I asked a clarification question on this question in the comments. The OP asks how to encourage bystanders to do the right thing in the situation. My point of contention was making the question less morally ambiguous.
The comment asked the OP what the right thing in this situation was. From the context of the question, the OP's opinion of what the right course of action was
All they would have had to do was say something, a simple "hey, chill out, they're friends of ours" could have ended it. Instead it went on until the bigots left the party.
But, in my opinion, that may not be the "right" course of action. Personal safety is often touted as the first priority, and I don't believe that the OP would prefer the anger from the "bigots" to be addressed to the bystanders who would have just been trying to help. So I asked in the comment if the response being redirected to someone else would have been better (in order to start a discussion about perhaps what would have been a better outcome, which could have evolved into an answer). This comment was then deleted.
I then posted a second comment, first wondering why the first comment was deleted, as I felt that it was a valuable question. I then expanded a little bit on my intention of my question. The OP never went into detail about what the "right" thing was in this situation; perhaps they were implying that the "right" thing to do in this situation was to have bystanders inject themselves into an altercation, in aid of the OP and their friends, potentially putting their personal safety at risk. Personal safety being paramount, it is possible that from the bystander's perspective that would have been a bad thing to do. The "bigots" could have redirected their feelings about the OP and their friends towards the bystanders (perhaps in some sort of "the friend of my enemy is my enemy" thinking). This comment was deleted as well.
Not getting an answer, or even an acknowledgement of the question I asked, and having visible proof deleted, led me to believe that any future comments I could make would be useless, as I felt that the OP would be disinterested in anything else being the "right" thing, while at the same time, not being any more specific as to what their actual question was.
I thought that perhaps a better course of action would be to propose an edit, which would be peer reviewed. The edit was almost immediately rejected, and the following reason was given
This edit does not make the post even a little bit easier to read, easier to find, more accurate or more accessible. Changes are either completely superfluous or actively harm readability.
Which I disagree with. I understand that it is the OP's question, and they can do certain things with their question. I would agree these changes probably would not make the post easier to find, nor more accessible. However, I do believe that the edit makes the question
- Easier to read, by removing ambiguity as to the OP's actual question
- More accurate, for the same reason
Additionally, I do not believe that the edit
- is superfluous, as I believe that it does add value to the question
- actively harms readability, because I can't imagine how being more specific would harm the readability of the question
Is my understanding incorrect, or did my proposed edit really do all of the things that were mentioned in the rejection; and if so, how?
Note: New here, so not sure which tags would be most appropriate, feel free to edit