You must log in or # to comment.
Article on Scientific America’s site
For the curious the other endorsement they made was for Joe Biden in 2020.
179 years and the only time they endorsed was against Trump. Almost like he’s a piece of shit or something.
It’s Scientific American, not Complete Bullshit American.
To be fair, Americans had no idea just how many of us were anti-science/ pro-bullshit until nearly the end of 2016.
The sad thing is that the rest of the world knew.
Why didn’t you tell us?!
Trump firing all those"experts" during his first term really worked out well.
It’s gotta be a low bar. Just don’t believe in 19th century health conspiracies. You had to have been dropped constantly as a baby to believe vaccines are dangerous.
Vaccines are important but a primary reason I’m voting for Harris is because if she doesn’t win, this could be the last election. There are morons voting for Trump just because they think they’re getting “revenge” for the existence of trans people by voting red. Both sides have wildly different priorities.
Not necessarily. You could also be a virus.
Only the 2nd time is surprising considering the right doesn’t believe in science
They used to just look sideways at it instead of straight up denial.
It’s a wonder each of them was the respectively “fittest” sperm. I mean, fuck. I’m curious if even Darwin understood how much raw chance was involved in this “evolution” he imagined. 🤡
Ha, raw.
That’s the problem, yes. Wrap that thing, FFS.
It’s not the first sperm that fertilises an egg… The first who make it put in all the effort breaching the wall and dying of exhaustion before some lazy piece of shit sperm towards the end just waltzes through the hole and does the needful.
Explains a lot tbh
Is that a relatively recent phenomenon or has it been that way for decades?
If it’s the former, it might explain why they didn’t need to before.
Tea Party(2010s or so) is when they started going anti-science. They’ve always been pro Christian though, so it’s a fuzzy line.
I don’t understand what endorsements mean in the US for their elections, nothing right?
At the national level, that’s true. The candidates are usually quite distinct and very well known, so holding a particular endorsement is unlikely to change anything.
However, I do find them useful in local elections. In those, the candidates are usually (but not always) pretty closely aligned, so it’s hard to make a decision based off of what their campaign is promising. They also frequently involve candidates that are fairly new to politics, so it can be difficult to learn more about their past outside of what their campaign puts forth. So I’ll usually learn something worthwhile from an endorsement that can help me make a decision. I also have a good opinion of some of the local magazines that make me more willing to trust their recommendations.
We’re the most social creatures on the planet. It may not sway anyone, but it could help keep moral up for those of us more at risk for skipping from sheer depression or apathy.
Correct.
It means that the population of this country relies heavily on the opinions of heads of publications, heads of corporations and focus group tested celebrity tweets to make decisions on who they should vote for to run their lives.
This, in turn, means that our elections are completely meaningless. The win goes to the richest candidate.
I think it could matter in some cases. Like if there was a local election and I didn’t know the candidates very well but one was endorsed by the NAACP, I would be much more likely to vote for them.
I agree however, that for such large elections where everything is very publicized already, these endorsements don’t do much. However, if it gets one person to vote that’s positive.
Second time in 179 years sounds a lot more impressive than they endorsed the same party they did during the last election. They broke the seal in 2020 and will probably endorse someone again in 2028
deleted by creator
