I think I am done reading Popular Science

And that’s because they have shut down their commenting. From the idiotic excuse making bullshit post:

Comments can be bad for science. That’s why, here at PopularScience.com, we’re shutting them off.

It wasn’t a decision we made lightly. As the news arm of a 141-year-old science and technology magazine, we are as committed to fostering lively, intellectual debate as we are to spreading the word of science far and wide. The problem is when trolls and spambots overwhelm the former, diminishing our ability to do the latter.

So, the reasons they are shutting down the comment section is because comments are bad for science? I personally think the problem is that the place seems to be inundated by idiotic leftists that put ideology before science or logic, and when they got hammered, they decided the way to go was to shut down the ability to point out they were shills.

I have to admit I read PopSci mostly for the comments. They were often instructive and some of the epic idiotic exchanges made for a good laugh. Especially considering how low science this publication really was. Just like I quit reading Scientific American when it became a shill for the left, I now will be dropping PopSci, which seems to think that silencing the people that call out their bullshit is “sciency”.

Seriously, let me quote these morons again:

Comments can be bad for science. That’s why, here at PopularScience.com, we’re shutting them off.

I don’t think even the Catholic church said anything this stupid back in the Dark Age when they suppressed science. Only cowards that know they can’t win an argument feel that the right thing to do is deny those opposing them a voice. Good luck with this policy bozos.

Comments are closed.

  1. Hal_10000

    So, the reasons they are shutting down the comment section is because comments are bad for science?

    No. They’re doing this because the “comments” have degenerated into spam and people spewing bogus talking points disputing various scientific issues. I’d personally go with the alternative of policing the comments, but that takes a lot more effort and you have to deal with the criticism.

    Thumb up 0

  2. CM

    For example I imagine loads of fake skeptics jump on anything related to climate science and just post ideological nonsense, and the usual accusations and allegations. A pointless waste of time.

    Thumb up 1

  3. AlexInCT *

    No. They’re doing this because the “comments” have degenerated into spam and people spewing bogus talking points disputing various scientific issues.

    Meh, I love that spam that tells you someone’s mom or sister made lots of cash on the internets, because then you can make all sorts of jokes about what they were doing to earn that extra cash. I guess one man’s spam is another man’s humor. Claiming spam is the reason you are shutting down comments is bullshit anyway. There are lots of ways to deal with that sort of stuff. This excuse is just that: an excuse, and a bad one at it.

    And I do have to point out how often “unscientific” or disputing “scientific issues” seems to coincide with “I do not like what you are saying and want to deny you the ability to say it”, when it comes to the dogmatic bullshit the left worships as science. I was always thought that you censored nobody when it came to science, because if you were right, you could prove it, without any doubt, so letting people say whatever they wanted kind of policed itself if they worried about their credibility. It smacks of lazy, if not outright unscientific, behavior when you feel obligated to silence the other side. First they did it with the peer review system, then they even started blocking comments. These guys nmust have gotten their model from places like Daily Kos, where saying things progressives don’t like get you banned.

    No big loss that they shut down the comments. PopSci had degenerated into a leftard propaganda machine anyway, and the occasional interesting article they might have was always light on facts anyway. It’s a good reason for me and people like me to just avoid the site. The circle jerkers can then circle jerk even harder in their nice echo chambers.

    I will stress this again: despite their claims, progressives don’t like science much. They only like the stuff that pushes their ideology, practically always not even understanding what they profess to believe in with fervor bordering on the fanatic. Anything else is treated with even more derision and scorn than fundamentalist religious fanatics do the things they don’t like. There isn’t much difference between one type of religious fanatic and the other (the progressives). You can stay in denial if you want, but the joke is on you.

    Thumb up 3

  4. Seattle Outcast

    Nearly all of the magazines we read 40 to 50 years ago as somewhat reliable sources of information about the world have degenerated into worthless crap. Most of them appear to have been written by 7th graders as far as prose and grammar, neutrality was jettisoned in favor of whatever was approved political viewpoint, and even publications that were non-political became propaganda outlets.

    The internet killed them off, but not before turning them into standing jokes of their previous life.

    Thumb up 2

  5. Poosh

    “No. They’re doing this because the “comments” have degenerated into spam and people spewing bogus talking points disputing various scientific issues.”

    That doesn’t follow what they wrote in their article. They seem to honestly want the public to ignore *certain* views, as they say:

    “If you carry out those results to their logical end–commenters shape public opinion; public opinion shapes public policy; public policy shapes how and whether and what research gets funded–you start to see why we feel compelled to hit the “off” switch.”

    They don’t like people thinking for themselves, being subject to different opinions, or having their faith in “science” (their “science) shook – this is an entirely religious event we’re seeing, nothing to do with what we once thought was science, or the scientific method. This is about liberals. This is about controlling what people think, and the information they can obtain.

    Thumb up 1

  6. AlexInCT *

    You know how I know this AGW is a sham?

    On Friday the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change delivers its latest verdict on the state of man-made global warming. Though the details are a secret, one thing is clear: the version of events you will see and hear in much of the media, especially from partis pris organisations like the BBC, will be the opposite of what the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report actually says.

    If that revelation, which seems to be the norm with all things AGW related, doesn’t make you do a giant WTF, I don’t know if your head is screwed on right. Of course, the cultists will tell you that their process is both above board and scientific, and that they followed the scientific process and method, and that you just shouldn’t worry your dumb head with the details, because you are too stupid to know better anyway. After all, they have a consensus!

    They probably need to keep the details secret because of national security concerns. I bet if people found out they were lying through their teeth and that this thing was a scam, their lives would be in danger, so maybe they do have a good case. So I guess not national security, but cover your ass…

    The heat is on, and they want the people speaking out against them to have no forum, esepcially where they are spouting their propaganda, to counter them. Does this approach sound very unscientific to anyone else?

    Thumb up 1