What rigorous method do you propose?
Because while I admire the commitment to scientific rigor, if you are seriously suggesting that the cadre of moderators here lean other than politically liberal, it’s hard to take you seriously. I grant that there remains good faith room to disagree on how that might affect their moderation, and I grant that it’s not 100%.
But c’mon.
Not at all.
There are no sobs. There is indeed a statement about how things lean, to be sure. BUt in what way haven’t I bootstrapped myself to success?
Here I am, a sixteen-year veteran of the site. If the postings above are to be believed, many posters admire and respect my contributions. Isn’t that the very definition of bootstrapped success?
And of course your recitation of my advice to poor people is factually inaccurate, as well. Not once, to my recollection, did I ever say that poor people should just shut up and get it done.
So given the disparity between the factual record of what I have said, and your representation of that factual record in this post, I believe that you have made an undoubtedly good-faith error, perhaps confusing me with another poster, or a discussion on another message board. I urge you to take care in future similar situations, as repeated errors like that can potentially damage your reputation for accuracy.
Every single moderator participating in this thread. The discussion was about the supposed inability to classify moderators, or the acceptance of a claim of utter political neutrality.
I’m sorry, Colibri. But I’m speaking the truth as I perceive it. I absolutely acknowledge that my perception may be in error, but I nonetheless see it the way I described.
One wonders why you’re complaining then.
Some of your contributions are very useful. You’ve a fine legal knowledge. Other posts may vary in quality.
I was paraphrasing, you have indicated that being far from a DMV office or polling place was trivial and that if they really wanted to vote, they would make the effort. I believe going so far as to ask why don’t we give them limousine rides as an attempt to belittle the effort.
See above. Whinging because you can’t get a fair shake is hardly what a stern conservaparagon like yourself should do. Stay strong.
As much as I do not think that conservatives are moderated unfairly, I do not like this argument. Being disliked on both sides is no proof that you are actually fair, as that just assumes both sides have equally valid arguments. And it assumes you are being consistent in your moderation.
In fact, the “conciliatory remark” I was going to make in my previous post was that I don’t think you are consistent in your moderation. I have a hard time getting a feel for what you will or won’t moderate. Because of this, I think it’s easy to make claims against you either direction.
Plus, I don’t really think being biased against extremists is your job. I wish it were, so you’d kick out the explicit racists–as they are inherently extremists in an anti-racist culture–but you don’t.
Your job is to be biased against jerks.
Something other than picking and choosing a handful of posts and using that to decide that this is just the way that it is and that’s that.
Look, I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, here. You claim that the entire moderation staff leans liberal. So far on my list there are a few liberals, a few that don’t lean either way, and a small number that lean more conservative. That is rather drastically different than the picture that you are trying to paint. However, my list admittedly is far from complete.
I honestly don’t know if there’s a liberal bias to the moderation staff or not, because the subject actually does not come up at all in the mod loop. All I can say at this point though is that you are a very long way away from convincing me that the staff is overwhelmingly liberal, and even farther away from convincing me that any sort of political bias is making its way into the moderation actions here.
I’m keeping an open mind. However, you are going to have to do a lot better than saying that’s just the way you see it to convince me. If it’s that obvious that we are all so liberal, it should be easy enough to find the evidence for it to fill out my list.
Okay, for kicks let us accept your fantasy that there is some systematic discrimination going on … why do you participate here and not in any of the many fora that are much friendlier to conservative perspectives?
And how, do you think, would centrist, let alone left of center or even liberal/progressive, posters be treated on those fora?
I suspect you post here because you appreciate the ability to have you perspectives challenged and challenged in what is usually a reasonably non-assholish manner, sometimes even intelligently.
Now personally I observe both moderatable and non-moderatable levels of jerkishness coming from all quarters here and if anything more frequently from those that I consider “conservative” than those that I consider “liberal” and some from those whose politics I know naught about. (And I observe more moderation against liberal jerks than conservative ones.) More jerkishness than there used to be to my read but YMMV. Nevertheless as someone who disagrees with both poles fairly often I at least am here for the reason I suspect you are. Granting your fantasy for the sake of discussion I will bastardize Churchill: this board is moderated in the worst and most unfair possible manner … except for all the others that have been tried form time to time.
Just a quibble with terminology. I can see how you’d equate that with “libertarian”, but I think it’s a terribly mistaken definition. Or else maybe “libertarian” has a such vast range of meaning to different people that it effectively has no meaning at all. I consider myself socially liberal, economically moderate-conservative on most issues, but the farthest thing from a Rand Paul type libertarian one could imagine. Likewise, “socially liberal and economically conservative” could be applied to virtually any traditionally liberal Canadian who has ever voted for the Conservative Party on the basis of economic issues, yet nothing could be more different from that concept of “socially liberal,and economically conservative” than self-declared libertarians like these who are just simply anarchistic anti-government loons.
BTW, I initially thought RickJay was conservative because of his defense of Stephen Harper over my assertions of trashing the environment and being hostile to science, among other things. I see now he’s critical of Harper over other issues. Just goes to show how easy it is to misjudge. I think actually few of us are blindly partisan in the sense of allegiance to a political party or ideology, we just have views – sometimes strong ones – about things that we care about.
One should have read the 76 posts preceding my first contribution to tha thread to gain the requisite context to assuage one’s wonder.
If I ask how to accomplish something, it’s not productive to reply with one of the ways that won’t work. You’ve made clear that you don’t agree with that method. I am asking you what method you would accept.
Would you accept any method at all that was realistically doable?
One has read the thread, and finds no insight into the chambers of Bricker’s heart.
Maybe Bricker could explain himself?
I’m not interested in an echo chamber. I am interested in defending any proposition I buy into against vigorous and intense challenge.
[quote]
And how, do you think, would centrist, let alone left of center or even liberal/progressive, posters be treated on those fora?[/qute]
I can only speculate that the treatment would be similar, or worse, than what I experience here.
Maybe so. But perhaps by highlighting the issue, some quanta of improvement might be had even here.
Oh, I have no doubt that, should the board turn to you in our hour of need, and you be called upon to correct the alleged tragic lack of conservative representation on our moderation panel, you would accept the mantle with only the heaviest of hearts.
Yes, of course. You think conservatives should be appointed moderators so that they can start protecting conservative posters. I just want to state clearly that this is your end game.
You’re not having a hypothetical discussion. You actually want moderators to be chosen to favor your conservative political bent. That’s what you’re actually arguing for.
Sure. The thread was about the perception of disparate treatment for two similarly situated posters. I added my commentary to support the thesis that liberals and conservatives are treated differently here – but I did not start the thread. That is, if I agree that the treatment is disparate and others are discussing the issue, it’s not whining (in my view) to enter the discussion and add my experience.
You should acquire some doubt, then, because as I clearly and unambiguously explained, I would not.
Yes, that’s a somewhat accurate statement. I believe that conservatives get the short end of the stick here, and I believe one method to reverse that inequity would be more conservative moderators. I say “somewhat” because I think that “that’s what you actually arguing for” is not a fair summary. I am actually arguing for the existence of the inequitable treatment; the recruitment of a more politically balanced moderation staff is one possible cure and I am not arguing for it specifically.
Your position then is that your treatment and Terr’s banning is part of systemic maltreatment by the moderators on the board?
Your initial post was: "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."
That had a plaintive quality to it, I thought. So you don’t especially care, you’re not complaining, you’re just notifying that this injustice is happening. This was not evident from your previous posts.
Maybe you should start a #conservativepostersmatter movement.
If RickJay would like to clarify for himself, I’d be open to it. Mine is just one possible interpretation. Obviously he rejected a label and I foisted one upon him by a single post, with the caveat that it was my interpretation alone.
In the general sense, I’m not persuaded that more even representation of moderators would make a difference. This both assumes that the current population acts on their own biases whatever they may be, and that the new crop would do so as well. I would like to believe that once one assumes the mantle the staff shed their personal politics when it comes to their official duties. I’m magnanimous like that.
On the other hand, as to Colibri and JC’s resentment and taking offense to perceived bias…I don’t think that’s quite right either. We all have biases. We’re human. It’s not beyond the pale to presume that the biases that exist either consciously or subconsciously impact decision making. I see no evidence of this myself but raising the question and seeking evidence and analysis should be welcome.
My biggest issue to the extent I would have one at all is with consistency. People should be confident in knowing what to expect. Inconsistency fosters unrest.
I’ll submit mine, just to hear Ed’s head explode clear out in the burbs!
Even then, you just constructed a hypothetical and assume the answer. Not persuasive in the least.
My position is that unless the bias is very strong, it’s impossible to prove it either way. Each act of moderation is open to interpretation, and since we see the result of concrete measures like banning is not skewed one way or the other, all you are left with is your own perception. Which, frankly, isn’t worth a hill of beans, quantitatively.