# Terr and BrainGlutton **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [October 3, 2015, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terr-and-brainglutton/733406 "2015-10-03T20:59:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 23
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terr-and-brainglutton/733406/441 "2015-10-08T20:50:24Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I have offered solutions which he has rejected as insufficiently probative. I’m now asking him what he would accept. > > My wife and and play a variant of this game all the time: > > BRICKER: Where do you want to eat dinner? > > MRS BRICKER: Oh, anywhere is fine. > > BRICKER: Great! How about Mexican? > > MRS B: Um… nah, I’m not in the mood for Mexican. > > BRICKER: OK. Steaks? Outback? > > MRS B: That’s too expensive. > > BRICKER: Thai? Chinese? Sushi? > > MRS B: Um… no, nothing Asian. > > BRICKER: OK, so where do you want to go? > > MRS B: I don’t know. Wherever you want. Marital harmony rule: when deciding what to eat, you only get a veto if you make a legitimate counter-offer. Otherwise, the proposal passes. Once we instituted this rule, these horrible conversations vanished. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terr-and-brainglutton/733406/442 "2015-10-08T21:44:29Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Do you not comprehend any difference between the following: > > A: “We should get more conservative mods, because conservative mods need these kinds of opportunities and haven’t had them on this board due to liberal bias.” > > B: “We should get more conservative mods because having conservative mods would lessen the instances of slanted moderation in favor of liberal posters.” > > See the difference there? Nope, the basic principles are exactly the same. Both forms of meddling seek to render meritocracy subservient to regulation intended to achieve particular goals. But one of them – federal affirmative action – seeks to do so in order to correct age-old injustices whose existence is indisputable. Yet you oppose it. The other, proposed by you to solve your current perceived problem, seeks to use exactly the same rationale to correct perceived moderation injustices on a message board. To hell with merit, you say, just preferentially pick mods based on a desired political viewpoint to even things out. This you endorse. Seems inconsistent to me, not to mention that few seem to agree that the injustices you imagine have ever actually occurred. For the record, I think there are sometimes inconsistencies in mod rulings, but I’ve never seen them as being politically aligned or motivated. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terr-and-brainglutton/733406/443 "2015-10-08T22:15:21Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > B: “We should get more conservative mods because having conservative mods would lessen the instances of slanted moderation in favor of liberal posters.” How many conservative mods would be necessary? Unless you made it 50/50 the conservative mods would be outvoted by the liberal mods, and there still would be complaints of bias. And since the premise is that mods are necessarily and automatically biased because of their political views, the conservative mods would be prone to making biased decisions against liberal posters. You don’t make things fairer in total, you just make them unfair for a larger number of posters. ---
**Author:** ![Drunky\_Smurf](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drunky_smurf/32/449_2.png) [@Drunky\_Smurf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drunky_Smurf)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terr-and-brainglutton/733406/444 "2015-10-08T22:18:59Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > Totally unnecessary remark, adds nothing to the conversation, and only makes you look bad. Totally unnecessary to chastise **Green Bean**. It adds nothing to the conversation and only makes you look bad. > [@](#): > > This seems to be a pattern with you - snarking about **BigT** in ATMB. Telling the truth is snark now? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terr-and-brainglutton/733406/445 "2015-10-08T22:37:08Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Marital harmony rule: when deciding what to eat, you only get a veto if you make a legitimate counter-offer. Otherwise, the proposal passes. This rule is vetoed before it is implemented. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terr-and-brainglutton/733406/446 "2015-10-08T23:18:06Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > This rule is vetoed before it is implemented. Fine, what’s the counter-proposal? Otherwise, no veto. ---
**Author:** ![Idle\_Thoughts](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/838e76/32.png) [@Idle\_Thoughts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Idle_Thoughts)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terr-and-brainglutton/733406/447 "2015-10-08T23:20:37Z")
This is why I don’t frequent GD. What is a liberal and conservative, exactly? How do I know what I am? Are there, like, certain questions you could ask me that might make it more clear which one I might be more of? Like “What is your stance on blah” or “Do you believe in blah”? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terr-and-brainglutton/733406/448 "2015-10-08T23:22:04Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Fine, what’s the counter-proposal? Otherwise, no veto. Status quo of course 🙂 Realistically, wife always gets final veto. ---
**Author:** ![madsircool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madsircool/32/3432_2.png) [@madsircool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madsircool)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terr-and-brainglutton/733406/449 "2015-10-08T23:32:16Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Marital harmony rule: when deciding what to eat, you only get a veto if you make a legitimate counter-offer. Otherwise, the proposal passes. > > Once we instituted this rule, these horrible conversations vanished. Excellent rule and thank you for posting it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terr-and-brainglutton/733406/450 "2015-10-08T23:33:21Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Nope, the basic principles are exactly the same. Both forms of meddling seek to render meritocracy subservient to regulation intended to achieve particular goals. But one of them – federal affirmative action – seeks to do so in order to correct age-old injustices whose existence is indisputable. Yet you oppose it. What about the fact that the intended beneficiaries are different? In one, the persons being selected are being selected in order that they themselves may benefit. I make an effort to hire black actresses because Hollywood’s age-ok’d injustices are beyond dispute. In the other, the selectees are not chosen in order to help them. I don’t audition only black actors for the role of Harriet Tubman in order to remedy age-old injustices. Is this truly an opaque concept for you? Are you truly unable to perceive the distinction? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terr-and-brainglutton/733406/451 "2015-10-08T23:41:51Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > How many conservative mods would be necessary? Unless you made it 50/50 the conservative mods would be outvoted by the liberal mods, and there still would be complaints of bias. > > And since the premise is that mods are necessarily and automatically biased because of their political views, the conservative mods would be prone to making biased decisions against liberal posters. You don’t make things fairer in total, you just make them unfair for a larger number of posters. No, I don’t think 50/50 is necessary. I think – and I hasten to repeat again that the entire idea of balancing mod political outlooks is simply one notional option for a cure, as opposed to my firm and sole proposal – that there’s a critical mass. No mod is consciously thinking, “This is my chance to screw conservatives,” after all. The bias involved is unconscious, and arises from unexamined inner convictions that, for example, no rational person could oppose abortion rights. Snap judgements and decisions get made from such postulates. If there were even two more conservative voices in the mix, the natural politeness and collegial interactions among mods would trigger a re-examination of that thought before it went anywhere: “No rational person could oppose abortion rights,” is replaced with “John is pro-life,” and the feeling of a safe echo chamber is replaced with the more mod-appropriate, “Lots of different views on the subject.” ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terr-and-brainglutton/733406/452 "2015-10-08T23:46:49Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I certainly oppose affirmative action, defining it as the hiring of minorities to redress wrongs or counter infirmities suffered by those minorities. But I encourage the hiring of specific minorities when the job function is the intended beneficiary. If you want to call that affirmative action as well, that’s fine. > > And to rebut any inference that this is a position crafted to support my current discussions here in this thread, please note that the linked thread dates from six years ago. > [@wolfpup](#): > > I don’t believe my understanding is flawed. Your current example seems to me to be entirely pointless: you say you have no problem with “affirmative action” in cases where a black man (if we’re talking about AA for racial issues) is, one way or another, the only possible candidate who can fulfill the role. Congratulations, but that isn’t AA. Exactly. What you are accusing **Bricker** of doing isn’t AA, so there is no hypocrisy. He isn’t calling it AA, either, only saying that if you want to call it AA, that’s fine. But it’s clear you DON’T want to call it AA. He’s suggesting hiring conservatives because they have some skills (even if those or inherent) that a liberal simply doesn’t posses-- that is, a conservative point of view. He’s not suggesting that conservatives have been held back from being moderators in the past and so need a hand up going forward. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terr-and-brainglutton/733406/453 "2015-10-08T23:48:21Z")
You said to Lobohan: > [@Irishman](#): > > Why are you trying to make this thread about **Bricker** and his motives rather than the original topic (imbalance in the moderation of **Terr** vs **BrainGlutton** ) or the follow on topic (the board moderators have an inherent bias against conservatives)? What value is added by your last comment? My question to you: why are you the only person to point this out? Why didn’t a mod react to this? There seem to be no shortage of them here. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2015, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terr-and-brainglutton/733406/454 "2015-10-08T23:49:41Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Exactly. What you are accusing **Bricker** of doing isn’t AA, so there is no hypocrisy. He isn’t calling it AA, either, only saying that if you want to call it AA, that’s fine. But it’s clear you DON’T want to call it AA. > > He’s suggesting hiring conservatives because they have some skills (even if those or inherent) that a liberal simply doesn’t posses-- that is, a conservative point of view. He’s not suggesting that conservatives have been held back from being moderators in the past and so need a hand up going forward. +1 Precisely correct, except that “hiring” in this case is a rather generous description. ---
**Author:** ![engineer\_comp\_geek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/engineer_comp_geek/32/504_2.png) [@engineer\_comp\_geek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/engineer_comp_geek)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2015, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terr-and-brainglutton/733406/455 "2015-10-09T00:12:50Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I have offered solutions which he has rejected as insufficiently probative. I’m now asking him what he would accept. > > My wife and and play a variant of this game all the time: > > BRICKER: Where do you want to eat dinner? > > MRS BRICKER: Oh, anywhere is fine. > > BRICKER: Great! How about Mexican? > > MRS B: Um… nah, I’m not in the mood for Mexican. > > BRICKER: OK. Steaks? Outback? > > MRS B: That’s too expensive. > > BRICKER: Thai? Chinese? Sushi? > > MRS B: Um… no, nothing Asian. > > BRICKER: OK, so where do you want to go? > > MRS B: I don’t know. Wherever you want. I think the only one I rejected was picking and choosing posts to indicate a moderator’s views. So it’s more like: BRICKER: Great! How about Mexican? MRS B: Um… nah, I’m not in the mood for Mexican. BRICKER: WELL, YOU JUST DON’T WANT ANYTHING, DO YOU? TELL ME WHAT’S AN ACCEPTABLE DINNER!!! Choosing posts for examples won’t work, for the rather obvious reason that a small number of posts could easily lead to confirmation bias or could otherwise give a false impression of a moderator’s political leanings. You could, for example, pick the only topic that a particular moderator has liberal views on when their other views are almost entirely conservative, or maybe their views are 50/50 conservative and liberal and you only pick the liberal ones. The only way I think you could use posts would be to go through every post a particular moderator has made on any political topic and group all of those, and that’s not exactly practical or doable. If you want examples of what I’ll accept, look at the other folks who are already on the list. I’m open to anything that will clearly indicate a moderator’s views though. And there’s also a point to be made here. You have stated that the moderation here is clearly and obviously liberal. If it’s that obvious, it should be very easy to fill out the list with proof of their liberal leanings. The fact that the list still has a lot of blanks on it is starting to indicate that maybe the political views of the moderation staff are nowhere near as obvious as you seem to think that they are. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2015, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terr-and-brainglutton/733406/456 "2015-10-09T00:17:27Z")
Not to mention–again–okay, it is to mention–that the overreaction vis a vis moderating you is indicative of a new tendency to overreaction in Great Debates, in which posts are not read carefully nor interpreted charitably. If your theory were right, this phenomenon would only strike conservative posters, not liberal ones. However that’s not how it’s actually gone down. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2015, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terr-and-brainglutton/733406/457 "2015-10-09T00:34:13Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You said to Lobohan: > > My question to you: why are you the only person to point this out? Why didn’t a mod react to this? There seem to be no shortage of them here. Why would that require moderation? You posted: [ > [@Bricker](#): > > I am a conservative. > > I believe I am a disproportionate target of vitriol here, and that my behavior is modded more strictly than that of my opponents. ]([http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18742734&postcount=78](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18742734&postcount=78)) To which I responded: [ > [@Lobohan](#): > > That’s probably true. But often, I’d say you got it comin’. > > Ontopic: > About Terr, I’m actually sad he’s gone. He was seethingly angry, but many times he had pretty good points. > > Many of the conservatives here (not Bricker certainly) parrot what they hear on RW radio without consideration. I feel like Terr didn’t do that. ]([http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18742926&postcount=80](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18742926&postcount=80)) Then the conversation goes on and you say: [ > [@Bricker](#): > > You joke, but in reality this is a good insight. I am actually loathed by some posters because of my politics. It’s not a joke for me. ]([http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18748778&postcount=251](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18748778&postcount=251)) To which I respond: [ > [@Lobohan](#): > > I hope that’s not me you’re thinking of. \<3 > > Honestly, I think if there is a bias, it’s not in moderation. It’s just that if Joe Liberal says something snarky, there are fewer conservatives to report his post. > > If Joe Conservative says something snarky, there are more people on the other side, and thus more of a chance that someone is gonna hit that report button, bringing the incident to a mod’s attention. ]([http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18748812&postcount=253](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18748812&postcount=253)) Then the conversation went on and you had several posts about how you were being unfairly trod upon. To which I posted this: [ > [@Lobohan](#): > > Friend Bricker, in the amazing Voter ID thread in The Pit, has, as I recall, scoffed at the idea that poor people might have things working against them, and find it hard to get an ID. That they should just shut up and get it done. > > However, when friend Bricker thinks the deck is _stacked against him_, he sobs about how unfair it all is, instead of bootstrapping himself to message board success. > > Funny that. ]([http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18752641&postcount=360](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18752641&postcount=360))To suggest that you are overgenerous in your feelings of persecution. After that things flowed where they flowed. I’ll drop it if instructed, because I don’t like to go against the Mods, but I’m just responding to the assertions of victimhood you’re making. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2015, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terr-and-brainglutton/733406/458 "2015-10-09T01:37:57Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > After that things flowed where they flowed. I’ll drop it if instructed, because I don’t like to go against the Mods, but I’m just responding to the assertions of victimhood you’re making. Don’t worry – the hijack is one that had a good chance of being Noted if delivered in ATMB by a conservative against a liberal, but you’re undoubtedly safe. ---
**Author:** ![jimbuff314](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c57346/32.png) [@jimbuff314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jimbuff314)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2015, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terr-and-brainglutton/733406/459 "2015-10-09T01:44:49Z")
If certain things _don’t_ happen, that’s proof of a liberal bias and if certain things _do_ happen, that’s proof of a liberal bias and you get to pick the certain things? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2015, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terr-and-brainglutton/733406/460 "2015-10-09T02:06:49Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Don’t worry – the hijack is one that had a good chance of being Noted if delivered in ATMB by a conservative against a liberal, but you’re undoubtedly safe. Unless you have access to a parallel universe in which this has occurred, or unless you can point to a specific example, this is just Bizarro World arguing, and it’s completely unpersuasive. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terr-and-brainglutton/733406.md?page=22) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terr-and-brainglutton/733406.md?page=24)