As I commented on the question: I think that ridiculing politicians, their views and/or their actions is detrimental to this site because it breeds hostile sentiments between people with different opinions. So we should not do that.
It is also detrimental to an objective discourse about politics in general.
Whether or not Theresa May is an "international ...
We should not engage in ridicule.
This is a question and answer site. Not a site based on ridicule. It is my opinion that May has been a National Joke for a long time. But good questions and answers are based on a reasonably objective baseline.
Ask and answer in a neutral way or get edited or deleted.
The user and all their content were deleted because after the user posted this question they went on a trolling spree and posted a series of extremely offensive one-liner questions.
However, this one question has value. I undeleted it.
A desire for revenge is not tolerated on this site, @guest271314. Instead of focusing oneself on hurting other users who voted to close posts, one should see if these posts can be improved.
Other than this, Use the Force, Luke:
A simple Stack Exchange API query returns a list of Closed Questions originated by a certain User. Further playing with the ...
As the moderator who deleted the question, I want to let you in on my reasoning.
The point of the question was really to ask about guns.
I have no problem with essentially asking, "Do guns keep people safe?" ... although, such a question, because of the heat it generates, should be extremely academic in how it is asked. When I imagine a good answer, I ...
A moderator came and first of all deleted the phrase "the Jews" in the text without replacing it with any other phrase! (He/She accused me of "spread[ing] antisemitism", which is meaningless and simply subjective.
Let me explain why this was antisemitic.
You were criticizing actions of the government of Israel. There is nothing offensive ...
I think avoiding gratuitous ridicule should be the default. If you can phrase your question or answer while avoiding that, do so.
It gets much more hairy when the ricule is itself the topic of the question. Some of the users here unfortunately ask with some regularity questions structured like:
here's a meme/label/story ridiculing X
what is the origin of ...
What was your goal in asking the question? (really think about this one)
What do you think an acceptable answer to this question should include?
Do you already have you mind made up about the question you're asking?
IMO, that question stank of being rhetorical as soon as I saw it.
Edit; In future, look out for accidentally putting skub (or anti-skub) in ...
To quote you a comment [I echo/endorse] from under your (new) question, before it was deleted:
Yes there are definitions, but which one to use? The opinion comes in to play when arguing whether any single act counts as "proof of fascism." To some putting kids in cages is absolutely an act of Fascism, to others it is simply following the law.
It's Too Broad
I agree that as it currently stands, it's not a great question. Questions like this are typically closed because they sound like a solicitation for users' opinions, rather than something that can be answered definitely.
I Edited It
However, I think the question can be made answerable by restricting its domain to some specific notion of "...
So, even though fascism has well-established dictionary definitions and encyclopedic references, some people decided that there was no way to provide answers based on facts and references.
Not quite. Fascism is a hard thing to define because it means different things to different people. As such, it winds up being more of a Rorschach test. If you dislike ...
I don't think a canonical answer would be useful.
On its face, the homicide rate of Somalia is not a question about politics, but a trivial question about statistics, so it should be closed as off-topic.
OP is likely trying to make a political point, but that's not what questions are for.
Because of the persistent troll effort around this issue, I also ...
I voted the post as Rude/Abusive because, in addition to the Somalia question that has popped up at least five times that I know of between Skeptics and Politics, it also came from a user with a bog-standard Fascism troll question.
If the community decides that a post is from the holocaust/fascism troll, I ...
The post author deleted the post himself - the downvotes and close votes were probably received because the post was poorly written, with typos in the title and a question body that lacks details.
If the post was undeleted, it should probably also be closed as a duplicate of this question.
You can find all your closed questions here. Alternatively, you can search on the main site for closed:yes
Deleted posts (10K+ users only)
You can find all your deleted posts here. Alternatively, you can search on the main site for deleted:yes.
only content you own is returned when searching for deleted content
I characterized Theresa May's deal as undead
This doesn't seem that offensive to me, but it's unnecessary. Saying the deal is dead would be a fine characterisation of the deal, I think (and as does the FT). Dead being to opposite of alive, a deal being alive if the parties that are party to it still support it.
and May herself as a necromancer.
It wasn't deleted by a mod, it says it was deleted by the "Community" user.
That usually means that some automated process did it. At a quick glance, the question doesn't seem to have a lot of flags or downvotes, so I'm not sure what triggered that automatic process.
Another thing I noticed is that the User's name is greyed out, which means that he ...
This is actually a reasonable question. It isn't high quality as worded, but with some clarification it has a core of a good question. Fully fits "good subjective" SE criteria, fully ontopic, can produce good answers.
Additionally, there are purely political benefits that would produce good answers - for example, a very good concise answer would cover the ...
I deleted it because it was going to turn into a discussion, not a question.
I've had very good questions downvited, closed and deleted myself:
https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/1310/what-percentage-of-american-terrorism-is-domestic-vs-muslim (What percentage of American terrorism is "domestic" vs. Muslim?) See this meta: What is not ...
But this site has many questions that are receptive to answers that
"will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts,
references, or specific expertise".
Why is Donald Trump so popular?
Why are so many Americans against Obamacare?
Why is populism seen as being negative or bad?
Why is President Trump making such a big deal about fake ...
I can only find two instances of this question on Politics Stack Exchange:
"What is the homicide rate in Somalia?" (deleted) from October 13 2019.
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/50918/does-somalia-have-a-low-homicide-rate" from today (March 12 2020)
A comment on the first instance claims that the author asked the same question on other SE ...
Vote to close and delete.
If this site flags, and has closed, numerous questions that are opinion-based, such as the recurring Socialism vs Communism ones, why should it tolerate one that is no less likely to be opinion-based in its answers AND seems to be construed to denigrate the person it is aimed at?
Putting a +500 bounty just means it technically can'...
First and foremost: We are a factual Q&A site with a subject matter basis of politics. We are not a political forum. The Q&A's (and comments) are not for engaging in politics. They are for posing and answering fact-oriented questions that admit fact-based answers.
There's a bit of wiggle room because the line between "facts about politics" and "...
Michael_B - I've rewritten your question below to be less controversial and (probably) more acceptable to the users here.
Many people in the news media (CNN, Slate, New York
Times, Daily Beast, Washington Post, Salon) on
late night talk shows (The Daily Show), in Congress, in
Hollywood, in Silicon Valley, on college campuses (Harvard,
This question isn't of much quality. Your (accepted) answer to it was basically "we can only speculate". Frankly leaving it deleted would have been not much worse than what we have now; where we have a closed question with the answer "we can only speculate"...
On Politics.SE, direct ridicule is unacceptable because it's rude and condescending.
On the other hand, often an accurately succinct summary is so self-evidently incongruous that it incidentally performs some of the same functions as ridicule. So if we observe that Pol X slipped on a banana peel, (assuming, of course, that the fact remains politically ...
Your question has multiple problems.
Unnecessary and unrelated details: Why do we need to know about other scandals to answer this question? For example, "President Clinton, under increased scrutiny of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, offered $20 billion in loans to Mexico to stabilize the peso. Can the President loan money to a foreign country without ...