As an example, below the answers to this
we witness some comments that are really in a very strange relationship to the post they are attached to.
There are two comments, one highly upvoted, that link to the Wikipedia page about the NSDAP party programme. Both comments and comment-voters seem to think that the page would prove anything, in favour of their world view.
So I edit my answer, making it even longer, to prove that this programme is not corroborating, with multiple example, quoted, cited, sourced and linked. Yet, these comments still get a lot of upvotes, despite the link itself, in that comment that forms the basis of their 'proof' clearly saying that most points of the programme were irrelevant in practice.
That looks quite crazy to me.
How should one react on this site to this level of ignorance?
(In the example given it seems to me that edits to address this "problem" were not only insufficient, but downright counterproductive. An immediate flag would be probably declined. But people reading that answer 'not liking it' – including for reasons that technically should not be a basis for voting on SE; despite us knowing to be the case all the time – get further reinforcement from these comments?)
Note, for this example, this comment:
 on Hitler being "no socialist at all" and "influenced by capitalism." He was certainly no communist, but I can't see how any serious reading of NSDAP's own platform, let alone understanding of the extent to which industry was nationalized under the Third Reich and profiteering/materialism was demonized could possibly lead one to the conclusion that Hitler was somehow a proponent of capitalism.
is the strangest one. I first ignored it as non-sensical and only included another aspect addressing it after it received >10 upvotes. As far as I remember, I posted this meta question when it hit 19 upvotes and it now stands at 22.