3

In this question the two top rated answers (including one of them being the accepted answer) don't actually answer the question - they side-step the main motivation of the subject of the question. Additionally, one of them is used as a soap box. Is there any action that can be taken here? I've tried flagging one or both of the answers but there's no "irrelevant answer" button.

Sorry if this isn't the right way to deal with this. I'm not familiar with Meta.

4
  • 2
    You can flag an answer as "not an answer". If you don't feel that flag is quite right you can just use "in need of moderator intervention" and then explain your reasoning.
    – Charlie Evans
    Commented Apr 26 at 14:46
  • 2
    Something that you might find interesting is that the answer that is being "used as a soapbox" (and no disagreement, there is an opinion there that, though I somewhat agree, I would leave out of my own answers) is from one of the more balanced users who is generally opposed to the war, whereas the answer that is not is from a user who spends a lot of time trying to justify Israeli actions and put down Palestinians.
    – Obie 2.0
    Commented Apr 26 at 16:12
  • I am open to suggestions about making the soapbox part of my answer less prominent/rewording. Without deleting it, because it is one aspect of these protests, even if not necessarily a big one at this point in time. I could shorten most of it without really missing that point. But, still, giving it less prominence - I don't particularly aim to discredit the protesters as a whole. And, respectfully, PR-wise, figuring this out is a key ingredient to pro-Palestine folk getting their message listened to. Just like failing to consider world opinion on aid is a strategic blunder for Israel.
    – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica
    Commented Apr 26 at 17:12
  • 1
    @CharlieEvans In this case I would expect that flag to be declined as all of those do attempt to answer the question even if one would disagree with the quality of them. Personally I don't think there are any issues with them.
    – Joe W
    Commented Apr 26 at 18:15

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
7

Your primary options are to downvote or to leave a comment suggesting improvements to the answer; I can see that you have done at least the latter, which is a good start. You can also flag as "not an answer," but bear in mind that typically, this flag is only upheld when an answer egregiously fails to address the question and talks about another topic altogether—for instance, if someone posted a link to their Avatar: The Last Airbender fan-fiction that they thought was relevant to the question, or posted another question instead of an answer.

That said, in this particular case, it might be good to consider that many of the answers might not be as irrelevant as they seem. From my perspective, the ones that you mention supplement your answer.

The one answer mentions that many student protesters have divestment from Israeli interests as a primary goal; your answer expands on that. That answer also points out that students may benefit from protesting at the institutions that they are studying at in terms of sympathy and convenience of organizing the protests. One might disagree with these assertions, but they are not irrelevant.

The other answer, even though it does come from a user that has exhibited a bit of a bias toward supporting the Israeli government's actions over Palestinian rights, nonetheless is relevant because it asserts that the campus environment is more convenient for protests than places like the United Nations building. Again, one might disagree, but this is at least a relevant argument.

11
  • 1
    @littleadv - I merely said that there is a tension between supporting the Israeli government's actions and Palestinian rights, because the former is currently violating the latter. I do not think that there is a fundamental incompatibility between Israeli and Palestinian rights.
    – Obie 2.0
    Commented Apr 26 at 19:11
  • 1
    Thanks Obie. The points made in those answers (other than divestment) are a form of deflection or evasion, where a person consistently focuses on the minor points rather than engaging with the main argument (or giving it less attention). This tactic can be used to avoid addressing the central issue or to downplay its significance. It's a way of sidestepping the main point by emphasizing less important details.
    – Ahmed Tawfik
    Commented Apr 27 at 9:44
  • 2
    @AhmedTawfik - I'm not sure I can agree. Convenience—the fact that they are protesting essentially outside their front door, instead of having to go to another part of the city altogether— is likely to be an important factor. Consider that universities see many protests that have nothing to do with the university administration, and that the UN building has seen many protests around the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from non-students. Are they protesting because they want divestment? Sure. But there would be protests there regardless simply because it's convenient.
    – Obie 2.0
    Commented Apr 27 at 15:59
  • 2
    I frankly didn't even see the question as valuable, because the question of why Columbia University students protest at Columbia University instead of (place that would be more effective) barely needs an answer.
    – Obie 2.0
    Commented Apr 27 at 16:43
  • I guess all the people protesting in main city plazas like today's in London is mainly convenience then. It's only tangential that it's to shed light on the war.
    – Ahmed Tawfik
    Commented Apr 27 at 20:24
  • 2
    @AhmedTawfik - Who said it's only tangential? I definitely am not the one here trying to force a binary choice between two different reasons for doing something. The people protesting in plazas protest there to shed light on the war, sure. That's why they are protesting in the first place. Also because of visibility, and yes, convenience—you would probably find that almost everyone protests in their own city, and a disproportionate number protest closer to home even in that city.
    – Obie 2.0
    Commented Apr 27 at 20:27
  • You might think I'm trying to put down your reasons, but I am not—I wrote a comment pointing out both the divestment and convenience rationales before anyone had written an answer.
    – Obie 2.0
    Commented Apr 27 at 20:30
  • 1
    My point here is: in one answer, divest wasn't mentioned/was mentioned in passing, and in Monica's answer, divestment was given secondary importance in relation to convenience. When looking at motives, people don't primarily protest due to convenience, but due to a cause - divestment. Secondarily, it would be convenient to protest at Columbia U (although if calling for divestment at CU, it's necessary, not convenient, to protest at CU). My point is the giving of main importance to convenience gives an incorrect and biased view of the protestors' motives. People don't primarily protest for ease
    – Ahmed Tawfik
    Commented Apr 27 at 20:39
  • @AhmedTawfik - I think the thing to understand here is the difference between "Why are they protesting?" and "Why are they protesting there?" The first question has more or less one correct answer, as I think you correctly imply: whatever the causes of a protest are (in this case, the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip, among other things). The second question is what was actually asked, though, and that has multiple answers. One of them is yours: in this particular case, they have demands of the university.
    – Obie 2.0
    Commented Apr 27 at 20:44
  • 1
    But there are others, and yes, physical proximity of one's dwelling to the protest site is one of them. It's the same reason New Yorkers primarily protest in New York, but people in Podunk primarily protest in Podunk. Again, your answer is good, but some of the other answers also address the question (which, though you may not have noted it, is trying to disparage the protests by asking "Why are they doing it there instead of the UN building, which is where they would do it if they actually cared about effectiveness?")
    – Obie 2.0
    Commented Apr 27 at 20:44
  • Thank you for clarifying that difference; I think I wasn't seeing that as an alternative perspective.
    – Ahmed Tawfik
    Commented Apr 27 at 20:55
6

Is there any action that can be taken here?

As a user with the downvote privilege, you are free to downvote the answer as "not useful". You are also free to leave a comment explaining why you find the answer lacking.

If you find the answer to be spam, rude, etc., you are free to flag it as such, and members of the community will either agree or disagree.

I've tried flagging one or both of the answers but there's no "irrelevant answer" button.

But are the answers "irrelevant"?

About 1967, a friend wanted me to join him at a protest against the Vietnam War. The protest was being held at a community college. I declined. Neither of us was a college student. He wanted to go because it would be fun.

There are reasons why people do things, such as join protests, because of who they are, or their present circumstances, rather than because there may be a good, legitimate reason for doing so.

6
  • Thank you. However such sentiment can be added to most answers as it's so generic. It doesn't add any real value as a result.
    – Ahmed Tawfik
    Commented Apr 26 at 15:00
  • 2
    Regarding the final two paragraphs, this seems to be a discussion of individuals' internal motivations. If a question asked about that, it would (should) be closed as off-topic. Doesn't it follow that answers also shouldn't rely on speculation about internal motivations? I feel there ought to be such a consistency of acceptability between questions and answers.
    – Charlie Evans
    Commented Apr 26 at 20:03
  • @CharlieEvans - The Meta question was about the relevance of mentioning any other than the main motivation for the protest. The open spaces at some universities (or colleges) allow for more protesters than just those who started the protest. I am simply saying that Why Columbia? has other answers than only terminating agreements.
    – Rick Smith
    Commented Apr 26 at 20:31
  • 1
    @RickSmith Indeed, there may well be other answers, but my point is that there are some answers that aren't acceptable under the terms of the site.
    – Charlie Evans
    Commented Apr 26 at 22:29
  • Charlie wants an abortion (Always sunny in Philadelphia)
    – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica
    Commented Apr 28 at 19:39
  • @CharlieEvans: the reasons why people join protests in general are studied enough that one can answer those Qs at high level of generality. See e.g. politics.stackexchange.com/questions/86969/… although that one also had some close votes as I recall. It is more difficult to attempt to particularize the generic reasons for specific situations or individuals. (N.B. checking out the history of the latter Q, I see you voted to close it, and me to reopen...)
    – got trolled too much this week
    Commented Apr 30 at 13:47
1

Answers to broad 'why' questions are to a certain extent subjective. They're not outright banned here because of the 'good subjective' design of the site. (I'll add a link if if you've not heard of this before.)

So, don't be surprised if the most specific answer, based on organizers' statements doesn't get the most upvotes. Perhaps voters didn't find it the most compelling answer, for one reason or another. Related: How to ask a "reasons for" question?

You must log in to answer this question.

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