16
If you're referring to this answer, it's already been flagged by another user, so there's nothing you need to do. [Update: the answer has indeed been deleted, and the user suspended.]
In future, my advice would be that if you think something is racist, just go ahead and flag it. Racism is indeed against the Stack Exchange Code of Conduct, and will be dealt ...
12
Although I don't know the full context of this statement, it appears to be a textbook example of bigotry and racism which goes contrary to the Stack Exchange Code of Conduct.
Politics Stack Exchange is a community for people from all nations and cultures. Therefore we do not tolerate it when nations or culture groups are described in such disparaging terms.
...
9
Let's start with the title.
Simple arithmetic question
The purpose of the title is to make a question recognizable. If someone else comes to the website with the exact same question, would they recognize that this is the question they are about to ask? No, because this title says absolutely nothing about the topic of the question. It could be about the BIP ...
9
This behaviour is explained on this Meta.SE question:
If you vote to close your own question as a duplicate of something else... and refresh the page, you'll see the "your question may already have an answer here" banner. Clicking the "that solved my problem!" button on that banner results in Community instantly closing your question as ...
7
I deleted this post as inappropriate for this website because it made generalizing and insulting accusations about a political faction of people. It contained phrases like:
For [politician] and his supporters, the only thing that matters — and I cannot over-stress that it is the only thing that matters to them — is generating the sense or appearance of ...
7
Assuming "triangularity" in your question is what I think it is, the subject is on-topic.
While our help page doesn't explicitly make international or diplomatic relations a subject, it falls under "policies introduced by governments", broadly construed, and I don't recall such questions being closed, or the matter even being considered ...
6
There are people who have not downvoted but explained what they see wrong with the question.
Yes, commenting is optional when you cast your (down-)vote; you can't force people to explain themselves.
Yes, this is normal for Stack Exchange not to duplicate comments. Perhaps, other close-/down-voters simply agree to existing comment thread.
I too think that you ...
answered Aug 30 at 1:58
bytebuster for Long Usernames
8,8371 gold badge11 silver badges25 bronze badges
6
I have mixed feelings about this because I've been accused of pushing a particular position when I didn't mean to in the past (example; similar experience by someone else). I obviously know what I believe better than anyone else, so for people to say "I think you are pushing this position" when I don't believe it is aggravating.
This question could ...
6
The problem with questions inspired by current events is that keeping the facts up to date with all the recent developments is 1. a lot of work and 2. often not really required for understanding the question.
The question is asking about the definition of civil war. It doesn't really make a difference if there are 3 or 4 victims of politically motivated ...
5
"stepped in or started conflicts" is a pretty vague yardstick, so I've voted to close based on that. Did Eisenhower [not] "step in" into any foreign conflicts? They might not have been outright wars...
One answer tried to go with the conflict yes/no paradigm of the question. Another chose to shift the frame to how many US victims these ...
4
I removed the bounty.
If the user is interested in investing their reputation towards a more detailed answer, they are free to set a new bounty with a message explaining what are their expectations from the bounty winner (and nothing else).
4
I did not close this question, so I can only speculate about the motives of those who did. But this question reads very similar to a common rhetorical pattern you observe in many internet communities suffering from the filter bubble effect:
Oversimplify the views of your opponents to a straw man.
Point out contradictions in those oversimplified positions.
...
3
Frankly this doesn't strike me as a good question, even factoring out the problematic assertions. The "how comes" question has a fairly trivial answer in that Trump has focused a lot on personal attacks. (I see the currently top-voted answer to the question just elaborates on this.) Maybe this is news/interesting to some, but others clearly ...
3
I'm surprised this has generated a meta, the closure seems entirely clear cut to me. The close reason is:
This question does not appear to be about governments, policies and political processes within the scope defined in the help center.
And your question was:
In the United States, amongst police forces, are combat veterans more likely to abuse force ...
2
Some had terrible answers and had positive scores still. Not to offend
anyone. Those accounts seem dead.
I think for this particular negative aspect of the questions you are referring to, the normal way is to downvote these answers if they are clearly not accurate. The downvote button's tooltip suggests this:
This answer is not useful
Of course, if the ...
1
Although I answered it, I have to say your question was not well motivated (and even this meta-question is somewhat oddly titled).
You could for instance have brought up the fact that military experience is considered an equivalent to police work in hiring decision in some states.
It’s not uncommon for police agencies to give priority to those with military ...
1
Questions about where to ask a question are generally asked on Big Meta, but I really don't think there's any place to ask this here, at least without any more information.
One of the technical sites might allow questions about how to use Google Reports to get information on these visits.
If you find some political link that you don't understand (for ...
1
I think it would be a mistake to do so. It can potentially create confusion for future readers, and I don't believe it would provide enough benefit to outweigh potential drawbacks of backlash from some post authors.
Questions are asked at a specific point in time (visible on each question), and are answered at a point in time after that. Editing the tense ...
Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible
