Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 247 posts

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#191

Post by nucleogenesis »

lazyeye wrote: post #157
stjohnswarts wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Woke culture had a purpose but it has become a victim of its own success. The author of the SA article clearly wants to carve out science as biased by the mere fact of asserting that all genes are not equal. They seem to think we are all perfectly one as capable as the other in all things. That is insanity. It leads to a spiral of blame and anxiety as we see ourselves as nothing but victims of the world at large and…

Woke people only ever want a blank slate to which they can apply their ideology. They wont tolerate nature intruding. Why is there no neuro-psychology component in gender studies for example?

Because gender is a made up thing informed by social norms. Not all societies abide the gender binary. Gender studies are a sociological study because there is no gender without some social structure enforcing it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_in_Bugis_society

Go learn in some depth of “woke” ideology before getting fired up online about it. Learn it from “woke” people and talk with them and take it seriously and maybe next time you might bring some critical thought to the table instead of the same rote “woke people bad and anti-science” drivel.

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#192

Post by coldtea »

It's not Scientific American. It's every medium. The NYT of 2022 is not the NYT of the past, and WP is not the WP of Watergate. And it goes beyond the ideological issues.

In fact, the same declining quality (though not with the same specifics of course) is the case in every industry where they're fighting for increasingly thinner profit margins.

It was the same back in the day (as far back as Mark Twain, Hearst/"Kane" and the first newspapers), where it was all about political and magnate influence to please some sponsor or another, and cheap writing to get people to buy papers.

If journalism had a veneer that it wasn't about the bottom line, that was when money were plenty, because there was a brief (not that innocent, but much better than before and after) period, say between 1940 and 2000), when:

(a) consumer spending got big

(b) advertising budgets grew

(c) while still having no "per page view" metric available,

(d) and before the race-to-the-bottom of the online era, as there weren't hundreds of thousands of competing news sources plus every amateur with a website plus social media plus 24/7 tv

that gave print journalists the luxury of working independently and with more prestige.

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#193

Post by coldtea »

stjohnswarts wrote: post #123
mmaunder wrote: post #83

Self-censorship is the other half of this problem. How many of us here have self censored our writing out of fear of painting a bullseye on our backs? The more you have to lose, the more cautious you are. If you’ve spent a lifetime studying a certain field, building a business or becoming a well know expert, you risk having it all taken away if you provoke the ire of the mob. And the mob has nothing to lose and every…

Woke culture had a purpose but it has become a victim of its own success. The author of the SA article clearly wants to carve out science as biased by the mere fact of asserting that all genes are not equal. They seem to think we are all perfectly one as capable as the other in all things. That is insanity. It leads to a spiral of blame and anxiety as we see ourselves as nothing but victims of the world at large and…

>Woke culture had a purpose but it has become a victim of its own success.

Did it ever really had a purpose? I find that the black, gay, indigenous, movements of the 50s, 60s, 70s and so - that is, before the solidification of "woke" ideology, had much more coherent demands and narratives.

In fact, society wise, they were much more militant too, and in periods when it was actually costly to be in favor of those causes. Now the "woke"-ists are mainly following the easy path, and the top of them, makes a career for themselves (plus the whole supporting industry). Not to mention that at the time, the liberation movements at the time were mostly comprised and fought from by the affected peoples themselves (blacks, gays, lesbians, trans, native americans, etc).

Now it's predominantly white aspirational classes that champion wokism and police the field. They found a way to make this about them (and a way to use it as a class signal between their own, like they'd use their superior music tastes and dress style).

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#194

Post by coldtea »

nucleogenesis wrote: post #191
lazyeye wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Woke people only ever want a blank slate to which they can apply their ideology. They wont tolerate nature intruding. Why is there no neuro-psychology component in gender studies for example?

Because gender is a made up thing informed by social norms. Not all societies abide the gender binary. Gender studies are a sociological study because there is no gender without some social structure enforcing it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_in_Bugis_society Go learn in some depth of “woke” ideology before getting fired up online about it. Learn it from “woke” people and talk with them and take it seriousl…

>Because gender is a made up thing informed by social norms. Not all societies abide the gender binary.

If you find fringe examples, and force it enough, yes. Because, thousands of years of global civilization are invalidated because of what this or that tribe does.

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#195

Post by uejfiweun »

coldtea wrote: post #192

It's not Scientific American. It's every medium. The NYT of 2022 is not the NYT of the past, and WP is not the WP of Watergate. And it goes beyond the ideological issues. In fact, the same declining quality (though not with the same specifics of course) is the case in every industry where they're fighting for increasingly thinner profit margins. It was the same back in the day (as far back as Mark Twain, Hearst/"Kane…

I agree corporate journalism is a pathetic shell of its former self that can only race bait to get clicks. But I do think there is some good journalism going on in the independent scene. For example, Glenn Greenwald still puts out good investigative journalism, and there is a lot of good content on substack as well. I think this is the future, it just makes sense. In the past, journalists had to group into big organizations as you needed a lot of infrastructure to get the message out - printing presses, delivery workers, etc. Now with the internet all you really need is a single person.

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#196

Post by uejfiweun »

coldtea wrote: post #194
nucleogenesis wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because gender is a made up thing informed by social norms. Not all societies abide the gender binary. Gender studies are a sociological study because there is no gender without some social structure enforcing it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_in_Bugis_society Go learn in some depth of “woke” ideology before getting fired up online about it. Learn it from “woke” people and talk with them and take it seriousl…

> Because gender is a made up thing informed by social norms. Not all societies abide the gender binary. If you find fringe examples, and force it enough, yes. Because, thousands of years of global civilization are invalidated because of what this or that tribe does.

Yeah, one big problem I have with the woke movement is that they seem to advocate for policies that contradict common sense. And then they back it up by pointing to these extreme fringe examples. And then if you question their results, they tend to just get really angry and insulting, like the comment you replied to.

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#197

Post by coldtea »

uejfiweun wrote: post #195
coldtea wrote: post #192

It's not Scientific American. It's every medium. The NYT of 2022 is not the NYT of the past, and WP is not the WP of Watergate. And it goes beyond the ideological issues. In fact, the same declining quality (though not with the same specifics of course) is the case in every industry where they're fighting for increasingly thinner profit margins. It was the same back in the day (as far back as Mark Twain, Hearst/"Kane…

I agree corporate journalism is a pathetic shell of its former self that can only race bait to get clicks. But I do think there is some good journalism going on in the independent scene. For example, Glenn Greenwald still puts out good investigative journalism, and there is a lot of good content on substack as well. I think this is the future, it just makes sense. In the past, journalists had to group into big organi…

That true, because they use a different model (directly supported by people via subscriptions/donations).

This model can produce good journalism in some cases (when the people have taste and the journalist doesn't try to optimize his way to placating larger masses) but can also produce bad journalism (say, subscriptions are what sustain all kinds of crap content creators via things like Patreon to Twitch, and hell, OnlyFans).

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#198

Post by dragonwriter »

uejfiweun wrote: post #195
coldtea wrote: post #192

It's not Scientific American. It's every medium. The NYT of 2022 is not the NYT of the past, and WP is not the WP of Watergate. And it goes beyond the ideological issues. In fact, the same declining quality (though not with the same specifics of course) is the case in every industry where they're fighting for increasingly thinner profit margins. It was the same back in the day (as far back as Mark Twain, Hearst/"Kane…

I agree corporate journalism is a pathetic shell of its former self that can only race bait to get clicks. But I do think there is some good journalism going on in the independent scene. For example, Glenn Greenwald still puts out good investigative journalism, and there is a lot of good content on substack as well. I think this is the future, it just makes sense. In the past, journalists had to group into big organi…

> Glenn Greenwald still puts out good investigative journalism

Everything I’ve seen from Glenn (to be fair, that's filtered by what his fans make popular on other platforms, because I’m not actively following him) since he shed traditional journalistic standards enforced by editorial oversight at the outlet he founded has been fairly naked ideological hackery that demonstrates why he was wise to establish traditional journalistic standards and editorial oversight when he founded the outlet he left for substack.

Previously his ideological bias was pretty clear, but his journalism was nevertheless, if not flawless, at least recognizable as such. Now he's just throwing red meat to an ideologically-allied fan club

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#199

Post by jollofricepeas »

coldtea wrote: post #192

It's not Scientific American. It's every medium. The NYT of 2022 is not the NYT of the past, and WP is not the WP of Watergate. And it goes beyond the ideological issues. In fact, the same declining quality (though not with the same specifics of course) is the case in every industry where they're fighting for increasingly thinner profit margins. It was the same back in the day (as far back as Mark Twain, Hearst/"Kane…

Yes.

Popular journalism has never NOT been biased and at worse absolutely awful for those without power. For that reason, freedom of speech and diverse outlets are important. For whatever reason, people just don’t know much about the history of journalism.

- Yellow journalism is a thing and was responsible for riots, murders and possibly a war: https://www.history.com/news/spanish-american-war-yellow-jou...

- The press of the US South openly advocated and encouraged lynchings: https://www.poynter.org/maligned-in-black-white/

- The LA Times apologized for its stereotypical poor chronicling of issues facing people of color: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-09-27/los-angeles...

- The Kansas City Star has apologized for its reporting of minorities: https://eji.org/news/missouri-newspaper-confronts-and-apolog...

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#200

Post by uejfiweun »

dragonwriter wrote: post #198
uejfiweun wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree corporate journalism is a pathetic shell of its former self that can only race bait to get clicks. But I do think there is some good journalism going on in the independent scene. For example, Glenn Greenwald still puts out good investigative journalism, and there is a lot of good content on substack as well. I think this is the future, it just makes sense. In the past, journalists had to group into big organi…

> Glenn Greenwald still puts out good investigative journalism Everything I’ve seen from Glenn (to be fair, that's filtered by what his fans make popular on other platforms, because I’m not actively following him) since he shed traditional journalistic standards enforced by editorial oversight at the outlet he founded has been fairly naked ideological hackery that demonstrates why he was wise to establish traditional…

Yeah, I don't actively follow him either, and I am aware that he has aligned himself more with the right lately. I do think though that his work on the Snowden case was really courageous - whether or not you agree or disagree with what he did, it certainly takes balls to go up against the NatSec apparatus.
Post reply on HN