Avoiding outrage fatigue while staying informed

Scientific American started "getting into politics" in the mid 20th century, so your comment is about 70 years late.

[flagged]

I grew up reading SciAm in the 70's and 80's, and I don't remember a single article about politics.

The Internet Archive records suggest that they didn’t “get into politics” in the way implied by the GP, as opposed to covering subjects that have political implications, until 2021, as implied by the presence of a dedicated “politics” category.

https://web.archive.org/web/20211007051559/https://www.scien...

Then there’s “Diversity”, another section that has only been on the record as active since 2021:

https://web.archive.org/web/20220623091738/https://www.scien...

Here’s “Inequality”:

https://web.archive.org/web/20210926013845/https://www.scien...

We’re only one letter away from completing our “Forbidden Non-State 3-Letter Agency” bingo card.

Here’s a topic directory from 2014:

https://web.archive.org/web/20140531173853/http://www.scient...

Where would you file this story in 2014?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/from-civil-rights...

Today it’s under “Behavior”, which for a time was referred to as “Behavior and Society”, a section that appears to often be used as a place to put more overt political pieces, along with the Opinion section:

https://archive.is/QpKLI

Scientific American also had a report (what looks like a page that collects articles under a same theme of special interest) on The Black Lives Matter Movement.

Can you point to any article published by them in the last 70 years as absurd as this?

https://archive.is/H8hJw

Or this?

https://archive.is/fa88J

I don’t think that the implicit distinction between “getting into politics” (implying the outlet is adopting a noticeable ideological stance) and “addressing political issues” (that can arguably be described as scientific topics with political implications, as opposed to vice versa) warrants the color of your responses.

Maybe you’re just floating in the same tide as them.

I call spades, spades. It's not my job to prove to you the object is actually a spade. At some point you have to tell disingenuous people spouting nonsense to go eff off. You're not obligated to provide counterexamples to their nonsense. Time is valuable. You're not obligated to let idiots waste it.

> It's not my job to prove to you the object is actually a spade.

> Time is valuable. You're not obligated to let idiots waste it.

Right on both counts!

However: If insufficiently many people put in the effort to explain their proof/reasoning to others, then we shouldn't be surprised when that side loses.

It depends on the amount of effort required and the impact of what's being discussed. I'm not going to argue with people that grass is green, or the earth is round. SM started to engage in politics in the mid 20th century, and I even provided some examples of topics they've covered in that period. They then got pissy and demanded evidence, which in the context of what's being discussed, is a dick move. So, I told him where to get off.

In cases where the discussion is actually important, such as anthropogenic climate change for example, or issues with Test-Driven Development, I provide the receipts.