My Apologies for an Erroneous Post Faulting a N.Y. Times Article

I erroneously put it up before rechecking it, and fortunately caught the error quickly and deleted the post. The post basically faulted this New York Times article for characterizing the resignation of Laura Helmuth at the Scientific American as just "Editor Resigns After Calling Some Trump Supporters 'Fascists,'" without discussing the vulgar nature of the editor's posts. But the Times article did note the comments were "expletive-laden," and I realize that my criticism was misguided.

My apologies to the Times, the author of the article, and our readers. I'm just glad that I spotted the error relatively promptly (and wish I had spotted it more promptly).

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

She shared the understandable sentiments of every scientist, after the recent election. She should not have apologized and she should not have resigned.

I share the sentiment. F**k Trump and his ignorant followers. Our children (and theirs, too) will pay the price of what they did last week.

[Mr. Bumble]

The angry not so young man speaks.
Seek help or you won't make it through the next four years.
Try reciting the Serenity Prayer.

[Bwaaah]

I am often reminded of the Serenity Prayer. Ever since the first time I heard it, it has resonated with me as a simplistic but elegant model of the predicament(s) of life.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I would like to see the polls confirming what was the unanimous opinion of all scientists was.

In any case, recent research of mine indicates that scientists are not always as smart in their political choices as they are in their scientific affairs.

“Our children (and theirs, too) will pay the price of what they did last week.”

If you refer to the national debt, which party should people have voted for instead, in order to address that looming problem?

In general, which party should voters have chosen in lieu of Trump? I voted Constitution Party. Is that what you had in mind? (Yes, they proposed tackling the debt.)

[Dan Schiavetta]

I’m referring to the aversion to science, and to expertise in general, of the lazy MAGA mind.

They will be leaving a hot and increasingly inhospitable planet. And millions will die for lack of vaccines. To begin with.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I know right? That's what real science is! Never questioning authorities!

I wish I was so smart like all you smart people who aren't skeptical of what the State appointed experts decree. That's real intellectualism, never questioning the narrative and trusting the policy makers and the technocrats!

I mean, just look around and look at all the wonderful successes we have! We are a healthy, wealthy, and educated population under the guidance of these amazing experts!

I especially love how our scientists NEVER get corrupted and wish I was smart enough to just TRUST THEM!

[David Nieporent]

I mean, just look around and look at all the wonderful successes we have! We are a healthy, wealthy, and educated population under the guidance of these amazing experts!

Well, yes, actually,

[Rossami]

We are generally healthy, wealthy and educated despite those "experts", not because of them. The people actually advancing civilization by discovering and inventing new things are not, by and large, the people screaming that you must believe The Science. And they certainly aren't people like captcrisis who don't even understand the scientific method.

[Sarcastr0]

You seem to define expert as only those who annoy you.

[Don Nico]

He didn't actually say that.
Have a listen to theoretical physicist, Sabine Hossenfelder
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=bullshit+research

[Randal]

Sabine is mainly concerned with dead-end theories getting all the funding, not partisan shenanigans.

Of course scientists make choices about what to research. That isn’t bad as long as you understand how to read scientific papers in context. RFK, for example, does not. He loves to latch on to an individual, outlier, politically-motivated paper in order to spin a whole conspiracy theory around it with the goal of making the conspiracy seem “scientific.” That's only effective because the people listening to him, like you, are too stupid to understand how science actually works.

[Vryedni]

I seem to recall Don Nico being a science academician, in which case the likelihood of him being too stupid to understand how science works is small. But I may be mistaken. My recollection is hazy at best.

[Malika]

"We are generally healthy, wealthy and educated despite those “experts”, not because of them."

If you say so (because that's all you've supplied here).

[Ghost of Patrick Henry]

Actually, based on the national debt, we are the poorest nation in history. You are ok with that, as you hope you won't live to see the ending, which will be very bad. London in 475 bad. They lost running water and sewers for over 1300 years.

[Sarcastr0]

That is a new level of debt apocalypse for sure!

Is that your expert opinion?

[Brett Bellmore]

I have no aversion to science, but sciencism offends me.

I remember the SciAm of yore; It was a great magazine from cover to cover. Then the politics started creeping in. Subtle at first, they'd just promote articles with a political valance, (Usually climate related) ahead of the straight science. But it grew over time, and eventually took the magazine over.

Oh, and again I'll remind you: More people die of cold than heat, so an increasingly warm planet is, within limits, an increasingly hospitable planet. You want aversion to science, and expertise in general? The left's hostility to nuclear power, and preference for unreliable sources of energy with low EROEI, epitomize that.

If they really believed the planet was going to cook, it would be balls to the wall nuclear.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

They also wouldn't be traveling to all these exotic locations for their climate conferences.

[Dan Schiavetta]

You are out of contact with reality.

"More people die of cold than heat, so an increasingly warm planet is, within limits, an increasingly hospitable planet."

This is as idiotic as Sen. Inhofe bringing a snowball to the podium.

[Mr. Bumble]

Someone is out of contact with reality but it isn’t Brett.
"Exposure To Extreme Cold Is More Fatal

According to a 2021 study published in The Lancet Planetary Health, cold is far more deadly. For every death linked to heat, nine are connected to cold."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuacohen/2023/07/19/excessive-summer-heat-can-kill-but-extreme-cold-causes-more-fatalities/

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

HEY, those aren't the kind of scientists we should trust!

We only are supposed to trust the scientists that support the narrative. Every other scientist is a kook!

Trust the Science!

[Mr. Bumble]

Some people can't handle the truth, especially an inconvenient truth.
Of course the capt's response is to mute truth tellers.

[David Nieporent]

Someone is out of contact with reality but it isn’t Brett.

It's not the statistic that's at issue; it's the logic. Imagine observing that more people die of drowning than dehydration, and concluding that therefore droughts are actually good for humanity.

[Mr. Bumble]

I'd say you were kidding but unfortunately you aren't.
Congratulations on completing the late Queenie's course in obfuscation and deflection.

[Rossami]

An interesting analogy but no. The proper analogy would note that there will always be both floods and droughts and the only thing you can do (in this hypothetical) is to shift the proportion of each. Since floods kill hundreds but droughts cause famines that kill millions (again, in the hypothetical), the logical choice should be steer away from droughts at the cost of an increase in floods.

By the same token, many more people (especially the poor and vulnerable) die of cold every year than die from heat. The human body is optimized for tropical conditions and has multiple mechanisms for responding to high heat. It has substantially less tolerance for cold. That logic says that, all else held equal, we should in fact prefer a warmer climate than a colder one.

[Sarcastr0]

It’s a shockingly stupid and reductive metric; lots of climate related ways to die other than directly from ambient temperature.

[bernard11]

First of all, the ratio Forbes reports is only of deaths directly due to exposure to heat and cold. It does not include, for example, the consequences of drought.

Indeed, it concludes,

we shouldn’t read into this that global warming is a good thing. Climate change has long-term impacts on sea levels, animal and plant life, and agriculture, each of which can have lasting deleterious effects on human health and wellbeing.

Next Brett will be telling us, again, that the whole problem could be solved if everyone on earth just moved a few degrees closer to their respective poles. Talk about a spherical cow.

[Mr. Bumble]

My comment and link was in response to captcrybaby's comment:
“More people die of cold than heat, so an increasingly warm planet is, within limits, an increasingly hospitable planet.”

This is as idiotic as Sen. Inhofe bringing a snowball to the podium.

The quote at the end of your comment is pro forma for almost anything written about climate and is unsupported in the article and generally by science.

[SRG2]

I am inclined to agree that SciAm veered off the rails when its science content, not merely its op-ed pieces, took on a political dimension.

Climate science is a special case, though, because the anti-climate science position is almost entirely political - and ipso facto, given the nature of the issue, evil. When any science magazine, from SciAm to Skeptic, publishes a purely scientific article on climate change, it is assailed by anti-science barbaroi as "political".

[Dan Schiavetta]

They beat the Court into a pulp last year in an editorial, when the same week it overturned the Chevron doctrine — and held that technical construction of regulations was for the courts, not specialized agency personnel — it confused nitrogen oxides (a component of smog) with nitrous oxide (laughing gas).

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-supreme-courts-contempt-for-facts-is-a-betrayal-of-justice/

[Don Nico]

That was a political editorial judgement, not a scientific critique.

[Randal]

Sciencism offends you, Brett, in the same way that it offends all cultists going back to the Spanish Inquisition and probably the beginning of humanity.

[Armchair]

Sigh....

You realize it was the Trump administration that promoted Operation Warp Speed, that accelerated the development of the COVID vaccines, right?

The scientific "experts" said "it was ambitious at best" to get a vaccine in 12-18 months.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/31/us/coronavirus-vaccine-timetable-concerns-experts-invs/index.html

Instead, the first vaccine got done in less than a year.

[Sarcastr0]

I know folks over at BARDA, and they tell me that despite what some on the left say Operation Warp Speed did accelerate things beyond what would have occurred otherwise.
But that was a policy decision, not a scientific one.

The government-appointed expert on the process, this guy named Fauci, is the one that gave that timeline you are crediting to 'the Trump administration.' I guess he's a good expert until he's not?

You're cherry picking parts of an article that quote like 2 experts to gainsay stuff so you can yell at them in hindisight. Most of those experts of course were used to the human and animal testing being done in series, not in parallel.

Housecat. Doesn't understand. Resents the idea of seeking understanding. Benefits anyway. Resents anyone noticing he benefits.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Your arrogance is breath-taking. Perhaps you should step away and take a few deep breaths.

* "Every" scientist? Not even close, and you know it.

* 50+% of the voters are ignorant, by whose standards, yours? Who made you arbiter of ignorance?

I remember when you praised NASA as so much better than SpaceX, just a few months ago. For their current performance, not for their Mercury Gemini Apollo glory days. You have a serious fixation on government-is-best which is clouding your brain.

[Sarcastr0]

You're picking fights where there are none. NASA and SpaceX aren't in competition. In fact, a lot of the organic expertise in SpaceX was trained up by NASA.

Government has huge appetite for risk to make developmental leaps.
Private industry has an unparalleled engine for innovation and minimizing costs.

I'm not convinced we got the timeline for the transition from one to the other quite right for launch-to-landing manned spaceflight, but the transition is *itself* government policy.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, that's true, NASA and SpaceX aren't in competition, technically. NASA's legacy vendors and SpaceX are in competition. Except, not exactly competition.

Look at the SLS: Disposable, and each launch was slated to cost $4.1B. I say "was", because it appears that NASA is canceling that turkey, after spending about $90B on its development.

A Falcon Heavy launch costs about $90M. NASA could have bought a THOUSAND Falcon Heavy launches for the cost of that Turkey that will probably only fly a couple times. NASA's return to the Moon, if they'd just left it to SpaceX, would already have occurred, at a fraction of the cost. And that's been evident for years now.

So, why did ULA get almost all of the budget for Artemis, and SpaceX a pittance, when SpaceX was more cost effective? Politics, really; The ULA might not be that great at building cost effective rockets, but they've got lobbyists up the wazoo.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, read what I fucking wrote. I didn't say that NASA was better than SpaceX. I said it was good at different things. Including the development of lots of SpaceX's workforce.

You really can't look at the two disaggregated.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Wastefully spending billions and taking years and years longer, is probably the thing government is best at!

[Don Nico]

"Government has huge appetite for risk"
I don't by that. Both NSF and DOE have become much more risk averse over the past 30 years. The result has been much slower growth in the capabilities of scientific facilities and much higher price tags than in other countries for comparable capabilities.
Where the US has been less risk adverse has been in military adventurism.

[Frank Drackman]

Gonna be a long 12 years for you

[Don Nico]

"sentiments of every scientist"
Wow, she is a f**king super mind reader as well as being a sh*it-poor leader of a SA. Good riddance.

[Don Nico]

I also expect that her superiors at the magazine were not impressed or pleased. either

[Soronel Haetir]

Is the post actually deleted or is the "Odd Admission" post something else? Because I read that one after this one.

[Eugene Volokh]

Sorry, gone now.

[Daddyhill]

If your job is the editor of one of the world-leading science publications, posting something on a private (i.e. not SciAm) socmed site that offended some people was not wise. She may have done so in order to lash out at an uncaring universe in a moment of doubt and pain. I don't know. She shouldn't have done it, or not that way. I think everybody should be able to remember how they learned to avoid certain words in front of Grandma.

My guess is that she also neglected to ask her friends/family for advice about the posts and failed to use the "Save and send later" option. To me that's more offensive than the 'words that must not be named' that she used and suggests immaturity. Growing up isn't always easy, but we all have to do it.

I don't like using whatabout-isms any more than the average person, so I will substitute a hypothetical. In a neighboring universe a wealthy and powerful con artist achieves (or perhaps is Peter Principled into) the peak of power on the third planet from the local sun. Past practice of his predecessors in the position was to communicate with his world using traditional print and speech media, to do so regularly, and to do it in person regularly. However, this monarch chooses to use a non-traditional but popular new medium, one which allows him to say anything and everything without restraint, to tell lies and slander others with carefree abandon, knowing that he won't be held accountable. His rants and raves are seldom memorable, but some of them stir up conflict in the entire universe that has the potential to cause damage light years beyond the frisson of outrage experienced by relatively few people. Hypothetically speaking, of course, how does Ms. Helmuth's intemperate outburst compare (if at all) with those of my hypothetically immature Big Shot?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

[moved]

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

If only that world had a committee of betters regulating everyone's thoughts and speech! Then they would all be at peace and no damage would be caused!

Man, what a utopia that would be. All the issues settled by the committee and any counter-thought would be outlawed. Heaven on Earth, I mean Heaven on that other 3rd rock from a sun!

[The Margrave of Azilia]

From CNN:

“In a series of now-deleted posts on the same platform, she called Trump voters the “meanest, dumbest, most bigoted” group and “fascists” following the former president’s reelection last week. Her comments went viral on X and were criticized on the increasingly right-wing platform. [Right-wingers pounce!].

“Helmuth had apologized in a separate post, calling them “offensive and inappropriate” and that they don’t “reflect the position” of Scientific American.

““I respect and value people across the political spectrum,” Helmuth wrote. “These posts, which I have deleted, do not reflect my beliefs; they were a mistaken expression of shock and confusion about the election results.””

https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/15/media/scientific-american-editor-resignation/index.html

[Bubba Jones]

A leader at “scientific American” was shocked and confused by something that everyone knew to be possible and even probable?

She’s not very good at analyzing data.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

More "pouncing" narratives:

"Laura Helmuth, the chief editor of Scientific American magazine, announced her resignation on Friday after comments she made disparaging supporters of President-elect Donald Trump gained attention in conservative circles....

"Helmuth's comments and resignation come in the wake of a highly contentious election season, during which media organizations and their reporters struggled with how to address Trump and his allies concerning conspiracy theories, their plans to consolidate power to the White House, and threats to their perceived enemies....

"Conservatives on X, the social media platform where Helmuth's comments gained traction, celebrated her departure as the downfall of another "woke" crusader."

https://www.npr.org/2024/11/15/nx-s1-5193258/scientific-american-editor-resigns-after-comments-about-trump-supporters-went-viral

[The Margrave of Azilia]

““Solidarity to everybody whose meanest, dumbest, most bigoted high-school classmates are celebrating early results because f–k them to the moon and back,” she wrote in one post on Bluesky on Nov. 5.

“In another post, Helmuth wrote, “I apologize to younger voters that my Gen X is full of f–king fascists.”

““Every four years I remember why I left Indiana (where I grew up) and remember why I respect the people who stayed and are trying to make it less racist and sexist. The moral arc of the universe isn’t going to bend itself,” she also wrote on election night.”

https://nypost.com/2024/11/15/us-news/editor-in-chief-of-scientific-american-laura-helmuth-resigns-following-expletive-filled-rant-against-trump-voters/

Maybe she should imitate the moral arc and get bent.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Apparently only people who worked with Trump and saw him up close are allowed to call him fascist. Somehow it’s improper for anyone else to say that.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

She called most Indianans racist and sexist.

And as for “fascist,” George Orwell (at a time of widespread *real* fascism) noted that “fascist” has simply become a term for “something undesirable.”

[Frank Drackman]

and given that "45/47" carried White Women, she's calling herself a fucking Fascist also. I think she's one of those Cunts who's just pissed off at the Universe for dealing her the Ugly card.

[Malika]

"She called most Indianans racist and sexist."

In the spirit of scientific precision, where?

[Frank Drackman]

"Apparently" is one of those Filler words the dull and simple use, it's just a fancier way of saying "Duh" or "Wuh??", if you used it in Court Judge Judy would rip you a new asshole.

Frank

[Malika]

Judge Judy? get Out of Your Mom's Basement frank!!

[Frank Drackman]

Ironic that her PhD Dissertation was in Parkinson's Disease, yet in 2020 she endorsed a candidate with Textbook Parkinson's Disease, and if it wasn't for his Parkinson's Disease Cums-a-lot wouldn't have had any more chance getting the nomination than Iron Mike Tyson (I don't care if he lost, he's still scary as (redacted)

Frank

[hobie]

So you don't like it when a person insults others and calls them names?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I don't believe in calling your fellow countrymen, and a majority of the people in your native state, fascists, racists and sexists.

I'm happy to call *you* names, like jackass.

[hobie]

Mentally ill, communists, marxists, pedophiles. America is garbage, a failed state. Any of that ring a bell? Of course it does. But it don't matter does it

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I didn't vote for Trump this year. Except in the duopoly sense that I wasted my vote on a non-Donk.

[Malika]

Didn't vote for him but also couldn't criticize him on the grounds hobie invoked based on your earlier statements! Can't trap this gingerbread man, he's safe in his third party pocket!

[Michael P]

Even Homer nods.

Maybe Helmuth's resignation will lead to changes that convince me to subscribe to the magazine again, but it will take time for the magazine to regain the lost trust.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think the people running the magazine WANT to become again the magazine I subscribed to so many years ago. (I dropped it when they dropped the Amateur Scientist column.) They'd consider it a moral wrong to become that magazine again.

The left subscribes to the notion that you're either with them or against them, they don't accept the existence of neutral, impartial institutions. They'd consider dropping the politics and just being a science magazine again the moral equivalent of joining the other side.

They treat every institution they get control of that way.

[Frank Drackman]

"My Weekly Reader" probably had more real Scientific Content than SA

[hobie]

Good news, Frankie. They are still publishing Highlights magazine

[bernard11]

Or at least content that Frank can understand.

[Frank Drackman]

My Auburn degree is in Poultry Science (my M.D. is more of a trade, like being a Plumber) what science training did you do? If you like Chicken or Eggs it’s Poultry Scientists that keep them safe (like Manganese, a lot of people don’t even know what that is)

[Malika]

Explains the area of interest of chicken shit.

[Sarcastr0]

Certainly someone is all about 'you're with us or you're against us.'

Maybe it's the guy railing against the wokeness of Scientific American, though.

[Michael P]

"Maybe it’s the guy railing against the wokeness of Scientific American, though."

Narrator: It isn't.

[David Nieporent]

The left subscribes to the notion that you’re either with them or against them, they don’t accept the existence of neutral, impartial institutions. They’d consider dropping the politics and just being a science magazine again the moral equivalent of joining the other side.

It's true. I remember when the left went all out to destroy a beer company because it acknowledged the existence of a trans person.

[Mr. Bumble]

Nobody "destroyed" InBev.

[Malika]

"went all out to destroy"

[Vryedni]

Went all out. Pffft. Don’t you know that if you try to do something truly heinous, but you fail, you haven’t done anything wrong at all?!

[SRG2]

Were you a subscriber when Ian Stewart was the recreational maths columnist?

[hobie]

Well, Michael, I guess your political hatreds are depriving you of enjoying quality scientific literature. I doubt the thousands of organizations you most likely currently protest/boycott miss you much though

[Michael P]

Scientific American threw out the science in favor of woke orthodoxy, so I discarded it in favor of publications that still do actual science. Sadly, you could set the entire thing on fire and not lose one bit of scientific quality.

[Sarcastr0]

How did you ascertain that SA was promulgating bad science?

If you don’t trust them presumably there is some source you trust more.

[Don Nico]

Physical Review Letters

[Sarcastr0]

Not doing the same job or with the same scope as SA; hardly a good substitute.

[Malika]

"Scientific American threw out the science in favor of woke orthodoxy, so I discarded it in favor of publications that still do actual science."

Like this one! https://thekidsguide.com/trump-president/

[Brett Bellmore]

I was curious about what she'd actually said. The media practice of giving paraphrases and never linking to the original content made it much harder to find than it should have been. But, here it is:

The ranting, preserved.

[Commenter_XY]

She did the right thing in resigning.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think so, but likely only to be replaced by somebody who thinks the same way, but has more restraint about saying it where others might see it.

[hobie]

So you think people who go on rants and insult others should resign their positions?

[John 4]

I'd like to know the answer to that question, too.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"So you think people who go on rants and insult others should resign their positions?"

No. But if you're the editor of a science magazine that is being perceived as developing a significant political bias to its science content, you should probably avoid profanity laded partizan rants in public.

[Don Nico]

What Brett thinks is irrelevant. What is relevant is what the publisher of SA thinks. Bad behavior by the EiC loses money.
I don’t know, but it is not unlikely that she was given the choice either to resign of be fired.

[Don Nico]

She may not have had a choice.

[tkamenick]

"The media practice of giving paraphrases and never linking to the original content made it much harder to find than it should have been."

Why is this such a thing? It's getting worse and worse. I just saw an article about how some employee at a VA hospital was handing out "white privilege cards" and how it caused all sorts of problems. Not only did they not explain what the card actually said, they never offered even a vague summary of what it was.

[Sarcastr0]

Check your sources.

Despite what the FOX Newses of the world insist, there are some who have as their primary mission to inform, and others who have as their primary mission to push their agenda.
No, the mission of informing is rarely anywhere like perfect as compared to an expert (see: Gel-Mann Amnesia), but it does eliminate one channel of disinformation – purposeful deceit, either through lies, uncritically passing along lies, or as you just saw disingenuous framing to imply something false.

Good media literacy includes multiple sources with differing perspectives. It also should include explicit propaganda sites, but for their opinion and arguments, not for the facts they assert.

What you see 'getting worse and worse' is the amount of agenda-driven liars out there, meaning it takes more work to get to the bottom of what's going on.

I fall for it all the time, from the right. The number of times I've come in and uncritically accepted the framing of a story someone here puts out, only for that story to be corrected by an expert like DMN or Nocitur is frankly embarrassing.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I don’ t know about the rest of you, but I sure as shit TRUST THE SCIENCE and THE EXPERTS.

I trust them so much I:
– put EXTRA fluoride in my water, especially when I pack my kids their government-school approved lunchables. I get the pizza lunchables for my kids so they TWO expert servings of expert vegetables. So healthy! FDA approved! I then demand they give me the softest-most pliable plastic bottles and fill it to the brim with city water. When I see that sparkling-government-orange tint in the water, I know my kids are getting SCIENTIFIC MINERALS!
– I tell my local farmer, FUCK YOU AND YOUR BIGOTRY TOWARDS MONSANTO and government farming best practices! Regenerative practices? YOU FUCKING MAGA IDIOT! HOW DARE YOU NOT TRUST THE EXPERTS AND SPRAY YOUR CROPS WITH GOVERNMENT APPROVED PESTICIDES! YOU LOW IQ UNTRUSTING MAGATARD!
– We don’t use gendered terms in homes, because the experts say raising young children without a concept of biological sex is best for their mental health, AND FOR SOCIETY! Only bigots tell their assigned male at birth children they are boys and let them play with gendered toys. FUCK YOU, TRUMP! MY demisexual agendered 4 year old LOVES WEAR DRESSES and PLAYING WITH BARBIE DOLLS! Xirs been on puberty blockers since the age of 3 months, you can ever be too careful with not trusting the SCIENCE!
– When I got to my state-licensed medical expert, I thank them every time for never curing me and only treating my symptoms with dozens of expensive prescriptions. HOW ELSE IS THE CDC EXPERTS GONNA GET PAID? If we’re all cured, no one is going to make money! FUCK YOU RFK, JR! I trust the experts at BIG PHARMA! You wanting to "Make America Healthy Again" is fascist racist bullshit! FUCK YOU FASCIST HEALTHY AT EVERY SIZE!

Man, I don’t know about those selfish MAGATS who are too stupid to vote in their own best interest, but i TRUST government and unselfishly vote in my own best interest. That’s because I care about others!

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

I almost forgot, when I fly? I tell the airlines, only schedule me on planes piloted by Strong Black Womyn or Latinx Transgenders. Screw the Bigoted Red Hats! When I see a strong black womyn in a role traditionally dominated by White Supremacists, I know she got there on MERIT!

Speaking of that, I go down to our local Army Recruiter and tell them “Listen, the Pentagon says Diversity is super important to national defense, and you better stop recruiting strong, young, straight white men! DIVERSITY IS OUR STRENGTH! It’s for national security to have have homosexuals, transgenders, undocumented citizens, and fat black women defending our country! THAT’S WHO I WANT ON THAT WALL YOU RACIST BIGOT RED HATS! F U TRUMPERS!

[Malika]

Need some love today, huh Chuck?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Thanks for the correction.

[Frank Drackman]

Has anyone taken a look at this Broad? I think she beat me up in 6th grade.

[Malika]

A fact that doesn't do much to distinguish.

[Frank Drackman]

Saw that she has a PhD in "Cognitive Neuroscience" whatever that is, I think it's where when somebody orders a Venti Cappuchino with extra Chino you're able to tell them what part of the Brain made the decision. And you know she's one of those PhD's who lets you know she's "Doctor" so and so,

Frank

[hobie]

Frankie 'wounded warrior' Drackman, America's neediest veteran, you strike me as a person who would have antipathy towards psychologists...what with a successful diagnosis of you by them could ruin you

[Frank Drackman]

Hobie-stank living up to his name, what if I did see a Shrink? You’re the one saying a man cutting off his dick and taking Estrogen turns him into a woman rather than being a mentally ill man

[Malika]

"a man cutting off his dick"

Often, a man who has very little of something is most offended by those who would fail to value it as much as they would.

[Roger S]

Under her leadership, Scientific American has become a trashy woke leftist partisan magazine. She should have been fired for all he bad articles she published in the last several years. Maybe she was fired for that.