> We have political movements that are committed to removing basic human rights from 50% of the population, so sure. Are you saying the publication of this pap

> We have political movements that are committed to removing basic human rights from 50% of the population, so sure. Are you saying the publication of this paper will lead to the removal of basic human rights from 50% of the population? If not, what is the relevance of this? > Maybe when Roosh doesn't have millions of followers we can discuss this stuff openly. Who is Roosh and why does them having millions of followers mean we cannot discuss this stuff openly? > Let me give you a different example. Let's say there's a study that shows a weak link between a vaccine and autism. If it were published, it would be amplified far out of proportion to its findings and used to convince millions of parents not to vaccinate their kids. Such a paper could have a death toll in the hundreds. A paper like that should not be published unless it's been replicated multiple times, and even then with profound qualifications front and center indicating precisely which vaccine it applies to, etc. If your hypothetical paper followed proper scientific procedures, it absolutely should be published. I'm honestly astonished that you would think otherwise. This is how science works. A scientific paper should not be censored on ideological grounds, and trying to do so will backfire by creating public distrust of scientific institutions.