New answers tagged

3

Yes, I think this question would be on-topic here.


0

Re: "It's not even partisan - it simply repeats information from the linked sources." Yeah, right... Your repeat information from highly biased sources (such as Trump's impeachment defense lawyer--Dershowitz) to form a downright silly narrative. Just from the high-level outline of your "question": you state there are thousands of man-hours of IAEA ...


1

If it were me that was interested in this topic, I would start with a milder approach, and I would start by asking in meta where the constraints of on-topic-ness are also bit milder. I might ask Is politics SE capable of political introspection? or something similar, and perhaps break it down into two parts; Does politics (as defined in the main site'...


0

No. A site dies without a continuous supply of quality and on-topic questions. Anything that could be seen as suggesting "we are twice as important/valuable as you are" might feel discouraging to those who mostly ask questions, and generate a subconscious less-than-optimal attitude in those who mostly post answers. Yin-Yang, chicken-and-egg, questions and ...


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).


8

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.


2

I've added a proposed tag synonym in the opposite direction, i.e. to https://politics.stackexchange.com/tags/history/synonyms since JJ's comment has received some upvotes. The synonym still needs some upvotes of its own to become effective.


6

Someone can ask a new question on more neutral terms, e.g. what is publicly known about how the US list in question is determined. It's probably a better solution than deleting 95% of the body of a push question... Also, even if we delete the push part, the question as asked is probably mainly asking for speculation. In fact, the (negatively voted) answer ...


0

My opinion is that edits exclusively changing neutral pronouns to other neutral pronouns (including from "neopronouns" to themself) should be rolled back, as they're fairly clearly inconsequential edits. Had I noticed the edit before I noticed this meta post, I would probably have rolled it back for that reason. Some answers to anticipated objections in ...


-1

In this case I believe the edit should be rolled back and xyrself restored to the answer. The main meta question top answer calls the use of a neopronoun for someone who has not requested it akin to misgendering. While I don't agree with that position, it is not relevant here because the answer does not refer to a specific individual. The higher rated ...


3

I came across it in the low-quality queue. I voted to delete it because it adds no supporting evidence to show why it shapes Democrats' views (which is the subject of the question). I don't think this would have been a good comment either. The reason for that is that it lacks any evidence or reasoning why this is relevant to the question. If this had been a ...


2

I declined the flags because the answer did, indeed, appear to be an answer to the question that was asked. It was deleted by vote by 4 high-rep users. Moderators aren't the only way an answer can be deleted.


18

The answer was flagged: This answer is being deliberately provocative by using a neo-pronoun ("xyrself") where none is called for. I don't know about deliberately provocative, but I agree that the use of the neo-pronoun in the answer is unnecessary and would probably prove to be a distraction. The edit may look minor, but I think it's a helpful one and ...


Top 50 recent answers are included