Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Ben on March 16, 2019, 10:09:33 PM
-
To think that I had a subscription to them in the '80s. They need to take "scientific" out of their title. Does Bloomberg own this magazine now?
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/why-are-white-men-stockpiling-guns/?utm_medium=social&utm_content=organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=SciAm_&sf209438140=1
-
I used to subscribe to them as well but stop when I noticed their articles started getting more and more political and PC in the 90s
-
After skimming through about a third of that claptrap I'd read all I needed to know the author is a dissembling fool-born puttock.
-
I gave up on that magazine when they started talking about frying up the placenta and chowing down on it and that was a long time ago.
bob
-
Jeremy Adam Smith
Jeremy Adam Smith is editor of Greater Good magazine and author or co-editor of four books, including The Compassionate Instinct and Are We Born Racist?
So, SciAm lets just anybody talk?
At the bottom in veddy veddy small print:
The views expressed are those of the author(s) and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.
Umm, yeah. OK. Whatever.
-
I had a subscription once. Every single issue was about impending doom from AGW. Every issue. I started calling it "environment catastrophe" instead of scientific american, and let my subscription lapse.
-
Same as y'all... had a subscription back in the 80s and early 90s. Let it lapse because of all the "ermuhgerd, Global Warming and we're all gonna die!" claptrap.
National Geographic suffered a similar fate.
Brad
-
I remember reading Scientific American when I was in school and it still promulgated science rather than politics.
I can't help but wonder if they'll eventually be slapped by the market the way Consumer Reports was when they published article after article about "living on the edge" and the plight of "the poor," who with their limited budgets had to make decisions about whether to buy cigarettes for themselves or baby food for their children. (Cigs won as often as not.)
Droves of people cancelled their CR subscriptions since these articles were devoid of the (supposedly) impartial detailed reviews of various products people might buy.
-
I remember reading Scientific American when I was in school and it still promulgated science rather than politics.
I can't help but wonder if they'll eventually be slapped by the market the way Consumer Reports was when they published article after article about "living on the edge" and the plight of "the poor," who with their limited budgets had to make decisions about whether to buy cigarettes for themselves or baby food for their children. (Cigs won as often as not.)
Droves of people cancelled their CR subscriptions since these articles were devoid of the (supposedly) impartial detailed reviews of various products people might buy.
I dropped CR when they has a comparison between the Ford Explorer and the Mazda Navajo. They thought the Ford was terrible and the Mazda was great. Apparently they didn't realize they were the exact same vehicle made on the same assembly line and the only difference was the logo on the grill.
-
I figure the market has hurt Scientific American which is why they have gone full on liberal. Rich liberals seem to enjoy owning these publishing outlets and putting radical leftists in charge.
On the article subject, I guess it is just one more attempt to demonize guns. This time trying to tag them with "racism" which seems to be something liberals try to tag on anything they don't like.
-
I figure the market has hurt Scientific American which is why they have gone full on liberal. Rich liberals seem to enjoy owning these publishing outlets and putting radical leftists in charge.
Also "coffee table magazines" for rich liberals. Kinda like they only watch PBS (like Beto), or drive a Prius instead of an Insight, because it's more noticeable for the "lib cred".