Political Bias on Army.ca

[Michael OLeary]

TA,

Fair comment, but you must keep in mind the general purpose of the forum (i.e., Canadian Army and general military related topics) and the participants it is most likely to draw because of that. Anyone who is expecting a fully balanced debate when offering opinions noticeably left or right of the psychological/emotional MPI for the boards is seriously fooling themselves. Let's not kid ourselves, the bell curve of personal political opinion on the boards is going to be right of centre as far as the general populace may go, and that shouldn't surprise anyone. This board is no less unbalanced than, for example, a forum at Greenpeace would be in the opposite direction.  The concept of balance must take into account the nature of the cognitive topography you're trying to navigate. It's well and good to say you should be given fair hearing with any opinion in any audience, but if you really want to explore that concept, try debating pro-choice options at a right to life rally.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Would you go to a Legion, on Remembrance Day, and tell the Veterans they shouldn't have gone? Maybe an extreme example, but the parallels can be drawn. I don't see much difference here.

 

[Ty]

TA,

Fair comment, but you must keep in mind the general purpose of the forum (i.e., Canadian Army and general military related topics) and the participants it is most likely to draw because of that. Anyone who is expecting a fully balanced debate when offering opinions noticeably left or right of the psychological/emotional MPI for the boards is seriously fooling themselves. Let's not kid ourselves, the bell curve of personal political opinion on the boards is going to be right of centre as far as the general populace may go, and that shouldn't surprise anyone. This board is no less unbalanced than, for example, a forum at Greenpeace would be in the opposite direction.   The concept of balance must take into account the nature of the cognitive topography you're trying to navigate. It's well and good to say you should be given fair hearing with any opinion in any audience, but if you really want to explore that concept, try debating pro-choice options at a right to life rally.

Fair enough.  Trust me, any misconceptions I had about a politically neutral forum where crushed (along with my ego) within my first two or there posts  And to be entirely fair, this forum, as GW pointed out, has been fairly civil for the most part.  Maybe I should just suck it up, roll with the punches, and maybe three or four other clichés- but this thread (originally) asked about our pet peeves with Army.Ca, and so I decided to vent.  To your point, this site is much more balanced than the forums you mentioned.  If Arnold and Maria can make it work, I'll give it a try!

Cheers

 

[Mike Bobbitt]

TA, please don't come away from this discussion with the impression that 'any opinion but ours is wrong' as that's far from the truth. As long as debates are kept above the belt and intelligent, we love to hear alternative views and debate issues. It makes us all reconsider issues from different angles and gives us pause to see issues from alternative viewpoints, which is good no matter how you slice it.


Cheers
Mike

 

[Ty]

TA, please don't come away from this discussion with the impression that 'any opinion but ours is wrong' as that's far from the truth. As long as debates are kept above the belt and intelligent, we love to hear alternative views and debate issues. It makes us all reconsider issues from different angles and gives us pause to see issues from alternative viewpoints, which is good no matter how you slice it.

Mike, that's precisely my viewpoint.  I'm traditionally left of centre, and I'm probably not going to give up many of my ideologies any time soon.  That being said, after some time in the military I might reconsider some of the textbook views I have of the world- especially political stances (hence my Maria and Arny remark)  I hope I didn't give the impressions that this forum promotes only one opinion (or that I was going to be swayed to an opinion in order to 'fit in'). Bottom line is that it boils down (regardless of your political bias) to following the guidelines set out for this site:  Essentially, post with proof.  And, as you said, keep it above the belt.  Gentlemen (and ladies), come out swinging!


Cheers

 

[Jarnhamar]

Anyone who is expecting a fully balanced debate when offering opinions noticeably left or right of the psychological/emotional MPI for the boards is seriously fooling themselves. Let's not kid ourselves, the bell curve of personal political opinion on the boards is going to be right of centre as far as the general populace may go, and that shouldn't surprise anyone. This board is no less unbalanced than, for example, a forum at Greenpeace would be in the opposite direction.  The concept of balance must take into account the nature of the cognitive topography you're trying to navigate.

So many arguments (and banning of  IPs)  could have been adverted had members posting here for the first time kept this in the back of their mind.

 

[bossi]

...   Discounting ideas merely because they are not consistent with your ideological platform should be left to political punditry.   Not all ideas from the left should be considered socialist fantasy, just as not all ideas from the right should be considered as Christian fundamentalism.   There is inherent value in notions from all extremes and positions on the political spectrum ...

: ... If your last sentence were actually true, then our language would not be so enriched as it is with colloquialisms such as "oxygen thief" or the ever-popular "waste of skin" ...

Sometimes nonsense is just that.

The beginnings of wisdom is calling things by their right names.
- Confucius

 

[CivU]

"There is inherent value in notions from all extremes and positions on the political spectrum ... "

"If your last sentence were actually true, then our language would not be so enriched as it is with colloquialisms such as "oxygen thief" or the ever-popular "waste of skin" ...

Sometimes nonsense is just that."


I think you missed my point...nonsense may be nonsense, but not everything on the far left or far right is nonsensical.  I reiterate, there is value in opinions from all positions.  One should not be discredited just because of a position on a theoretical scale.

 

[mdh]

"There is inherent value in notions from all extremes and positions on the political spectrum ... "

"If your last sentence were actually true, then our language would not be so enriched as it is with colloquialisms such as "oxygen thief" or the ever-popular "waste of skin" ...

Sometimes nonsense is just that."

I'm wondering that myself CivU - what is this supposed to mean in the context of this thread?

 

[George Wallace]

Cheesssse  : 

mdh and CivU, in the words of our former Prime Minisister, of the Golf Ball Fiasco, " A Proof is a Proof, when you have a Proof, and it is a very good Proof, then............."

Some of the posts here are nonsense.  Pure and Simple.  Some posts are being put forward that truly have no relevance; unless the poster has some how escaped the bounds of reality, and should not be taken with anything other than a grain of salt and a knowing smile.  :  Know what I mean?

Gw

 

[mdh]

Hi George,

Sure - I think we can all agree with that in the general sense - but in fairness to CivU he wasn't talking about the tooth fairy here.   If I read his posts correctly I think he was trying to make a point that debates on politics - regardless of your political orientation - can yield some insight into how the world works or the human condition. Sounded like an interesting point to raise, cheers, mdh

PS quoting Chretien as a political philosopher, GW? I'd thought I'd never see the day ;D Although you have to give the old war horse some credit for holding his own during the inquiry...

 

[a_majoor]

As most posters here know, or have learned to their cost, I am coming from a fairly hard Libertarian angle at posters in "Politics".

What I find rather disturbing is the number of posters who will make an assertation without proof, yet when called on it they will refuse to back down or back up thier opinion. If you have the facts on your side, I am willing to read carefully and a good argument (in the correct philosophical sense) can change my mind.

Without trying to be offensive, the unfortunate impression I get is most of the offenders are people who fire "leftist" posts, rather than right wing, conservative or Libertarian ones. If Anne Coulter were to post here, I certainly would take her to task, but so far she hasn't joined us.

 

[Glorified Ape]

I don't see any problem with the majority of the posters being slightly conservative, liberal, or anything else as long as discourse remains constructive and civil. I think disagreement is great - how boring would it be if everyone had homogenous opinions and all we could say is "I think _______ " and everyone else chime in to say "I agree."

 

[Infanteer]

Political bias on anyone's part should really be a minor issue.   It only shows up (naturally) in the Politics thread.   The Politics forum is down at the bottom next to "Radio Chatter".   I don't see how being "right-wing", "left-wing" or "Wicca" should really be of any concern on most of the forums, as I fail to see how political ideology plays any role in determining the content of a majority of the professional discussions here which are centered around doctrine, equipment, organization, and history.

If someone gets their panties in a bunch over whatever viewpoint that a majority of the forum members has then they obviously spend too much time in the politics forum and need to start looking at some of the threads that the board is really focused on.   If they refuse to come off that perch, then I have to wonder what their intent and motive is for hanging around at Army.ca.

 

[winchable]

Perhaps they should go to some real world forums or something