If you ask me, the problem with your original question is that you've conflated moral reasoning with political reasoning. In other words, if someone were to ask the basic question:
Why don't political leaders allow tens of thousands of people to die?
A moral answer will have nothing to do with the political orientation or party membership of the people ...
If you truly wish for your post to be dis-vowed, you can contact Stack Exchange and request for it to be anonymized, and they might do it if they believe that it is worthwhile. Another option (if you’re resigning from the site) is to delete your account.
This answer will only attempt to answer a portion of the question, as the rest is already covered. I will be attempting to answer:
The count of Up-votes v. Down-votes is a good indication of the polarization of the site.
Well... yes. Some people think your question is good, some people don’t. It’s really that simple. However, before saying this is a good ...
(I might as well give my reasons since I am the primary guilty party here)
Your original formulation seemed quite judgmental towards conservatives and got a lot of pushback. Most objectionable, to my view, was the suggestion that Dems could just "let conservative voters die off".
To quote your exact words:
I know this is horrible to say, but ...
I wrote what is being labeled a "controversial question". I am also being told it was a good question. The count of Up-votes v. Down-votes is a good indication of the polarization of the site.
I added the controversial post notice. Note that this is not in any way meant as a way to bring the question into disrepute. Instead, it is merely an ...
I don't see the major difference between the original text and the current edition - a rogue edit that added some weird links which were rolled back aside.
The question began as and is currently asking about the motives behind efforts to raise vaccination rates over the objections of vaccine-opposed individuals.
To the extent that you feel the current ...
For context, the original post read:
Why are Democrats fighting so hard to vaccinate anti-science Republicans?
Many conservative news agencies are harping on vaccinations as a 'form of control' or even detrimental to the natural "weeding out " process..
Why are Democrats fighting so hard to protect the health of the reluctant?
I know this is ...
The are a couple of issues with the particular question (as linked). I don't see an easy fix, but maybe understanding the problem will help.
The question blurs reality.
There has been a lot of talk about gun control since (maybe) the 60s but precious little legislation, either on the state or federal level. Much of that legislation was sponsored by Democrats,...
One thing I would like to point out (others may disagree here) so that the question
Needs More Focus.
Others seem to believe this is a lesser or non problem judging by the close votes, but in my opinion, this question actually asks two different questions. One about gun rights, and one about religious freedom.
As I see it, the two questions are the same, except that they ask about different groups / places: the Palestinian Authority (which is mostly/only in power in parts of the West Bank?) and Hamas (which is mostly/only in power in Gaza?).
I think there's nothing wrong with the questions per se. The remaining question attracted a few close votes but was left ...