Ideological Balance in WE&P

i refer to the current moderation of course
we have the left wing represented by one individual, hype; while the right wing has two...string and mad.

i find this unacceptable in a forum as contentious as we&p is.
either appoint another mod to complement hype or remove one of the other two

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This need is supported by?

~String

Note: not that I wouldn't appreciate another mod. I, in particular, generally avoid the quota system, but I'd be more concerned with the promotion of another lady over one of any particular ideology.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Given the left wing leaning of this site, I think having the one subforum leaning right is only fair, in order to avoid the accusation that the moderation of political discussion on sciforums is unfair.

 

Well, in theory, sure ....

In theory, yes, but we threw that out, as far as WE&P are concerned, years ago. All three current moderators are, to varying degrees, products of the political quota system we followed in order to present the appearance of political balance.

This was, originally, a concession to dissatisfied members who happened to be of conservative political inclinations.

 

It hardly leans "right" anyway.

In terms of measurement of the mean political leaning of people--in general--I'm actually more left of center on social issues and slightly right of center on economic issues.

Hype is decidedly left. Mad is obviously right.

It's pretty balanced.

If we judge the political location of a moderator, who do we use as a goal post? Gustav, Ice and Tiassa? Most people are to the right of them. Buffalo, Mad and Geoff? Most people are to the left of them.

I'm okay with another moderator, but only in the sense that we should have another moderator to handle the workload and NOT to create some balance within the force.

~String

 

Wow, that’s interesting and heartening to hear.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

But given Americans’ rabid deranged unfounded wacky fear of anything that even remotely resembles socialism, it seems to me that an American’s idea of being “left-of-centre” is actually still quite right-leaning compared to the rest of the world.

 

The whole world? Every nation?

And your ad hom usage of the term "rabid deranged unfounded" is itself prejudicial.

If you read what I wrote with a little more care, you'd see that I state that mys social views are left of center and my economic views are right of center. Socialism is significantly more "economic" than social, so it would fall into the obvious "right of center" category that I previously stated.

Where, pray tell, do you think my social viewpoints fall? You know: religion, gay marriage, abortion, militarism, female rights, etc? Left or right of the world's average view on these issues?

~String

 

Actually, I don't believe there's anyone one on the forum to the left of me. I'm just very forgiving of right-winger's politics. We could narrow it down to specific areas, of course.

 

Damn you!!
I was just looking for a post of yours to quote to make that very point. And I'd just found it, too!
Grrr.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Which one was it?

I'm a bit more laid back, I guess. But if you flip open your copy of the Little Red Book to about any page, you'll find me agreeing. Not so much into bayonetting, of course. The dialectic dictates that society will become socialist eventually anyway, and the 20th century supports this.

 

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2600614&postcount=383

Or even:

In response to (Who here is a socialist?"
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2565747&postcount=9
A statement you reiterated a couple of posts later...

GeoffP is the Red menace.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

No, on average. I’ve lived in a few countries, the USA being one of them. I’ve never encountered an unfounded resistance/fear/resentment of socialist principles (even vague ones) like I have in the USA.

Not necessarily. I would say that issues like welfare, medicine and healthcare, maternity entitlements, insurance etc. could be said to be equally social and economic issues. But that’s merely my opinion.

It really wasn’t my intension to insult you or start an argument, so if I’ve done so I apologise. I was simply relating my experience of Americans. I typically found American society to be a somewhat conservative and right-leaning on both social and economic areas compared to the other countries with which I have experience (viz. Commonwealth countries). That’s all. If my wording has riled you and/or I’ve misjudged you to your annoyance, then again I apologise.

 

I'm the unmenacing Red Menace.

The Red Suggestion.

I would even go so far as to say the Passionate Red Suggestion, but that sounds sticky, which we can't have.

Although, conversely, I'm also fairly antidisestablishmentarian. I realize that's kind of a conflict in a revolutionary. I'm conflicted. Must be the English thing. I know what kind of dictator I would be, but just don't trust these little neo-Marxist punks.

 

Marx on Marxism, or something like that

One of the problems of neo-Marxism is that it doesn't attend Marx carefully enough. As much as I adore the old, philosophical fool, I must always bear in mind one of his most important lessons. Sometime in his later years, he reportedly explained, "One thing I know for certain is that I am no Marxist."

Point taken, Karl.

 

Which supports my assertion that there is no reason to promote someone to mod based upon ideological balance.

Now, if we have another one added because of other reasons, then perhaps it's worth considering.

~String

 

No. You're here because you have a nice rack.

~String

 

Oh. But really. Presumably you're here because of the same reason why the rest of us are here: you're qualified.

That said, there's no reason to avoid having a qualified female mod if the opportunity arises.

~String