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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 …
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.
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.
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!”.
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).
No. And it doesn’t for another reason that was previously explained: the accumulation of prior warnings was harsher for Terr than for BG.
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.
