# 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:** 26
**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, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terr-and-brainglutton/733406/501 "2015-10-09T19:50:55Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > 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. I agree with the point I think you’re making. The claims in that case are parallel to the claims here, from a structural/logical standpoint. Of course, the specific claims are not the same, and it could be that similar-looking role models add a lot but that moderators are not collectively biased based on ideology, or vice versa. But the logic would be the same, and the distinction being drawn above couldn’t be made between these two cases - you would have to argue the details if you adopted different positions in these cases. ---
**Author:** ![TroutMan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/troutman/32/6721_2.png) [@TroutMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TroutMan)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2015, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terr-and-brainglutton/733406/502 "2015-10-09T19:55:27Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > 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. Furthermore, we have diversity - there is at least one mod who skews conservative and some who are moderate. I accept that it is not evenly balanced between left and right, and indeed this could be a problem if the fewer mods on the right were being consistently shouted-down and overruled by those on the left. But that doesn’t appear to be the case at all. So conservatives already have a voice in moderation. I’d be fully supportive of an effort to even up representation if there were actual problems identified instead of vague feelings. Maybe the problem is primarily in GD? I’m sure **Loach** would love being stuck with that. ---
**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, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terr-and-brainglutton/733406/503 "2015-10-09T21:23:24Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > … 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 … > > … 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. To the first point. Exactly correct. IF one accepted that the staff and in particular the leadership of an organization was significantly skewed and collectively biased (perhaps unconsciously), then adding minority members to the staff and in particular the leadership would reduce the skew and benefit the broader membership of the organization, be that organization a message board, a university, a large business, or any of a wide variety of institutions. That is a fundamental premise of affirmative action and I buy the argument. Of course I not only see no evidence that such a fantasy is the case for the conservative perspective and this board but see some solid evidence against it … but I buy the argument and believe that it should be applied consistently. Not to the point of quotas, as **Bricker** seems to be advocating for conservative mods, but defininitely to the point of considering a strong positive in evaluating an overall package, and presuming otherwise adequately qualified. Yup, I think it is a good idea that should be applied consistently where there is significant evidence that such skewing exists. Does **Bricker** believe that? To point the second, no it is clearly the exact opposite. The benefit they bring to the job is exactly the broader societal (meaning group-wide rather than individual) consideration. ---
**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, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terr-and-brainglutton/733406/504 "2015-10-09T21:29:55Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > To the first point. Exactly correct. IF one accepted that the staff and in particular the leadership of an organization was significantly skewed and collectively biased (perhaps unconsciously), then adding minority members to the staff and in particular the leadership would reduce the skew and benefit the broader membership of the organization, be that organization a message board, a university, a large business, or any of a wide variety of institutions. > > That is a fundamental premise of affirmative action and I buy the argument. OK. It should be noted though, that the notion that diversity of race/creed/orientation in a setting like a university or large business would benefit that university or business does not necessarily follow from the notion that diversity of opinion would reduce collective opinion-based bias on a very opinion-oriented message board. > [@](#): > > To point the second, no it is clearly the exact opposite. The benefit they bring to the job is exactly the broader societal (meaning group-wide rather than individual) consideration. I’m not sure what you’re talking about here. But FTR, when I say “society”, I mean society. It sounds like you mean the university or business. If so, we’re not talking about the same thing. ---
**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, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terr-and-brainglutton/733406/505 "2015-10-09T21:33:19Z")
I am curious what quota conservative posters would think is appropriate for an allegedly left-leaning board, and by extension more broadly to all minority perspective representations in other institutions. Should it reflect the membership of the board overall? Reflect society at large? Be 50/50? What value of “conservative” get higher priority in representation? Neocon? Liberal? Religious Right? Tea Bagger? Big Business advocate? Fortress America? One advocate for each. Which axes of diversity are more vital to represent? Urban vs rural? North South? American vs other and which others? Racial? Religious? Gender? We have a handful or so of mods … this balancing can get tricky. Especially when I don’t see those complaining rushing to volunteer for the job. ---
**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, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terr-and-brainglutton/733406/506 "2015-10-09T21:39:03Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > I am curious what quota conservative posters would think is appropriate for an allegedly left-leaning board, and by extension more broadly to all minority perspective representations in other institutions. JFTR, since I’ve been posting on one side of this argument, I should note that that I’ve not called for any conservative moderators to be appointed. I’ve been arguing various other related matters, e.g. that it’s inconceivable that there is not some degree of moderator bias, and that calls for conservative moderators are not necessarily inconsistent with opposition to AA in other situations, and so on. ---
**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, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terr-and-brainglutton/733406/507 "2015-10-09T21:48:31Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I’ve been arguing various other related matters, e.g. that it’s inconceivable that there is not some degree of moderator bias… All you’ve shown us is that _you_ cannot conceive of such a thing. Show us this supposed liberal 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, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terr-and-brainglutton/733406/508 "2015-10-09T22:01:20Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > JFTR, since I’ve been posting on one side of this argument, I should note that that I’ve not called for any conservative moderators to be appointed. > > I’ve been arguing various other related matters, e.g. that it’s inconceivable that there is not some degree of moderator bias, and that calls for conservative moderators are not necessarily inconsistent with opposition to AA in other situations, and so on. I find it inconceivable that you find the concept of moderators being able to judge who is or is not being a jerk, lying, or otherwise breaking rules without undue bias as inconceivable, but have no problem imagining that being a cohort of all White Christian male, for example, does not engender any unconscious bias. ---
**Author:** ![John\_DiFool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_difool/32/19543_2.png) [@John\_DiFool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_DiFool)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2015, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terr-and-brainglutton/733406/509 "2015-10-09T23:58:52Z")
[You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3sLhnDJJn0) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2015, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terr-and-brainglutton/733406/510 "2015-10-10T00:51:26Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > I am curious what quota conservative posters would think is appropriate for an allegedly left-leaning board, and by extension more broadly to all minority perspective representations in other institutions. > > Should it reflect the membership of the board overall? > > Reflect society at large? > > Be 50/50? The question was previously asked: > [@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. And answered: > [@Bricker](#): > > 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.” > [@Irishman](#): > > Having a balance isn’t necessary, it’s making sure there’s a voice inside the deliberations room. Did you read those posts? ---
**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 10, 2015, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terr-and-brainglutton/733406/511 "2015-10-10T13:49:26Z")
Did. They notably did not actually answer the question … okay _maybe_ a minority perspective does not need have half or more of the seats … there is some undefined “critical mass” that you’d know when you experience it. Fairness is just like porn. It seems you have either have no amount that would suffice (reserving of course to always perceive bias) or what currently exists is fine since there clearly is at least one voice in the room … in fact one voice that warned **Terr** and advocated for his banning. Funny little fact that gets in the way of the theory. Meanwhile, did you read the other questions I posed, say particularly in post#503? “… Does **Bricker** believe that?” Or does **Bricker** only believe that there needs to be minority perspective voices in the rooms that make significant decisions, decisions that impact all including those of minority perspectives, when **Bricker** is of the minority in question? ETA: if you read them please then answer them as well … ---
**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 10, 2015, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terr-and-brainglutton/733406/512 "2015-10-10T16:47:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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.” Here’s the thing: you have a very inaccurate view of what discussions in the mod loop might be like. _By and large we don’t even know each other’s opinions on political subjects._ Despite having served with him as a mod for almost year, I did not know anything about **Loach’s** politics until this thread. Likewise, I knew nothing at all about **Idle Thoughts’** politics (or lack of them) until now. I honestly could not tell you offhand which of the mods might be pro-life or pro-choice. We sometimes have differences of opinion on the staff about actions to take on warnings and bannings. But as far as I am aware there is no political component to those differences. Some of us tend to be lenient; others less tolerant of bad behavior; but this has more to do with personality than politics. ---
**Author:** ![puzzlegal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puzzlegal/32/3827_2.png) [@puzzlegal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puzzlegal)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2015, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terr-and-brainglutton/733406/513 "2015-10-10T17:29:56Z")
I suspect that moderation itself is a somewhat “liberal” endeavor. Or, anti-libertarian, I guess. It is about the nanny-state, or in this case, the message board, telling citizens they need to play nicely. And playing nicely is a virtue more valued by the left than by the right, at least in American politics. I say this as a moderator of a different message board that leans very conservative. So much so that a lot of civil liberals have left. And the mods there get accused of liberal bias all the time. Some of us are politically liberal, as compared to the American norm, and some are not. But the conservatives (who tend towards libertarian on that board) often prefer to “defend themselves” by calling out other posters, rather than reporting posts to the mods. ---
**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 10, 2015, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terr-and-brainglutton/733406/514 "2015-10-10T19:11:45Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Do you understand what unconscious bias is and how it may be relevant here? Is that the kind of bias that only you and **Bricker** can see? 😉 Seriously, reading everything that’s been presented in this thread, it’s hard to reach any other conclusion. It seems we’ve gone from claims of “biased liberal mods” to “liberal mods outnumber the conservatives” and finally, in an apparent response to the dearth of evidence, to “they’re liberal-biased, but it’s invisible!”. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2015, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terr-and-brainglutton/733406/515 "2015-10-10T23:20:34Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Did. Not sure I understand how you read them, but then chose to ask the same question again… one which you acknowledge I answered (the “50/50” question). > [@](#): > > It seems you have either have no amount that would suffice (reserving of course to always perceive bias) or what currently exists is fine since there clearly is at least one voice in the room … in fact one voice that warned **Terr** and advocated for his banning. Funny little fact that gets in the way of the theory. No. And it doesn’t for another reason that was previously explained: the accumulation of prior warnings was harsher for Terr than for BG. > [@](#): > > ETA: if you read them please then answer them as well … I would be happy to answer, but it is discouraging to think that you are not reading what I write and are simply demanding repeated answers as a kind of attrition strategy. ---
**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 11, 2015, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terr-and-brainglutton/733406/516 "2015-10-11T00:58:37Z")
Politicians at least evade and avoid answering questions with a bit more skill **Bricker**. ---
**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 11, 2015, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terr-and-brainglutton/733406/517 "2015-10-11T01:23:08Z")
**Moderator Note** If you have something related to the SDMB that you want to discuss, then by all means, please discuss it. If all you want to do is bicker at each other, then the Pit is thataway —\> ---
**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 11, 2015, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terr-and-brainglutton/733406/518 "2015-10-11T03:06:30Z")
So noted. No bickering, no **Bricker** ing even! Though is there some subtle bias in the choice of an arrow to the Pit pointing to the _Right_, hmmm? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Nylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/77aa72/32.png) [@Mr.Nylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Nylock)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2015, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terr-and-brainglutton/733406/519 "2015-10-11T03:30:29Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > So noted. No bickering, no **Bricker** ing even! > > Though is there some subtle bias in the choice of an arrow to the Pit pointing to the _Right_, hmmm? > > 🙂 I guess it also could have been written: \<------ Go thither to bicker with Bricker But that’s just my interpretation. ---
**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 11, 2015, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terr-and-brainglutton/733406/520 "2015-10-11T04:47:38Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Politicians at least evade and avoid answering questions with a bit more skill **Bricker**. Can you explain how that is NOT to be taken as dig against **Bricker**? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terr-and-brainglutton/733406.md?page=25) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terr-and-brainglutton/733406.md?page=27)