******** the corporate games industry says

[rusty_shackleford]

Key findings were that 1 in 5 (17%) of active video game players are LGBTQ+

So they only surveyed canada?

Also:
"1 in 5 (17%) "

uhhhh

[Trickster]

Another proof that we can't trust modern western "science" if social, power, and money issues are somehow involved.

[Xenich]

Key findings were that 1 in 5 (17%) of active video game players are LGBTQ+

So they only surveyed canada?

Also:
"1 in 5 (17%) "

uhhhh

Math is racist.

[logincrash]

Math is racist.

That's true. How else would the 13 / 100 = 53 equation work?

[Kalarion]

Another proof that we can't trust modern western "science" if social, power, and money issues are somehow involved.

Several years ago I came to the conclusion that it is wiser for me as a mostly disinterested viewer to automatically assume that any "facts" or "news" that don't pass my smell test are fake. Not misleading, not biased, FAKE. I concluded that my autonomic response to any news I "don't like" should be to label it fake and refuse discussion until I was presented with source data to evaluate for myself. Note: I mean it; not found by myself through arduous research, not shown after continuous cajoling and argumentation; I mean precisely presented on a silver platter before any further discussion will take place. I came to these conclusions totally anecdotally and not at all supported by lots of empirical evidence (I couldn't be assed to do real research on it).

I have never, not a single time, found this position to be incorrect when I've tested it. I can think of half a dozen instances off the top of my head where I loudly screamed, "FAKE NEWS!" in budding arguments with, say, relatives, and refused further discussion until source data was presented. In every single one, the source data either completely disproved my would-be interlocutor's point, or had absolutely nothing to do with it.

Try it, it appears to be as divinely accurate as the Witch Test.

[Trickster]

Another proof that we can't trust modern western "science" if social, power, and money issues are somehow involved.

Several years ago I came to the conclusion that it is wiser for me as a mostly disinterested viewer to automatically assume that any "facts" or "news" that don't pass my smell test are fake. Not misleading, not biased, FAKE. I concluded that my autonomic response to any news I "don't like" should be to label it fake and refuse discussion until I was presented with source data to evaluate for myself. Note: I mean it; not found by myself through arduous research, not shown after continuous cajoling and argumentation; I mean precisely presented on a silver platter before any further discussion will take place. I came to these conclusions totally anecdotally and not at all supported by lots of empirical evidence (I couldn't be assed to do real research on it).

I have never, not a single time, found this position to be incorrect when I've tested it. I can think of half a dozen instances off the top of my head where I loudly screamed, "FAKE NEWS!" in budding arguments with, say, relatives, and refused further discussion until source data was presented. In every single one, the source data either completely disproved my would-be interlocutor's point, or had absolutely nothing to do with it.

Try it, it's appears to be as divinely accurate as the Witch Test.

Based beyond believe.

[Oyster Sauce]

Another proof that we can't trust modern western "science" if social, power, and money issues are somehow involved.

Several years ago I came to the conclusion that it is wiser for me as a mostly disinterested viewer to automatically assume that any "facts" or "news" that don't pass my smell test are fake. Not misleading, not biased, FAKE. I concluded that my autonomic response to any news I "don't like" should be to label it fake and refuse discussion until I was presented with source data to evaluate for myself. Note: I mean it; not found by myself through arduous research, not shown after continuous cajoling and argumentation; I mean precisely presented on a silver platter before any further discussion will take place. I came to these conclusions totally anecdotally and not at all supported by lots of empirical evidence (I couldn't be assed to do real research on it).

I have never, not a single time, found this position to be incorrect when I've tested it. I can think of half a dozen instances off the top of my head where I loudly screamed, "FAKE NEWS!" in budding arguments with, say, relatives, and refused further discussion until source data was presented. In every single one, the source data either completely disproved my would-be interlocutor's point, or had absolutely nothing to do with it.

Try it, it appears to be as divinely accurate as the Witch Test.

Genuinely never fails. Heard some amerindian kids got wiped out and immediately disregarded it as fake without bothering to look into it. Several years later, still no bodies found (and 99% of the country still believes it so it just goes to show that nothing matters and everything is gay)

[Stack of Turtles]

Genuinely never fails. Heard some amerindian kids got wiped out and immediately disregarded it as fake without bothering to look into it. Several years later, still no bodies found (and 99% of the country still believes it so it just goes to show that nothing matters and everything is gay)

But do you still believe "amerindians" were real?