Whether it is or it isn’t, given that engineer_comp_geek has given instructions to stop the bickering here, there’s no need to pursue the subject further.
Okay, here’s my political thoughts/insights put out there for all to see.
This is also in reply to FP who said somewhere above that it’s impossible not to mod without some political bias, which I can tell you is definitely untrue.
I sent this as a PM to Bricker, but on further thought, figured I’d post it here since other mods have been more clear on their political feelings.
Long wall of text coming, so I’ve put it under a spoiler. Read or don’t read, I don’t care.
Please realize this is not a place to debate these things, it’s just me giving insight into my political leanings (or, what I believe to be lack thereof).
If you wish to debate me on any of the issues, send me a PM, start a thread in GD, or a Pit thread since it would be based on my views as a person/poster and not about a mod action/decision.
[spoiler]
–One’s position on the ACA
I didn’t know what this was, so I looked it up. Obamacare? I have no opinion, really, and I don’t even know what it is or how it works.
I don’t think I have it, though…I have Medicare.
–Abortion
I have no opinion and am neither pro choice or pro life. It’s one of those things that is pointless to take a stand on, I feel…because regardless of which one you are, the world will always have it in one way or another.
–Gun Control
I don’t really have any opinion on this. Would I ever own a gun myself? No, because I don’t need one and don’t believe in them to save the day anyway. Do I think that others should have the right to keep them or not? Like with abortion, it doesn’t matter. They tried to outlaw booze back in the 1920s and people still made booze. Drugs are illegal and they still have people who are druggies. If guns were made illegal, mass shootings would still happen one way or another and anyone who doesn’t think they would is a fuckin idiot. It would happen regardless so the keeping or taking away of guns makes no difference at all, in the long run.
–Control of government over individual enterprise
I don’t even know what this is or how it works (nor do I particularly care).
–Federalism
I don’t even know what this is or how it works (nor do I particularly care).
–Textualism/Original intent
I don’t even know what this is or how it works (nor do I particularly care)
–Military Spending
Spending on…what? To have a military at all? Then I guess I’d be for it. It’d be nice to have a military just in case we were invaded. I think if we didn’t have one, more countries might try for it.
But if this issue goes anywhere beyond that, then I don’t know what it is or how it works (nor do I particularly care)
–Taxation
I have only a very, very, very vague idea of what this is, but I don’t have any opinion on it. I don’t pay taxes myself. Never filed taxes in my life and I wouldn’t know how to, but I’ve never gotten into trouble…so I doubt I’m doing anything wrong. The fact that I’ve never needed to pay (or even learn about) taxes, however, may come from the fact that I’ve never had a job and been on SSI and SSD my whole life (since I was 18) Only taxes I pay are on things I buy at the store or at restaurants…so do you mean those taxes? Well, I understand why people need to tax store and restaurant items, so I can’t be mad at them.
Anything beyond that I don’t know how it works (nor do I particularly care)
–Environmental issues
This one and the one below are the only two that I actually have a strong (and, really, ANY sort of opinion on, period) opinion on.
I like the natural forests and stuff like that and believe they should not be cut down and efforts made to preserve them as much as possible. It’s a shame that we’re losing more forests and natural habitats by the day as time goes on. In about 100 more years, if we haven’t yet all killed ourselves in one big war via nuclear warheads or accidentally, since humans can be quite fucking stupid as a whole, we won’t have many places left that are just…nature’s own.
–The intersection of religion in the public sphere
I believe in God and always will and wish everyone did, but whatcha gonna do? I’m not one to push my beliefs on others, though…I’ve learned long ago that it’s a complete waste of time to argue/debate religion with anyone, so I’ve sort of taken the “You are free to believe what you want to believe and me, I believe in God” stance. I won’t try to convince anyone that He exists as long as they don’t try to convince me He doesn’t.
Any other inquiries on any other stances you want to know? Feel free to ask, although I’m afraid I might not be much help. As you can see, I don’t know about or care to know about many things. I’m very indifferent when it comes to most stances. Maybe you could say I’m an “On the Fence” person more than any of them, then…one who doesn’t care about either side. 
You didn’t put these issues in the post above, but if you’re wondering about how feel about different races: I’m not racist (far from it), same sex marriage: I’m strongly for it, and yes…that is also while being a full Christian who believes in God, and feminizm: I think it’s taken a bit out of control, but I do think that a woman can do anything a man can do and should have the right to do so.
…and as for voting, I can’t help you there either. I’ve never voted for anyone in my life. I never will either. I don’t care who president is. I have no opinion on it. It can be anyone and I wouldn’t care. I have not even registered to vote. I think it’s a waste of time and I always will.
And yes, you can raise the point of my being on Social Security and put it in the “So why don’t you vote then?”…but you will not be able to convince me that SSI will be cut any time during MY lifetime. I a realist and realistically, that’s not going to happen no matter who the president is. Even if it were/did, though, I wouldn’t care and it would still not make me care about voting. I haven’t been shy about this fact on these boards before either. [/spoiler]
Sooo…
Based on all of those viewpoints, what would I be classed as? : p Liberal? Conservative? Or neither, like I pointed out.
Sorry, Fotheringay, but your whole “it is a given that a mod’s politics will come into play when modding” is a complete fallacy. You can’t mod biasedly based on your politics if you don’t have any.
I did read your spoilered stuff and I will say, based on that, that you certainly meant “can’t” instead of “can” in your last sentence. Also, what you write is way more clear than anything FP has written.
Wow, yeah, I doubt your modding is influenced by your politics.
As I said earlier, it reveals more about those who say that such must influence moderation rather than those they accuse of it.
Only someone blinded by liberal bias could say that.
Frankly, I find it a shame that based on virtually zero evidence of bias, individual mods feel compelled to list their personal political beliefs. What’s next? A religion check?
11 pages? Really?
Mods, can you just ban BrainGlutton like you should have a looooooong time ago and end this? I’ll cover the link-only OPs and the Greg Palast links if that’s the only obstacle.
As for bias, I stopped caring a long time ago. If I don’t like what I see I can vote with my feet.
No, that comes after the circumcision check (for male moderators, that is).
And based on the “Forum Jump” tool, the Pit is that-a-way:
|
|
|
V
I don’t think it must influence moderation, but speaking as a liberal who is used to other sites, this place is extremely liberal, and the conservatives get attacked way more than the liberals do, and it seems to me the mods are a little faster to jump on attacks of liberals.
I can’t prove that, can’t provide cites, and may be generalizing from a single instance in a single thread. But I do remember thinking “gee, I would moderate that as an insult” (directed towards a conservative) and later thinking, “gee, I wouldn’t have moderated that” (directed towards a liberal). And I am routinely criticised by conservatives for moderating with a liberal bias.
So I am sympathetic to the conservatives who are complaining. Despite disagreeing with them politically. 
I don’t agree.
I argue that this is a fair example of the kind of thing I’m talking about.
I’m discussing (with some fear that the attempt will be penalized as violation of mid instructions) the moderation decision, not the bickering itself.
But here it is. It was a dig against me, I know that mods saw it, and it gets no action at all, despite following a mod note to stop bickering.
Yet i can’t hit back in like manner, can it?
What are you talking about? DSeid’s remark about “Brickering”? Because that’s the only remark I can see that might be taken as a dig against you that was made after engineer’s instruction to stop bickering. Did you really expect us to mod that? You really feel compelled to “hit back” because someone used your name in a somewhat snarky manner?
Sometimes we decide not to mod things because they are so petty that they’re better ignored. You might try to do the same.
Or you can continue to think it wasn’t modded because of your politics, instead of because it was just too lame.
Sure. Except that when I ignore a mod note, then I’ll get a warning. And then someone will say, “Well, look at the warnings he accumulated; of course he was banned. There’s no bias.”
I think it’s the holistic view of the sequence. In post 516 that is clearly a dig, but it’s given a note, generally. The point was raised earlier in this thread, and in others. The hypothesis is that borderline infractions tend to go more towards mod notes than warnings more often when the person in question has views that align with the moderators. Over time, this leads to less warnings, and therefore less bannings of people whose views align with the moderation. So while individual actions of bannings are based on the history of past warnings which seem to support the bannings, those warnings themselves are the product of moderation that is impacted by alignment of views between posters and moderators.
At this point I think it’s a weak hypothesis - but it seems like you’re talking past each other.
Well here’s the thing. If you asked me about, 2-3 years ago, about unconscious bias, I would have scoffed at the very idea. But after Ferguson, there was a lot of discussion about how unconscious bias can influence decision making in all aspects of daily lives. Without going into detail, I was persuaded that such a thing exists, is widely prevalent, and does have an impact on decision making in lots of very small ways. I don’t know what to do with that really, but there it is.
The idea that we all as humans have unconscious bias based on the totality of our own experiences is not controversial, I think. So that as a given, it’s also not a stretch for me to believe that moderators are among the group that has their own unconscious biases. What is yet to be demonstrated, IMO, is if the impact of those biases are influencing decision making in any kind of significant way. I think it’s a fair question, but I don’t think there would be any way to really measure it in this context.
You would only be ignoring the mod note if you retaliated against DSeid by taking a personal dig at him, which is what you implied what you wanted to do (“hit back”). You can still continue to discuss moderation.
If you want, you can make one snarky reference to DSeid’s username to get even. But no “nonny-nonny-boo-boos.”
Frankly, the fact that you’re taking something so trivial as evidence of bias against you calls into question you’re perception of everything else.
That’s a great summary.
If I had posted the kind of post 516 was, immediately after a mod had said, “No bickering,” that factual record would clearly support a warning. I would have little sympathy for any complaint about the warning; it would be an obvious ignoring of mod instructions.
But 516 gets nothing. Not even a note. The note to avoid bickering preceded 516.
Now I must comment about how skewed Bricker’s perceptions are. I hope that this falls under “discussing the moderation.” I had dutifully kept my mouth shut but if others are going to characterize the interactions discussed then I feel justified in commenting as well.
My experience of Bricker’s post#515 was one of him using a less than forthright debating technique of refusing to answer direct questions and reacting to being called out on an answer that was at best an evasion by making a false accusation about me: “you are not reading what I write and are simply demanding repeated answers as a kind of attrition strategy.”
My response was a criticism of that, to me, unacceptable posting behavior, not an insult of Bricker. But it is indeed very accurate to my read that what he was doing is what politicians do all the time … evade and not answer a question. And that indeed he was not doing it well. Is that across the line? I would not have thought so. Honestly I thought I kept it pretty light given that a false charge was being made against me as an evasionary tactic.
But moderation felt that we had begun to bicker … fine. I acknowledged it with a wee bit of silly. Another poster says something about me. I do not respond as the note was to drop it.
“Brickering” as an insult rather than a small silly riff? Only if you are thinking that “to Bricker” automatically means “to do something bad.” If you think that Bricker then I suggest you work on your self-esteem. And if you note I have stated several positive things about your posting behavior previously in this thread. My disappointment at the tactic you had employed is greater precisely because I do not think that “to Bricker” is something that would be “bad” and I hope for more ethical debating from you.
Sure … have a riff about “DSeiding badly” … about “no need to take this outside to the Pit, or even DSeid to the Pit.” Same level of silly little aside that would not make me laugh but might give me a small smile briefly at the corner of my mouth. I am sometimes easily amused.
But to see yourself as pure and to read “Brickering” as ignoring an instruction to stop bickering is to me evidence of the distorted lens that you view moderation here through.
No, you would not have gotten a warning (and I do think bickering was addressed to both of us) for acknowledging the note with one of those DSeid riffs and I would never in a thousand years think of either of them as a swipe at me. Making false accusations about me … yes that I read as playing dirty and take offense at … riffing silly on my “name” … not.
e_c_g’s “no bickering” is post 517.
ETA- I was replying to the post before DSeid’s post above.
Conservative Posters Matter!