I work for Mayor Nenshi, ask me anything!

[19Yzerman19]

Originally Posted by transplant99

As much as you dismiss those that won't understand the "loaded question" reference that Nenshi posted, they are still his constituents as much as those that do understand what it all means.

As an example this was needed to be explained to a 14 year old boy, who is a huge fan of Nenshi and follows him religiously on twitter. He came to me with it as i was watching football yesterday and even after a bit of a discussion and explanation, he was still somewhat confused as to the context. This is a child who saw his mother abused by his father when he was young.

In other words, our political representatives should campaign to the lowest common denominator; essentially, treat the electorate as if they're fourteen years old.

This is exactly the problem with the present political model that's furthered by sensationalist shock-jock hacks like Levant: you must not confuse or frighten the plurality of potential voters who are too dumb or too lazy to figure out what you actually stand for or what you're actually saying. Instead, they'll listen to the loudest voice willing to put the issue in the simplest terms possible, accuracy being of no issue.

If it were me I'd rephrase the question to Ezra as "why do you think your audience members are all complete idiots and can't figure out when an oft-used phrase is being used rhetorically?"

Really the way for Nenshi to respond to the issue would've been in a longer-than-140-characters editorial that could be referred to any time any question came up. "The mayor addressed that in his piece in the Herald, I'll refer you to those comments."

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

If it were me I'd rephrase the question to Ezra as "why do you think your audience members are all complete idiots and can't figure out when an oft-used phrase is being used rhetorically?"

The next day, the Sun runs the headline MAYOR SAYS CALGARIANS "ALL COMPLETE IDIOTS".

[Bunk]

User "noms" who sent me a private message. I tried to reply but your box is full.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

In other words, our political representatives should campaign to the lowest common denominator; essentially, treat the electorate as if they're fourteen years old.

This is exactly the problem with the present political model that's furthered by sensationalist shock-jock hacks like Levant: you must not confuse or frighten the plurality of potential voters who are too dumb or too lazy to figure out what you actually stand for or what you're actually saying. Instead, they'll listen to the loudest voice willing to put the issue in the simplest terms possible, accuracy being of no issue.

If it were me I'd rephrase the question to Ezra as "why do you think your audience members are all complete idiots and can't figure out when an oft-used phrase is being used rhetorically?"

Really the way for Nenshi to respond to the issue would've been in a longer-than-140-characters editorial that could be referred to any time any question came up. "The mayor addressed that in his piece in the Herald, I'll refer you to those comments."

Quickest way for his popularity to drop through the floor.

Nenshi clearly didn't understand his audience when he made that Twitter remark.

Like I said, I'm well educated, I would never use the beat your wife question as part of my debating queue. It's about as offensive as using the term rule of thumb.

[jammies]

Ezra & Naheed sounds more like a hipster rock duo than a debating team. Has the Mayor ever tried growing a wispy beard and wearing a toque?

[Knut]

Bunk.

Can I ask a real question ??


The access road (Forand) to Garrison green, from Moint Royal gate, has been paved for about a month now. When will it open up completely to allow Garrison Greeeners to access Crowchld better ?

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Like I said, I'm well educated, I would never use the beat your wife question as part of my debating queue. It's about as offensive as using the term rule of thumb.

Isn't it basically a question where both a yes and no answer is wrong, and that was the point of it.

rule of thumb?

[19Yzerman19]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Like I said, I'm well educated, I would never use the beat your wife question as part of my debating queue. It's about as offensive as using the term rule of thumb.

Yup, and I bet you that Nenshi would agree with that, as well as comments by women's groups who have acknowledged that the phrase was used rhetorically but wish that it would be eliminated from common usage.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, however, if anyone actually has some sort of political scorecard upon which they've docked the Mayor points for using the phrase in an innocuous manner, those people are morons. They are detrimental to the political discourse.

Elected officials and individuals running for office ought to be able to communicate their platform and goals without the discussion being bogged down as to whether a turn of phrase is inherently insensitive. Make a note of it and move on to actual issues. Instead we're at, what, five pages and counting on here? If you felt that the use of that phrase was worthy of discussion, you are a walking argument for the shortcomings of democracy.

Now, if we're using this manufactured outrage and idiotic dalliance on issues that don't matter as a classic example of what's wrong with modern political discourse, that may well be a conversation worth having. But given that as rotten has pointed out we're all sheep drinking Nenshi kool-aid but him, I suspect we'll all come to somber agreement on that point fairly quickly.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by jammies

Ezra & Naheed sounds more like a hipster rock duo than a debating team. Has the Mayor ever tried growing a wispy beard and wearing a toque?

I think the Harold and Kumar movies were loosely based on the exploits of younger Ezra and Nenshi.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

rule of thumb?

"Rule of thumb" is a Biblical reference where you were not allowed to beat your wife (or slave? can't remember) with a rod thicker through than your thumb.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by jammies

"Rule of thumb" is a Biblical reference where you were not allowed to beat your wife (or slave? can't remember) with a rod thicker through than your thumb.

what? that's in the Bible? It should still apply then to everyday life in the 21st century. What are the rods made of? hardwood?

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by jammies

"Rule of thumb" is a Biblical reference where you were not allowed to beat your wife (or slave? can't remember) with a rod thicker through than your thumb.

I'm sure if that's true, you'll be happy to provide the reference to the part of the Bible where its found.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_thumb

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I'm sure if that's true, you'll be happy to provide the reference to the part of the Bible where its found.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_thumb

Not a bible reference, but, from the article you posted:

Nonetheless, belief in the existence of a "rule of thumb" law to excuse spousal abuse can be traced as far back as 1782, the year that James Gillray published his satirical cartoon Judge Thumb. The cartoon lambastes Sir Francis Buller, a British judge, for allegedly ruling that a man may legally beat his wife, provided that he used a stick no thicker than his thumb, although it is questionable whether Buller ever made such a pronouncement.[11] The Body of Liberties adopted in 1641 by the Massachusetts Bay colonists states, “Every married woman shall be free from bodily correction or stripes by her husband, unless it be in his own defense from her assault.”[12] In the United States, legal decisions in Mississippi (1824) and North Carolina (1868 and 1874) make reference to—and reject—an unnamed "old doctrine" or "ancient law" by which a man was allowed to beat his wife with a stick no wider than his thumb.[7] For example, the 1874 case State v. Oliver (North Carolina Reports, Vol. 70, Sec. 60, p. 44) states: "We assume that the old doctrine that a husband had the right to whip his wife, provided that he used a switch no larger than his thumb, is not the law in North Carolina." In 1976, feminist Del Martin used the phrase "rule of thumb" as a metaphorical reference to describe such a doctrine. She was misinterpreted by many as claiming the doctrine as a direct origin of the phrase and the connection gained currency in 1982, when the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights issued a report on wife abuse, titled "Under the Rule of Thumb".[9][13]

[Bigtime]

Everyone knows the "rule of thumb" thing comes from Boondock Saints.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

In other words, our political representatives should campaign to the lowest common denominator; essentially, treat the electorate as if they're fourteen years old.

This is exactly the problem with the present political model that's furthered by sensationalist shock-jock hacks like Levant: you must not confuse or frighten the plurality of potential voters who are too dumb or too lazy to figure out what you actually stand for or what you're actually saying. Instead, they'll listen to the loudest voice willing to put the issue in the simplest terms possible, accuracy being of no issue.

If it were me I'd rephrase the question to Ezra as "why do you think your audience members are all complete idiots and can't figure out when an oft-used phrase is being used rhetorically?"

Really the way for Nenshi to respond to the issue would've been in a longer-than-140-characters editorial that could be referred to any time any question came up. "The mayor addressed that in his piece in the Herald, I'll refer you to those comments."

What a load of horse crap.

He wasn't "campaigning" to anyone when the comment was made, he was speaking as mayor of Calgary....period. regardless of who was asking the questions and whether or not they were valid, once he decided to engage levant, he was responsible for what was said. I have a feeling that for some of you, he could be drowning kittens while praising Edmonton and still be a twinkle in your eye.

I guess this love-in will just continue without any valid criticisms/questioning allowed and yes his comment and it's usage in this situation are valid.

He nees to be a bit more careful before uttering such things, particularly in the forum he chose as there is no context when he does so. Even the most ardent supporters have to agree with that...no?

Again, I think he has done yeomans work thus far and certainly deserves a lot of credit and support moving forward. He has my vote at this point. That doesnt mean he is beyond reproach however, and most certainly doesn't mean that he cannot be held to a higher standard than an Ezra Levant or anyone else who isn't quite as intellectually tuned in as yourself and many others in this thread claim to be.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Not a bible reference, but, from the article you posted:

Right. He said it was in the Bible, and its not.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I'm sure if that's true, you'll be happy to provide the reference to the part of the Bible where its found.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_thumb

Ezekiel 7:14 "And let it not be said that a man should treat his wife with cruelty, but rather, although he is ruler in his house, he shall not mistreat her nor beat her for her wanton ways with a rod thicker through than his thumb. The use of handcuffs and other devices of restraint shall also be totally optional, although certainly good in the eyes of the Lord."

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by transplant99

He nees to be a bit more careful before uttering such things, particularly in the forum he chose as there is no context when he does so. Even the most ardent supporters have to agree with that...no?
.

I too, prefer politicians who only say carefully chewed sound bites meticulously poured over in advance by their handlers and speechwriters, and over-explain their motives and intentions so as to not confuse people.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I too, prefer politicians who only say carefully chewed sound bites meticulously poured over in advance by their handlers and speechwriters, and over-explain their motives and intentions so as to not confuse people.

I don't like to run the risk of being offended by something I don't understand.

[19Yzerman19]

Originally Posted by transplant99

I guess this love-in will just continue without any valid criticisms/questioning allowed and yes his comment and it's usage in this situation are valid.

No, it isn't. That's the point. Criticism of his diction is not valid. It's a meaningless quibble about unimportant nonsense.

The appropriate response, if you want to make any response at all, is "While I understand what you're getting at there Naheed, I find your particular wording rather unfortunate as it might be considered offensive despite the fact that everyone is aware you didn't intend it that way". To which I suspect the Mayor would reply something like, "Fair point, I'll retract the wording, but the sentiment stands - your questions are loaded and intellectually dishonest, intended to stir up controversy rather than discuss real issues facing Calgarians". Finished, done, end of "controversy", moving on.

VALID questions - like the underlying issue as to whether there's anything offside about relationships with Pembina - are worthy of discussion (at least potentially, if there's anything to them that can't be dismissed in thirty seconds). But at this point I'm not even clear as to the particulars of what Ezra was even driving at. Who is this group, what did the Mayor allegedly do to favour them, why is that a bad thing, and what information do we need to confirm or disconfirm the implied allegation being made? Christ, you could do this with BULLET points.

Instead we get 5 pages of wasted time and energy talking about common rhetorical responses to loaded questions. This does a disservice to anyone who actually cares about what's going on at city hall.