Why wouldn’t he? There is far more to this board than political debate and in fact I would argue that GQ is the crown jewel here. And even if Bricker confined himself to GD and Elections there is much to be said for defending the minority viewpoint against vociferous majority opinion.
Sounds like you’ve built yourself a strawman. This is not primarily about racial animus, it’s about skewing the voting demographics, but blacks are overwhelmingly caught up in the voter ID net. The party that stands to benefit from such skewing is, not coincidentally, the party that is pushing for those laws. Would you be prepared to argue that voter ID laws would NOT politically benefit Republicans? Would you be prepared to argue that Republicans are NOT pushing for those laws? Would you be prepared to argue that there is NOT a significant body of evidence and informed opinion from political observers about this connection?
Because you would be wrong. The political motivations of voter ID laws have been well substantiated. Certainly to the point that no one could rationally regard it as a “fringe” opinion, and therefore your analogy is bunk, and so is your complaint.
Political jabs from conservatives in GQ lead to hijacks because so many posters decline to accept them as obvious truth.
Regards,
Shodan
That’s a good argument for not using the standard of “it didn’t lead to a hijack” for moderating posts. Since this board skews considerably left, political posts coming from the left are much less likely to be challenged than those coming from the right. We actually see that all the time.
Or maybe we’re seeing a difference in what is being reported to the mods when it comes to left-wing posters vs. right-wing posters, or maybe one side tends to quietly report to the mods while the other side tends to start threads which mods may or may not see, or maybe…?
Are you suggesting that a facially neutral rule that has a disparate negative impact on one group should be rejected because of the impact alone? 
I admire your principles.
Both from GQ, within the last three weeks.
That’s easy. That comment at least relates to Reconstruction and the Election of 1876. Hari’s comment does not.
I’m sure there is a difference, which is much of the issue. A right-wing political jab is going to get reported a lot more than a left-wing one - there are a lot more left-wingers, and it’s only natural to challenge non-fact-based arguments when they come from the other side.
Regards,
Shodan
Did you report them?
Regards,
Shodan
Irrelevant. I’m not complaining about them. I don’t care about them, to be honest, and i’m not arguing that the mods should have done anything about them.
But the OP is complaining about someone else’s political comment in GQ, and claims to be doing so not on the grounds of political preference, but on the principle that political opinions are inappropriate in GQ.
It appears that it might be one of those “Do as i say, and not as i do” principles.
A few comments.
One, those posts were late in the thread and somewhat related to the direction the thread had taken. The first example was in a discussion of whether or not SCs have by virtue of their arguments given up citizenship and if so how to deal with the statelessness problem. The second example was talking about the difficulty with a strict reading of the Constitution and how judges would deal with the situation. Hari’s comment was political but even ignoring that it had nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Two, did anyone report my posts?
Three, had they been reported and a mod said, “Hey this is a little much for GQ.” I would have accepted that.
Four (and IMHO the most important), there are a few topics on this site that breed hijacks and irrational discussion. I don’t think either of my post fall in that category but paper towel tubes, voter ID and Trump do fall in that category so mods should pay extra close attention when they come up.
So tell ya what, go ahead and report those posts and lets see what happens.
Like Shodan, you appear to mistake my intent.
I posted those examples not as a criticism of the moderators. I don’t really have a problem with either of your posts. But there is no doubt that they are political
You claim, in this thread, to be taking a principled stand against political comments in GQ. You are also suggesting that the failure of the moderators to act on your report is a problem, because the post you reported was one of a type of post that “breed hijacks and irrational discussion.”
But your whole argument here is a completely subjective one. There are plenty of political observations that can breed hijacks, and it’s certainly not limited to posts about Trump or voter ID. I’ve seen a whole variety of seemingly innocuous posts lead to hijacks on this forum.
Basically, your position here seems to be: political observations are OK in GQ, except when they aren’t, and Saint Cad should be the arbiter of when that is.
The sun does rise in the east.
From a certain point of view, to borrow Obi-Wan’s caveat. All observations about motion depend upon a frame of reference. Here, your frame of reference accepts certain statements as unremarkable; mine regards those same statements as political propaganda.
I don’t think it would be fair to require GQ mods to react independently to notice and snuff out such statements. But after one is brought to their attention, I think it’s fair to ask that some effort to provide a frame of reference that is as politically neutral as lies within their power.
Disclaimer: I have a (leftward) bias on political matters, but I tried my best to approach this question fairly. (I am fairly new to the SDMB, so I’m not overly familiar with the minutae of the forum rules and the history of their enforcement. I’m hesitant to dive into this particular stream, with so much water under so many bridges, but here goes nothin’.)
I think Hari’s comment was relevant to a big chunk of the comment he replied to, specifically this part:
Hari’s followup comment is an elaboration based on how Hari understands the relationship between the politics of 1876 and today.
The voter ID statement’s truth can be argued (endlessly), but I don’t see it as much of a political “crack” or “jab” or whatever. It might be wrong, or too far off-topic for GQ, but in itself it doesn’t seem … cheap, as in a cheap political shot, which is how I read posters’ objections to it.
Yes indeed. If you contort and make up an incredibly complicated framework to justify your preconceived notions, sure, you can find a way in which you’re technically correct. But it’s not the simplest or clearest explanation for the phenomena, and it’s not one that you’d reach if you’re evaluating the phenomenon independently, rather than bound within your own very specific position.
The analogy continues to work :).
What exactly does this mean? Are you asking for some sort of artificial equality where, if there a three moddings on one side there must be 3 on the other?
The problem with sloppy argument: it’s sloppy. Each statement you have made is more or less true: blacks are more affected by Voter ID laws (although not overwhelmingly; the correct statement is that poor people are more affected and there is a correlation between poverty and lack of ID much more “overwhelming” than the racial one). The ID laws will benefit Republicans for the same reason: poor people tend to vote Democratic. Republicans are pushing the laws, yes. And there is a “significant body” of commentary about these connections, but much of it ill-formed and intended to boost Democrats’ goals rather than dispassionately analyze.
Yet even though each statement is substantially true, the conclusion that was urged upon the reader in the offending post concerning the racial aspect is not solid. The issue is much more solidly described as one affecting poor people, and even then, the Republicans are arguing for a law that makes sense AND happens to benefit them, as opposed to the conclusion you urge forward, which is that they are arguing for the law BECAUSE it happens to benefit them.
Regardless: the debate above proves, or should prove, that a bland assertion about either my claim or yours being inarguably correct does not belong in GQ unchallenged.
Not to answer for JM, but I’m alleging a chilling effect from the combination of a bright-line rule in GQ and disparate enforcement of that rule. I don’t dare make these kinds of comments in GQ; I would get warned, and there would be no defense. My post would have been violative of the rule.
But a liberal poster has no such worries.
Saying this over and over again doesn’t really impress me. Why not give us some examples of what you are claiming? If the situation is that unbalanced, it should be easy enough to point out.