I'm sorry but you're wrong: effect can be used to mean to cause something to happen. This is different from affect's verb form, which is to influence something.
Affect also has a noun form, if you're curious. This duality of effect and affect having both noun and verb forms, even though each has a more popular common usage, is a common thing to misunderstand.
In case my deletion of the comment wasn't federated: mb, I didn't realise it was an image post.
I think you fail to understand that a lot of the people replying to you are solely replying because of your tone. You're not winning any argument against anyone because all they're telling you is that you're obnoxious. You can't spin that into a win over racist people because you need to recognise that people can agree with you and still treat you with hostility.
You're not standing up for anything by being volatile. The only reason why I'm even engaging with you on this is because of your original assumption that people who are making fun of the way you post must clearly be racists. If you can now agree that this is not substantively what they are talking about, and you are okay with that, then both of us can do without your moral grandstanding over how justified you are in doing this.
I just wanted to make sure you understood why people are treating you poorly, and will continue to treat you poorly into the future. These are not going to just be people who disagree with you. These will include people who agree, but think you're a real piece of shit.
Nobody's going to want to answer your "direct questions" or engage with your "assertions" (I'm leaving out "patience" because implicit in the idea of patience is manner, in which tone plays a big part and I still don't think you see it).
Does that mean you "win"? I think maybe everyone will be better off if you go away thinking you do, but no, it really doesn't.
This toxic way of thinking of needing to win conversations is also present in the first part of your anecdote where you claim that people used to "win" by asking you to calm down or stop using certain words. They're not trying to beat you, they're trying to engage in discourse that both sides can appreciate. If you literally cannot win an argument without resorting to namecalling or condescension, you really need to rethink the value proposition of your arguments.
And if you really think that you've won when people no longer want to engage with you, then, like I said before, maybe everyone is better off that way.
I mean, you literally called the guy stupid and criticised the post for a "complete lack of logic": I agree with the other people that you write incredibly obnoxiously, especially if that's what you regard as "polite". Unfortunately claims of rationality can go hand-in-hand with a pseudo-intellectualism that is really grating when done in earnest.
Maybe rather than consider everyone else racist, you might do a bit of self-reflection and consider why people who clearly acknowledge that the main post is racist (see every other upvoted comment) still consider your post worse than the racism you're criticising.
I didn't think it was misleading, but when I read it I automatically thought the article was talking about the extent of pollution in the ocean, not what everyone else seems to be interpreting it as...
Assuming what he's saying is true, I still keep coming back to this line:
“My boss said, ‘I would have killed someone who said what you said in the meeting.’”
How does someone say something like that? And how is this something that he's never been called out for?
Just a small but very important correction: the article says 6 grams per serving. Giving them two extra teaspoons with the small amount that babies take is much more significant.
EDIT: A quick search said that one serving of baby food tends to be around 75g? That means that that's 8% of it being pure sugar.
The other person is saying that devaluing the US dollar would make it easier for others to buy American products.
I assumed you thought they were talking about strengthening the US dollar, so I pointed out that the original post (yours, I realise now) was talking about devaluation. Not sure why you think devaluation would give greater buying power.
The original post was asking about why devaluing the dollar would be good for Americans.
The point they are making is if it ends up in a landfill anyway, then you've wasted more energy/resources recycling it.
If it stays on your shelf, that's not what they're talking about.
I love both jackfruit and durian, but they are very different flavours.
People don't really like to read the articles before commenting, huh.
Knowing Stardew was such a beloved game, I knew I had to get context before judging the author because it could be read both ways.
People who assume games not changing = criticism are telling us more about their own uncharitable view of others than anything else.
EDIT: That said, if I were to offer criticism, I feel like the author gives too much credit to Stardew as though it invented or pioneered the tight gameplay loop: perhaps at least some mention could have been made to Harvest Moon, the game from which Stardew borrows - and perfects - most of its major systems.
Also to be fair, it doesn't go anywhere with that thought that Stardew hasn't changed. Felt a little low-effort, like a retrospective on Stardew that just basically listed what people liked about it.
Excuse me? Who are the original people in your book and which year is the baseline?
I'm someone who doesn't have a huge stake in either side and still this take astounds me.
I think it's an anti-riddle, or a joke, more than anything else.
I honestly can say I've never quicksaved to kill an NPC for slighting me.
Some of those are answered. Some of those are also answered in the piece they linked that talks about the zoning issues. And some of those don't have an answer beyond the obvious. I think the root of your unhappiness may lie with the few points that fit into that last category, but that's hardly the fault of an article that I wouldn't consider clickbait.
I'm not sure if we're reading the same article or some parts didn't load for you, but it seems full of whys:
Why the supermarkets left at the start
Why it's harder for them to come back
Why certain urban areas have made it more difficult for them to come back (things like zoning)
Why supermarkets themselves may not want to come back (interview with rep and speculation on violence)
Do these not help answer the question?
Yeah, kinda puts paid to the idea that piracy is about sustainable, non-DRMed software for all when the one company whose niche is ensuring that such resources are available is being undermined like this.