Should we worry about those who try to start fights on Rally Point?

2018-04-08T00:40:32-04:00

I'm an adult and most people reading this are adults as well. However, when it comes to those incendiary topics, we might be better off steering clear. I don't believe you should have to suppress your opinion but I do believe that we on Rally Point waste too much energy promoting those divisive topics that we know push each other's buttons.

I will leave you with this thought. Though we may disagree and bicker, I know among most of my true friends on here, we depend on each other and would never truly wish to cause each other discomfort.

Response by PO3 Phyllis Maynard made Apr 8 at 2018 1:13 AM

2018-04-08T01:13:29-04:00

A1C Ian Williams I started avoiding divisive topics when I realized I was always being baited into endless arguments by the same people who had no intention of respecting my belief or me. I blocked them to ensure they could not chime in to me. I want to enjoy RP, express myself respectfully, and be among comrades without duress or stress.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 8 at 2018 4:54 AM

2018-04-08T04:54:17-04:00

I'm guilty of doing this on occasion and I apologize for my misconduct. However, I can't help but stir the pot once in awhile and rattle a few people with my sarcastic comments just to get a rise out of them. As I've gotten older I have also gotten crankier and moody.

Response by MAJ Nicholas D. made Apr 8 at 2018 6:32 AM

2018-04-08T06:32:53-04:00

I have long looked for a filter on RP. Leave politics on Facebook. I agree, max professionalism is what should separate RP from other Social Media platforms.
Veterans and retirees are at liberty to stoke any fire they wish. Those still serving have the UCMJ to consider. I think keeping it professional is the best practice. (And RallyPoint is not a “right,” Moderators should address those that are lighting fires and if need be, limit their accounts to read-only, or dismissed.)

Response by Susan Foster made Apr 8 at 2018 9:54 AM

2018-04-08T09:54:50-04:00

Everyone should be able to disagree without being disagreeable. Thanks for the reminder.

Response by MSgt John McGowan made Apr 8 at 2018 10:38 AM

2018-04-08T10:38:29-04:00

A1C Ian Williams----- RP is not the place to fight and name call. You can call me out but no name calling for I will block you and give the thumbs down. I don't even agree with my wife all the time so there is no use to think I will here. Respect is the key.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 8 at 2018 11:56 AM

2018-04-08T11:56:39-04:00

It always takes two to fight. So, if someone is baiting you it becomes your choice whether there is a fight or not.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 8 at 2018 12:31 PM

2018-04-08T12:31:52-04:00

Hey I resent your comment... let’s create a scuttlebut about it. Lol

I understand your point but in my opinion one thing America needs is honest plain talk. We need to be respectful but absolutely willing to address the uncomfortable difficult contentious topics because those are often the most pressing issues of the day. We must be willing to struggle with these topics, embrace the discomfort, be respectfully and seek understanding, change and progress. We should be part of a solution, not sheep and not the problem.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 8 at 2018 11:52 PM

2018-04-08T23:52:42-04:00

So, a few thoughts.
There are those on here that just love the controversial subjects. They post them not so much to validate their positions or invalidate those who disagree, but rather to roll the grenade into the room and watch the chaos ensue. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice... well, you will just have to score your internet points from someone else.
Having said that, a forum like this is a golden opportunity for thoughtful people to have cogent positions debated out. Often, we find a point of view we might not have thought of otherwise.
I have seen excellent discussions about gun regulation and DACA in recent months, and fondly remember some good ones on BLM and during the election season.
Just because a subject is controversial shouldn't mean it is off limits. And I would further say that blocking people just because they disagree is unhealthy. The abusive types, sure. But they are fairly few and not all that hard to identify.
If you are thin-skinned, you are in the wrong place. But respectfulness and thoughtfulness in disagreement go a long way.

So don't feed the trolls, and debate on, RP.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 9 at 2018 8:47 AM

2018-04-09T08:47:23-04:00

There are those who simply like to start trouble, and those who passionately believe in things they want to defend intellectually. The former are fairly easy to avoid...the latter have taught me a great deal over the years.

I used to sincerely believe that "politics" had no place in a military person's life...to some degree, I've come to regard that as an overly simplified position. The more developed sense is likely one where "debate" does not detract from the commitment, but rather enhances one's understanding of it.

For my own part, I am thankful for a forum where the "entry criteria" is somewhat a level playing field. Most of us on RP have some commonality, and I think that offers a clear path to bridging some "gaps" between various ideologies, beliefs and principles.

I'd like to think that when "we" find compromise, agreement, or even the ability to "agree to disagree"...it offers some hope for the rest of the population in achieving the same.

Response by Barry Davidson made Apr 9 at 2018 9:03 AM

2018-04-09T09:03:06-04:00

I do my pre-coffee ranting on Facebook. I tend to use a lot of sentence enhancers during those rants. I also speak fluent sarcasm. It comes with the territory.

Response by SGM Bill Frazer made Apr 9 at 2018 9:21 AM

2018-04-09T09:21:52-04:00

What to remember is _discuss- not brow beat, belittle or name calling. State facts behind the opinion you are giving- disagreeing should not start fights!

Response by SPC David Willis made Apr 9 at 2018 9:43 AM

2018-04-09T09:43:37-04:00

Who is more foolish? The fool or the fool who follows him? People don't always need to take the bait, but for some reason we all love to do so.

Response by SGT Nathan G. made Apr 9 at 2018 10:25 AM

2018-04-09T10:25:37-04:00

Agreed A1C Ian Williams

Response by CMSgt Mark Schubert made Apr 9 at 2018 1:19 PM

2018-04-09T13:19:59-04:00

Worry about them? No - ignore them, yes.

Response by 1SG John Millan made Nov 23 at 2024 10:45 AM

2024-11-23T10:45:33-05:00

Unfortunately, if someone is Marxist, woke, non-warrior, CRT, DEI, tranny, BLM, ANTIFA or making disloyal posts; violating the UCMJ, they aren’t troops, friends or colleagues; and certainly are not brothers or sisters. Treason is the lowest form of misconduct for a troop. RP sadly is a somewhat left-leaning site by some (not all) of its administrators, who threaten any person who likes democracy, a warrior mindset and America, but they are deafeningly silent on treasonous or UCMJ violation type posts. I have been threatened 2x for being rude, but an openly-Marxist service member, a SR NCO who has made it clear she hates the USA and democracy and has openly made threatening, rude, factually-wrong and treasonous statements, has been overlooked, cheered on and encouraged by some RP administrators. That now-retired Sr. NCO made criminal posts for tears and could be recalled, discharged and lose retirement, or lose a stripe for not serving satisfactorily during the time those posts were made. That individual is also under scrutiny by congressional staffers now. The enforcement of rules on here is very arbitrary, biased and ideological. Some of those same Marxist administrators on here are retired military and their actions are also now being monitored by a Republican congressional staffer as UCMJ violations, for potential recall to active duty and potential dismissal, after Jan 20. A lot of these folks, retired senior officers, don’t realize they are subject to the UCMJ for life as retirees and their red flag waving criminal actions on here are violations of the UCMJ; DOD online regs-a lawful order, conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman, conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline and making disloyal statements. An active Lt. Col. and a retired Lt. Col. on here are openly Marxist. The congressional staffer making a list of offenders and logging screen shots of criminal posts, to give to JAG, OIG, CID, OSI, NCIS and CGIS, along with the new SECDEF and service secretaries was speechless. He's retired military and asked how this site got so bad. Not my place to say was my response. It’s gonna be a purge soon. Career traitors will face loss if pension and VA benefits, dismissal or OTH discharge. They may face UCMJ action after Jan 20. While his Ali’s a privately maintained site and the Marxist slant is 1st Amendment-protected, service members’ 1st Anendnent rights are constrained. Opinions are one thing, but openly being a traitor is another, so this site could be flagged as extremism and off limits for those personnel subject to the UCMJ if the treasonous activities, illegal posts, radicalism and toxic ideology continues. I warned an administrator and he doubled down. I even had a monitor tell me UCMJ violations aren’t crimes! The UCMJ is federal law, codified by congress and signed into la by the Prez! This level of gross lack of knowledge by senior retired officers is appalling! This site is great for me to give and take good info and interact with fellow vets and retirees but sadly, it’s sometimes the go-to site for vets, reserve component and active or retired service members to brazenly violate the UCMJ. It’s gonna change after Jan 20th, voluntarily or involuntarily. The date of the marches, non-warrior, tranny, racist, soft military are ending.

Response by 1SG(P) Dean Mcbride (MPER) (SPHR) made Nov 23 at 2024 11:06 AM

2024-11-23T11:06:45-05:00

I have a few experiences on RF of what appeared to be bickering... I usually finish the discussion by advising the person that we do not see things "eye to eye" and I am not interested in a continued dialog. I also mention that neither one of us are wrong, and neither one of us are necessarily right!