It's both useful and manipulative. Academic rigor and critical thinking don't just spring from facebook, they need to be learnt slowly and carefully.

You know, there are still blind people about who think technology is a good thing for humanity.

Good on you. Tasting bad is sometimes useful for limiting consumption among drinkers.

There are many harmful substances/habits available to us, and too many cannot moderate their use.

So you don't drink alcohol? Perhaps you have a reason.

Nah, you're still focusing on skin color, perhaps because your brain's not as big as you claim. Trying to separate nature from nuture is complex, and there may be much better ways to group people than just race/skin. But then all the failures who have nothing going for them apart from white skin couldn't feel superior about something.

Well, that's the thing about the internet, we can all pretend to be anything we want. Well done on your new huge brain.

Now that you're not stupid, it's clear to you how easily the majority of people can be mislead by bad faith actors presenting simplified incorrect science. Without your inferiority complex you have no need to bolster your ego by pretending that being white somehow makes you superior to other people. You now have the brainpower to consider people as individuals rather than placing them in skin coloured boxes.

Without the brainpower to evaluate concepts independently, that's all you have. Sad thing is, whichever tribe you choose, you'll still be wrong.

You never did say how you did at math back at school - you know, when your ability to understand simple scientific concepts was tested objectively...

No, you may not have the intelligence to grasp many scientific concepts - let alone verify them.

Climate change has proceeded just as predicted:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jun/25/30-years-later-deniers-are-still-lying-about-hansens-amazing-global-warming-prediction

You are lost, without the tools to tell truth from lies.

Those of blessed with excess sometimes engage in something called 'charity', you wouldn't understand.

Even the smartest guy on earth (obviously not me) has to spend all day talking to the intellectually inferior. Morons may be morons, but they have collective power and are important nonetheless.

but understanding and verifying existing concepts isn't that hard.

Ah, but it is, and you also need the critical thinking skills to recognize the limitations and flaws in scientific arguments. Remember back at school, when some kids would get 98% on math tests, and others would fail: that's not just because of late bloomers, it's because some people are just intellectually incapable of understanding scientific/mathematical concepts. Perhaps you're one of them?

New rule: only smart people get to have free speech. (i.e. not you)

Well, that is your retarded argument in a nutshell. Which is the same argument as the censors and those fighting against free speech. I think you struck accidental lucidity.

Verbose delusion is still delusion buddy. Just another 'free speech for me but not for thee' hypocrite. Supporting free speech means supporting people's right to say stuff you disagree with - you deserve the thought police.

Edit:

usually they start doing things to that class of people they shouldn't be doing

You don't believe in free speech at all. People should be free to speak, not to conduct illegal acts, and speech should not be restricted because of some vague possibility that it will lead to illegal acts. That's the nonsense thought-police argument.

Free speech isn't free speech unless it includes people saying things you don't like. We are all prejudiced in some way: to think otherwise is delusional.

Adding a link to the global mod log on the front page would be good.

No, science is not something everyone can do. Most people have no idea how much work and attention to detail is involved. Most people are just too stupid to be scientists. Unfortunately comprehending ones own stupidity takes intelligence, and so it's quite hard to explain to those who really need to understand.

Yeah, I didn't actually read those articles.

If it's a 'news' specific rule then the removal is consistent. Of course the moderator should have written 'old article' for a reason, not 'spam'. The article(s) that were recent shouldn't have been removed. This one is recent:

https://inf.news/en/world/4a894d32a5273367f78eb683b420c22d.html

Edit: Actually, it seems to say it's recent ^ but it's not. Perhaps it's a retarded date format.