16

I think Brythan's (non-)answer put it best: Really though, if you want the answer to this, we're the wrong place to ask. The real problem is the question, which, by asking for the internal motivations of a broad group of people, almost guarantees that any answer will be uselessly incomplete and/or offensive to a broad group. It should be closed and ...


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 ...


13

The question was "Why did people still chant “Lock her up” at Trump rallies in 2019?", and he answer appears to make an honest attempt to answer that question. The answer does try to divine the motivations of others, but that's what this particular question is asking for. You can't really answer this question without guessing the motives of others. It ...


11

The answer was deleted by a mod. For his reasons I have to refer to his answer. As that answer is a bit terse and only mentions one knock-out reason, it may be beneficial to analyse other potential reasons and evident problems with the post under discussion. First of all, the answer is largely a private analysis, meaning without references for all the wide-...


10

As long as it's an attempt to make an answer, the not an answer flag will usually be declined. This is the case even if the answerer misunderstood the question and posted an answer to a slightly different question. The reason for this, I think, it that interpreting the question, and making the answer in the form the OP needs, is a thing that people who are ...


10

I agree that it does not completely answer the question. I have left a comment explaining what information I felt the answer lacked. However, how well an answer is answered is a qualitative concern which is meant to be addressed through appropriate commentary suggesting how an answer might be improved and voting. Flags are really only supposed to be used in ...


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....


8

I deleted the answer mostly for this paragraph: American Jews are statistically more successful even than US whites -> it does not prove any privilege at all. Any person who dares to look for any hidden explanation is a conspiracy theorist and has an evil hidden agenda. Making the claim that Jews have some special protection from criticism which ...


8

The "rude or abusive" flag links to the Code of Conduct. Regarding this specific answer, this section is relevant: No bigotry. We don’t tolerate any language likely to offend or alienate people based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion — and those are just a few examples. When in doubt, just don’t. The answer in question alludes to the ...


8

The answer was removed by the community, three trusted users to be exact. From what I can see, the removal is under review and has gathered one pending undelete vote. Further reading: Why and how are some answers deleted?


7

I'm not a fan of trump by any stretch of the imagination, and haven't interacted with the answer in any way, but it feels like it'd be off topic or at least completly unsubstantiated in the way it's presented. People loved chanting "lock her up". Plausible, but purely opinion In some sense, that's why no effort has been made - actually locking up ...


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

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 ...


5

This appears to be the suggested edit in question. I wasn't one of the two users who decided to reject this edit. So I can only speculate what their motives were. But what I would find questionable about this edit is that it does more than just adding references. It changes the tone of the answer by putting words into the author's mouth which might not have ...


5

We have to treat it exactly the same way as we treat other unsourced answers. Should we have a "back it up" rule for answers? Standards of Evidence? Up until now, the response users are supposed to take is downvote if they feel it's not useful, but don't delete it for lack of sources (and attempts to abuse a flag to delete it should be declined). ...


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 ...


4

There is essentially only 2 ways to interpret the gist of the question itself. Either it is a rant (which would make it off topic), or it is an inquiry made in earnest. The author of the question plead ignorance of the topic. So from that perspective, the facts outlined in the answer help to illuminate the topic. However, the question's author didn't ...


4

Here's what I consider to be the most-important part of the question: If Republicans had a majority in the House and the Senate at the start of the shutdown, and also have control over the executive branch, what actions by the Democrats could give the Republicans a logical reason to place blame on them? (Granted the question has been edited to be more ...


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 ...


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

Based on the feedback I've received on my own answers, I've started thinking of it like this: If something is cited, then the poster is merely passing on information. They are responsible only for the decision to pass it on or not. Downvote people for passing on poor-quality information; upvote people for passing on good-quality information. If something is ...


2

This answer lays out the facts of the three bills, but it does not clearly answer the question either by explaining who the Republicans blame, or by refuting that they're blaming anyone. I cannot see how it's a valid classical answer or a valid premise challenging answer. I agree with this assertion. On the other hand, I think it would be a waste to delete ...


2

The only one problem with that answer, if anything, is that it may be difficult to understand to people who are chanting "lock her up". The entire answer is not against Trump supporter, the answer is about human behaviour: you could swap subjects, nation, topic, and it would still apply. So, unless someone is a complete fanatic and too blind and obtuse to ...


2

If this isn't a clear violation of "welcoming," then we should drop the Code of Conduct right now. It's just unsupported besmirching of a group of people's character. In some sense, that's why no effort has been made - actually locking up Clinton, or trying to, would detract from the purity of hating her and everything she represents. Obviously false. ...


2

I am not an expert in this specific subject area, so I can't comment on the correctness of your image, so this answer will focus more on tactics for handling content disputes. You should try to verify for yourself what the correct answer is. Unless you have a specific reason to believe that the commenter really does know better than you do, you need not ...


2

I think the answer is just a cheap shot at Trump supporters intended to make them look bad. A US president's supporters typically do not fret much over their hero's defeated rivals. Usually they couldn't be less interested, to the point where the rivals' names are forgotten. "Whatever happened to...?" is more the norm. But three years after, Trump ...


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.


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