Did you read the article? Because even with a cursory scroll would you find that it's clearly not about policing speech. For example: > (22) p = 0.000. Even th

Did you read the article? Because even with a cursory scroll would you find that it's clearly not about policing speech. For example: > (22) p = 0.000. Even though this statistical expression, used in over 97,000 manuscripts according to Google Scholar, makes regular cameo appearances in our computer printouts, we should assiduously avoid inserting it in our Results sections. This expression implies erroneously that there is a zero probability that the investigators have committed a Type I error Oh no. Big bad PC culture is stopping us from stating fallacious statistical conclusions. Please don't dilute the quality of discussions on this site by posting reactionary nonsense before even reading something to which you're responding.