Recently, someone asked the question How can I convince people that the use of a different word for the death of a woman is wrong because we are all equal?. This question sparked several comment chains about the off-topicness or on-topicness of the question. Since comments should be used for improving answers, not debates, let's move the discussion to this question instead.
Should this question be closed? Why?
Questions such as this must not rely on asking for help in creating an actual argument for the person asking. We are not here to further the person's political/religious/personal goals, we are here to help people improve their interpersonal skills.
So, I'd like to pull out an old and much used question here, the vegan question.
How to ask a vegan to stop telling me about veganism because I am not interested in it?
This question isn't asking us to make an argument for why veganism is bad or why the OP isn't going to be a vegan, it's asking how to get the vegans to stop pestering the OP when they are eating a non-vegan lunch.
This, is fine. As Hamlet, I think, would say, what sets the vegan question apart from the one this question is about is that it's specific about the situation. It's about coworkers who are regularly approaching the OP about his eating habits.
The question at hand isn't about any specific person. It could be about a journalist (but would that be IPS if you never talk with them in person?) or a friend/coworker/family member... which would be an IPS issue.
But I'd like to introduce a rule that I think we should consider. We are not here to be copy editors. We are not here to redraft emails, write speeches, tell you what to say. We're here to help people determine for themselves the best way to phrase something; to give advice for researching how to find the arguments you need. We're not here to come up with the argument or to put words in mouths.
If the goal of a question is "tell me what to say" or "re/write my email for me" - we should not answer these questions. These are the equivalent of the Stack Overflow "Give me teh codez" questions.
So, as is, the question is unclear and if the OP really just wants us to draft their argument for them, it should stay closed, but closed as "off topic".
Convincing others about a specific political viewpoint?
I think we can find books written on that. So they're not a fit for SE's Q&A format, as I understand it. It would help to check out Politics Stack Exchange meanwhile to learn what sort of politics-related questions are okay for SE.
Look at all the political campaigns, the promises, the debates and stuff that goes on during elections. They're all done to convince others that the candidate has a good political viewpoint and wants others to help them implement them.
I say, "off-topic" or "too broad" is okay for this type of questions.
The question should be closed, not because it's about politics, but because it doesn't contain enough detail.
As apaul34208 pointed out in a comment, having productive conversations about political topics is absolutely an interpersonal skill. Learning to understand the viewpoints of others is also an interpersonal skill. We should be able to ask and answer questions about these issues.
The problem with the question is that it asks for advice for how to "persuade" people, but it doesn't explain who the OP is trying to persuade, or what the OP has already tried doing. Questions about persuading an entire country--hopefully it's obvious that such a question is so complex that it deserves a book, not a Stack Exchange answer. A question about the time I tried to have a political conversation with my friend, with a description of what I remember saying and her response, that asks for advice about if there's a way to word my points that keeps her from storming off--I think that would make a great question on this site, even if it involves politics. A question about a time when I interacted with staff in a politician's office? In my mind that would also make a great question.
If there's one thing we know, its that questions work best when they're about a specific example. If a question is specific, then it will get answers specific to the question. If a question is broad, then as we've seen, there's wiggle room to post an answer that's not actually about interpersonal skills, but about the rationale behind a political issue, and still claim that it answers the question. Make questions specific and the political debates we've been having... tend to go away. (If it means anything, Shog agrees with me.)
There are plenty of interpersonal situations that also involve politics. So long as the politics is there for the sake of the interpersonal, rather than the interpersonal being a segway into the politics, there isn't anything to worry about.
I am philosophically opposed to closing any question that is not blatantly off-topic or otherwise clearly deserving of closure under any other close-reason, but members who were quick to close some other borderline questions here should simply rush to close this question you linked, because it is not about interpersonal skills as we have defined by clear consensus; it is too broad and also not clear what interpersonal issue OP wants to address (because the only real person in it is OP and it takes 2 people to make an issue inter-personal -- OP wants to convince society at large, which is not interpersonal but political, so this is basically a political question); answers are very likely to be primarily opinion-based; it is also potentially inflammatory and divisive, introducing the type of debate that we don't need here.
And this question is still open and has been answered.
So if you want to protect the quality of content on this site, go on and close it for any one of many reasons before casting close votes against borderline cases. Since so many members are dedicated to close-voting here I should've expected to see this question closed like already.
Update: the Q referenced in this meta Q got duly closed a few minutes after I had posted this meta answer. Not because of this answer, of course, but probably because of the attention generated by this meta question.
