# Political Bias on Army.ca



## CivU (19 Jan 2005)

anything from the left...


----------



## Cloud Cover (20 Jan 2005)

CivU said:
			
		

> anything from the left...



NO! NO! ... Your other left!!


----------



## Infanteer (20 Jan 2005)

CivU said:
			
		

> anything from the left...



Although most of the senior members aren't very convinced by things from the left-of-center of the political spectrum, this is something that is a personal, member-to-member debate rather then Moderators stepping in to enforce forum guidelines.  Although I've vigorously argued against certain political ideas, I've never had to apply the user guidelines to these threads.


----------



## RCA (20 Jan 2005)

See generalizations don't fly. Being left of centre myself, you have to able hold your own as opposed to jumping on someone else's bandwagon, and then being unable to articulate your own position.

Comes down to one man, one kit. State your opinion, and be prepared to defend it.


----------



## Ty (20 Jan 2005)

CivU said:
			
		

> anything from the left...



Actually, this is a little bit of a sore point for me.  I'm admittedly left or centre- this doesn't preclude me from embodying some traditionally "right" ideas nor does it bound me to a Liberal platform.  I try to be receptive to a wide array of thinking and when there is a cohesive and decisively informative rebuttal to my point, I usually concede.  What I've noticed is that many political debates in the forums end up with broad generalizations and labels such as "Pinko commy", "redneck warmonger", "you've been brainwashed by the leftist media", "your tin foil hat is on too tight" and so on.  

If we are to here to portray the image of professional Canadian soldiers, then I believe that there's no room for this kind of behaviour.  This is not to say that there shouldn't be debate, but debate based on facts and opinions of the matter at hand- _ad homnium _ attacks don't accomplish anything.


----------



## CivU (20 Jan 2005)

"I don't go over to protester.com or turn-left.org "

I didn't realize this was the army.ca/right wing CF representative forum.  In keeping with what the other posters mentioned, while the predominant set of "values" for lack of a better term appears to be more right oriented, there is certainly an attitude on this forum that associates leftist views with exclusively juvenile unrealistic undergrads or anti-military peaceniks...I don't think this is the case.


----------



## Infanteer (20 Jan 2005)

CivU said:
			
		

> I didn't realize this was the army.ca/right wing CF representative forum.



You're missing the point.   This is a private forum (thus, it isn't bound by an official _neutral_ policy) and thus the general persuasion of the forum is going to be set by those that frequent it the most.   In that senior members tend to be (although not all) soldiers/ex-soldiers with right-or-center viewpoints, that's going to be the prevailing outlook.

There are plenty of other bulletin boards on the internet where the established membership would happily cater to the political viewpoints that some members like to express.   If people don't like the overtones here, they are free to leave and find them.


----------



## CivU (20 Jan 2005)

I think your missing the point.  It was asked to mention things you find disruptive or non constructive to the staff on the forum.  However, a clear lack of varying perspectives is both disruptive and non constructive to hosting a forum for meaningful discussion.  Having nearly everyone on the forum of the same right wing view is in of itself contradictory to holding a forum that discusses anything more than how much everyone agrees that Stephen Harper is the greatest thing to happen to politics since The Republic...


----------



## aesop081 (20 Jan 2005)

you're missing the point....no you are....no you are...no you are....no you are.......i know you are but what am i ?

sound familiar ?


----------



## Infanteer (20 Jan 2005)

CivU said:
			
		

> Having nearly everyone on the forum of the same right wing view is in of itself contradictory to holding a forum that discusses anything more than how much everyone agrees that Stephen Harper is the greatest thing to happen to politics since The Republic...



Well, what do you expect the staff to do on this one, shield your eyes from the viewpoints of a majority of the forum?   Now it's sounding like you are just whining because a majority of the membership didn't roll over and say "Oh golly, I guess you're right - stupid me!".

Anyways, this is largely irrelevant.   In case you never noticed, this is Army.ca, a most members contribute their thoughts to issues about the Army.   The politics forum is a sidebar, and the intent of this thread is to point out behaviours that are disruptive in the boards in general, not just those in which you can't get your way.

As I said before, if you feel that the political outlook of a majority of the members (which isn't really relevent to the core issues that the forums explore) is such an grievous injustice to your sense of well-being, you're free to leave at any time.


----------



## pcain (20 Jan 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Well, what do you expect the staff to do on this one, shield your eyes from the viewpoints of a majority of the forum?



Infanteer beat me to it. If you want to debate current affairs, debate current affairs. If you don't, ignore the politics threads. If most people disagree with your politics, that would make it more fun, to my mind - more worlds to conquer and all that - but that's just me. 

Lead, follow or get out of the way.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (20 Jan 2005)

CivU said:
			
		

> I think your missing the point.   It was asked to mention things you find disruptive or non constructive to the staff on the forum.   However, a clear lack of varying perspectives is both disruptive and non constructive to hosting a forum for meaningful discussion.   Having nearly everyone on the forum of the same right wing view is in of itself contradictory to holding a forum that discusses anything more than how much everyone agrees that Stephen Harper is the greatest thing to happen to politics since The Republic...



I would disagree with your perspective.  I am a relatively senior member of Army.ca with quite (small l) liberal views, and I have been treated almost inevitably with respect - in fact I have been challenged more for my optimism than my liberalism.  People may disagree with my views, but surely we join these boards in search of discourse?  Perhaps it is because I avoid tilting at windmills, and that age has given me a bit of perspective.  Having said that, I also tend to agree with most of the posts on this thread - one doesn't go to Army.ca to talk about knitting or blacksmithing...

Dave


----------



## vangemeren (21 Jan 2005)

Like what other people said, the main focus of the this web site is all things military, especially Canadian, with some entertainment on the side. I like this website because it challenges opinions that I hold, which is good because it better shapes my opinions by giving the other side. This results in me changing my opinion or makes me try to get a better way to justify my thoughts. In the end, here it doesn't matter what your political stripe is, what matters is the common interest that everybody on this site has in the Canadian military and its affairs.


----------



## Spartan (22 Jan 2005)

I think the point of contention that I and others have is when someone presents a left of centre viewpoint - only to be ripped apart and discounted simply because it is a left idea. I do understand the strong right on this board - and that's ok, but when people are discounted on their ideas simply because of their beliefs rather than their arguements- this raises question of why.

------
BTW: This is by far the most professional and civilized forums I've come across. The wealth of information, the level of discussion, the experience tied together with real life outlooks, heck even the arguements are mainly civilized. Kudos to the staff, members and all who make it what it is.


----------



## CivU (22 Jan 2005)

I agree with Symchyshyn.  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...


----------



## Pikache (22 Jan 2005)

CivU said:
			
		

> I think your missing the point. It was asked to mention things you find disruptive or non constructive to the staff on the forum. However, a clear lack of varying perspectives is both disruptive and non constructive to hosting a forum for meaningful discussion. Having nearly everyone on the forum of the same right wing view is in of itself contradictory to holding a forum that discusses anything more than how much everyone agrees that Stephen Harper is the greatest thing to happen to politics since The Republic...



What's your point?

Want us to go out there and drag in people with different points of view?

I can't help that there is a bend towards certain views around here; the board don't enforce certain ideology, nor are there going to be such things in the future.

I suggest you either get over it, or deal with it. 
If you want more people with left leanings, convince the members of your views in intelligent manner. Perhaps you'll get more people to appreciate your views.


----------



## George Wallace (22 Jan 2005)

Symchyshyn said:
			
		

> I think the point of contention that I and others have is when someone presents a left of centre viewpoint - only to be ripped apart and discounted simply because it is a left idea. I do understand the strong right on this board - and that's ok, but when people are discounted on their ideas simply because of their beliefs rather than their arguements- this raises question of why.



I find this interesting.  If you don't like an opinion to be "ripped apart and discounted", if it has been put forward without proof of backup, why make it?  If someone can prove an opinion or conception that you may have to be incorrect or wrong, why can't you accept that?  Some people come here with blinders on or very narrow small closed minds and still insist that their views are the only views that are correct.  If no one on these forums can convince them that the "sky is not purple, but blue" then they have lost all credibility, no matter what their leanings, and will toyed with and eventually discounted by contributers to these forums.  

GW


----------



## pcain (22 Jan 2005)

Symchyshyn said:
			
		

> I think the point of contention that I and others have is when someone presents a left of centre viewpoint - only to be ripped apart and discounted simply because it is a left idea. I do understand the strong right on this board - and that's ok, but when people are discounted on their ideas simply because of their beliefs rather than their arguements- this raises question of why.



If someone you're arguing with commits a fallacy, call them on it and carry on. Telling someone they're resorting to the ad hominem because they can't support an argument with facts and logic is often enough to get them to work harder at their side of the debate.


----------



## Ty (22 Jan 2005)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I find this interesting.   If you don't like an opinion to be "ripped apart and discounted", if it has been put forward without proof of backup, why make it?   If someone can prove an opinion or conception that you may have to be incorrect or wrong, why can't you accept that?   Some people come here with blinders on or very narrow small closed minds and still insist that their views are the only views that are correct.   If no one on these forums can convince them that the "sky is not purple, but blue" then they have lost all credibility, no matter what their leanings, and will toyed with and eventually discounted by contributers to these forums.
> 
> GW



I couldn't agree more, GW!  However, this type of treatment and reception should apply equally to posts from anyone.  For example, the statements "The war in Iraq was illegal, immoral, and unjustified" and "The war in Iraq was required for the stability and safety of the region and the Iraqi people, as well as the US" should be treated with equal disdain unless they're backed up.  I believe this is the contentious issue some of us have- especially when replies become personal attacks of your political bias, and not rebuttals to your arguments.  Thick skin never hurts- but, if we're going to be fair, treat all posts the same.


----------



## George Wallace (22 Jan 2005)

In some cases we just have to have thick skins.  In your examples of "for" or "against" the war in Iraq, we will have to assume that the authors implication was not fact but personal opinion.  A mistake that many of us make in our hast to put forward our views.  Thankfully, as was mentioned, most of our 'discussions' have been civil and those who want to start "flame wars" or "name calling" are soon sent packing.  Hopefully with a little sense of humour and open minds we can maintain the standards as we seem to be and make this a better site.

GW


----------



## Michael OLeary (22 Jan 2005)

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 (22 Jan 2005)

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 (22 Jan 2005)

Michael OLeary said:
			
		

> 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 (23 Jan 2005)

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 (23 Jan 2005)

Mike Bobbitt said:
			
		

> 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 (23 Jan 2005)

> 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 (8 Feb 2005)

CivU said:
			
		

> ...   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 (8 Feb 2005)

"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 (9 Feb 2005)

"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 (9 Feb 2005)

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 (9 Feb 2005)

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 (9 Feb 2005)

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 (10 Feb 2005)

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 (10 Feb 2005)

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 (10 Feb 2005)

Perhaps they should go to some real world forums or something


----------

