So far I’ve seen a lot of ad hominem attacks against the editors of SA, and against forum members to discredit the endorsement. Not a whole lot that directly addresses the points made in the article.
1 Like
Thank you for addressing a contention the article actually discusses.
Hey…wait a second. Isn’t this what Trump does? It’s everyone’s fault but his that they endorsed Biden over Trump. 
Just one. To address the pretense of “scientific” objectivity.
The endorsement was written by the editors.
The “justification”, as was previously addressed ad nauseum on this forum.
1 Like
I have not read the SA endorsement.
I have occasionally read stuff from Scientific American, but I am not now nor have I ever been a subscriber to their publication.
I am certain their endorsement is targeted to their subscribers and casual readers, not to the general public.
And even if I supported Trump, neither I nor anybody else has any good cause to vilify Scientific American for making an endorsement.
I may accept or reject endorsements that publications and organizations make. But I don’t vilify them for making such endorsements even if I oppose them.
This absolute outpouring of utter hate and personal destruction against any opponent of Trump reeks of a cult of personality mindset and is far more disturbing than any endorsement that might be made for either candidate by any organization or publication.
If you oppose the endorsement, you can do so without attacking SA. Just say you oppose it and move on. That’s it. If you are a subscriber and don’t like it, unsubscribe.
But the level of vitriol I am seeing against SA is disturbing.
8 Likes
■■■■ Scientific American. How about that?
1 Like
I think it is overkill and unnecessary.
My newspapers have made plenty of endorsements over the years that I have opposed.
Never gave me cause for anger or outrage.
1 Like
And if you aren’t subscribed to Scientific American, why even care???
1 Like
I’m not angry.
Such a dig.
Those points have all been addressed back and forth in this forum for months now. They offered nothing new. Nothing particularly “sciency”.
If the magazine editors want to defend their accusations, let them post here.
1 Like
Thank you.
Somebody call them deplorables?
They stopped being a scholarly magazine a long time ago. I watched it happen. They were more like Discover then the old SA the last time I checked. I would assume someone bought them out at one point and changed their business model.
Well, if National Review decides to endorse Trump I promise not to start a thread saying “The National Review is a scholarly magazine and it endorses Trump. Read the magazine and see if you can prove them wrong on all the issues”.
There was no sarcasm intended on my part. You offered your opinion, I acknowledged it.
Trump is the most anti-science president in my lifetime.
1 Like
its the same dead talking points the dnc uses. already been addresses 1000 times. SA saying it doesn’t make the lies true.
bitter clingers?
