17

When it comes to identifying the "argument from authority" fallacy, then there is one thing one needs to pay attention to: Is the author using the authority as a source for a fact or for an opinion? For example, let's take these two statements: According to this article from DailyDogMagazine, cats are the worst pets of all. According to this article from ...


15

If one claims that a source is untrustworthy, they need to provide some reason for that. Just calling them "fake news" is an ad-hominem argument and therefore of little weight. If someone uses a source you consider untrustworthy (in general or when it comes to a specific area of expertise), then you might want to use this as an opportunity to find a more ...


14

Yes. Politics is a bit on the chatty side, compared to other Stack Exchange sites. You will often stumble upon idle discussion in comments. However, we do follow the same general guidelines. If a comment doesn't do much to clarify or otherwise improve a post, it doesn't really belong here. If people wish to challenge the veracity of a source, they are ...


13

TL;DR: It looks like a good idea that might be worth trying. However, the way it is formulated, it looks half-baked and needs improvement before giving it a try. Although comments are second-class citizens of the Stack Exchange network, there is a wide variety of classes of arguably legit comments that do not belong to these two defines ones. Here are some ...


12

No, it is not. When you see a similar comment, please flag it as "rude or abusive". I took a look at the recently declined "rude or abusive" flags and found the comment quoted here under a question which got flagged as such. The flag was likely declined because the moderator who handled the flag read the question and found nothing rude or abusive about it (...


12

No. Comments lack the facilities to support proper answers. There are significant size and formatting constraints, no (public) revision history, and, quite importantly, comments cannot be downvoted. Partial answers, on the other hand, are okay. I don't see why we should use comments for them, just post them as regular answers.


11

I respectfully disagree. There are plenty of places on the Internet to get "chatty" about politics. We're trying to do something different. Many folks felt that Politics could not work within the Stack Exchange format. We saw it as a wonderful opportunity to create a unique resource that hasn't already been done thousands of times by every other site on the ...


10

You'll find similar wording for across SE -- it's not specific to Politics. The privilege to post a comment anywhere requires 50 rep. Before that you can only post comments in specific circumstances, such as replying to a comment on your own answer. In spirit, the whole point of not allowing newcomers to comment everywhere is to silence them until they've ...


9

The very effort that is being placed into comments would, most likely, be better positioned in an actual answer, rather than in comments. Comments are intended to be disposable - they are post-it notes. More importantly, comments are, to the best of my knowledge, not indexed by google. As such, to the rest of the world, they don't exist. For these ...


9

I'm not surprised that people don't want to bother reading certain parts of your answer. That answer is super long, and the prose is confusing. Frankly, I don't feel like reading it. See if you can make your answer shorter. Also make it simpler. Maybe then, people will bother reading it, and if they're reading it, maybe they won't leave comments about ...


9

As shown in your screenshot, the question specifically refers to free healthcare as "health for free" from payed [sic] taxes In other words, OP already knows that "free healthcare" is not actually free - especially since their profile indicates that they're from Spain, which also has "free" universal healthcare. So your comment was probably deleted as "...


8

The comment provides valid criticism to the first part of the answer, about Bill Clinton's associate. That part is a bit speculative and does not answer the question. The question asks about presidents, specifically. If that wasn't the case, it would probably get closed as either too broad or primarily opinion-based. The comment may not provide explicit ...


7

Your comment was: I just want to point out, for the sake of saving @indigochild some work, that "none of this provides a clear factual answer to the question". Given that your response to indigochild's comment in your answer was not particularly friendly, I read your comment as snarky and removed it. In any case, comments are ephemeral. Don't get ...


7

No No. Answers should be accepted if, in the OP's opinion, it is the best answer to their question. Comments are not a part of an answer. They are transitory elements that might eventually be deleted if they are no longer useful. If you accept an answer based on its comments, then what will you do once those comments are no longer available? Comments are ...


7

Comments are ephemeral by nature on the SE network. They can get deleted without notice at moderators' discretion, for any reason. In particular when they're chatty or turn into an extensive discussion. If you'd like to post something whose nature is more permanent, post an answer.


6

It sounds like you already know that comments are considered disposable and impermanent, so it seems silly to me that you would write something so important as a comment. I always think of comments like a construction I build on a beach at low tide. I'm not going to build anything too crazy because I know it very likely will get washed away in the near ...


5

No, we should not allow "fun" comments. The goal of this community is to provide factual answers to political questions from a neutral point of view. We want to generate content which can be considered an acceptable source of information regardless of one's political views. Unfortunately we aren't 100% successful in this regard. This website's community is ...


5

I deleted both of your comments, you and another user were engaging in a conversation that I felt was taking a non constructive turn. Others felt the same way, some of the comments were flagged as "rude/offensive". I'm not so sure why you think favouritism was at play here, I've also deleted a couple of comments by the other user. In fact the only reason I ...


5

What is "constructive criticism that guides the author in improving the post", and how is it fundamentally different from "debating a controversial point"? The difference between Constructive criticism and debating a controversial point is that debating a controversial goes on much longer and is unlikely to result in a resolution. None of the "should"s ...


5

Comments aren't meant to contain primary content on stackexchange. They're intended to be used to improve the answers themselves. politics.SE seems to me to have a lot more discussion/answering/arguing/etc.. in comments than other SE sites. It was hard for me to wrap my head around too, but this site isn't for the person asking questions, answering them, ...


5

I concur with the idea that (semi-)answers in comments are evil rather than good. The only goal for comments must be improving the post — Question or Answer, respectively. Everything else is just noise that harms readability and, essentially, contradicts the Stack Exchange niche market: a place for quality questions and quality answers, with the highest ...


5

You were starting a discussion. As you should know by now, this website is not a discussion forum. If you want to suggest improvements to a question, please do that directly. Don't do it in form of a rhetorical question which will then incite debate.


4

The short answer is that it's way less work to move all comments to chat than it is to sort through 20+ comments, understand them in the context of the question and answer, and make a judgement call on whether they're needed. When I'm more motivated, I usually try to read the first few comments, and only delete comments that don't have much to do with the ...


4

After thinking it for a while, I came to the conclusion that comment thread had what looked like the beginning of a side conversation about small-payload nukes, and the usefulness of nukes, so I went and migrated that to chat.


4

Those comments are removed manually (and the notice posted) when I see the problem taking shape. Typically, well-established sites are able take care of these activities through vigilant community self-moderation. But the Community Team is still considering candidates for your provisional Moderators. The bigger problem is that, often, it's not actually the ...


4

That's probably my fault. I agree that It violates the be-nice policy. When handling comment flags, you're given 2 buttons, and they're both negative d-words: "decline" and "delete". I clicked on the wrong one. I had realized after the fact, I clicked on the wrong one, but at the time, I had this notion that this was a user who wasn't familiar with ...


4

One of the ways Moderators can handle comment flags is to edit the comment, and that is something that I occasionally do as appropriate. If you don't want to rely on a moderator to figure out that the comment is best edited as opposed to deleted, then you can leave a custom flag reason, and let us know what you're asking us to do with the comment.


4

Disclaimer: I was involved in the quoted discussion, this particular comment was addressed to me. I agree with Philipp's answer: such answers/comments should be downvoted. I would like to add that I think it's useful to expose the contradictions that such fallacies entail, in order to make it clear that it's not the opinion which is downvoted, it's the ...


4

Your comment was flagged and subsequent deleted twice because it did not fulfill any of the purposes comments should have according to the help center article about the commenting privilege. It did not request clarification from the author, did not provide constructive criticism aimed at improving the question and did not point out any transient meta-...


3

First of all, why do we move comments to chat at all? The reason is that we generally do not want discussions to distract from the actual purpose of comments: Request clarification, suggest improvements or provide relevant meta-information like related questions. That's why the default way to deal with comment discussions which don't do this is to just ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible