Just providing information. I haven’t been persuaded of the ‘bias’ proposition to the extent that it impacts moderation actions.
Let me nip that in the bud right now: if nominated I will not run. If elected I will not serve.
This, yes.
Well, the claim was made that the moderation staff here is overwhelmingly liberal. So I figure the first thing we need to do is find out if that’s actually true or not. After that, we can maybe try to determine if that bias is reflected in our moderation, whether intentionally or not.
Here’s the updated list.
Asimovian
Colibri
Ellen Cherry
engineer_comp_geek
Gaudere
Hal Briston
Idle Thoughts - Just for the record, I am “no wing”. I don’t identify as right or left, as a conservative or liberal. I don’t know anything about politics nor do I care to.
IvoryTowerDenizen
Jonathan Chance - Practical Libertarian (2005) Democrat (2011)
Loach - implied in this thread that he is conservative, or at least not a Democrat
Miller - liberal
RickJay - neither liberal nor conservative
samclem - old-style Liberal
tomndebb
So far, we’re not even close to proving that the staff here is overwhelmingly liberal, which makes the question of whether or not a liberal bias affects our moderation rather moot.
Former staff members don’t count as they do not participate in current moderation actions, which is what we are discussing.
That’s a fair question.
I’d say that key issues in the United States today that might be used as a benchmark would be one’s position on the ACA, abortion, gun control, control of government over individual enterprise, federalism, textualism/original intent, military spending, taxation, environmental issues, and the intersection of religion in the public sphere. Obviously none of those are themselves binary, but for purposes of this discussion I think there are reasonably “conservative” answers to all and reasonably “liberal” answers to all.
Sure. I guess you’ve voted for way more Democrats for President than Republicans.
This is not to criticize your moderation, which is in my view generally even-handed. But it’s the truth that your political views color you reaction to posts, and you’re more likely to admonish snide commentary you disagree with than snide commentary that matches your views.
You’re going to hurt yourself if you keep changing direction that fast.
If someone says, “Well, I favor same-sex marriage, no photo ID requirement for voters, strong environmental laws, reproductive choice for women, the Affordable Care Act, gun control, and affirmative action, but I’m neither liberal nor conservative,” I believe they should nonetheless be counted as liberal.
See, this is the thing. Every single one of you, reading that list, said in your internal dialog voice, “Well, of course I favor reproductive choice. Being against abortion rights isn’t liberal, it’s just sane.”
Right?
C’mon. Who read that line and thought there were two sides to the abortion issue of anywhere near equal persuasive or moral weight?
I think you meant being *for *abortion rights. Otherwise I’m a really bad liberal.
There was no change of direction. I said his moderation was GENERALLY even-handed, which is true. I also said that he’s more likely to admonish snide commentary you disagree with than snide commentary that matches your views. That tendency doesn’t change the general trend of even-handedness. I don’t say he NEVER admonishes opposing commentary, simply that there’s a small trend – a very human one – to notice and respond when he disagrees as opposed to when he agrees.
If you wondered about what I meant, you could have simply asked.
But instead you made it into a tiny jab, and so the choice is mine: do I respond in kind? Do I escalate? No – I don’t want to risk escalating to the point that a warning might be given. You’re safe in doing it to me, though. Never fear.
Whoops.
I wonder if that obvious typo will come to dominate discussion of the point instead of any discussion of the actual point happening.
By selecting individual posts that say things like that, you’re very likely to end up with confirmation bias. That’s why I’m not putting opinions of political leanings based on posts up on the list.
Before we can even discuss whether our political leanings are influencing our moderation, we have to determine if there really is an overall political leaning, and not just the effects of confirmation bias going on here.
Do you truly believe you will be moderated if you accuse someone of changing direction? Really, truly believe that?
And FWIW, I agree those are all liberal positions. I would never argue that being for women’s reproductive rights is “sane” and being against them is “insane.” Does that change your theory?
Just trying to keep things tidy. In terms of actual discussion, returning to the tendencies of the moderators, those are mostly irrelevant. Political talk happens largely in GD, Elections, and the Pit. So it’s really only those moderators whose political leanings ought to be under scrutiny (assuming they ought to be at all).
Every single one of whom? I didn’t read that quote and have my internal voice say that what you are claiming it said.
You are assuming facts not in evidence, counselor. Your list is more ‘Republican/Democrat’ than ‘liberal/conservative’ and is emblematic of those of us - in the US - who are overly sensitized to politics. Our current hyperpartisan culture works against people seeing both sides of things. It’s one of the reasons I now identify as a Democrat. When I ran for office I met with leaders of both parties. The D side welcomed me as a pro-business candidate and the R side told me what I had to believe if I wanted to be a Republican candidate. I confess to being fairly lefty on various social issues - mostly out of an instinct that I don’t want to tell others what to do with their lives. Note, though, that I’m highly conservative on economic matters and extremely pro-business and markets.
It is possible to have parts of both and be in the soft, squishy center of American politics yet be labeled - by others - as either liberal or conservative based on the identify of the one identifying.
It is also a sign of our hyperpartisanship that everything is viewed through a particular political lens - as I believe you are doing here - instead of viewing people on a multi-axis spectrum. It renders the situation where the best we can hope for - as moderators - is that the extremely partisan members of both sides accuse us of bias against their side. That’s the sort of thing that indicates were doing something right. We may be biased, certainly, but if we’re taking flack from both sides it means we’re biased against the extremists rather than one side or the other.
It is deeply insulting to me that someone could believe my moderation would be influenced by my political leanings. All I can do is let it roll off me and tell myself it says more about the accuser than myself.
I’d add GQ in there. If you don’t frequent that forum you might be surprised how common it is, even for seasoned posters here, to make political jabs when giving “factual answers” to questions.
You have absolutely no reason to believe this, and I very much resent your claiming “it’s the truth” without evidence. If anything, I think I’m more likely to note or warn a jab from my side of the issue than the reverse.
Oh, for fuck’s sake. Want to poison the well any more? I definitely think there are two sides to the debate. Obviously I find one side more persuasive and more moral, but so do you, so do most people. That doesn’t mean I find the other side to be morally bankrupt.
I guess you DO want to poison the well some more.
You clearly think very poorly of everyone reading your words and keep predicting that we’ll have shitty reactions. That’s kind of how one poisons the well, and you’d be better off not doing it.
Being biased against the extremists and toward the middle isn’t necessarily a virtue; it’s only equivalent to virtue if you start by assuming that the middle-of-the-road position is the correct one, and that positions on the edge are not. Just sayin’.
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.