Lets Put Our Political Bias Aside

I agree with all of your OP, Sandy, except for your use of the word "bias".  Ordinary people aren't "biased"-we have opinions.  And we have the RIGHT to those opinions.

The whole current usage of the term "bias" in public discourse is about the right-wing, in the U.S. and Canada, trying to delegitimize not only any form of dissent against their agenda but any factually negative coverage of their activities.  The idea is to establish, in our minds, the belief that there can't ever actually be any legitimate factual flaws in their position or any negative aspects to anything they do or propose to do...only "bias" against them-therefore, they can't ever be wrong, they can't ever lose or fail on the merits, the public can't ever HONESTLY disagree with them, they can only be victims-and they are ALWAYS at an "unfair disadvantage", even when they hold nearly total power(as Harper's party does now) so they must always be given special deference by all to mitigate that "unfair disadvantage".  That is what the use of the "bias" meme is about, and we all need to remember that.

This isn't intended as a criticism of you or your ideas, Sandy, just an observation about language and its uses.  Have a good weekend.

Ken Burch wrote:

I agree with all of your OP, Sandy, except for your use of the word "bias".  Ordinary people aren't "biased"-we have opinions.  And we have the RIGHT to those opinions.

Demanding the right to an opinion speaks as well in favour of the righteousness of the opinion. Otherwise there'd be no legitimate basis for a connection between opinion/belief and the one demanding it. Bias is inescapable…or so we’ve been told, since Kant at least.

OathofStone wrote:

 

Quote:

See what I mean we as tax payers are being ripped off by these senators and someone takes offence at my using the word bias!!

FUCK ARE CANADIANS PASSIVE OR WHAT.

 

Nice Strawman you made there.

Indeed. 

Canada has a history of fighting, and winning, such fundamental rights as universal healthcare. Federally mandated maternity leave. Minimum wage.

Using Senate reform as a platform to lambaste Canadians about their level of activism is so lame, I'd give it a capital "L". Tell me Sandy, what have you done recently to encourage social change?

Psst: I don't think Ken's Canadian. :)  He's one of those passive Americans we keep hearing so much about.

Slumberjack wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

I agree with all of your OP, Sandy, except for your use of the word "bias".  Ordinary people aren't "biased"-we have opinions.  And we have the RIGHT to those opinions.

Demanding the right to an opinion speaks as well in favour of the righteousness of the opinion. Otherwise there'd be no legitimate basis for a connection between opinion/belief and the one demanding it. Bias is inescapable…or so we’ve been told, since Kant at least.

I think there is a difference between "bias" and "opinion", so bias is escapable. I also think "ordinary people" can have biased opinions and privileged people can be unbiased.

When a billionaire like Sheldon Adelson supports lower taxation I detect a biased opinion.

When Warren Buffet argues that his secretary should not pay a higher rate of tax than he does, I detect an unbiased opinion.

When an "ordinary person" argues that the bourgeoisie should be sent off to work camps, I detect a biased opinion.

It seems that bias occurs when opinions are determined by narrow self-interest, without regard to the common interest. Unbiased opinions are ones that take into account the common interest.

Sandy Dillon wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

I agree with all of your OP, Sandy, except for your use of the word "bias".  Ordinary people aren't "biased"-we have opinions.  And we have the RIGHT to those opinions.

The whole current usage of the term "bias" in public discourse is about the right-wing, in the U.S. and Canada, trying to delegitimize not only any form of dissent against their agenda but any factually negative coverage of their activities.  The idea is to establish, in our minds, the belief that there can't ever actually be any legitimate factual flaws in their position or any negative aspects to anything they do or propose to do...only "bias" against them-therefore, they can't ever be wrong, they can't ever lose or fail on the merits, the public can't ever HONESTLY disagree with them, they can only be victims-and they are ALWAYS at an "unfair disadvantage", even when they hold nearly total power(as Harper's party does now) so they must always be given special deference by all to mitigate that "unfair disadvantage".  That is what the use of the "bias" meme is about, and we all need to remember that.

This isn't intended as a criticism of you or your ideas, Sandy, just an observation about language and its uses.  Have a good weekend.

See what I mean we as tax payers are being ripped off by these senators and someone takes offence at my using the word bias!!

FUCK ARE CANADIANS PASSIVE OR WHAT.

1)I'm a Yank, I'm not Canadian

2)I wasn't "taking offence", I was simply trying to teach a small lesson about word usage.  I agree with your argument that people should be greatly concerned about this.  Trust me, I'm on your side...ok?

Ken is a Yank. I've knwon this for a long time. So what? Ken, I am glad you are here to contribute!

Actually can we discuss the issue of bias? It interests me more than the issue of the Senate-- which to be honest also interests me except that I have already decided what I think should be done with it. (Make the chamber a museum for the tourists visiting Parliament Hill and get some use out of the space.)

Now for bias: Bias as I understand it is preconceived opinion derived from previous experience or knowledge. I am not sure that is such a bad thing. You see, bias is also fundamental to learning. It is why we don't start from scratch each day. Of course you have to be careful about the building blocks-- that each one is sound creating a good foundation for the next bit of information you get and accurately connected to the new piece. But bias allows you to apply previous learning. Bias itself is not a bad thing-- it is necessary for advancement and the main issue is what should you be biased about and what should you re-evaluate from the start?

Now as for political biases, I admit I have some. You see all my life I have seen what happens when people elect either Conservatives or Liberals or what I used to call Regressive Preservatives. I have learned what electing those people does to the country, to society. I learned that it does make a difference who is in and that all politicians are not the same and that it is the rotten ones who want you to think they are. I have learned that the Conservatives promise to screw most people and that they tell the truth about that and that they promise that it is for everyone's good but they lie about that. The Liberals promise to unite the country and they are reasonably truthful about that as after a few years people all over Canada understand their mistake. The Liberals also promise to make things better for most Canadians but they lie about that. Most Canadians who want to show no bias then elect that same pinch-hitting crew all over again and the circle of life without bias continues.

I remain somewhat open-minded fully understanding that it is possible that I could vote Liberal or Conservative in the future however reincarnation would have to be involved and very most likely a serious head injury. Still, I am quite content to have my biases lest I be called a person incapable of learning which I would have more trouble with.

Excuse me. Please reread my post. I did not just talk about bias in general-- I spoke about political bias and why trusting to work with other parties can be a problem. Irt was right on topic. Nevermind that -- all topics evolve and go places that are not predicted. If they did not there would be no point participating...

Let's all throw our hats into the ring, and try each other's on.

JKR wrote:

When Warren Buffet argues that his secretary should not pay a higher rate of tax than he does, I detect an unbiased opinion.

Does Warren Buffet support a political position that has as its platform that the wealthy should pay a little more? A fairer tax scheme may be his opinion, but it was informed by the political debate of which he is part of. Perhaps there is something about his character, based on a lifetime of experience, along with stupendous wealth, that permits him to take a more philanthropic view of taxation than his super rich contemporaries. You are arguing from the point of view as if bias were a negative, because normally when we tautologically refer to someone with a 'biased opinion,' we're viewing the opinion as having been tainted or compromised in some manner. Being heavily opinionated in favour of one position or another is not necessarily a bad thing. But you seem to be suggesting that any opinion you or your friends may hold is just that, and not like the other opinions that are tainted with that evil word 'bias.' This is bias, when you believe you don't have one.  Myself, I prefer the writings of Emma Goldman to Karl Marx, which is a bias regarding style and method.

Reversing years of Liberal cuts to health spending, increase education spending, helping FNs in need, boosting forgien aid spending, ending the F-35 idiotacy, repair EI, lowing the required age for penisons, Universal Income, changing banking regulation, changing pot laws, raising corporate taxes, cap and trade, building more low income housing restoring enviromental protection for lakes and rivers, abolishing the Senate so it can't subvert democracy anymore, changing the electoral systen to mixed member proportional repesentation, ending poverty, universal pharmacare, the death of the northgate way pipeline.

Don't get me wrong I think Duffy's a tool, but I find the Senate's attacks against democracy for more concerning then duffy at the trough. I support universal income support, but I think Duffy may have taken the idea too far:D

I wasn't meaning to attack you...you raise an important point, it's just that Sandy had a purpose for starting this thread and I don't want to interfere any more in what he is talking about.

Hi Sandy,

I don't think ANYONE here said that they did not agree with your concern about Duffy. The problem is that some would not find that the reason amongst all the others to mark as the most important current issue. Those who think the whole Senate is a waste and should be abolished are unlikely to get very concerned about one single Senator. Does not mean their concern is zero it is just on a list with many other things. In the grand scheme of things the Duffy thing is real but there is a lot worse there. Like a person wasting $10 of your money while another person is stealing $10,000 it is harder to get worked up about the $10 even if it is a problem.

Another person put out a list of higher priorities and I can respect that list but in fact even on that list there would be some I'd put as much more significant than others-- for me.

I think part of the problem is your coming in the thread saying Canadians are all passive because they did not support YOUR priority (implying above whatever else they were doing). I agree Canadians are not as aware or politically active as they should be and that I find it frustrating but I would not expect to come in here where there are a lot of engaged people and use a single issue  as a litmus test to see who was passive. I know you did not realize it but that is how your opening post can be interpreted: that if people did not jump on your issue they were passive and part of the problem. Thing is many here who are active felt that was not the most important issue-- for them.

Here is why I felt your issue was not important enough to me to jump on: it is a flavour of the month scandal-- people of all political philosophies will jump up and down and get  upset about it and the media will ride the story. Attention has already been brought to the issue and something will be done. Secondly, this is a loss for the whole country of some money but it is not directly causing deep suffering. Other issues I am more concerned about are causing immediate and direct suffering including income inequality on a much grander scale and treatment of Aboriginal Canadians (which is where I would place my top priority for this year if I were PM). There is also the government's support for the wholesale destruction of the environment for profit.

The Duffy issue is one many who I disagree with on my priorities will take on. It is more practical for me to address those issues that many people are ignoring that I think are important (some were on that list upthread). People cannot do everything and so choosing the issues they want to get involved in is personal and strategic. I am sorry to say I think the way you presented your issue implied an insult I don't think you meant and a sort of logical bullying you probably did not intend. I hope this helps explain what I think happened here. Nobody actually disagreed with you and nobody really had a problem with your point but a few did not think it rated the conclusion you raised. I think the reaction would have been different if you said "here is an issue I care about and why" rather than here is an issue you should drop everything and support or you are a passive weak person... Your post number 26 also drove the point home implying that whatever Catchfire thought was more important it could or should not be. If you read the issues Catchfire responds to you will find those issue are indeed very important and quite legitimately (for him) more important that the one you raised-- Catchfire has, among many others, over the last months raised issues of gender inequality, racism, equity in many areas, militarism, the environment etc. Do you realize how your post 26 can be read as a little dismissive?

Anyway, I mean no offense and presume you meant none either but things got carried into something I presume was unintentional all round.

And of course acknowledge the value of biases based on learning and experience as you seem to be doing. I have less of a problem addressing political biases than dealing with those who pretend to have none. For that to be true I think they would have to have no knowledge of politics or nothing to say. However, this is different than having the ability to be decent and polite and fair...

I'd say that one borders on brainwashing. It goes further than that-- the bias is against doing anything collectively and that when we do it is more expensive, less worthy and inefficient. Boggles the mind when you consider most people understand economies of scale perfectly well. This bias is what feeds the idea that taxation levels must be kept low: the idea that you can't get good value in spending from the government.

Sandy Dillon wrote:

In my books they are all getting their hands too deep in my pockets. ALL!! GET IT?

I don't know, but the tone of your interventions here suggests to me that you've recently happened upon this reality, and that it has all come as somewhat of a shock, because you were expecting something different.  The frustration you're experiencing with the question of 'what to do about it,' has more to do with the fact that the solution to gangsterism as the generally accepted way of conducting the public's business in this country is not to be found in electoral politics, of which, many people that you will encounter around here are largely invested in, psychologically speaking at least.  It betrays a bias in favour of the country's current political system despite the growing body of evidence that it has become moribund for growing legions of ex-voters.

Sandy Dillon wrote:

I know there are people on this forum that support the Conservatives or Liberals or N.D.P. or Green Party.

As a very very concerned Canadian lets just put those biases aside and deal with a new item that came out today.

A senate committee is making this decision about Mike Duffy and his residency issue.

Today the NDP is setting the substance of the debate within the House of Commons with a motion to abolish the wasteful Senate, and rid us of a relic of aristocratic privilege that serves no purpose.  It will be interesting to see if members of the four other parties put party biases aside and vote with the NDP on this motion.

autoworker wrote:

Let's all throw our hats into the ring, and try each other's on.

The CDC has something to say about that.

Quote:

The following are steps that can be taken to help prevent and control the spread of head lice:

- Avoid head-to-head (hair-to-hair) contact during play and other activities at home, school, and elsewhere (sports activities, playground, slumber parties, camp).

- Do not share clothing such as hats, scarves, coats, sports uniforms, hair ribbons, or barrettes.

[emphasis added]

Of course I have to 'fess up to a relatively profound bias against parasites.

But as avowed separatists why would they want to be involved. They don't want to be part of Canada so it would be absurd to vote on changing a system they want no part of. 

kropotkin1951 wrote:

But as avowed separatists why would they want to be involved. They don't want to be part of Canada so it would be absurd to vote on changing a system they want no part of. 

Yes and no. Their whole raison d'être in federal politics is to protect the interests of Quebecers so long as Québec remains within the federal system. I have no idea how they will vote on this motion, but I can see them rationalizing either a "yes" or an abstention. They may be "avowed separatists", but they are elected to a Canadian parliament and have to deal with a present reality.

And if they vote with the NDP, what will Harper say... that Senate abolition is a separatist plot and they've sucked in the socialists? I seriously, seriously believe the NDP has to stop being afraid of the neofascist big-lie technique of Harper and start having a little confidence in their own ability to explain progressive and just policies to Canadians. Like the Sherbrooke Declaration, for instance.

So Unionist why is this issue not just the flip side of the coin for the Bloc. No MP's elected outside of QUebec should have any say about the process that could lead to separation but the Bloc MP's should have a say in Senate reform.  All MP's are elected to represent the interests of their region and many would think that the very existence of the country is of interest to the people they represent.

The NDP has abandoned its positions on free trade and on NATO because of the same fear so why would you expect anything different.  The NDP partisans on this board constantly point out that some issues have to be avoided at all cost least the voters get confused and actually think they stand for something that is not accepted by our neo-fascist MSM..