By slamming experts, Pierre Poilievre and his staff are degrading political debate

[BeaverFever]

By slamming experts, Pierre Poilievre and his staff are degrading political debate

Stephen Maher is a political journalist and author of The Prince: The Turbulent Reign of Justin Trudeau.

On Tuesday, when Doris Grinspun, the CEO of the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario, told CBC that Ontario’s decision to close 10 supervised drug consumption sites is “a death sentence for people that use substances,” the federal Conservatives were quick to attack her.

Sebastian Skamski, a spokesman for Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, slammed her on X: “CBC’s so called ‘expert’ (with 23 letters behind her name) deems Trudeau’s crime ridden drug dens ‘essential’ & equates them to cancer treatment centres. These are the WACKO ‘experts’ Trudeau uses to defend his drug disaster. These are the WACKO ‘expert’ voices media peddles.”

Story continues below advertisement

Mr. Skamski, who is entitled to put two letters behind his name, may not fully appreciate the value of the letters after Dr. Grinspun’s name. They show, among other things, that she is a registered nurse and a PhD, that she has an honorary law degree and is a member of the Order of Ontario.

Those letters do not show that she is right about supervised injection sites, but do show that she might know what she is talking about, and is the kind of person we ought to hear from. If she has good reasons to believe that supervised drug consumption sites save lives and reduce the harm of addiction, then she has a responsibility to speak out.

Mr. Skamski is impolite, therefore, to call her names and treat her disrespectfully for doing her job.

But he is following the example set by his boss. Mr. Poilievre is going after the people working on the front lines of the opioid epidemic. It is part of a pattern.

Story continues below advertisement

Mr. Poilievre has previously attacked Indigenous survivors of residential schools, the chief electoral officer, former governor-general David Johnston, a small-town reporter and variousexperts.

Mr. Poilievre is often careless about others’ reputations. In February, for example, in the House of Commons, where he can speak without fear of defamation law, he called housing expert Mike Moffatt a “failed Liberal academic,” an ill-considered, inaccurate and unfair smear on a public intellectual who has done as much as anyone in Canada to explain the housing crisis and propose solutions.

In the online conservative world where Mr. Skamski and Mr. Poilievre likely spend too much time, it is normal to refer to some people as NPCs – non-playable characters. It’s an idea from video games: NPCs are the figures nobody is controlling, like the pedestrians who get hit by cars in Grand Theft Auto.

Conservatives who are “very online” – meaning they are excessively engaged with internet culture – use the term as an insult. Elon Musk used the phrase recently to complain about hostile media coverage of his boring conversation with Donald Trump. But in a way, many citizens are NPCs in politics; they are non-partisans who nonetheless can participate in debates. It is a bad idea to sneer at those people, or discourage them from speaking.

Story continues below advertisement

Mr. Poilievre has a fearsome reputation because of his unerring ability to quickly identify his opponents’ weak spots and attack them ruthlessly. He sometimes goes further than necessary, but the parliamentary system depends on no-holds-barred exchanges. It is wrong to expect the Leader of the Opposition to treat the Prime Minister and his cabinet as flawed but well-meaning. That’s not how the game has ever been played – not by John A. Macdonald, John Diefenbaker or Jean Chrétien. If you don’t want to be attacked, do not run for office.

But when Mr. Poilievre is disrespectful to NPCs – like Dr. Grinspun or Mr. Moffatt – he is making our public conversations even viler than they need to be. Our debates do not need to resemble YouTube comment sections, where nasty basement dwellers anonymously trade vicious insults with strangers.

Mr. Poilievre has had a commanding lead in the polls for almost two years. His party is united behind him while the Liberals are confused and dispirited. Everyone thinks he is going to be prime minister. He would be smart to start acting like it and direct his partisan attacks only at those who put their names on ballots.

 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-by-slamming-experts-pierre-poilievre-and-his-staff-are-degrading/

[Michael Hardner]

The point is that expertise itself is moving under the political realm. That's not a good thing in any sense. 

 

No money to be made in objectivity anymore.

[West]

The appeal to authority fallacy is all too prevalent in society. We live in a time where experts are weaponized to strip away basic fundamental freedoms. 

[Moonbox]

I think we should try to understand where some of the resentment against experts comes from, and also how they themselves are not always above politicizing issues. 

Doris Grinspun didn't just come out and say that safe injection sites save lives - an objective analysis she's qualified to offer.  She went political and came out swinging with an accusation that this was a death sentence (by Conservatives).  There's an implied maliciousness to the decision, with no acknowledgement or analysis of the costs or the repercussions these sites have on their communities (something she's probably not qualified to offer).  

It's definitely not helpful when you have dinks like Poilievre doing everything he can to undermine experts for cheap political points, but out-of-touch academics and biased/self-affirming public sector reps do a lot to undermine their own positions.  

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

I think we should try to understand where some of the resentment against experts comes from, and also how they themselves are not always above politicizing issues. 

Doris Grinspun didn't just come out and say that safe injection sites save lives - an objective analysis she's qualified to offer.  She went political and came out swinging with an accusation that this was a death sentence (by Conservatives).  There's an implied maliciousness to the decision, with no acknowledgement or analysis of the costs or the repercussions these sites have on their communities (something she's probably not qualified to offer).  

It's definitely not helpful when you have dinks like Poilievre doing everything he can to undermine experts for cheap political points, but out-of-touch academics and biased/self-affirming public sector reps do a lot to undermine their own positions.  

Agreed. And...

There are about 4 posters on here who would find some blame on both sides.

[Five of swords]

5 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

 

By slamming experts, Pierre Poilievre and his staff are degrading political debate

Stephen Maher is a political journalist and author of The Prince: The Turbulent Reign of Justin Trudeau.

On Tuesday, when Doris Grinspun, the CEO of the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario, told CBC that Ontario’s decision to close 10 supervised drug consumption sites is “a death sentence for people that use substances,” the federal Conservatives were quick to attack her.

Sebastian Skamski, a spokesman for Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, slammed her on X: “CBC’s so called ‘expert’ (with 23 letters behind her name) deems Trudeau’s crime ridden drug dens ‘essential’ & equates them to cancer treatment centres. These are the WACKO ‘experts’ Trudeau uses to defend his drug disaster. These are the WACKO ‘expert’ voices media peddles.”

Story continues below advertisement

Mr. Skamski, who is entitled to put two letters behind his name, may not fully appreciate the value of the letters after Dr. Grinspun’s name. They show, among other things, that she is a registered nurse and a PhD, that she has an honorary law degree and is a member of the Order of Ontario.

Those letters do not show that she is right about supervised injection sites, but do show that she might know what she is talking about, and is the kind of person we ought to hear from. If she has good reasons to believe that supervised drug consumption sites save lives and reduce the harm of addiction, then she has a responsibility to speak out.

Mr. Skamski is impolite, therefore, to call her names and treat her disrespectfully for doing her job.

But he is following the example set by his boss. Mr. Poilievre is going after the people working on the front lines of the opioid epidemic. It is part of a pattern.

Story continues below advertisement

Mr. Poilievre has previously attacked Indigenous survivors of residential schools, the chief electoral officer, former governor-general David Johnston, a small-town reporter and variousexperts.

Mr. Poilievre is often careless about others’ reputations. In February, for example, in the House of Commons, where he can speak without fear of defamation law, he called housing expert Mike Moffatt a “failed Liberal academic,” an ill-considered, inaccurate and unfair smear on a public intellectual who has done as much as anyone in Canada to explain the housing crisis and propose solutions.

In the online conservative world where Mr. Skamski and Mr. Poilievre likely spend too much time, it is normal to refer to some people as NPCs – non-playable characters. It’s an idea from video games: NPCs are the figures nobody is controlling, like the pedestrians who get hit by cars in Grand Theft Auto.

Conservatives who are “very online” – meaning they are excessively engaged with internet culture – use the term as an insult. Elon Musk used the phrase recently to complain about hostile media coverage of his boring conversation with Donald Trump. But in a way, many citizens are NPCs in politics; they are non-partisans who nonetheless can participate in debates. It is a bad idea to sneer at those people, or discourage them from speaking.

Story continues below advertisement

Mr. Poilievre has a fearsome reputation because of his unerring ability to quickly identify his opponents’ weak spots and attack them ruthlessly. He sometimes goes further than necessary, but the parliamentary system depends on no-holds-barred exchanges. It is wrong to expect the Leader of the Opposition to treat the Prime Minister and his cabinet as flawed but well-meaning. That’s not how the game has ever been played – not by John A. Macdonald, John Diefenbaker or Jean Chrétien. If you don’t want to be attacked, do not run for office.

But when Mr. Poilievre is disrespectful to NPCs – like Dr. Grinspun or Mr. Moffatt – he is making our public conversations even viler than they need to be. Our debates do not need to resemble YouTube comment sections, where nasty basement dwellers anonymously trade vicious insults with strangers.

Mr. Poilievre has had a commanding lead in the polls for almost two years. His party is united behind him while the Liberals are confused and dispirited. Everyone thinks he is going to be prime minister. He would be smart to start acting like it and direct his partisan attacks only at those who put their names on ballots.

 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-by-slamming-experts-pierre-poilievre-and-his-staff-are-degrading/

Accusing someone of not being an expert is not the same thing as slamming experts. You are committing a very simple logical fallacy known as 'begging the question'. Any 'expert' who commits logical fallacies like that cannot be considered an expert, because they lack the basic capacity for abstract reasoning. 

Edited August 28 by Five of swords

[herbie]

And the coalition of lumpen proletariat and untermenschen who know far more than anyone qualified in their field of expertise.

As was just demonstrated.

[Dougie93]

5 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

 

By slamming experts, Pierre Poilievre and his staff are degrading political debate

Stephen Maher is a political journalist and author of The Prince: The Turbulent Reign of Justin Trudeau.

On Tuesday, when Doris Grinspun, the CEO of the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario, told CBC that Ontario’s decision to close 10 supervised drug consumption sites is “a death sentence for people that use substances,” the federal Conservatives were quick to attack her.

Sebastian Skamski, a spokesman for Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, slammed her on X: “CBC’s so called ‘expert’ (with 23 letters behind her name) deems Trudeau’s crime ridden drug dens ‘essential’ & equates them to cancer treatment centres. These are the WACKO ‘experts’ Trudeau uses to defend his drug disaster. These are the WACKO ‘expert’ voices media peddles.”

Story continues below advertisement

Mr. Skamski, who is entitled to put two letters behind his name, may not fully appreciate the value of the letters after Dr. Grinspun’s name. They show, among other things, that she is a registered nurse and a PhD, that she has an honorary law degree and is a member of the Order of Ontario.

Those letters do not show that she is right about supervised injection sites, but do show that she might know what she is talking about, and is the kind of person we ought to hear from. If she has good reasons to believe that supervised drug consumption sites save lives and reduce the harm of addiction, then she has a responsibility to speak out.

Mr. Skamski is impolite, therefore, to call her names and treat her disrespectfully for doing her job.

But he is following the example set by his boss. Mr. Poilievre is going after the people working on the front lines of the opioid epidemic. It is part of a pattern.

Story continues below advertisement

Mr. Poilievre has previously attacked Indigenous survivors of residential schools, the chief electoral officer, former governor-general David Johnston, a small-town reporter and variousexperts.

Mr. Poilievre is often careless about others’ reputations. In February, for example, in the House of Commons, where he can speak without fear of defamation law, he called housing expert Mike Moffatt a “failed Liberal academic,” an ill-considered, inaccurate and unfair smear on a public intellectual who has done as much as anyone in Canada to explain the housing crisis and propose solutions.

In the online conservative world where Mr. Skamski and Mr. Poilievre likely spend too much time, it is normal to refer to some people as NPCs – non-playable characters. It’s an idea from video games: NPCs are the figures nobody is controlling, like the pedestrians who get hit by cars in Grand Theft Auto.

Conservatives who are “very online” – meaning they are excessively engaged with internet culture – use the term as an insult. Elon Musk used the phrase recently to complain about hostile media coverage of his boring conversation with Donald Trump. But in a way, many citizens are NPCs in politics; they are non-partisans who nonetheless can participate in debates. It is a bad idea to sneer at those people, or discourage them from speaking.

Story continues below advertisement

Mr. Poilievre has a fearsome reputation because of his unerring ability to quickly identify his opponents’ weak spots and attack them ruthlessly. He sometimes goes further than necessary, but the parliamentary system depends on no-holds-barred exchanges. It is wrong to expect the Leader of the Opposition to treat the Prime Minister and his cabinet as flawed but well-meaning. That’s not how the game has ever been played – not by John A. Macdonald, John Diefenbaker or Jean Chrétien. If you don’t want to be attacked, do not run for office.

But when Mr. Poilievre is disrespectful to NPCs – like Dr. Grinspun or Mr. Moffatt – he is making our public conversations even viler than they need to be. Our debates do not need to resemble YouTube comment sections, where nasty basement dwellers anonymously trade vicious insults with strangers.

Mr. Poilievre has had a commanding lead in the polls for almost two years. His party is united behind him while the Liberals are confused and dispirited. Everyone thinks he is going to be prime minister. He would be smart to start acting like it and direct his partisan attacks only at those who put their names on ballots.

 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-by-slamming-experts-pierre-poilievre-and-his-staff-are-degrading/

there's really only three things bringing the left down

1. the Climate Doom remedies imposed by the left are too expensive

2. Gender Ideology is rejected by two thirds of the population

3. the bought & paid for left wing media propaganda arm has lost all credibility as a source of information

Pierre Polievre is simply taking advantage, as any opposition leader would

What ? The Globe & Mail is whining about it ?

quell surprise

 

[CdnFox]

37 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Agreed. And...

There are about 4 posters on here who would find some blame on both sides.

What was that about coming out swinging with political statements? 

Anyway the doc did step into the political arena and got smaked by a politician.  I agree that any expert who offers a political statement is fair game regardless of 'side' they're on. 

21 minutes ago, herbie said:

And the coalition of lumpen proletariat and untermenschen who know far more than anyone qualified in their field of expertise.

As was just demonstrated.

These are the same 'experts' that demanded that the 'safe supply' idea was a good one, and that led to an abject disaster. 

Sorry  but experts give bad and wrong advice all the time. 

[herbie]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

These are the same 'experts' that demanded that the 'safe supply' idea was a good one, and that led to an abject disaster. 

And you are the one claiming it caused a disaster with absolutely zero knowledge of the intent of the idea nor the results.
And only offer to continue what did aid the problem for 100 years by doing the same thing. Do you even understand what that is the definition of?

[Army Guy]

51 minutes ago, herbie said:

And you are the one claiming it caused a disaster with absolutely zero knowledge of the intent of the idea nor the results.
And only offer to continue what did aid the problem for 100 years by doing the same thing. Do you even understand what that is the definition of?

Explain the intent behind it ? other than to provide Addicts with a safer alternative to street drugs....So why should tax payers be on the hook for a personal choice of others....do we offer the same service to alcoholics that drink after shave lotion, or those that huff, sniff glue...the list goes on...

Does it actually deter drug usage...and if so how ? Does it do anything to deter Chinese from exporting these fatal drugs into Canada....not to mention the gangs and criminal elements profiting off these activates...I watched a documentary made in BC about a para medic unit that spent all day running around treating over doses...in one day they had saved the same kid 5 times from overdosing....that same kid was dead by morning...all of those times he was treated at a safe injection site or within 200 meters from it...it was more akin to making them comfortable until they managed to kill themselves...

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

And you are the one claiming it caused a disaster with absolutely zero knowledge of the intent of the idea nor the results.

well that's a lie of course,  i've posted multiple stories on it. The police say it's a disaster. the gov't workers say it's a disaster. The reporters who investigated it say it's a disaster. The province is cancelling it because it was a disaster. 

Even more people than ever before died AND the 'safe' drugs were sold en masse in schools and now we have a new generation of addicts growing up. 

Those are the facts.  Those are the results. And surely that wasn't the intent. 

And here's the problem. People like you will always lie to protect their ideology. Your tribe and echo chamber are more important than truth or lives. That is true of you, it was true of the 'experts' who demanded this path despite the fact that everyone could see how it would end. 

There's no reason to believe this so called 'expert' is any different - blinded by the same devotion to ideology that you are and willing to set aside the truth and science just as you are. 

It's that simple. If the experts are willing to lie (along with their 'supporters' such as yourself), then we cannot take what they say with any seriousness  and instead we have to make our own judgements as best we can, and that means shutting this crap down. 

[ExFlyer]

On 8/28/2024 at 10:30 AM, Michael Hardner said:

The point is that expertise itself is moving under the political realm. That's not a good thing in any sense. 

 

No money to be made in objectivity anymore.

Every side, every event, every situation has an expert that can be called upon to try and validate a position.

Conversely, every position can be dismissed by another expert.

[BeaverFever]

20 hours ago, Five of swords said:

Accusing someone of not being an expert is not the same thing as slamming experts. You are committing a very simple logical fallacy known as 'begging the question'. Any 'expert' who commits logical fallacies like that cannot be considered an expert, because they lack the basic capacity for abstract reasoning. 

By all accounts she is an expert, and falsely accusing of her of not being one (by calling her a “so-called expert” and a “wacko” as has become popular with conservatives) is in fact slamming her. 

[Five of swords]

12 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

By all accounts she is an expert, and falsely accusing of her of not being one (by calling her a “so-called expert” and a “wacko” as has become popular with conservatives) is in fact slamming her. 

By all accounts you say. That is your argument.

[Dougie93]

19 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

By all accounts

by all accounts of leftist partisan hacks

let them burn in a fire of their own making

[CdnFox]

21 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

By all accounts she is an expert, and falsely accusing of her of not being one (by calling her a “so-called expert” and a “wacko” as has become popular with conservatives) is in fact slamming her. 

By all accounts she is an activist. And there is no reason to believe her opinion here is based on anything other than her political motivations. Her statement is political and emotional, not factual. Her "expertise" can very validly be discounted if she's partisan rather than professional as we saw here. 

[Dougie93]

27 minutes ago, Five of swords said:

By all accounts you say. That is your argument.

these leftist Academic elites run every institution in Canada

as a result, Canada has followed their Woke Progressive agenda to the letter

and in less than a decade,

that has resulted in widespread chaos and a sharp economic decline across the board

no we are apparently supposed to feel sorry for these vacuous fops

as the fires of populist revolt inevitably rise around them

[Goddess]

My understanding from what Polievre said is that he wants to hold "experts" accountable for their bad advice.

Like the safe injection sites.

Maybe he knows about Fisman and his fraudulent government funded studies during covid, too...... **shrug**

[CdnFox]

6 hours ago, Goddess said:

My understanding from what Polievre said is that he wants to hold "experts" accountable for their bad advice.

Like the safe injection sites.

Maybe he knows about Fisman and his fraudulent government funded studies during covid, too...... **shrug**

Regardless of the specifics, he is well aware of that so-called "experts" Frequently allow their own bias and tribalism to not only guide their opinion and interpretation of the information they've obtained is experts, but often engage in confirmation bias as part of their training. 

If all you look at is evidence and facts that support your position then even as an 'expert' you're knowledge and expertise is tainted.  How many climate scientist have been shut down because their views don't mesh with the 'accepted' line? How many doctors during covid? Etc 

In an environment where professionals are not encouraged to look at all of the data and research but rather only that which supports certain predetermined views it is impossible to truly view those people as experts you can call them professionals because that's how they make their money it's literally a profession but so is "professional con man"

 

Edited August 30 by CdnFox

[Dougie93]

6 hours ago, Five of swords said:

By all accounts you say. That is your argument.

who will listen to these sneering self appointed leftist academic elites ?

as the society degenerates into violent chaos

while the economy spirals into net deflation

incited by their policies alone

Sic semper tyrannis

[Five of swords]

Just now, Dougie93 said:

who will listen to these sneering self appointed leftist academic elites ?

as the society degenerates into violent chaos

while the economy spirals into net deflation

incited by their policies alone

Sic semper tyrannis

Well it's all about appearance these days. Nobody can actually deal with reality. If you appear like a female, then you are female. If there is no inflation, then there isn't. Blm was mostly peaceful, and the real threat in the usa is a bunch of white supremacists killing black people for no reason.

 

Everything is so divorced from reality and living in such a LA LA land that honestly, nobody can possibly be an expert. If anyone existed who cared about the truth, they would simply be fired.

 

The one thing you can be sure of about anyone designated to be an expert on anything is that they are not an expert.

[Perspektiv]

On 8/28/2024 at 10:13 AM, BeaverFever said:

If you don’t want to be attacked, do not run for office.

Basically. 

Or don't lend your medical credentials to activism over policy.

Blurring the line between medical care and political activism.

Expect to be treated no different than any other politician, otherwise.

Which is precisely what an "expert" is doing, if they tell you hard drugs should be decriminalized. 

That giving a junkie, an easier means of doing drugs, that this "reduces harm". Having easier access to drugs helping you revive someone who has overdosed, vs seeking to understand why the massive increase to begin with.

If by reducing harm, they are eluding to less people dying due to overdoses (considering the latter numbers have exploded), this is a horrible strategy.

Thats like investing in more gauze and first aid kits in a slaughterhouse, because so many of your employees are slicing themselves. Just maybe look at the tools used (are they suitable--maintained), the training of staff and lastly, the very staff being hired?

You're being harmed, the moment you're administering fentanyl. If you can't even acknowledge this, your credentials to me, are meaningless.

It doesn't take credentials to figure that out. Crimes have skyrocketed across the country. Downtown businesses don't feel comfortable doing business.

Many have closed their doors, due to either lagging numbers, vandalism and theft and other issues which feels like a government has hung them out to dry.

Why is the harm reduction concentrated on those who chose to do these drugs? Not on those who are being punished by the end result?

The communities being grievously harmed by junkies leaving needles in parks? Businesses being harmed by rampant shoplifting?

You can soften the language all you want. It doesn't take a rocket scientist, and even less a doctor to see, that whatever that is being done just isn't working.

I know people with bachelor degrees working at Subway sandwich shops.

Credentials should be what you get respected for. It should be what you're doing with that said expertise.

Calling out an expert who is peddling BS, is not a lack of respect to their diplomas. Its a lack of respect to the programs and things they support that demonstrably aren't working.

[I am Groot]

On 8/29/2024 at 12:31 PM, BeaverFever said:

By all accounts she is an expert, and falsely accusing of her of not being one (by calling her a “so-called expert” and a “wacko” as has become popular with conservatives) is in fact slamming her. 

An expert guided by ideology rather than science is no expert. As, for example, the climate science 'experts' and the transgender 'experts' and the criminology 'experts'. 

Edited September 1 by I am Groot

[WestCanMan]

On 8/28/2024 at 7:13 AM, BeaverFever said:

“CBC’s so called ‘expert’ (with 23 letters behind her name)

'Expert' (fentanyl deaths exploding)

Those 23 letters?