Why has my question been so butchered that now it is necessary to post a dis-avowal due to excessive edits

Question

I have been participating on SE review queues since long before many users of this beta site. I am well aware of how to post a good question and answer.

I wrote what is being labeled a "controversial question". I am also being told it was a good question. The count of Up-votes v. Down-votes is a good indication of the polarization of the site.

All of that said, I am being accused of pushing an agenda. What I am seeing is older users pushing their agenda riding on my question.

The answers have little to do with my original question, which has been butchered out of recognition.

It now adheres to the answers, most of which did not address the original question.

I asked a political question: with possibly 2 exceptions, what I got were regurgitations of medical double-talk.

I am now dis-avowing the question: it has been bent so out of shape I do not recognize it.

Answer 1

I wrote what is being labeled a "controversial question". I am also being told it was a good question. The count of Up-votes v. Down-votes is a good indication of the polarization of the site.

I added the controversial post notice. Note that this is not in any way meant as a way to bring the question into disrepute. Instead, it is merely an instruction to other users who may see the question as an opportunity to start a discussion in the comments. See also: Moderators marking answers as “controversial”? for context.

---

All of that said, I am being accused of pushing an agenda. What I am seeing is older users pushing their agenda riding on my question.

The reason for this appears to be because you quoted (or paraphrased? I'm not sure where the quote originated) a conservative pundit referring to a "weeding out" process. Those words may have seemed to put words into the mouths of conservatives. That's a dangerous thing to do for a number of reasons:

• You may be quoting out of context

• It may seem as though you're saying what conservatives are thinking even though this may be a fringe opinion

---

The answers have little to do with my original question, which has been butchered out of recognition.

As one of the answerers I took your original question to mean 'why does one party in power go through all these lengths to vaccinate people who are very reluctant to being vaccinated?'. I argue that that's still a political answer on the grounds that it's reasoned from a public-health perspective.

---

It now adheres to the answers, most of which did not address the original question.

I asked a political question: with possibly 2 exceptions, what I got were regurgitations of medical double-talk.

I disagree. I would argue that your political question may be answered from a nonpartisan public health perspective. An apolitical public health official might give similar nonpartisan answers if the people in power would ask them why they should "fight so hard to vaccinate" those who are reluctant.

---

Why has my question been so butchered?

I think most of the edits are from well-meaning users trying to improve your question. A stated earlier, there were votes to close your question as pushing an agenda. That's not criticizing you personally, it's a criticism of the question and the way it is or was phrased.

See also Machavity's answer to A full and objective description of good faith?. Your question may contain opinionated assertions (depending on one's reading of the question) and that may cause users to be upset or close the question. Examples of such assertions:

• anti-science Republicans

• Many conservative news agencies are harping on vaccinations as a 'form of control' or even detrimental to the natural "weeding out " process..

Personally, I think the question is worth asking and answering because there's useful information to be given from a public health perspective. There may also be interesting political analyses. Nevertheless, I think it would be very helpful if there question could phrased in less inflammatory language. On the other hand, I also understand that you need some assertion as that's important context for your question.

Answer 2

(I might as well give my reasons since I am the primary guilty party here)

Your original formulation seemed quite judgmental towards conservatives and got a lot of pushback. Most objectionable, to my view, was the suggestion that Dems could just "let conservative voters die off".

To quote your exact words:

I know this is horrible to say, but wouldn't that "weeding out" process result in fewer Republicans voting in 2022? Or at least wiser and smarter constituents?

Rather than editing myself, which I avoid most of the time, I suggested a removal, but you did perfunctory edits at most, resulting in, at your last iteration:

I know this is horrible to say, but wouldn't that "weeding out" process possibly result in citizens voting left-wing in 2022? i.e. older, wiser and better-informed constituents?

The question got closed and I tried to salvage it. I did this by linking to a Fox article quoting Tucker Carlson rather than some Newsmaxx quack, and tried to remove your attempts at shifting blame to conservatives in your question. Attempts which probably caused all those downvotes and close votes.

Is this the best reformulation? Possibly not. And I apologize for changing the question's original intent, whether or not that intent was good or not. Like I said, I don't like editing people and, like you, I feel a strong sense of ownership towards my questions. I did not do this lightly and my profile has a very limited history of edits, I usually stick to VTC/VTD.

I got pushback on several of my edits. However my edits wouldn't have been necessary in the first place if you hadn't been so intent on politicizing a public health policy question. The fact that it is a governmental policy question makes it worthwhile for SE.Po, not the fact that you felt the need to blame Republicans and conservatives and phrased it accordingly.

Note also that, aside from myself, there were 3 other answers that explained policy rationale for pushing vaccinations to reluctant populations, without mentioning political parties, starting from your original formulation.

Last, to quote your meta question:

What I am seeing is older users pushing their agenda riding on my question.

Let's not play the naive 500 rep user game here. You have plenty of rep on other sites of this exchange, you know questions can get pushback if they show evidence of bias, it should not have to be explained to you.

Answer 3

For context, the original post read:

Why are Democrats fighting so hard to vaccinate anti-science Republicans?

Many conservative news agencies are harping on vaccinations as a 'form of control' or even detrimental to the natural "weeding out " process..

Why are Democrats fighting so hard to protect the health of the reluctant?

I know this is horrible to say, but wouldn't that "weeding out" process result in fewer Republicans voting in 2022? Or at least wiser and smarter constituents?

When this was posted, it read

Why are governments fighting so hard to vaccinate the reluctant?

Many conservative news agencies are harping on vaccinations as a 'form of social control' or even detrimental to the natural "weeding out " process..

Why is it so important to protect the health of the reluctant? What, if any, is the public interest in strongly promoting societal choices to adult individuals?

Without commenting on the other changes, I downvoted simply as the tooltip directs: "This question does not show any research effort," as why governments would want anyone to get a vaccine is quite easy to find.

I can also see why someone would have downvoted based on the suggestion that Democrats should just let their political rivals die.

Answer 4

This answer will only attempt to answer a portion of the question, as the rest is already covered. I will be attempting to answer:

The count of Up-votes v. Down-votes is a good indication of the polarization of the site.

Well... yes. Some people think your question is good, some people don’t. It’s really that simple. However, before saying this is a good indication of the polarization of this site, maybe consider that your question could have been really polarizing, and that perhaps you could have phrased it in a less polarizing way?

Answer 5

If you ask me, the problem with your original question is that you've conflated moral reasoning with political reasoning. In other words, if someone were to ask the basic question:

Why don't political leaders allow tens of thousands of people to die?

A moral answer will have nothing to do with the political orientation or party membership of the people potentially dying, while a purely political answer will be intractably anti-moral.

It may be a fact of life that mass deaths would tend to advantage one political interest over another. But only authoritarian nationalists and organized sociopaths think about leveraging that as an explicit political tactic, because it is inherently inhumane.

Answer 6

If you truly wish for your post to be dis-vowed, you can contact Stack Exchange and request for it to be anonymized, and they might do it if they believe that it is worthwhile. Another option (if you’re resigning from the site) is to delete your account.

Answer 7

I don't see the major difference between the original text and the current edition - a rogue edit that added some weird links which were rolled back aside.

The question began as and is currently asking about the motives behind efforts to raise vaccination rates over the objections of vaccine-opposed individuals.

To the extent that you feel the current version is irreconcilable to the original question, I would say it is because the intent of your original question was not apparent to people reading it.

I don't know the policy about trying again, but I'd give a long think about what the specific thing you're asking about is and re-write a question to isolate to that.