- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 430
It seems, of late, that certain topics keep cycling around the forums at Army.ca without conclusion. Driven more by emotion that reasoned debate, they never conclude and often end up as bitching sessions or open fights. Lately, it appears that some of these threads actually poison the generally helpful environment at Army.ca and undermine the very good work that has been done by all of the moderators and experienced members.
These topics, some of which I will mention below, often don't have a conclusion, solution, or compromise position of opinion. When a specific related point is being debated as a the focus of a thread, then good debate can occur, but as often the â Å“bitchyâ ? points are thrown in as an aside to barely related topics (and become an annoyance) or a thread simply devolves into internecine warfare.
The Airborne Regiment and its Disbandment â “ we can hate the government for it, but it's not coming back. Alternatively, we could make a rational stand by developing credible proposals for the reinstitution of new light/para units in a current force model and world political environment. But continually blasting the government for past decisions says we live in the past, not in the present preparing for the future.
The Liberals (or whoever is in Parliament) â “ ok, so we can collectively hate the ruling party. But they are the ones the public elected. We can rationally debate decisions made, without emotion, or we can simply blast the government for making decisions based on their own consideration of factors at the time. Perhaps the blame should properly be laid on the doorstep of the Minister of the moment, for failing in his duty to the department and convincing his peers that Defence is important. But simply slashing the Liberals (or whoever, since it was Dief ....Arrow ......) only sounds petulant.
Cadet attitudes â “ let's face it, they are kids. Imbued with a little knowledge, inspired by the attitudes of those who went before them in their Corps, they are only acting like the teens they are. There's no sense beating them up doing what comes naturally in emulation of what they believe soldiering is supposed to be like.
Politics of the military and the neo-pseudo-intellectuals â “ there's a reason why politics (among other subjects) was not discussed in Messes, and wading into aimless debates with punks fresh from PoliSci 101 doesn't help the forum. The kids won't back down, and reasoning with them just splashes the crap on everyone. There's probably no simple solution to that one if we want to maintain a political forum.
Scott Taylor â “ we've seen the results of simply slamming him ..... a much better approach would be to take a â Å“quote â “ counterpointâ ? approach based on editions of E de C. And staying within the realm of the factual based on personal knowledge, rather than emotional opinion.
Bashing NDHQ â “ could we trade simply slamming its existence with rational debate on the usefulness of selected directorates?
Officer bashing â “ it's surprising how often someone slips in a snide, or openly hostile, comment directed towards officers in general. I hate to think we may be setting an example for new recruits with such opinions.
The Reg v. Res Debate â “ personal opinions are one things, displays of open hatred quite another, I think we all notice those and quite often it would be best for someone on the same â Å“side of the fenceâ ? as the poster to quietly admonish and ask if they have a factual point to make.
A lot of work has been done to establish and maintain the credibility of Army.ca, and to make it a premiere 'go-to' site for advice and information on the Canadian military. We should take the same care in treating some of these â Å“tired old horsesâ ? that we did with questions about snipers, JTF-2 and a few of the other topics that were early thorns in open debate.
I offer these comments up simply as food for thought. I am not suggesting we kill discussions in these areas, but only that perhaps the approach and emotion filled discourse we have occasionally seen may not be in the best interests of our continuing achievement with the forums.
My $0.02.
These topics, some of which I will mention below, often don't have a conclusion, solution, or compromise position of opinion. When a specific related point is being debated as a the focus of a thread, then good debate can occur, but as often the â Å“bitchyâ ? points are thrown in as an aside to barely related topics (and become an annoyance) or a thread simply devolves into internecine warfare.
The Airborne Regiment and its Disbandment â “ we can hate the government for it, but it's not coming back. Alternatively, we could make a rational stand by developing credible proposals for the reinstitution of new light/para units in a current force model and world political environment. But continually blasting the government for past decisions says we live in the past, not in the present preparing for the future.
The Liberals (or whoever is in Parliament) â “ ok, so we can collectively hate the ruling party. But they are the ones the public elected. We can rationally debate decisions made, without emotion, or we can simply blast the government for making decisions based on their own consideration of factors at the time. Perhaps the blame should properly be laid on the doorstep of the Minister of the moment, for failing in his duty to the department and convincing his peers that Defence is important. But simply slashing the Liberals (or whoever, since it was Dief ....Arrow ......) only sounds petulant.
Cadet attitudes â “ let's face it, they are kids. Imbued with a little knowledge, inspired by the attitudes of those who went before them in their Corps, they are only acting like the teens they are. There's no sense beating them up doing what comes naturally in emulation of what they believe soldiering is supposed to be like.
Politics of the military and the neo-pseudo-intellectuals â “ there's a reason why politics (among other subjects) was not discussed in Messes, and wading into aimless debates with punks fresh from PoliSci 101 doesn't help the forum. The kids won't back down, and reasoning with them just splashes the crap on everyone. There's probably no simple solution to that one if we want to maintain a political forum.
Scott Taylor â “ we've seen the results of simply slamming him ..... a much better approach would be to take a â Å“quote â “ counterpointâ ? approach based on editions of E de C. And staying within the realm of the factual based on personal knowledge, rather than emotional opinion.
Bashing NDHQ â “ could we trade simply slamming its existence with rational debate on the usefulness of selected directorates?
Officer bashing â “ it's surprising how often someone slips in a snide, or openly hostile, comment directed towards officers in general. I hate to think we may be setting an example for new recruits with such opinions.
The Reg v. Res Debate â “ personal opinions are one things, displays of open hatred quite another, I think we all notice those and quite often it would be best for someone on the same â Å“side of the fenceâ ? as the poster to quietly admonish and ask if they have a factual point to make.
A lot of work has been done to establish and maintain the credibility of Army.ca, and to make it a premiere 'go-to' site for advice and information on the Canadian military. We should take the same care in treating some of these â Å“tired old horsesâ ? that we did with questions about snipers, JTF-2 and a few of the other topics that were early thorns in open debate.
I offer these comments up simply as food for thought. I am not suggesting we kill discussions in these areas, but only that perhaps the approach and emotion filled discourse we have occasionally seen may not be in the best interests of our continuing achievement with the forums.
My $0.02.