Tag Info

While I personally don't think that the answer is necessarily the best answer provided so far (I personally didn't vote on it and upvoted a different one), I don't agree that it does not answer the question. It starts with: A new*, deliberately pejorative, term to describe an old phenomenon, that of pressuring individuals or companies through the media when ...

It is understandable when some users do not believe that Donald Trump is a reliable source, because he has repeatedly been caught making false statements in the past. That does not mean that everything Trump said is automatically wrong, but it also shows that not every statement he makes should be believed without any skepticism. Further, the answer claims ...

I don't think we could really do anything specific about it. There is no way for us to tell a paid government agent apart from a loyalist citizen who just loves their government and considers it their duty to defend its interests. Trying to do so would just lead to a witch hunt. However, the damage caused by people who think that Politics.SE is an ...

Let me break this down as to where you went wrong and how you can get it right in the future Mexico paying for the wall by tariffs is not my invention, it's absolutely endorsed by the White House and the president himself. Being the president, he speaks on behalf of the country. The Trump administration consistently insist the wall will be indirectly paid ...

The only objective way to answer this question is to provide the intended meaning used by the majority of people who use that term. By all means: find the objective survey that establishes how the majority of people use the term. I couldn't. What's easy enough to find is expert opinion that backs up the answer you say is not objective: In that usage, "...

Let's break down what you are claiming here: Unfortunately, some users are probably not aware of our rules. For instance, my answer received downvotes for no reason: Plenty of reasons were offered. You don't seem to agree with them. However, that's not the same as "for no reason." Mexico paying for the wall by tariffs is not my invention, it's ...

One thing I'd suggest is to re-evaluate whether it is truly necessary to include things that you know are opinion based. It won't really change anything. As Britain never really sheltert refugees, due to their geographic position and (Warning: opinion-based) xenophobic tendencies. Do we really need to know why Britain doesn't shelter many refugees in ...

I would go so far as to argue that the question is not even on topic as defined in the help center. Working Themselves Out: Processes are central to legislation is made. Questions seeking to understand the rules and processes by which policy is made in various legislatures or ruling bodies (inside and outside of the United States!) are wholly on topic Just ...

I don't think that opinion-based is the real problem here. The question should have been closed as unclear, as the comment you quote points out: I think you need to define "defend", "illegal" and "immigration". This also becomes obvious in the answers. This answer for example defines "defend illegal immigration" as "protects basic rights of illegal ...

Your issue is in assuming that citing the president, the white house or administration official sources count as "reliable sources". In fact, anything that the current american president has said is likely to need additional backup to be established as fact, especially since he has a widely and largely established practice of speaking complete falsities. ...

First of all, it helps to receive your news from a diverse number of sources. Every news outlet has some political leanings which do affect what they report on and how they report on it. So if you rely only on news sources which align with your political ideology (or even worse: only read what people with your political ideology share on the internet) you ...

Hypothetically, If we knew for certain that someone was posting here as a paid troll, then they would be banned. Sowing confusion is contrary to what we want to do here, and someone here for only that purpose is not likely to change their ways due to getting punished. Understand that's a very big "If". We are unlikely to actually be able to identify for ...

Part of the problem is that this site is part of SE network; and as such it's a victim of SE's atrocious Hot Network Questions (HNQ) process, whereas a swarm of people (from all over SE but numerically, mostly from StackOverflow) with often very little knowledge of a site's subject area descend on a specific question deemed "hot" (as distinct from "good"). ...

This is most probably a bad idea. Most probably you could not learn anything valuable from such a poll because: Not everybody will take part Not everyone will answer truthfully The community changes all the time and may be different tomorrow from today The attempt to learn something about a potential bias of the politics.stackexchange community by polling ...

I honestly think the question was fine. The controversy over that election was big enough news that it can hardly be considered a a fringe theory. You you didn't devote an unreasonable amount of the question to trying to convince us that it was unfair. Since the 2016 DNC controversy is the essence of your question, there really is no magic phrasing ...

Let's review the revision list for a moment We start off with this as your question (emphasis mine) Have there been any safeguards or special rule changes within the DNC to prevent a rigged or unfair primary process as with what happened to Bernie Sanders in the last election cycle? This isn't a good faith question because you're asserting that the ...

Here's my way for dealing with keeping my opinions out of an answer: First, I try to stay out of questions which can't have a truly non-opinionated answer. Often I'll vote to close them as too broad, unclear, not in good faith, or some other reason, or edit them to make the un-opinionated part clearer. The question you linked to is borderline as-is, and ...

There would be a good way to either corroborate or disprove this, it is to ask for the political leaning of the users. I was thinking about asking several questions on large issues (liberal/controlled/planned economy; liberal/conservative society; environmentalism; secularism; equality before the law; ... ) Ignoring other problems, remember that this is an ...

First rule of SE Questions is that should be constructive and based on an actual problem you face. So if the bias is proved or disproved what is the constructive purpose you wish to achieve? Then ask that question. "How can we best overcome X?" or "We may have an issue Y that is causing problem X, what can we do to assess if we need to make changes to ...

I suggest one guideline, which is used on History.SE, is questions formulated on the premise "When did you stop beating your wife?" should be disallowed. To even ask this, I must have a wife and be beating her. For example, the question "Is the reputation of Russia hurt by lying" is the same formulation. I think the principle extents to most partisan ...