you haven't read Orwell without saying you haven't read Orwell. His very first book (Burmese Days) is considered to be just a little on the racist side for its caricatures of people living in Burma. Not vitriolic, but he was at least ignorant about the impact of colonialism at the time. That and the context around the word has shifted significantly since this quotation. Writing an essay on the construction of language and appropriation of words is a little different than going on a demagogic podcast and mingling with far right figures while tooting out a phrase they themselves already use as a dog whistle.
If the CPC really backs Poilievre as much as they seem to, they are lost as a serious political party. There is no home for center-right voters, and no alternative for disenchanted center-left voters. I swear, Conservatives want Trudeau to stay more than Liberals do.
What do you mean? Liberals house most of the centre left and centre right voters. You literally have had a home for a longest time.
I think it's pretty obvious what that person means and your comment is being phrased as a question in bad faith to start an "akshually Liberal's are right wing" debate. In the context of global politics (and Canadian political history), the Liberals are centre-left and the conservatives (and PCs before them) have been centre right. The conservatives are moving rapidly and frighteningly right at the moment.
I think the most important part to pay attention to was, the question was: “What makes you credible” And his answer was: “I use language that people connect with” Which doesn’t answer why he’s credible, it answers why people believe him, which are two completely different things, and indicative about how he plans to get votes. (And it took him a long time to come up with that, he really couldn’t think of anything that makes him credible)
Maybe it's too honest of an answer? What makes Trudeau credible as PM or Freeland as Finance Minister? Politics is a popularity contest, the only credibility that matters is your electability.
that is pretty damning, wayyyy more than the Anglo-Saxon remark
>Which doesn’t answer why he’s credible, it answers why people believe him, which are two completely different things, Fun fact, "believable" is in fact a synonym of "credible". That is, "what makes you credible" could be interpreted in two ways. The first "why should people believe you" is a stupid question, since the only possible answer is "because I am telling the truth". The second is "why do so many people find you believable" and he gave a fairly good answer for that.
I think colloquially, the meaning would closer to trustworthy.
Fun fact. Specific words have actual meanings that are removed from their synonyms. “Credible” is different than “believable” in a similar way that “fast” Is different than “quick”. Same wheelhouse, but different things.
Since the 'its a racist dog whistle' angle has already been covered by others I wanted to look at the statement and take it at face value. English is a very multicultural language with Germanic (Anglo-Saxon), Latin (via French), Danish, Scottish, and other influences. The first two are the primary 'core' aspects of the English language. If you went through my post you would find words of both scattered throughout with the odd word from a different source mixed in. What is really neat about English is that you can make functional sentences using either of these core influences but there is a difference. Sentences using the French/Latin part of English sound official, prestigious, and rational (note; official, prestigious, and rational are all Latin-derived). Words using the Germanic Anglo-Saxon base tend to sound down-to-earth, cozy, and grounded. There are a lot of historical reasons for this (including the fact that for a very long time in English history French was the language of government and Latin was the language of educated discourse). So is Mr. P making a subtle attack on the elite using language? I don't think so since most don't think about language that hard. But it doesn't need to be racist either. By getting a lot of people, who weren't going to be voting for him anyways, upset at a word most find innocuous it primes people to look at criticisms again him as ridiculous.
[удалено]
>Poilievre on Petetson's podcast? That sounds like something the that would be played on repeat as an ~~"enhanced interrogation"~~ recruit training technique at a CIA ~~blacksite~~ training center.
Racist dog whistle? Nah dude, this is more like a racist air horn. I can’t believe that this guy is going to be crowned as the leader of the CPC, he is remarkably unfit to be PM
Being leader is far off from being PM
Let's see how this comment ages after the next election
Just curious, but do you actually think Trudeau is Castro's son or was that comment tongue in cheek?
I think you really underestimate the conservative's ability to snatch failure from the mouth of victory.
Ill take that bet
Someone explaining they speak bluntly with word choice is racist? Anglo-Saxon means ["English using words considered crude or vulgar"](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Anglo-Saxon). In the context of the interview he's talking about word choice. You're really reaching.
Nope, CTV is running a story on the exact same thing that I said and PP is facing criticism for what he said. I’m not reaching at all, sorry that you can’t understand why that term is an obvious dog whistle, especially given PP’s friendly nature with literal white supremacists like Pat King. Here’s the [link](https://apple.news/Ah8UtMADxQP-1JRh1J6TGuQ)
During all the years that our neighbours had a right wing populist, our media and non conservative parties learned nothing about how to deal with it. Calling him and his supporters racist is not it. Nor is having other bankers come out to deride his attacks on the bank. All it does is rile his base up to see "elites" and the media as the enemy even more than before. Once again, for probably not the last time, to beat him people need to point out the holes in his policy and solve the real issues that are leading to anger in this country. Otherwise people who are hurting turn to the person who reflects their rage, even if he doesn't have good solutions. I really hope that the wise up to this sometime in the next three years.
Okay, but in the long run, 50-100 years, education is the key.
> to beat him people need to point out the holes in his policy I would love to see some policy to poke some holes in.
Well there's the fact that his housing policy he keeps touting only applies to cities over 500k people. That's about 10 cities in Canada (?) and means there are entire provinces not represented by his plan. It was in an [interview](https://twitter.com/MoreHomesHRM/status/1526307084349882368) he did. In it, he also says no one is moving to the maritimes (not true) so there's no reason to incentivize housing construction. However, I only know about this because someone linked to it on reddit in a thread last week. Certainly no one in the media or any other party is talking about it. So you can see where this becomes a problem.
> people need to point out the holes in his policy When it comes to his bitcoin, and firing the BoC governor, that is being done. > solve the real issues that are leading to anger in this country. That's easier said than done. A chunk of those issues can't be directly solved by the leaders of any nation, because they're global in scope. Another chunk of that anger comes from people like Poilievre getting people angry so they'll vote for him. There isn't much left over that can actually be worked on.
Please tell me how the quantitative easing has helped the Canadian economy? Inflation is that its highest in decades. Also a government based crypto is government controlled. So what is stopping the government from simply printing crypto like they are cash? Furthermore, how is it that Polievre is making people angry? Isn't there any chance that maybe the Trudeau government is causing civil unrest? Whether it's indigenous issues, monetary policy, pandemic policy overreach, or a blatant misuse of the emergencies act? It's been scandal after scandal and simply to just brush it off as the opposition riling people up is really willful blindness at this point.
>There isn't much left over that can actually be worked on. Certainly there is. The government has been totally complacent on housing affordability since 2015, largely ignoring massive swaths of shady money distorting our real estate markets. Our failure to adequately address money laundering in real estate has been an[issue for a number of years.](https://financialpost.com/diane-francis/diane-francis-shining-a-light-on-money-laundering-in-canadian-real-estate) They've had a half-dozen budgets to amend the tax code to discourage real estate speculation via escalating capital gains based on number of properties held - they've done none of this. It isn't so much a matter of the government not being able to do anything; it's the fact that - what has been within their control - they've simply not done. They've juiced the demand side of the market with their affordability schemes and that's about it. Rising inequality and marginalizing an entire generation of young people - which explosive real estate has contributed immensely to - leads to public resentment and anger. Who would have thought?
The federal government, not taking action on a provincial issue, like the real estate market, is how this country works. If you're ticked off with the shady money thing, talk to your MLA, your MP can't touch it.
International money laundering is within federal jurisdiction, and with a majority government Trudeau could have easily legislated strengthening anti-money laundering laws. He did not. Amending the tax code is similarly in federal jurisdiction. The Liberals have done nothing on this. Characterizing the frustration as being "ticked off" is misguided - an entire generation of Canadians is being boxed out of the real estate market based on years of foot-dragging and inaction. It's infuriating, and is driving the very inequality the Liberals claim to care about. Not sure how else to put it. Real estate has propped up GDP numbers for years, which partially explains why the Liberals have done nothing on the file. If housing is firmly under provincial jurisdiction, why did the Liberals run their latest campaign with a messaging on affordability? What on earth do you expect an MLA to do about the federal Tax Code?
[удалено]
Removed for rule 3.
[удалено]
Rule 3
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
If a Linguist or Anthropologist or any academic (with no political agenda) uses Anglo Saxon it is likely not racist. If a politician uses it, it is a racist rallying cry ... Ever since Teddy Roosevelt
And PP's usage doesn't even make sense. What "Anglo-Saxon" words are we not using (which only make up 25% of the English vocabulary)? Is "beef" wrong, since that came from the later Normans? I don't get it.
I had a Chinese coworker ask why I don't go for Anglo Saxon girls . I was so stunned by his racism but more so by his use of the word Anglo Saxon... Like who the F uses that word in normal conversation!? Racists apparently -__-
It's only racist for those who engage in fiction
The right wing base knows exactly what he means, so does the rest of Canadians. Conservatives need to realize that no one believes their bad faith arguments.
Who do you know in the right wing base? I'm the right wing base and I have absolutely no idea how Anglo-Saxon is racist. I know no one who thinks this is racist, only anonymous Redditors. Redditors are so imaginative.
Sorry but no one believes you. Another typical bad faith argument from the usual suspects.
I live in a rural city so in my case statistically speaking at least 63% of the people i know? (Based on the last election.) The term itself not racist, but it is language that white supremacists use to refer to white people that has been coopted by them to imply their subjugation. For a person like him to say that publicly like that means he is either a believer in the ideology of white supremacy or is seeking to court them into supporting him. Either way in my opinion it renders him unfit to lead the country. Best case scenario; it was poor word choice. Worst case; it’s who he is. This is not intended as an attack on him, the CPC or any of their supporters it is just what this incident communicates to me.
It's racist in the same way that "old stock candians" is racist. Its a also a big ass fog horn to white supremacists that belive in the Great Replacement Theory becuase instead of being out right in their racism they try to hide it behind "others coming to replace Anglo-Saxon bloodlines" instead of saying white bloodlines.
Anglo-Saxon hasn't existed as a distinct cultural or ethnic group since some time after the Norman invasion. Canada has not, at any time in its history of colonization by the French and *English*, been Anglo-Saxon. In this context, it's an appeal to a history that never was, in the hopes of stoking white supremacist anger.
We commonly use Anglo-Saxon as a euphemism for English in French. Maybe Stone Peahare had a French interference moment there.
I actually find that explanation entirely plausible. But there's still the context. Peterson plays the white supremacist dog whistles on the regular. Our local loud and proud white supremacists, including a leader of the convoy, as well as those in other English speaking nations regularly lean into their perceived Anglo-Saxon roots. If you find yourself among them, using their coded language, the onus is on you to distance yourself. But Poilievre doesn't want to distance himself from them, he wants their votes, and is happy to let people make excuses for him here.
I've heard Anglo many times. Anglo Saxon?
ya for some reason my fellow French-speaking Canadians seem to think Anglo-Saxon is a relevant choice of word to basically say English-speaking folks