1

This Question has a long comment stream and 2 upvoted answers. It also has 5 downvotes with its 4 upvotes, hence a net score of -1.

There are no reasons given for the down votes.

I don't see anything wrong with the question from a rules perspective. If there was, it seems this question would be worth fixing.

Any thoughts? What's going on with this question?

btw, I'm not the OP.

  • 1
    I'm not comfortable with the recent trend of people taking to Meta when they want to get more upvotes for a post. Anyway, on this question, I can see some potential in it. But, while I didn't vote either way, I can also see several objectionable points: 1) it's a solicitation for examples; 2) it's multiple questions rolled into one: among others, it also asks if both sides being armed leads to more bloody civil wars; 3) it's somewhat vague: what does "maintain respect" even mean; 4) it seems quite broad, with no temporal or geographical limits. – Semaphore Mar 8 '18 at 17:15
  • @Semaphore I don't want more votes. I want to fix it – axsvl77 Mar 8 '18 at 17:28
  • 1
    I understand your intent but, "Somehow improve voting on this question"... – Semaphore Mar 8 '18 at 17:30
  • @Semaphore Yikes, you're right. – axsvl77 Mar 8 '18 at 17:30
  • @axsvl77: I've edited your question to reflect that you're asking about your answer, rather the question. – Denis de Bernardy Mar 8 '18 at 19:14
  • @DenisdeBernardy My answer sucks and deserved the downvotes – axsvl77 Mar 8 '18 at 20:39
  • 1
    I suspect the down votes are because it is seen as a not-so-subtle reference to recent events in the US and the ensuing furore re gun control. – TheHonRose Mar 12 '18 at 20:31
4

The question is nothing but a troll and ought to have been closed, in my opinion, without any answer, because:

  • It's reacting to a recent troll by an Alaskan Republican without citing it. However historical the substance of the matter, the question probably belongs more in Politics or Skeptics.
  • It's asking for a counter-example to something that's widely seen as obvious, leaving the onus of proof onto the reader to cherry pick an odd example - presumably to drive a point forward.
  • It almost certainly fits the criteria we have over in Politics whereby "The primary purpose of this question appears to be to promote or discredit a specific political cause (...)."
  • It looks like a question posted to settle a debate between buddies at a bar.
  • I agree with your assessment. But somewhere in this poorly asked question, there is a good history question related to the historical relationship between a well armed populace and the prevalence of widespread social prosperity. I for some reason can't think of how to improve the asking. – axsvl77 Mar 8 '18 at 20:50
  • A better way to have asked it, I think, would have been to simply post this question on Skeptics: "Has there ever been an identifiable minority under a repressive government that has maintained at least respect through force of arms?" It would then have been obviously controversial, but would have been totally on topic there insofar as I'm aware. On History, by contrast, the burden of proof is on you if you ask a question about something controversial. And one should expect downvotes if one's question makes (or asks for evidence about) dubious claims. – Denis de Bernardy Mar 8 '18 at 21:03
  • 1
    I'm conflicted about a lot of these "troll" questions. If this is something that's honestly floating around human discourse, it might be nice to have an answer here about it that laid out the historical facts on the matter. However, if the question wasn't asked in good faith, then the OQ would be unlikely to accept a good answer, and instead likely to try to sabotage them. – T.E.D. Mar 8 '18 at 21:30
  • 1
    It is a very good point you make that Skeptics is probably better set up to handle these types of questions than we are. Dealing with catchy nonsense is really their bailiwick. – T.E.D. Mar 8 '18 at 21:32
  • @T.E.D. I agree that having a clear historical question with an authoritative historical answer would be good in this case. Think it is possible for this topic though? – axsvl77 Mar 8 '18 at 21:44
  • @DenisdeBernardy And concerning the Alaskan Republican, I had not heard that partiular story. However, I heard this same sort of stuff said frequently when I was a kid in the 80's. Talking about the Warsaw Ghetto uprising used to be a standard NRA talking point. I guess I shouldn't be surprised its a news item considering the hype about gun control in the press – axsvl77 Mar 8 '18 at 21:48
  • 1
    @T.E.D.: I'm conflicting too, but do note that US media is largely to blame with its ludicrous notion of fairness, in the sense that even if 97% of scientists agree on one topic it'll go the extra length to broadcast the opposite side of it to create an artificial debate because two sides. – Denis de Bernardy Mar 8 '18 at 21:49
  • OMG.....{deep breath}. OK. I'd love to rant at length on the topic of news media and false balance, but that's for chat or Twitter. – T.E.D. Mar 8 '18 at 21:54
  • @axsvl77: I heard it as a kid in the 80s too, albeit only in the US - where I grew up under Reagan. I can't recollect a shred of any such story in France or Germany in the years that followed, let alone the dozen countries I lived in afterwards. It's a strictly US thing insofar as I can surmise, except perhaps as a fringe view in antisemite movements in Europe. – Denis de Bernardy Mar 8 '18 at 21:55
  • @T.E.D.: No, it must not be. By hiding it under the rug under the guise of off-topic or what have you, we're allowing falsehoods to spread unchecked. – Denis de Bernardy Mar 8 '18 at 21:57
  • No matter how well this particular topic may deserve and need to be ranted about, rants of the kind I'd generate about this are just not a good fit for 500-character post comments. If I really need to talk about it, better to take it to a place designed for that kind of thing and link to the transcript here. – T.E.D. Mar 8 '18 at 22:01

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .