Does the forum have a right-wing bias?

[Ebowed]

vote

[dazzleman]

I'd say there's a liberal-libertarian bias.  Certainly, there's a much higher percentage of libertarians here than in the general population.

It certainly doesn't have a conservative bias.

[nini2287]

I'd say there's a liberal-libertarian bias.  Certainly, there's a much higher percentage of libertarians here than in the general population

I agree.  Although among the upper-middle class 14-23 year olds we tend to be thats not unexpecgted. 

[Gabu]

It has a very strong libertarian bias.  That implies both an economically conservative bias and a socially liberal bias.

[Alcon]

I think I compiled PC scores and got something like 0.8, -1.3.

So, I'd say it has a libertarian bias.

[TheresNoMoney]

Yes, for anyone paying attention it clearly has a right-wing bias.

A Republican can say the craziest, hateful things and no one says a word. Any slightly controversial thing a Democrat says and people go nuts, including people in their own party like Frodo.

If you don't recognize the right wing bias you're not paying attention.

[Jake]

Yes, for anyone paying attention it clearly has a right-wing bias.

Forgive the ten of us who disagree with only you for not paying attention.

[Cubby]

It has a very strong libertarian bias.  That implies both an economically conservative bias and a socially liberal bias.

My thoughts exactly. Better a libertarian bias than a social conservative or Republican one.

[??????????]

No, it has a liberal bias.

[MaC]

No, and not a libertarian one either.

If you say a department should be abolished, or something should be privatised, a good potion of the forum cries about it being "economic injustice" or something crazy like that. lol

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

No, and not a libertarian one either.

If you say a department should be abolished, or something should be privatised, a good potion of the forum cries about it being "economic injustice" or something crazy like that. lol

What's useful is to compare to the country as a whole. When only around 50% of the forum supports raising the federal minimum wage a dollar an hour so, that means that the forum is far to the right of general public on that issue, since 86% of them support that. Otherwise this is useless.

[Gabu]

No, and not a libertarian one either.

If you say a department should be abolished, or something should be privatised, a good potion of the forum cries about it being "economic injustice" or something crazy like that. lol

There are a lot more people here who would likely agree than there are in the American public.  The simple fact that this forum is not as libertarian as the Libertarian Party's forum does not mean it does not have a libertarian tilt to it.

[opebo]

I think the bias ebbs and flows, but in general it has a right wing bias in some ways, times, and on some issues, coupled with at times and on some issues a libertarian bias.  But after all, libertarianism is a very right-wing ideology, and in practice acts as a support for the Religious Party, so yes, I would say the board has a clearly right-wing bias overall.

Btw, the most telling 'bias' of the forum is not about specific views, but about class - the great majority of people on here are from the upper-middle cass.  Not surprising when you think about it - the rich are a tiny class, and have better things to do, and the lower working classes probably don't have computers, or are busy toiling at the convenience store without internet access.

[Democratic Hawk]

I would say it has a libertarian bias; though there are significantly more small 'l' libertarians than big 'L' ones

Democratic libertarians, however, seem more moderate than Republican ones; while liberals are overwelmingly Democrat and conservatives Republican. Populists are mixed, but with a Democratic advantage

Dave

[afleitch]

I would also agree- we have a libertarian bias, but libertarians of both left and right. As a forum we tend to be socially liberal (except perhaps on abortion) and tend to shout down those who make racist, homophobic or just plain dishonest comments, while still engaging with the argument. We also have an age bias, we have a very high number (myself included) of under 30's including many teenagers- perhaps the perceived mild libertarianism of the forum is an expression of the political attitudes of the youth of today.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It doesn't really have much of a notable bias actually; in overall terms a slight tilt towards social permissiveness and an even slighter tilt to the right economically (which is more due to a larger tilt towards fiscal conservatism rather than towards right wing economic views in general). The impression of a genuine libertarian bias seems to come from the fact that the libertarians here (and there are actually less than you usually find in online political discussion things; well certainly a lot less than was common a few years ago) are just very, very vocal and like to be heard.
Bearing in mind the demographics of this forum in particular and the internet in general, there's nothing very significant to note IMO.

[Ebowed]

It doesn't really have much of a notable bias actually; in overall terms a slight tilt towards social permissiveness and an even slighter tilt to the right economically (which is more due to a larger tilt towards fiscal conservatism rather than towards right wing economic views in general). The impression of a genuine libertarian bias seems to come from the fact that the libertarians here (and there are actually less than you usually find in online political discussion things; well certainly a lot less than was common a few years ago) are just very, very vocal and like to be heard.
Bearing in mind the demographics of this forum in particular and the internet in general, there's nothing very significant to note IMO.

Very true Al.  And in fact the 'bias' of the forum depends heavily on which sections you visit most, due to the composition of the posters who most frequent each of the sections.  Someone might say "Constitution and Law" has a libertarian bias, while "Individual Politics" is fairly even if not liberally slanted.  Some of the more election-oriented boards have a conservative lean to them.  "The Atlas" has a whining bias, etc.

[MasterJedi]

It has a libertarian one, which is bad.

[Beet]

It doesn't really have much of a notable bias actually; in overall terms a slight tilt towards social permissiveness and an even slighter tilt to the right economically (which is more due to a larger tilt towards fiscal conservatism rather than towards right wing economic views in general). The impression of a genuine libertarian bias seems to come from the fact that the libertarians here (and there are actually less than you usually find in online political discussion things; well certainly a lot less than was common a few years ago) are just very, very vocal and like to be heard.
Bearing in mind the demographics of this forum in particular and the internet in general, there's nothing very significant to note IMO.

Very true Al.  And in fact the 'bias' of the forum depends heavily on which sections you visit most, due to the composition of the posters who most frequent each of the sections.  Someone might say "Constitution and Law" has a libertarian bias, while "Individual Politics" is fairly even if not liberally slanted.  Some of the more election-oriented boards have a conservative lean to them.  "The Atlas" has a whining bias, etc.

That's a more nuanced analysis Ebowed, and I agree with your breakdown. Of course, things are not the same now as they were a year ago, and they'll continue to evolve as the forum dynamics do.

[Emsworth]

There is no significant overall bias on this forum. The libertarians or classical liberals are merely more vocal.

[Akno21]

On constitutional issues, there's definitly an originalist slant, just look at the poll results for Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Anthony Kennedy that are in the FF/HP series. Also, there is definitly a very strong anti-PC bias, though that may be a good thing. On both issues, the forum is vastly different from the American public, which probably has at least 25% more support of Roe v. Wade than the forum, and is a lot more politically correct than anyone posting here.

[Beet]

On constitutional issues, there's definitly an originalist slant, just look at the poll results for Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Anthony Kennedy that are in the FF/HP series. Also, there is definitly a very strong anti-PC bias, though that may be a good thing. On both issues, the forum is vastly different from the American public, which probably has at least 25% more support of Roe v. Wade than the forum, and is a lot more politically correct than anyone posting here.

I agree on judicial issues, but I don't agree on PC. The influence of the so-called PC is greatly exaggerated, not to mention the concept itself is grossly distorted. It's a terrible misnomer.

[Emsworth]

On constitutional issues, there's definitly an originalist slant...

I would disagree with that assessment. There are only three or four originalists on this board as far as I am aware.

Most forumites do not even have judicial philosophies. In fact, I would go so far as to say that most of the forum is very unconcerned about constitutional issues (except maybe those relating to the Bill of Rights). For many people, policy considerations appear to be much more important than constitutional law.

[Akno21]

On constitutional issues, there's definitly an originalist slant...

I would disagree with that assessment. There are only three originalists on this board as far as I am aware: A18, Ebowed, and me.

But from what I've read of the constitutional threads, the only person able to put up a real argument against you guys is Peter Bell. Of the few people who actually understand judicial issues, it seems that select group is mainly originalist.

[Beet]

On constitutional issues, there's definitly an originalist slant...

I would disagree with that assessment. There are only three originalists on this board as far as I am aware: A18, Ebowed, and me.

But from what I've read of the constitutional threads, the only person able to put up a real argument against you guys is Peter Bell. Of the few people who actually understand judicial issues, it seems that select group is mainly originalist.

Wasn't migrendel pretty interested in legal issues? If he'd been around in the past year we might have had some interesting debates. Not that I'd understand much of them...