Thanks, I've been writing it incorrectly for years.

>Agree that r/science is cancer and has been for years I am surprised by this. Why has /r/science been censoring stuff? It seems contrary to science to do so.

Yup. RedditCensors basically dictates what subs I unsubscribe from after I see things like this.

No, no, no. Reddit can't do that. The left has already tried that, and it turns out they are either wrong, or can't argue their point - so what is a leftist cesspool of left wing SJW's going to do? Allow free discussion? No way, can't do that. Heck, it is because they can't do that that this sub even exists.

I think it's hillarious to post racist studies about IQ in r/science. The cognitive dissonance must kill the sperg faction of the mods there. To see stuff they realize is obviously true yet have to deny in order to stay in the good graces of the SJWs.

> and only leads to giving exposure to something not rooted in reality. Which gives an excellent opportunity for a teachable moment. That is responding with something that disproves whatever claim is made and hence educating the readers. This works great for stuff that actually is easily disprovable, like young earth creationism, perpetual motion machines or flat earth-theories. It doesn't work very well for global warming skepticism or sexual or racial cognitive disparities. For disputing those heresies only censorship and shutting down the discussion seem to work. Which is because those are either a lot more nuanced than people like you pretend (climate modelling) or the prevailing theories are simply outright wrong (race and sex differences).

Mate, they're lying to you that it's about people denying climate change. It's not. Sure, a couple of morons don't believe climate change, but the argument isn't if it's real since some years now, it's if the man-made part of it is of a catastrophic magnitude and if/or the goverment is the one to fix it and if the cost to the economy is worth the agreement. The US sunk their emissions by over 50% since 2000 and will continue to sink it regardless of the Paris agreement. People are really saying that somehow it doesn't matter that much if China is in on the deal because they sunk their emissions a teeny tiny bit the last couple of years but somehow that doesn't apply to the US that's steadily sinking their emissions since 2000. Many scientists share that opinion too (the famous 97% is if they believe the change is real at all, it's not even if there's any man-made part). Many countries don't even do anything to lower their emissions, it's just virtue signalling, like Canada that signed an agreement but then backed off when they realized that their emissions rose or like Germany that is shutting down their nuclear power plants in favour of coal, meanwhile they're telling their neighbour countries that they have to shut all of their coal plants down, even tho Germany's emissions are higher and are rising. This is a prime example of how Germany uses it's influence in the EU for their national interests and disguises it as global interests. The same people who call people with this opinion that they are "anti-science" are often opposing nuclear power plants and disregarding the fact that they need non-renewable energy, even if they'd put all of the world's money into their renewables, so they will be relying more on coal themselves while bashing the evil US. The same people will also disregard science completely when it comes to abortion because it doesn't fit their narrative. (I'm not anti-abortion myself) Keep in mind, the USA could never back off from the agreement (if it's really that great then why didn't Obama show it to the senate) and then just disregard it completely and nobody would bat an eye. So how anti-science am I?