4 ms·
It’s a magazine article about a science topic, a.k.a. the most normal thing in the world. Only in bizarro-HN-world would that even begin to raise any eyebrows.
by arrrg 13y ago
It’s a magazine article about a science topic, a.k.a. the most normal thing in the world. Only in bizarro-HN-world would that even begin to raise any eyebrows.
Yes, journalists are in fact allowed to write about science topics and there is nothing wrong with that in itself. No, not everything that’s written about science has to have been published in a peer-reviewed science journal. Good science journalism is awesome and there should be much more of it.
It’s this honestly bizarre cynical and twisted worldview that’s wrong with HN, most certainly not that someone posted this article.
- mbell 13y agoI don't honestly know how I could disagree with you more. Your definition of a 'bizarre' world equates to my version of an ideal world. How dare people question media? How dare people think for themselves instead of accepting what media tells them? How dare they? You have vilified everything that goes wrong with a democratic society. Your mentality is the problem.
- arrrg 13y agoYou are completely free to question the media and think for yourself. The linked article provides more than enough information to actually get you started. No one ever claimed you have to accept what the article says.
- mikeash 13y agoBaseless complaints about the source does not qualify as "question media". Your comment is mindless contrarianism, not the intelligent skepticism you think it is. You're free to question media. Welcome, in fact. I would love nothing more. But you didn't do it, and to act as though you did when someone calls you out is dishonest.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- beedogs 13y agoYeah, that's great, but for fuck's sake, you don't "question media" by simply launching into an ad-hominem attack against the Rolling Stone. Stop trying to defend your little tantrum up above by having another little tantrum.
- enraged_camel 13y agoHis tantrum is so childish it is embarrassing. He responds to himself complaining about the response his whiny ad hominem comment received. The ironic icing on the cake is that he is complaining about how far HN has fallen!
- cpleppert 13y ago0% of what you claim to be responding to is what he actually said. For someone that claims to be want to carefully evaluate the information presented to him you might want to figure out what he actually said.
- beedogs 13y agoIt's an infection it acquired from an incestuous relationship with Reddit, where anything that isn't peer-reviewed or watermarked is the object of karma-whoring wannabe-internet-detectives.
- ams6110 13y agoThe eyebrow-raiser is that Rolling Stone is hardly a non-biased source, I don't think they even try to pretend otherwise. Therefore by default you should view anything you read there with skepticism.
- brazzy 13y agoYou should read everything you read anywhere with skepticism. The big problem is that people vary their skepticism more according to how much they want to believe something than the credibility of the source.
- tripzilch 13y ago> You should read everything you read anywhere with skepticism. Care to back that up with some data?