It’s part of the discussion because the guy is a racist and told a person of color to “go back where they came from”.
“Nativism is a cancer” is insane. What are you, pro-colonialism? Pro-genocide? You have to genuinely have something wrong with you.
If we’re going to be anal about it, we don’t need to mention ancestors at all. One of these people was born in Idaho. The other was not. Get it?
I think there is a term for this. The (insert name here) effect. You won’t leave because they’re there. They won’t leave because their audience is there.
You have less incentive to stay, really. What are you afraid of missing out on?
Pretty uncharitable interpretation of something posted by someone who I would guess you have a common goal with.
People that give a fuck about “priceless art” or whatever are so silly. Lmao.
I’m not saying to not continue posting articles like this, but I do think that maybe your time would be better spent arguing with people who don’t believe in climate change instead of arguing with people who do believe in climate change.
Okay bud. This means way too much to you. I think maybe you should take a step back and take a deep breath, because holy fuck.
It’s pretty clear that they are saying your phrasing was pretty dehumanizing. They didn’t get wooshed, they were pointing out your well-intended micro aggression.
Do you think we’re debating you? We’re mocking you.
You seem pretty obviously upset.
What would make you think that a PC wouldn’t also be able to do this for longer? Lol.
Don’t think you understood the underlying point of their comment.
lol ok bud
genocide apologist
REMINDER: THIS IS WHERE WE STARTED
MY POINT = PROVEN CORRECT
PLEASE KEEP MOVING THE GOALPOST
The paper wasn’t retracted until 2010 lol. The point is that fraudulent papers can be published.
Still lmao.
This just shows the resilience of publishing, and the scientific community to fraud and [alleged] corruption
Uh… sure it does, buddy.
Tell me more about how antivax scientists didn’t successfully publish a paper with tons of biases and nonsensical findings.
No paper would be published if it was biased and as selective as you say.
That is incredibly naive of you and truly points to your lack of credibility.
I’d have to see the mapeditor and confirm it’s any good to care. We’ve had pretty capable (gen 3) map editing tools for years already. Considering what existing romhacking tools are already out there, I’m pretty skeptical that this will provide anything of value.