I can understand their dismay at the hit piece on EO Wilson, and other editorial stances that they disagree with.
But the editorial section is about 3% of the magazine. It seems hysterical to say that SciAm is "utterly destroyed" because of their resentment of "woke" editorials. Really, the 100 or so in depth pieces written every year, the "things in the news" sections are now just part of a "zombie clickbait rag"?
Well, I agree with two of those.. but it makes total sense to run it soon after their death. When else would you run it? Probably when they were in the news again.
I wouldn't eat a salad with 3 per cent of cyanide in it.
If the editorial section was just boring and unoriginal, I could live with it. But cowardly hit jobs on recently deceased people, that goes too far.
The woke are happy to destroy lives of people for saying one 'wrong' sentence or word. Maybe they should be treated in an identical way for their own transgressions. It could make them rediscover the Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
Not a convincing counter to the OPs argument. You can be as hyperbolic as you want but the fact remains that even well known publications will post questionable content. The comparison to eating cyanide is totally inaccurate.
Trying to smear genetic research with the R-word is fairly close to poison in my view. If such sentiments grow and take hold, it will be next to impossible to research controversial topics in human genetics with an open mind, or receive funding for such research unless you stay within a narrow acceptable corridor of allowed explanations. Which sounds more like religion than science.
This is a good article covering the problem from last year's New Yorker:
We are already perilously close to regarding any genetic research into human cognitive (dis)abilities or psychological traits as taboo. That would be a self-inflicted wound, because
a) it is hard to remedy anything that you refuse to study;
b) if countries such as China take the advantage, the democratic West will develop a strategic weakness in vitally important science.
For many decades now, but particularly strongly in past 6 years or so, being perceived as racist against so-called “marginalized groups” equates to career death in the professional world. This is true even if you are perceived to be racist only 3% time. For this reason, false accusation of racism is an abhorrent crime. If 3% racists aren’t given a pass, why should we give a pass 3% garbage dump rags?
I don’t know, I would personally consider an outlet publishing such rubbish as not deserving of my attention and money. Just because it’s an editorial does not absolve the magazine of its mistakes.
> But the editorial section is about 3% of the magazine
You do realize that this is exactly what woke cancel culture does right? It cherry picks something offensive that someone said and then cancels the entire person.
I don’t think they can be so cleanly separated. If you see a newspaper that publishes just complete nonsense in its editorial section, arguing that up is down and vaccines cause autism and reptilians rule the world, should you trust that their hard news is accurate?
But the editorial section is about 3% of the magazine. It seems hysterical to say that SciAm is "utterly destroyed" because of their resentment of "woke" editorials. Really, the 100 or so in depth pieces written every year, the "things in the news" sections are now just part of a "zombie clickbait rag"?