Jan

'Short answer: yes' would be an incorrect summary of the answer as I read and understand it. The answer does not provide sources that show the description of events as given by the MP is factually accurate. Instead, it says that it does not know whether that description is accurate, as primary sources are not available. As we thus do not know what the actual lesson and actual complaint (assuming there was one) was, we do not know whether it was actually fully within the curriculum or not (although the sources this answer has leads us to a 'probably yes' for that part).

'How can godlike power be given to these people where they can devastate people's lives with no questions asked' -- because in international law, entering a country that is not your own is a privilege, not a right; and because the government of the country you tried to enter decided to be strict on who is to enter and who isn't. It's like that in most industrialised countries, it's only rare for people from other industrialised countries to notice it.

@jarnbjo However, the (German) driving licence does not contain your registered address, does not state your nationality and used to not lose its validity. Each of those three disqualifies it as an ID document. (The passport is weird because it does not state your registered address, only town of domicile but you know, laws.)

Gotcha.

@JJJ 'They' in this context is the Israeli government?

(Actually, I would read it if it weren't paywalled. The first paragraph looks interesting.)

Nice, paywalled, so I can't even read it if I want to :D

I mean, some people do like running against walls but ...

See, there are many, many aspects to why the question as asked is not a good question. I really see the possibilty of it being salvaged (hence that section). I strongly encourage you to do so. I predict that if you edit it into a good question, it will receive upvotes and be reopened. But in its present state that is just. Not. Going. To. Happen.

- It is also unclear how relevant BTselem and HRW are to the context of the question. Are you asking about the differences in reaction, the differences in those organisations' labelling or whether one reaction was labelled hysterical another not?

- If the question happens to be whether the label is accurate, that is really inviting opinionated debate. If the question happens to be whether the reactions were warranted, that is really inviting opinionated debate. There are certainly a couple more ways how the question is inviting opinionated debate.

(SE follows the philosophy of self-contained questions and answers; hence why there is a link-only answer NAN flag.)

- there is insufficient context, namely you refuse to provide what HaAretz actually wrote which is key to your question as you directly reference it.

- the question can be interpreted ambiguously. Does 'why is this?' refer to the reactions of Israel or to the label of hysterical? If it applies to the label, is it asking why the report used it or which actions might warrant it?

Okay, if we are going to go into the nuts and bolts aspects:

@MoziburUllah First, I do not want to throw in anything. I am judging the question at hand by its merits (there are few) and I am judging the actions of Philipp wrt this specific question by their merits (and find them correct). It was you who brought up the idea of existing moderator bias which you have hitherto failed to support meaningfully. Second, I went through your questions tagged palestine and was able to find one that has never been closed (certainly not by Philipp). Unfortunately, 'viciously attacked' is ...

weasel enough that it might still apply to the question, given that it attracted 4 downvotes. Third, the discussion of bias of moderators is not off-topic on meta, but the accusation should be supported which you have failed to do.

@MoziburUllah And I will continue to say that your accusation of bias is unfounded, cannot be supported, (might not even exist at all), is certainly not why he closed the question (not 'closed down', just 'closed'; as we're talking about tricks with words). As the facts, in my opinion, do not support any bias in Philipp's actions, 'unconscionability' cannot be supported, an apology is not owed and the question should not be reopened (not 'reinstated') in its current state.

@MoziburUllah That is incorrect. I did not accuse you of malice. I accused you of attributing malice; i.e. I accused you of seeing the actions of Philipp and CDJB as malicious where I believe there is insufficient evidence to do so. Please do not twist my words. But you are indeed correct that this is all irrelevant to the main point which is that your question was rightfully closed in its current state, it cannot be shown that Philipp displayed bias here, your question should not be reopened and you are not owed an apology.

@MoziburUllah Malice requires intent. Your attributing malice does, in my humble opinion, not necessarily rise to the level of intent required. So I stand by my statement that you attributed malice but I cannot say whether you maliciously did so. As for the other part: that wasn't a quote. I was stating the facts as they appear on my end. So far, there seem to be zero people agreeing with you that you were wronged.

@MoziburUllah You have provided me with insufficient context (yes, I am aware that I am sounding like a broken record). For example, this is the first time that you brought up that it was allegedly on Philsophy.SE rather than ELL or here. You yourself are sitting on all the information and are asking me again and again to state an opinion based on what you choose to release. I cannot reasonably do that. If I answer one way, I am being gullible, taking your word for what you say happened in what seems to be a dispute between two people. If I answer the other way, you are most likely ...

going to pull additional information out of your sleeve, throw it in this discussion and accuse me of being <insert bad word here> because I thought that <insert action/statement/background here> was totally fine while I had no clue that it was a thing. Do you not see why I cannot possibly provide you with an opinion in this situation?

@MoziburUllah I don't see myself getting into trouble right here and now, after all, you are the one who is throwing accusations around against various people. However, I personally have used the phrase 'downvote to oblivion' in combination with asking others to do the same. There is a reason why I did so (scientifically wrong statement). There are other reasons why I would do so (e.g. spam questions). Therefore, I will say that context absolutely matters and I cannot decide based on the little information you provide.

@MoziburUllah You still have not given enough details such as linking the chat post. I tried searching for it, going through the list of ELL mods. I can't find it. I cannot take your word for what you are saying, because you are quite obviously biased pro-yourself (who wouldn't be) and thus I do need to independently verify whether what you say is actually true in the way you say it.

@MoziburUllah You are not giving sufficient details for an interpretation. I can assume that two of the five posts you are referring to are the two we have already discussed. I don't know which the other three are. You have also repeatedly but cryptically referred to 'another moderator on SE (not politics)' at least twice but haven't provided the site, the mod or sufficient context for me to even begin to build a picture of what is going on. If you do want my honest opinion on any of these, you are going to have to link them appropriately so I can find and evaluate the issue(s).

Your problem, @MoziburUllah, is that you're attributing malice. And what's more: you're attributing malice to cases where (a) an accident is a sufficient explanation (12 seconds and 20 seconds don't even allow for 'changing one's mind', that doesn't happen that fast) and (b) where the community as of right now agrees that the decision was correct. Please take a deep breath.

Amusingly, I had indeed also just taken a look at that post. I draw the conclusion that CDJB hit a wrong button. The answer was deleted for a total of 20 seconds. The post was incorporated into the question (at the same time as the answer was initially removed) but removed from there after a mere 12 seconds. So basically, it all happened so quickly that the most logical conclusion is a mis-click or mistake. As for the question this meta post is discussing: the facts haven't changed.

Just for the record: Your meta post has 8 downvotes. Each of the answers has a couple of upvotes and 1 downvote. There is a conclusion here that is basically asking to be drawn.

@MoziburUllah I don't know which post that would be referring to. Your highest-voted question on main sits at a score of 41. Number 2 at +21 (+27/-6). If one of your posts has 45+ upvotes, that means it must have 25+ downvotes too. But do link me the post, and I can tell you which conclusion I would draw.

Glad we cleared up that your problem is actually your personal vendetta against a single moderator. I guarantee that had Philipp not closed your question with his diamond privilege single-handedly, it would have been closed by five non-diamond people by now for exactly the same reason. This is exemplified by the reopen review ending in 3 votes for leave closed (selecting 'original close reasons have not been resolved'). Nobody here cares about your personal issue with Philipp, btw.

Ah, now it's all three moderators, is it? The thing is, if the community were to decide that the moderators had acted incorrectly, that can be easily reversed (except in the case of spam or offensive flags, afaik). Furthermore, it is regularly reversed where it is the case. Here, the community is agreeing with the moderator assessment. This is not because of any pro-Israel side, it is because you posted a bad question!

sigh Either you don't get it or you don't want to get it. This answer right here is arguing that with a certain level of editing your question can become what you just claimed it is. Emphasis on become; because it currently is not. Brevity is not a virtue in itself; sometimes brevity can lead to exclusion of relevant details.

The problem isn't so much that 'these things [could] easily be found'; and the main problem is not even that you continue to refuse to link the article, instead insisting that the question be 'good as it is'. It is not. It is, in its current state, not a question that seeks to learn about the political process or the actions of the actors therein (or whatever the exact wording on the help sites is). Three answers on meta and two additional 'leave closed' voters in the review process agree. One reopen vote on the question disagrees but I cannot rule out that that is your vote.

As such, my criticisms apparently have sufficient substance for at least four people to generally agree (in fact, this meta answer currently has a vote tally of +5/-1, indicating five people agree with my assessment). Naturally, you can hold the view that the moderators as a whole or this one single moderator in particular dislike your political opinion. However, merely holding that view does not make it correct. But importantly: also as an asker and an answerer your political opinion should take a back seat on this site.

@MoziburUllah I actually posted on meta on the topic of one's political opinions and the influence they should - in my opinion - have on answers and questions before in a different context; it can be applied here equally, I fear.

Now obviously, you have a right to say almost anything; that is the consequence of the general idea of free speech (restrictions apply that I like to call freedom of the microphone). Using the wording 'entitled to' implies a greater right than is there, in my humble opinion. However, just because you have the right to say something does not mean that your statement holds any water. You can post comment after comment requesting Philipp apologise but all that is going to do is make people roll their eyes; it's not going to change the facts at hand one bit.

Finally, I should note that I do not know what your previous posts were and what the reactions were. I am merely evaluating the post at hand that forms the basis for this discussion on its own merits as I attempt to do with every post.

@MoziburUllah I went back to take another look at the comment thread and I do not agree with your interpretation that Philipp implied such an article be 'a figment of [your] imagination'. It is common practice on this site that when you are referring to a certain source material, you reference it. This can be a traditional citation as was common in pre-internet days or it can be a link (preferred for online sources). As you continue to refuse to link or otherwise cite your primary source in your question, we cannot really discuss any aspects of it.

@MoziburUllah I was about to comment that on the other post before realising that that was not a response to me. I am glad to be able to do so now. No, Philipp does not owe you an apology and the post as it stands should not be reopened. It is not sufficient to give us a set of three keywords for Googling, you need to at the bare mininum link the article itself. However, even with said link the question is not currently reopen-worthy, you need to edit it first. I also object to you calling Philipp closing the question a 'hysterical reaction', which it is not.

This isn't about cosmetic changes, it is about substantial changes. Directly linking the source rather than letting us guess which of our search results (which will differ based on the browser you are conducting the search from) is the absolute minimum to make it an on-topic answerable question but more has to be done.

You do indeed sound like an anti-vaxxer because you are claiming that there be a higher chance for anyone (your specific example: a young male) getting the moderne vaccine and dying from it be higher than that person remaining unvaccinated, catching Covid-19 and dying from it which is patently false.

See, that's why western values is such a weasel word.

@Allure User366312 writes in their answer: 'Western form of democracy is only successful if a state/country has already adopted Western values in its society and culture.' We seem to both agree that these three countries I have mentioned have not 'already adopted' western values in their societies and cultures. Yet, a western form of democracy is successful in all three of them. None of them have fallen into despair or anarchy as the quote in the answer alleges. That, precisely, was my original point.

@Allure 'Western values' is quite a bit of a weasel word if one wants it to be. From a tourist's perspective, 'western values' as perceived by a westerner are not a big thing in South Korea. For Japan I have a somewhat more in-depth experience having lived and worked there for over three years; 'western values' as westerner me perceives them are not central to the Japanese society. Japan, however, became rich mostly thanks to imperialism so it can't be used as well to argue against user366312's comment. (1/2)

To get back to the bigger, overarching picture: all three countries that I have mentioned in my first comment defy the Zhang quote used in the answer. They adopted the western form of democracy and none of them went to despair or anarchy. User366312 did not succeed in presenting any working counter-arguments to the examples I presented imho. (2/2)

@Allure The graph showing gross national income has most of its rise after the dictatorial government was overthrown. The point of showing it was that most of South Korea's 'becoming rich' was during the period of democracy rather than dictatorship or imperialism, directly factually contradicting Zhang's point and thereby rendering it invalid. Feel free to ignore the presence of North Korea in the graph, it serves no purpose to my argument here.

At this point, you're either trolling or unable to analyse data/read sources. I'm done.

Okay

Japan, South Korea and Taiwan would like several words.