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

211–220 of 247 posts

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#211

Post by tonguez »

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…

He left The Intercept because The Intercept wouldn't publish Glenn's story about Hunter Biden because you're not allowed to criticize Biden because TLAs want Biden. Greenwald obviously is mostly known for exposing the crimes of TLAs.

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#212

Post by paulryanrogers »

tonguez wrote: post #205
nucleogenesis wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Woke” thinking is a critique on those “thousands of years of global civilization” and the example I posted shows that what this “global civilization” has decided and coerced others into treating as the natural way of things just flat out isn’t. So to say something like that the gender binary is an oppressive and unjust norm in global society because trans, intersex, non-binary, gender-fluid, etc people exist does at…

Quoted post unavailable.

Witches with supernatural power over nature and people have yet to be proven to exist. Hermaphrodites and all manner of (a)sexuality exist in nature. Genetic analysis suggests that monogamy is a relatively modern and unnatural state for humans. Females have also been oppressed and marginalized for most of recorded history. Progress doesn't have to be defined as conformity to surviving cultural norms or binary interpretations of genetics.

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#213

Post by paulryanrogers »

tonguez wrote: post #204
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…

"Gender studies are a sociological study because there is no gender without some social structure enforcing it." Everything is a social construct, right... Really heady, intelligent stuff. Extremely interesting. Mindblowing. "Not all societies abide the gender binary." There are also a lot of societies where women are considered inferior and don't have any rights.

Are your trying to say that gender is defined exclusively by presence/absence of Y chromosome? If so should we have a gender for YY? What about those whose genes express with both male and female parts?

Must such distinctions be legally regulated?

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#214

Post by coldtea »

nucleogenesis wrote: post #201
coldtea wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

“Woke” thinking is a critique on those “thousands of years of global civilization” and the example I posted shows that what this “global civilization” has decided and coerced others into treating as the natural way of things just flat out isn’t. So to say something like that the gender binary is an oppressive and unjust norm in global society because trans, intersex, non-binary, gender-fluid, etc people exist does at…

>and the example I posted shows that what this “global civilization” has decided and coerced others into treating as the natural way of things just flat out isn’t.

There are all kinds of outliers for anything, from child killing to incest, even consumption of shit as part of some rituals. But just because there are outliers doesn't mean that the ways that the huge majority over time and space followed are not natural way of things.

The way of life of this people or that tribe, doesn't nullify the ways of billions upon billions for millenia. It just shows that it's not something like an invilatable physical law - but nobody thought it as such.

Same ways that societies that parents casually would kill their children (like e.g. happens with unwanted daughrers in India) doesn't mean there's not a natural and societal imperative to care for them. Just that social custom, special interests, etc, can go beyond that.

And it's not like they were "coerced" - civilizations and peoples came to the same answers and culture types time and again independently, even to the point of not having geographical connectivity with one another.

>So to say something like that the gender binary is an oppressive and unjust norm in global society because trans, intersex, non-binary, gender-fluid, etc people exist does at least seem more justified when you find that it’s not the only naturally occurring way for humans to categorize themselves.

Well, bi, gay/lesbian, and trans people have existed since the dawn of time (and tons of historical figures have been). It's not like societies didn't know they exist (or had roles for them, as in ancient Greece and Rome).

The norms for societies however were categorized by how the majority is (which is why they were called "norms"), and optimized for what helps reproduce societies and peoples.

Why would societies organize social life based on some minority concerns (as opposed to just respect and give rights to those minorities)?

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#215

Post by pixelgeek »

I had this same experience trying to find some good science magazines for my 14yr old. They are quite interested in genetics and I looked and looked and none of the available magazines were any good.

I think that looking at the advertisements in the magazines tells you what part of the problem is. They are aimed at a fairly old demographic and probably the one remaining that still buys magazines.

The other significant issue is ads. No-one wants to spend ad money on ads that do not provide the type stats that Facebook and Google do. Before the internet the relationship between an ad campaign and increased sales wasn't causal. Maybe the ads worked. Maybe they didn't.

Now advertisers have far more information about the success of their campaigns and much, much more control over how ads are targeted.

So why would anyone do print or newspaper ads?

So magazines and newspapers are left with a diminishing pool of advertisers who target a declining demographic.

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#216

Post by coldtea »

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…

This reads more like "he left the Orange-man-bad-echo-bubble/party-line-therefore-he-is-bad".

There are however plenty of journalists to carry the established, tired, party line for mock rage and cheap partisanship. You'd be fine with WP, NYT, the Guardian, and many others, there's no shortage of my-party-right-or-wrong types.

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#217

Post by lern_too_spel »

uejfiweun wrote: post #200
dragonwriter wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It might have been courageous to take on that story, but Greenwald was also hilariously wrong. If he had bothered to talk to any subject matter expert, he wouldn't have gotten PRISM so incredibly wrong. The New York Times, CNET, etc. were able to get the story right just by being the slightest bit competent.

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#218

Post by scrozart »

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…

This is accurate, and I'll add this issue also isn't necessarily about "woke culture" at all - the decision makers at these media companies are latching on to memes they think will drive viewership, and in doing so are amplifying questionable voices and poorly-thought-out content, because those decision makers can't tell the difference and likely don't care.

Being "woke" initially just meant acknowledgement of existing social stratification, and was a meme/label just like being a "Chad" or a "Karen". It was a simple state of being, which has been blown out of proportion by the trends OP outlined. Everything gets bastardized and watered down to the point where it isn't the same thing at all anymore. Now, were seeing amplification of people screaming "that's racist" at everything. I think most things deserve scrutiny, bit I agree the bar for that scrutiny needs to be much higher than the SA article.

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#219

Post by smitty1e »

sofixa wrote: post #143
smitty1e wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the magazine had to have an audience They could have opted to bring the audience up to the magazine. But that is The Road Not Taken.

As if a magazine can force or entice people to have an interest in complex(-ish) scientific news. Science isn't "cool", and there's so much things available to do out there, which is easy to consume ( even on the same subject). It makes sense they tried to adapt

I can differentiate between editorial choices made to keep the style of the content current and relevant without debasing the substance.

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#220

Post by dragonwriter »

coldtea wrote: post #216
dragonwriter wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

This reads more like "he left the Orange-man-bad-echo-bubble/party-line-therefore-he-is-bad". There are however plenty of journalists to carry the established, tired, party line for mock rage and cheap partisanship. You'd be fine with WP, NYT, the Guardian, and many others, there's no shortage of my-party-right-or-wrong types.

> This reads more like "he left the Orange-man-bad-echo-bubble/party-line-therefore-he-is-bad".

Er, no he was very far outside of that (with very much the same ideological bent he has now) even when he was at the Intercept

Post reply on HN