# 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:** 25
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2015, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terr-and-brainglutton/733406/481 "2015-10-09T16:28:27Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > … Choosing a conservative mod would presumably be done not to help that conservative out, but to change board culture. I think it’s an unnecessary idea, but it’s not the same as affirmative action. Disagree strongly. Righting the impacts of past wrongs and helping out someone at a disadvantage because of structural discriminations are two reasons that some _support_ affirmative action, but they are neither what affirmative action is, nor the reason that others support it. Making special efforts to recruit members or under-represented group X or Y to be part of an organization or of leadership of an organization is affirmative action whether it is done in order to effect positive social change for those minority groups or not. In some organizations such affirmative action is done out of a belief (whether some here agree with its truth or not) that having the under-represented groups as part of the organization or of organizational leadership will help benefit the organization in a variety of ways. A self-serving intent does not make it any less affirmative action. IF the fantasy was true and there were both a significant lack of conservative perspectives as part of the moderator cohort of the pertinent fora, and such was actually impacting moderation such that conservative posters were oppressed, relatively silenced, and even driven out, then a policy of affirmative action, specifically attempting to recruit moderators with conservative perspectives, considering possessing such a feature as an independent desired factor, would be worth considering. It would be affirmative action in service of making a better MB for all and not motivated by an intent to redress past oppression, and it would be affirmative action. Affirmative action motivated by an intent to accomplish diversity because one believes that such diversity strengthens and benefit the organization is affirmative action as much as when it is motivated by a desire to right past wrongs. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2015, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terr-and-brainglutton/733406/482 "2015-10-09T16:32:21Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Affirmative action motivated by an intent to accomplish diversity because one believes that such diversity strengthens and benefit the organization is affirmative action as much as when it is motivated by a desire to right past wrongs. That may or may not be true, but is just semantics in any event. The salient point is that it’s not logically inconsistent to be in favor of one and against the other. ---
**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, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terr-and-brainglutton/733406/483 "2015-10-09T16:50:22Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > That may or may not be true, but is just semantics in any event. > > The salient point is that it’s not logically inconsistent to be in favor of one and against the other. Yeah–I was torn whether to get into this issue at all, because it’s totally a semantic issue, and doesn’t get to the heart of whether it’s a good idea in this case. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2015, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terr-and-brainglutton/733406/484 "2015-10-09T16:53:16Z")
Honestly no, that is not at \*all \*the salient part. **Bricker** objects to accurate characterization of his request as a request for affirmative action. He is mistaken. This is not at all comparable to a White actor being preferred for playing the part of J Edgar Hoover or a Black man for playing the part Frederick Douglass unless one declares that there is a spot on the moderator panel that is declared “The Conservative Moderator” (for which being conservative is a clear qualification) … which would be more a “quota” than “affirmative action” and while some conservatives often conflate the two they are quite different. Maybe **Bricker** is indeed advocating for quotas so that there is adequate minority representation at leadership levels? Personally I find quotas as an undesirable approach and I think few support them as a general rule. But his mileage may vary. ---
**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, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terr-and-brainglutton/733406/485 "2015-10-09T17:03:32Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > However, I want to be clear that hiring someone for a job because of specific traits they have is wholly separate for hiring someone for a job in order to effect positive social change for minorities. They’re two barely-related phenomena. > > Choosing a conservative mod would presumably be done not to help that conservative out, but to change board culture. I think it’s an unnecessary idea, but it’s not the same as affirmative action. Bingo. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2015, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terr-and-brainglutton/733406/486 "2015-10-09T17:14:22Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Honestly no, that is not at \*all \*the salient part. > > **Bricker** objects to accurate characterization of his request as a request for affirmative action. He is mistaken. This is not at all comparable to a White actor being preferred for playing the part of J Edgar Hoover or a Black man for playing the part Frederick Douglass unless one declares that there is a spot on the moderator panel that is declared “The Conservative Moderator” (for which being conservative is a clear qualification) … which would be more a “quota” than “affirmative action” and while some conservatives often conflate the two they are quite different. > > Maybe **Bricker** is indeed advocating for quotas so that there is adequate minority representation at leadership levels? Personally I find quotas as an undesirable approach and I think few support them as a general rule. But his mileage may vary. ISTM that you’re focusing on methods (“quota” vs “affirmative action”) over concept. The logical distinction is between a) a situation where a certain type of person brings a specific quality - by virtue of being that type of person - to the actual position for which he’s being hired, whether acting role or moderator, and b) a situation where the person’s type will not necessarily enhance the role for which he’s been hired but will serve some larger goal (e.g. redress past societal wrongs, or enhance the current status of his group etc.) It’s not logically inconsistent to be in favor or a) and not b). ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2015, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terr-and-brainglutton/733406/487 "2015-10-09T17:18:11Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Bingo. In what specific ways do you see a conservative moderator changing board culture? Would this moderator be allowed to let her/his political persuasion influence decisions in ways that current moderators are actively encouraged not to do? ---
**Author:** ![GrandWino](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/grandwino/32/67_2.png) [@GrandWino](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GrandWino)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2015, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terr-and-brainglutton/733406/488 "2015-10-09T17:21:49Z")
Now I really want to see this Frederick Douglas biopic. ---
**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 9, 2015, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terr-and-brainglutton/733406/489 "2015-10-09T17:27:36Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > In what specific ways do you see a conservative moderator changing board culture? Would this moderator be allowed to let her/his political persuasion influence decisions in ways that current moderators are actively encouraged not to do? Do you understand what unconscious bias is and how it may be relevant here? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2015, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terr-and-brainglutton/733406/490 "2015-10-09T17:40:22Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Do you understand what unconscious bias is and how it may be relevant here? I understand that it has yet to be shown to be relevant here. That’s why I’m asking how much leeway **Bricker** would want this Con-Mod to have-If it’s the same as every other moderator, then that would give liberal posters to the right to accuse said Cod-Mod of the same supposed unconscious bias against liberals the current mods are being accused of against conservatives. ---
**Author:** ![mozchron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c2a13f/32.png) [@mozchron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mozchron)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2015, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terr-and-brainglutton/733406/491 "2015-10-09T17:56:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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 know Bricker is up to no good, since he apparently married my wife behind my back :eek: ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2015, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terr-and-brainglutton/733406/492 "2015-10-09T18:20:48Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > It’s not logically inconsistent to be in favor or a) and not b). Of course true and completely immaterial. **Bricker** objects to his request being called what it is: affirmative action. Yes there is reason a and reason b (and possibly c through z) to be for affirmative action. So effing what? He wants affirmative action on choice of who serves as moderators in order that he does not have to personally feel “chilled” … so that he can better utilize the, in his mind, effective rhetorical tools of “snark and abuse.” There is no question to my read that he wants affirmative action of moderators (or a quota system perhaps) to redress his personal sense of being oppressed, and for the good of his class. That does not mean that if the fantasy he presents was true there would not be an argument for affirmative action for the good of the group as a whole. Yes, the fact that when another class is under consideration he believes that affirmative action is very [improper](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6788114&postcount=5) and should be illegal makes this whining for such to apply to his class to be a bit mockable. But let’s not fixate on past posts: **Bricker** do you currently find the argument that members of an underrepresented group should be given preferential consideration in hiring or acceptance to positions (or perhaps quotas), be they leadership or otherwise, compelling? Is such acceptable because members of a majority may have an even unconscious bias that impacts their behaviors even with the best of intents? Is the argument acceptable to you if one is convinced that diversity of experience and perspectives is of some benefit to the group overall? Or is such only true in the case that you are a member of the minority group under consideration? ---
**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, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terr-and-brainglutton/733406/493 "2015-10-09T18:24:08Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > However, I want to be clear that hiring someone for a job because of specific traits they have is wholly separate for hiring someone for a job in order to effect positive social change for minorities. They’re two barely-related phenomena. > > Choosing a conservative mod would presumably be done not to help that conservative out, but to change board culture. I think it’s an unnecessary idea, but it’s not the same as affirmative action. Choosing a conservative mod wouldn’t be to help that mod in particular. The change it would theoretically make in “board culture” is that it would make it more equitable for the conservative minority. It would be like drawing a district so that an African American is likely to get a seat. It’s not to help the elected person, but to help the constituency that he’d represent. That’s pretty close to affirmative action isn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2015, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terr-and-brainglutton/733406/494 "2015-10-09T18:31:57Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Of course true and completely immaterial. It’s not just material, it’s the entire issue. The way this got started here is that someone said Bricker was being inconsistent, and Bricker’s response was that a) and b) are not inconsistent. That’s not immaterial. > [@](#): > > Yes there is reason a and reason b (and possibly c through z) to be for affirmative action. So effing what? Makes a big difference in cases in which (someone believes that) some reasons apply and others don’t. Like here. > [@](#): > > There is no question to my read that he wants affirmative action of moderators (or a quota system perhaps) to redress his personal sense of being oppressed, and for the good of his class. WADR, this seems like a forced characterization of his position in an effort to squeeze in some catch-phrases (“oppressed”, “class”) that sound a lot like general arguments for AA, so as to make the two situations seem similar when they’re actually not. ---
**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, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terr-and-brainglutton/733406/495 "2015-10-09T18:34:08Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Choosing a conservative mod wouldn’t be to help that mod in particular. The change it would theoretically make in “board culture” is that it would make it more equitable for the conservative minority. > > It would be like drawing a district so that an African American is likely to get a seat. It’s not to help the elected person, but to help the constituency that he’d represent. > > That’s pretty close to affirmative action isn’t it? I should mention that I misread LHoD’s post, so I ended up typing the same thing he did pretty much. It’s early here. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2015, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terr-and-brainglutton/733406/496 "2015-10-09T18:48:06Z")
> [@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. Do you not see that those particular goals may justify a difference in acceptability? That it is not inconsistent to support one set of goals but not another set of goals? > [@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. Having a balance isn’t necessary, it’s making sure there’s a voice inside the deliberations room. > [@](#): > > 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. If moderators are already serving as checks and balances on each other, then liberals already have advocates in the deliberations. So while there would be possibility of a moderator being more unfair to liberals, the checks already in the system would mitigate that. Whereas there’s not as strong a check on bias against conservatives, so adding a conservative advocate would improve the checks there. In theory. > [@Bricker](#): > > 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. Because I’m the only one who cares about America! > [@IvoryTowerDenizen](#): > > Frankly, I’m not sure what Bricker thinks has been a problem in this thread. He posted a concern specifically based on his own experiences and it has been seriously discussed (with a few jokes tossed in). If there is a specific post(s) that he (or anyone) feels crosses the line, report them. > > Hijacks, in and of themselves, are not against the rules. I posted a remark about a level of incivility I observed, in hopes that by pointing it out I could curb it. Instead I seem to have furthered the hijack. > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > The logical distinction is between a) a situation where a certain type of person brings a specific quality - by virtue of being that type of person - to the actual position for which he’s being hired, whether acting role or moderator, and b) a situation where the person’s type will not necessarily enhance the role for which he’s been hired but will serve some larger goal (e.g. redress past societal wrongs, or enhance the current status of his group etc.) > > It’s not logically inconsistent to be in favor or a) and not b). This. > [@Czarcasm](#): > > I understand that it has yet to be shown to be relevant here. That’s why I’m asking how much leeway **Bricker** would want this Con-Mod to have-If it’s the same as every other moderator, then that would give liberal posters to the right to accuse said Cod-Mod of the same supposed unconscious bias against liberals the current mods are being accused of against conservatives. Of course liberal posters would have the same right to accuse conservative mods of unfair bias. And the response would be the same: (a) we have moderators collectively making big decisions, and (b) can you show clear evidence of this bias? Also, it’s a bit hard for the board moderators as a unit to have a built in anti liberal and anti conservative bias. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2015, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terr-and-brainglutton/733406/497 "2015-10-09T19:01:24Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > It’s not just material, it’s the entire issue. > > The way this got started here is that someone said Bricker was being inconsistent, and Bricker’s response was that a) and b) are not inconsistent. That’s not immaterial. Except of course that a and b were completely immaterial to the inconsistency being noted. Is being a mod a job that one does better at because one is a conservative, like playing Thurgood Marshall is a job one does better at by being Black? No. One can be a fine moderator and be of any political stripe. The analogy is nonsensical and a nonsequitor. Immaterial to his inconsistency. The reason he wants more conservative mods is to benefit the class of conservatives and to benefit himself, as he believes he and other conservatives are chilled by what they imagine to be biased moderation. (Fact that the current example was initiated by a moderator not-liberal be damned.) That is the sort of affirmative action and justification for affirmative action that he has railed against in the past. A defensible argument with a different set of facts would be that the organizations, such as this MB, as a whole would benefit from more diversity in leadership positions, in this case conservative moderators chosen preferentially for their conservative POVs. Does **Bricker** endorse that as a general principle or only when he is a member of the minority group under consideration? Does **Bricker** support the idea that judges and police and heads of corporations should be chosen to reflect some particular diversity of political and other group membership in order to avoid unconscious biases from impacting decisions made? Is the fact that members of a minority group state they experience inequities and alter their behavior as a result enough to prove to him that such exist? ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2015, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terr-and-brainglutton/733406/498 "2015-10-09T19:23:38Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Except of course that a and b were completely immaterial to the inconsistency being noted. > > Is being a mod a job that one does better at because one is a conservative, like playing Thurgood Marshall is a job one does better at by being Black? > > No. One can be a fine moderator and be of any political stripe. If you believe that having the overall moderation of the board be more evenhanded is a plus for the board, then the rest follows. Any individual person’s qualities as a moderator are not correlated to them being a liberal or conservative. But if you accept that the moderating staff as a whole is currently skewed liberal and collectively biased, then adding a conservative moderator has the advantage of reducing this skew, while adding a liberal one does not, despite them possibly being comparable as to their other attributes. So in this case - again assuming the skew/bias exists - the potential conservative moderator has something to offer to the position of moderator that the potential liberal one does not. It’s therefore not comparable to a situation where the minority candidate has nothing extra to offer in this specific position, but is being favored for broader societal considerations. ---
**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, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terr-and-brainglutton/733406/499 "2015-10-09T19:34:09Z")
F-P’s point goes back to that long-ago thread Bricker cited earlier, in which I argued that **every child** benefits from exposure to middle-class role models that look like them (and that look different from them), and that African American boys might especially suffer from a lack of regular exposure to such role models. A system in which no middle class women were role models to kids would be just as bad as our current one–but that’s not what we have, so I argued for more black male teachers to correct the existing injustice, to increase diversity of middle-class role models. The question for me isn’t whether asking for such diversity, when the lack of diversity is harmful, is appropriate. The question is whether the lack of diversity is harmful in this case. I don’t think the evidence supports the claim. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2015, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terr-and-brainglutton/733406/500 "2015-10-09T19:40:28Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > But if you accept that the moderating staff as a whole is currently skewed liberal and collectively biased, then adding a conservative moderator has the advantage of reducing this skew, while adding a liberal one does not, despite them possibly being comparable as to their other attributes. But you have given us no evidence _to_ accept either that the board is “skewed liberal”(as you put it) and/or collectively biased, and you have given us no evidence that, _if this evidence does in fact exist_, it has influenced their decision making to the detriment of this message board. “But if you accept”? First, give us a solid reason to accept this premise of yours, _then_ possible solutions can be sought. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terr-and-brainglutton/733406.md?page=24) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terr-and-brainglutton/733406.md?page=26)