This answer was deleted for being spam or rude or abusive.
What specific content was spam or rude or abusive?
-
@divibisan: You are welcome to explain your vote to close here if you like.– Rain WillowCommented Mar 21, 2020 at 22:03
-
@Alexei: You are welcome to explain your vote to close here if you like.– Rain WillowCommented Mar 21, 2020 at 22:03
-
@CDJB: You are welcome to explain your vote to close here if you like.– Rain WillowCommented Mar 21, 2020 at 22:04
-
Why is this question getting downvoted?– Rain WillowCommented Mar 22, 2020 at 0:28
-
6On meta, up and down votes indicate whether people agree with the question. So getting downvotes means that people change with your premise that there is a problem with your answer being deleted. I.e. they address saying they agreed with deleting that answer.– PhillSCommented Mar 22, 2020 at 7:45
-
2Just as an FYI, the answer wasn't deleted as rude. Someone flagged it as rude (given the score, possibly multiple people), but that wasn't what did it in, or it would have been deleted by Community. Instead, it was deleted by 3 trusted users which sustained the flags and hid the post, but not in an irreversible way. It's a minor distinction, but you didn't get a -100 rep hit from being flagged out.– MachavityCommented Mar 24, 2020 at 0:03
-
@Machavity: Here's the point. IMO, this incident appears to reveal that certain people appear to be motivating their votes and the exercise of their moderator privileges based on wether they agree with the political opinion expressed in the answer. And they are abusing the rules of this site in order to justify doing so. I think an objective analysis of the evidence now available for all to see would support that conclusion.– Rain WillowCommented Mar 24, 2020 at 0:15
-
@PhillS: There are multiple responses that say the question was not rude or abusive. So why would people agree that is was? And why would they do so without answering the question as to why it was? It appears political opinions are motivating the conduct of users of this site as it relates to enforcing the "rules" instead of the actual rules of the site. That's how it appears to me, anyway.– Rain WillowCommented Mar 24, 2020 at 0:19
-
@Machavity: There's a -100 rep hit for getting flagged deleted rather than community deleted?– Denis de BernardyCommented Mar 26, 2020 at 14:33
-
@DenisdeBernardy Discussed in detail on Meta.SE. Skip to the section "What effects do these flags have on a post?"– MachavityCommented Mar 26, 2020 at 14:40
Add a comment
|
2 Answers
My objection: you rather gratuitously dropped "Kung FLu" in there, something that even Trump was skittish to endorse. Yes, you did that under the pretext of showing us the horrible "media bias". O RLY?
As @tim reminded me, the post also contained the questionable phrase "Hollywood elite cabal — which includes many members of the media". Yes there was literally a Hollywood group involved in making that ad (the relevance of which I also didn't quite see in the context of the question), but do you have to use the "cabal" pejorative to describe that group? (How is that different from referring to Trump's supporters as "deplorables"?) A well known actor put his face in that ad, so that doesn't strike me as particularly secretive, which is the literal meaning of "cabal". Furthermore, the whole expression can give the impression you're making a wink-wink anti-Semitic statement by linking the "Hollywood cabal" to "many members of the media". To quote you Wikipedia on this:
One antisemitic cliché is that "the Jews control the media" and Hollywood.
The fact that you chose to do all this in a post about racism and stereotypes is either incredibly insensitive or "rubbing it in your faces".
I should add that someone else (user Kevin) has now posted an answer that is similar in spirit to yours, namely that the US media, supposedly previously impervious to any racism in terms like "Wuhan virus" back in Jan-Feb, is now extremely outraged when Trump uses a similar term. Unlike your answer, Kevin's has overall positive [up]votes, so one can make a claim quite similar to yours (essentially that media bias against Trump is largely responsible for the controversy) without getting into odd turns of the phrase and/or dropping in any unnecessarily controversial "martial arts" terms.
For clarification (given objections below to this addition): I'm not saying that Kevin's answer is necessarily/substantively a good answer. (For example, it did not back up its assertions with any data/links etc.) I'm just saying I personally could not justify flagging Kevin's answer as "rude and abusive", which I've actually had done with Rain Willow's.
answered Mar 21, 2020 at 22:16
-
1"Kung flu" was a direct quote from the reporter who asked the question. I had to quote it because the offensive nature of the phrasing of the question the reporter asked was the point I was making. I formatted the quote to make it clear those words were not mine but came from the reporter. I even gave the reporter's name and provided a link to the source of the quote which also includes a video clip of her. Just to clarify. Are you saying you mistakingly thought the words were my words? Or are you saying it is rude to directly quote the reporter who used the words when asking a question? Commented Mar 21, 2020 at 22:21
-
4@RainWillow: no I didn't make any such mistake. Commented Mar 21, 2020 at 22:23
-
Then by what logic should this answer, the one we are currently commenting to, be allowed to stay up? Because you also included the words "Kung flu" here in your answer too. So shouldn't this comment be deleted too? Why should one comment come down and the other say up? What's the difference? Or do you have two standards? "One for me and one for thee?" Commented Mar 21, 2020 at 23:24
-
7@RainWillow: If I need to spell it out, here I used that term to be unambiguous what I'm objecting to. Yes I could have used an euphemism instead like "that racist derivative of a martial arts term". But since you seem to need so much spoon feeding, you would have probably asked me WTF am I talking about, and I would have had to use the term anyway, so I just cut to the chase. In contrast, the mainsite question was not at all about "Kung FLu", so there was no need for you to drop that term in there. That you chose to illustrate the "media bias" against Trump with that was your choice. Commented Mar 22, 2020 at 6:51
-
The exact same logic that you applied to justify your words also directly apply to mine. The exact same reason you use to object to my use of the terms also directly applies to your use of the term. The problem begins when you try to police language that is clearly someone else's not mine. And you compound the problem by applying a double standard. And you further compound the problem by seeking to justify your double standard. Commented Mar 22, 2020 at 7:23
-
5@RainWillow: This page doesn't get thousands of views, unlike the HNQ'd mainsite question. What you did was the equivalent of putting a racist bumper sticker on your car. (Yeah, if you really insist on that distinction it's like having a racist bumper sticker quote on your car.) What I did was to tell you (almost) in private what is wrong with that particular sticker. Commented Mar 22, 2020 at 7:24
-
5See also the last edit about a "Hollywood elite cabal — which includes many members of the media" (wink wink nudge nudge). Conspiracy theories about the "Hollywood elite" and "the media"? Check. Explicitly linking it to a (((cabal)))? Check. The post was low-quality before and didn't actually answer the question, so deletion seemed fine. With the edits unnecessarily including racist & antisemitic terms, I also agree with the deletion as rude or abusive.– timCommented Mar 22, 2020 at 11:21
-
@tim: yes I saw that before and I did get the weird impression too, but at least in that case there was literally a Hollywood group that put out that ad (of course calling it a "cabal" is a pejorative even if no other implication was intended). Commented Mar 22, 2020 at 11:24
-
Please do not use the "other answer" as a 'positive example' here. The other one is unbelievably terrible as well. No sources, shifting goalposts around strawmen, mere assertions, to be apologetic towards DJT… A close reading of 'the other' is like staring into a pit. A very dark and sticky stinky one. Commented Mar 24, 2020 at 12:24
-
@LаngLаngС: I'm just saying that that one "passed the smell test" of not being "rude and abusive". That it might be substantively a bad answer is a somewhat different matter. And yeah, I was a bit skeptical of its claims. Commented Mar 24, 2020 at 12:25
-
1Right. But is your goal here really "so you want to avoid RA flags and still write a bad answer?" May depend on what you mean with "spirit" here. I read that spirit' perhaps as too much along the points I listed, which I find unacceptable wholesale. But if you mean with it just "'media bias' against DJT is real!" is an acceptable venue, it still needs much better evidence than found in either answer, no matter how sophistic that would need to be. Commented Mar 24, 2020 at 12:32
I voted to delete this answer as in my opinion it does not answer the question in the post title; "Why is Trump dubbing COVID-19 as the “Chinese virus” considered offensive, while many past epidemics have had similar naming schemes?". Instead it comes across to me as a rant which, although it provides an explanation as to why Trump uses this term, it does not give consideration to why it may be considered offensive.
I did not flag the answer as spam or being rude or abusive, I just don't find it provides an answer to the question.
See the help center on deleting answers that don't answer the question/should be a comment.
-
4But I stated in my answer that the question had a false premise — that it was offensive. Then I explained why and what was really going on from my perspective. Are we not allowed to challenge the premise of a question? Or must we accept every premise of every question we attempt to answer? Commented Mar 22, 2020 at 0:09
-
@RainWillow the correct place to do that is in a comment, not in an answer.– CDJB ModCommented Mar 22, 2020 at 0:12
-
So, therefore, we must never challenge any premise of any question we answer. We can only challenge premises as comments but never in an answer where it is possible to explain why the premise is false. To be clear: Is that your position? And is that your understanding of the rules of this site? Commented Mar 22, 2020 at 0:18
-
@RainWillow If you think the question is unanswerable because of a false premise, you shouldn't post an answer to a different question that wasn't asked.– CDJB ModCommented Mar 22, 2020 at 0:19
-
1I didn't post an answer to a different question that wasn't asked. I directly answered the question that was asked by challenging the premise. You are shifting your position on this topic under cross-examination. You do concede the point that I was challenging the premise in my answer do you not? I stated rather clearly that is what I was doing and I provided many justifications for the premise challenge. So, please, let's be clear because you seem to be making mutually conflicting statements. So, to be clear, are you saying that we must always accept every premise of every question we answer? Commented Mar 22, 2020 at 0:24
-
"Doesn't answer" might be a vlid reason to down vote, it is NOT a reason to delete. And frame challenges are explicitly allowed as valid answers.– SjoerdCommented Mar 22, 2020 at 12:57
-
4@Sjoerd the help center for this privilege states otherwise. Stack exchange is for questions and answers not for discussions.– CDJB ModCommented Mar 22, 2020 at 13:23
-
1@CDJB Where did I speak about discussions? A frame challenge is not the same as a discussion. See also this meta post about frame challenges: politics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3916/8912– SjoerdCommented Mar 22, 2020 at 14:05
-
6@Sjoerd as I've explained, I don't agree that the post is a useful answer to the question, and additionally, I disagree that it provides a useful frame challenge. Therefore I voted to delete it. If you disagree, you can vote to undelete it, but I think we will have to agree to disagree on this.– CDJB ModCommented Mar 22, 2020 at 14:15