I of course cannot, because no two are exactly alike, and whatever differences exist will be seized upon as the reason.
The other side of that coin, is that you can convince yourself that you’re right without evidence.
As I said, I’d suppose any excess moderation is due to having more people adverse to your message who might hit the report button.
…because that’s how debate works. Your complaint boils down to a prediction that people will disagree with you, and therefore you cannot build a case.
Yes, that’s likely. There’s an excellent chance that people will disagree with you. That’s how this works. If you’re unwilling to take that chance, then you’ll remain unpersuasive.
If, however, you’re willing to take that chance, then you’ll argue that there’s a pattern, and that the only significant, relevant factor that differentiates between moderation of conservatives and liberals is the political bias of the moderators. And you’ll argue why other factors are irrelevant.
But yeah: if you’re willing to admit that your case falls apart under skeptical scrutiny, we’re in agreement.
The only answer can be because we’re all biased against you.
Unless maybe some of us were too busy watching the baseball playoffs and having a few Scotches to read every post in the thread.
Wait a minute. Posters have been instructed to read every post in a thread before posting, lest they miss a mod note or warning.
Why shouldn’t mods read every post in a thread?
Does that mean you think my posts required moderation?
I was directly responding to assertions made by Bricker. He would require as much moderation for it as I would.
Good point. I’m hoping Mods apply this to posts o my on the same page. A mod note on page 114 of the stupid Republican thread is gonna not be noticed
I’m guessing that has something to do with you as a poster only reading a select subset of threads in any given forum. A moderator would have to read them all by your rules - pretty onerous for an unpaid volunteer. That’s why the report-a-post button exists. Biased or not, you can’t really expect them to catch every little thing.
They have? Where?
This is why statisticians and scholars don’t like sample sizes of one. The causes are often overdetermined. You need multiple observations to estimate a relationship.
There’s something I should have stressed upthread though. Bricker was modded for something in April 2015 that would have passed without notice 5 years ago IMHO. A problematic ruling IMHO, notwithstanding dropzone’s preferred explanation. The same thing happened to LHoD this year. But again, the civility bar was raised at the urging of conservatives – in order to curb Der Trihs. Admittedly without much objection. That said, unintended consequences were predictable.
There is no distinction if one looks beyond the immediate mechanisms, and looks at the long-term goal which in both cases is the expressed desire for community transformation. The federal government doesn’t really care about John Q. Black as an individual. The real objective of AA is to normalize the role of black people in society, so that they’re not discriminated against by a disproportionately empowered white population. In the service of which it’s believed that meritocracy alone should be subservient to a preferential selection process – not, I say again, so much for the particular benefit of the few individuals so selected, but for the ultimate benefit of the entire black community as a whole.
Just exactly the same way you’d like to see the conservative community here benefit from such a transformation. Which would be a terrific argument if (a) you were consistent in supporting both, and were it not for the fact that (b) it still appears that the alleged anti-conservative discrimination is mostly in your imagination.
And yet… there have been many abortion threads here which have proceeded unhindered, reflecting “lots of different views on the subject” including uncompromising anti-abortion views. What would you like to see different?
So being a conservative is a skill now, John? Really? Is there a special trade school where one learns to be a conservative, and then a period of apprenticeship where one demonstrates proficiency at conservatism?
I’ve already addressed this several times, including my response to Bricker above. It’s not a complex argument. One either selects candidates on the fair and objective basis of merit or one doesn’t. Conservatism isn’t a “merit”, except at Fox News. I understand the distinction you’re trying to make and I’m arguing that the distinction doesn’t really exist. The only ethical reason to make merit-based selection subservient to other factors is if one desires a particular outcome in the affected community that those factors will drive. It’s not necessarily wrong if the outcome is a valuable and desirable one. It’s wrong to be inconsistent about it.
My search skills are apparently lacking, but there have been threads on this. Posters have asked for moderator actions to be in a different font, or moved to the top of every page, or whatever, so that posters cannot miss them.
Yet posters have been admonished/noted/warned for “not following moderator instructions” even when said note occurred a page or more earlier. When it was pointed out that a poster may not have seen the note, the staff response has been that posters should read the thread before posting.
Shouldn’t the same thing apply here:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18756466&postcount=464
I’m not sure what the equivalence is you’re trying to draw.
There is no rule that you must read an entire thread before posting. However, if you don’t, and you miss a mod note you may be warned for failing to follow mod instructions. (Recall, even in the thread you’re discussing every mod said that an instruction multiple pages back in a long thread is treated differently than an instruction a few posts prior.)
Mods cannot read every post, of every thread, looking for infractions. We ask posters to use the report button to make sure we don’t miss things. If we see something later, there is no prohibition on dealing with a problem post then.
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.
Yes, I understand that mods rely on reported posts to catch infractions.
Nevertheless, it remains a de facto rule that posters must read every post in a thread before responding, so they don’t run afoul of moderator instructions they hadn’t read.
Therefore, it seems reasonable to me that moderators should resist the urge to jump into a thread stating they are too busy to have read the whole thread, but “let me get my joke in anyway.”
Oh. My. God. You’ve saved my marriage.
IMHO this happens more often in relationships, and more with women specifically, but (in part) for a different reason. Because a lot of women have likes and dislikes, but would prefer not to overtly insist on having their way, and would rather have the pretense of doing “whatever you want” even if that’s not what’s effectively happening.
[Some related discussion in the OP of this thread.]
You learn it in Church, obviously.
Seriously, though, no one said being a conservative is a skill. What Bricker is saying is that if we assume moderators are biased, politically, then conservatives will have some skills that a non-conservative is unlikely to posses. So, he’s going to look to have a few with that skill set as a method of ensuring a well-functioning moderator staff.
It’s pretty much the same reason a newspaper is going to want to have and Op Ed staff that spans the political spectrum. Not because they are trying to help an oppressed political class by giving them jobs, but so that they can sell more newspapers.
Carl, a film director, wants to cast an actor to play the lead in a biopic about Frederick Douglass.
Carl is auditioning only black male actors.
Carl opposes affirmative action.
Is Carl inconsistent?
FWIW, I think you’re right on this one, Bricker. To make it even clearer, though, Carl isn’t making a movie about Frederick Douglass, he’s making a movie about white cops and black drug dealers, and he looks for only black dudes to play the criminal roles.
IOW, Carl’s kind of a racist dick, but he STILL looks to hire black people for certain roles.
I’m NOT saying you’re a racist dick; I think the Douglass example is actually much more analogous to your own position, if I understand it correctly. 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.
- Is Carl a moderator on the SDMB?
- Is the SDMB making this biopic about Frederick Douglass?