Women ruined Scientific American
(twitter.com)
Comments (51)
sorted by:
Used to enjoy this magazine along with Nat Geo. I remember scratching my head and wondering how these articles are considered science. Like them commenting on Floyd riots
The BLM and Antifa riots are very scientific and insightful... for the study of mass formation psychosis.
I agree but that wasn’t the science they were after. Also the behavior of the media would make for a great study
harvard chan top medical school PROUDLY released a statement saying “since racism is a medical health emergency rioting is justified during a pandemic “
clearly very little science happens at our top universities these days
And of course nobody had the guts to ask her how that is scientific. I would’ve asked her how Covid seems to know when you are protesting for certain causes
BLM also had strange covid-immunity clouds surrounding their rallys. "Don't meet other people and form groups, except for BLM of course. That's totally fine."
National Geographic is wholesale proglodyte propaganda. Soft science, like the 'Sci-Fi Channel' turning into the 'Syfy Channel'.They should call it 'Natty Geographs' or something.
Near and dear to my heart. I was 10 going on 11 when sci-fi channel debuted. It was originally intended to appeal to nerds/sci-fi fans. That isn’t their mission anymore
Idk, I was rewatching eureka and damn is there a lot of political cringe, boss mommy fantasies, and just low iq drivel. There’s still some good moments and fun, but is did not age well at all.
I didn’t mind it but I watched it when it came out before I got sick of “the message” and the usual stuff we see all over. 90s sci-fi channel was great. I learned about a lot of classic shows like Night Gallery, Dark Shadows, Starman, 80s TZ, original Outer Limits, and more. One of my favorite shows was a Saturday morning show where they would interview classic sci fi authors
It would confuse the Scots if they called it that.
"So do you know where Paisley is or not?"
>Experts say it is safe to protest as long as you're not protesting the lockdowns.
And Time had that article explaining how despite all the talk about how dangerous large gatherings were the blm protests somehow were not spreading covid.
"Here we see the Monarch butterfly gracefully circling a nectar source before feeding off it...like how white men feed off racism and bigotry..."
Sadly I don’t know if you are actually quoting an article or if it’s satire
I remember a few years ago my doctor had Nat Geo and similar local magazines in the waiting room. They're all full of leftist trash now. Even my local Nat Geo website here in Germany has an anti-Trump article on the frontpage.
How did they justify an anti-Trump article as science?
Basically a "how can he keep getting away with it?" article decrying that politicians like Trump are immune to the left's accusations because his supporters stopped believing them. Including the usual rehashing of "muh convicted felon" and Jan 6th.
The same way they tell you it's "science" that men are women, and IQ tests/crime stats don't correlate with anything ever.
This dude is a savage!
None of that is even hyperbole. This is peak skin-suit.
"WHY WON'T YOU LOVE ME! I KILLED YOUR WIFE, ATE HER GUTS, AND WEAR HER SKIN! WE'RE BASICALLY THE SAME PERSON NOW BECAUSE I'M INSIDE OF HER AND SHE'S INSIDE OF ME! LOVE ME! LOVE ME! LOVE ME!
LOVE ME OR I'LL KILL YOU AND MYSELF!
Oy vey
The 1st time was literally the last election, 2020. So what they mean to say is "for 175 years we were apolitical, then we let the women take over so now we're 'Orange Man Bad American'"
Nitter thread link.
Thank you!
Academia trained generations of sleeper agents who infiltrated every institution in America. All of these Marxist revolutionaries were waiting for the signal to take over. Apparently that signal was a violent career criminal overdosing on fentanyl while in police custody.
Scientific Cat Lady
Sciencey Amerikaren
Imagine setting your century+ old paper's reputation on fire to endorse Kamala Fucking Harris.
Leftists don't care. They'll destroy anything for a quick political hit. Then, like parasites, they move on to the next host.
As someone posted before, you can never truly learn when you work backwards from "nothing is ever my fault"
I'm not convinced that it'd be any less partisan if its entire editorial board were hard science PhDs
In the early 00s scientists were decrying the "awful" state of science journalism. As a result online outfits like ScienceBlogs hired academics in their various scientific fields to write about current events and publications in their fields, with the goal being to improve the quality of science writing and reduce the sensationalism of the science journalism at the time.
Instead a lot of the scientists hired to write about these things thought it more fun to write about their trash politics and opinions on social and religious matters, and instead of improving the quality of science writing we all just found out how dogshit all these peoples' views on those topics were.
At the time they had enough respect to confine their trash opinions to blogs, but respectability for institutions hasn't exactly gone up since then; and with declining readership for print media they'd almost certainly be tempted by the same sorts of incentives to sensationalize as this editorial board is. And they all have the exact same views on Trump as this creature does.
If I had the clout to be lead editor of Scientific American, I would immediately commission a special multi-issue edition over the replication crisis, the sad state of peer reviews and the influence of special interest groups on scientific journalism. And I would personally proofread and verify every article for objectivity and accuracy.
This would probably cause a wave of people quitting in protest, which is also part of my plan to replace them with editors who can put their politics aside.
Shocking!
Unattractive, middle aged, likely unmarried women, did
if any man of science say "no" to a woman, no matter how retarded the idea is, they would be accused of misogyny, sexism and chauvinism. it would be seen as mansplaining.
we need men's clubs again so we can be or act like men. so we can enjoy and vent to with other men. honestly.. gaming was like that. but now that is gone. when men's space is invaded, they start to act out. aka.. shooting up places and being super toxic.
She is a cunt of the highest order, and in fact, you haven't heard half o it.
women ruin everything
Just another layoff factory trying to get some social media clout before they expire.
We have the obvious problem now, but I'm missing a frame of reference for when the magazine was good. What was published before, and what kind of people were in charge of content back then?
Have the archive with comments.
https://ghostarchive.org/archive/cBjSV
The old guy looks like he just wants to be respected and doesn't know what to do about the new guys destroying everything he's done.
I'd say "start another science journal" but wokies are playing the long game and are relentless. Infiltrate, subvert and destroy.
It seems like everything is destined to fall in the end because they're playing to win.
The Imp was right
They look like the cabal of freaks, junkies, and sluts that Pierce's father expected.
"the german cat"
Comment Reported for: Rule 2 - Violent Speech (x2)
Comment Removed for: Rule 2 - Violent Speech