[jorgeleo]

Hilarious!

The while message of the article is to trash talk the departing editor accusing her of political left bias... which in it self (the trash talking) is a political statement from the conservative side.

To the author of the article: you are no better than her...

[Levitz]

Can you reconcile that view with the paragraph at the end?

>That doesn't mean the editor needs to be apolitical or that there's no role for SciAm to chime in on social justice issues in an informed manner, with the requisite level of humility and caution. It simply means that Scientific American needs to get back to its roots—explaining the universe's wonders to its readers, not lecturing them about how society should be ordered or distorting politically inconvenient findings.

He explicitly states he is ok with bias.

[jorgeleo]

No need to reconcile because one thing does not excuse the other.

If I go complaining that you go around beating people up, and that is why I will go and beat you up, and at the end I claim that it is ok because I agree with hitting people is ok doesn't excuse my action.

Also, stating the obvious (SA needs to get back to its roots) serves in this case as a straw man argument, the point was how bad an inexcusable was the editor behavior, not what the roots of SA should be.

This article is closer to the son of the president in the "Don't look up" movie than anything else. It tries to push the previous editor to a square of just do scientific work... but there is a point, in defense of the editor, where people claiming that the earth is flat need to be push back. Objective truth needs to prevail regardless of how people feel about it politically, and it is ok, in my book, to defend that

[Levitz]

But there is nothing about that.

The point of the article is that SA can't sacrifice science to push propaganda. That's it.

Like this point of yours:

>but there is a point, in defense of the editor, where people claiming that the earth is flat need to be push back. Objective truth needs to prevail regardless of how people feel about it politically, and it is ok, in my book, to defend that

Is true, for the article, not for the editor. That's his whole point.

[jorgeleo]

And my point is that:

1. Defending science as objective truth is not propaganda, so the editor did not engage un such.

2. The article it self is not about science, but it is weasel propaganda on it self because accusing of propaganda to the editor is a form of propaganda that is presented as "reasonable" but the intended effect is to try to call propaganda what is not.

[Levitz]

I genuinely have no clue what you are talking about.

>1. Defending science as objective truth is not propaganda, so the editor did not engage un such.

A headline like "Why the Term 'JEDI' Is Problematic for Describing Programs That Promote Justice, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion." has absolutely, completely nothing to do with "defending science as objective truth". Within the article political views are pushed, with science being largely irrelevant to the case.

>2. The article it self is not about science, but it is weasel propaganda on it self because accusing of propaganda to the editor is a form of propaganda that is presented as "reasonable" but the intended effect is to try to call propaganda what is not.

The article does not attempt to be seen "about science" at any point. It's not weaseling at any point, it's point is made very clearly. It even makes the point that propaganda isn't necessarily wrong

Have you even read the article?