If you can find a contentious story and plenty of debate elsewhere, it almost always gets flagged for multiple reasons by a variety of people
> If you can find a contentious story and plenty of debate elsewhere, it almost always gets flagged for multiple reasons by a variety of people
You just said "just look at the comments", now you backtrack to nebulous "multiple reasons by a variety of people". From the data points I have so far, the people who are for flagging don't want to talk about their reasons. Maybe they all think they have good reasons, and would say "just look at $thing", and then have no good reason when I ask "what about $thing"?
So that is literally the data point I have... when I have three I'll declare my discovery of how this all works and ignore all further data, unless it fits my theory of course.
> so you're arguing that there is a time machine somewhere.
> now you backtrack to nebulous "multiple reasons by a variety of people (when my original comment you replied to clearly stated multiple reasons people are likely flagging)
You turn people off from responding further. Try to make your comments more productive and additive in the future
> As for the comments, I see people trying to claim this isn't an issue and being refuted, how is that bad? How is that "unproductive"? Compared to what?
You just ignored it outright. Just because it's not flattering that I call out excuses that have no substance, doesn't mean I'm wrong. You're essentially saying "I could make the argument, but now I don't want to", and I say you're bluffing.
As for the comments, I see people trying to claim this isn't an issue and being refuted, how is that bad? How is that "unproductive"? Compared to what?