18

"Assume good faith" is not one of those decisions where either option is fine as long as everyone agrees to stick to it. It's a basic rule of politeness, very similar to the golden rule - if you assume bad faith and act accordingly, people will readily see bad faith in your actions too. For instance, if I write a post complaining that busing is bad for the ...


14

Update: just noting some developments... The disputed answer was deleted again roughly two weeks ago (beginning of March 2020); after gaining more experience on this site, I honestly don't think it's worth fighting over that quality of an answer, so I'm not voting to undelete again. Something that I had missed the first time around (well, because it ...


10

The key here is to be shrewd about what the author is trying to do. Let me illustrate this by using spam. We allow users to post links to SO/SE. There are good and bad reasons to post links, but there's also a grey area. On other sites a question like this would be permitted I have some code not working Some code here You can see it ...


10

This answer is more of a comment on Sam I Am's answer and their reasoning for deleting the answer, since I think it's safe to discount the idea that it's some sort of Monica-related retribution. I'm torn on this. On the one hand, I do think the answer raised an important and useful point; on the other hand I also think we need to be strict about shutting ...


10

If I handled a deletion flag on that answer, I would probably decline the flag. In fact, there was a VLQ flag on that answer which got declined by a different moderator. That answer was deleted because members of the community voted to delete it. With that in mind, there are a couple of reasons I can think of why someone might want to delete that answer....


9

The question asks for a term. The answer offers just that. It certainly isn't a great answer, probably not even a good one, but it is an answer nonetheless. I see no reason to remove it. If you feel the answer is not helpful, downvote it and move on.


8

I don't believe trying to spread FUD provides anyone with perspective. With such an outrageous claim, the amount of evidence in support of it would need to be overwhelming, pretty much nothing short of a smoking gun. Otherwise, the only thing either the question or the answer are doing for perspective is muddying the waters and adding to the noise. Have a ...


7

How to deal with Dog Whistles Are you sure it's a "dog whistle?" If there's not an easily understood charitable explanation, it's just bigotry and violates the code of conduct. If it's not a real dog whistle, don't call it a dog whistle. Be nice, assume good intent on the part of the other person. Don't say: This is a bigoted dog whistle. I'm ...


7

That answer was flagged as rude/abusive by a user and I agreed, so I deleted it. I agreed that it was rude/abusive because it reads like a conspiratorial rant which paints a vaguely-defined group of people as some sort of cartoonish villainous force. That answer was flagged for undeletion twice, and 2 different moderators declined those flags. I do ...


5

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 ...


5

Many people are used to eat beef How do you use people to eat beef? You may think that this isn't total gibberish, but some of us disagree with you. In general when I see nonsense answers reject grammar correction edits that aren't marginal, I vote to delete. There is also the reason why this answer was accepted. It was accepted because the ...


4

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 ...


4

In this day and age, you can reasonably assume good faith on every Stack Exchange except this one. I agree with divibisan that "unintentional bigotry is just as hurtful as intentional bigotry". But I disagree with the idea that we should always seek to fix such posts, because doing so means that bad faith users may end up getting upvotes. If that happens ...


4

To recap your "evidence": Pakistan thinks it might be a bioweapon Iran says it's a US bioweapon China says it's a US bioweapon You say you want refutation? Here you go Many Chinese people, even city dwellers, insist that freshly slaughtered poultry is tastier and more healthful than refrigerated or frozen meat. This is one of the major reasons China has ...


3

The answer in question repeats a part of the accepted answer (which seems was posted first as well). So it's not adding much if anything, but there are no specific flags for "duplicate answers". It does seem to be "gaming the system" to gain easy rep without saying anything new, so I've downvoted and VTD as well (it appears I'm the 2nd VTD).


2

I think this was part of a series of fake news tweets which have since been deleted from Twitter. Google still has them in their cache, the tweets can be found here. A quick screenshot of what the tweets looked like, should it eventually be removed from cache (hover over to see the screenshot):


1

It's possible that that article "The Atlantic Monthly; July 1926; The Russian Effort to Abolish Marriage; Volume 138, No. 1; page 108-114" actually exists. But so what? It's 2nd-hand smoke and belied by subsequent events. For example, the answer claimed that the 1926 article said, among other things that the Soviet plan was to Incite homosexuality, ...


1

While I disagree with marking this answer as "spam or rude or abusive", I'd agree that it was rather a low quality answer thus some downvoting was fully justified. Moreover, as the subject and explaining factor is quite contentious, in such cases even better sourced explanation may still risking being a downvote magnet. Not to be overtly general: First ...


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