Once more, National Geographic goes for the woo

[Leigha]

@ MR - just curious, I've noticed you refer to Syne as an ''incel.'' Just wondering why?

[Magical Realist]

@ MR - just curious, I've noticed you refer to Syne as an ''incel.'' Just wondering why?

His hatred of women.

[Leigha]

@ MR - just curious, I've noticed you refer to Syne as an ''incel.'' Just wondering why?

His hatred of women.

I see. Well, ''incel'' stands for ''involuntarily celibate,'' so not sure he has mentioned his relationship status, but I think the term incel has become synonymous with misogyny, which is kind of an inaccurate portrayal of it. Although, it seems from what I've read about incels, that there is a sense of disdain towards women. But there's always outliers, of course. That said, I don't get the sense that Syne is a misogynist, I think he just underscores some of the ways whereby many men are being marginalized through this wave of feminism. He believes women should have agency (as a woman, so do I) but the mainstream media tends to paint women as victims in need of a savior or empowered beings who should outdo men in all things. I don't really care for either portrayal. 

Sorry, didn't mean to hijack the thread with an off topic question. I've just wondered. lol

[Syne]

@ MR - just curious, I've noticed you refer to Syne as an ''incel.'' Just wondering why?

It's just the nastiest thing he can think of calling me. He probably thinks it's hurtful or something because he can't get laid himself, being a shut-in, and has personal experience with that as a painful subject.

It's sad when people devolve to the point of the subject of sex causing them anguish.

[RainbowUnicorn]

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com...r-the-woo/

EXCERPT (Jerry Coyne): We’ve all observed National Geographic magazine going down the tubes and going soft on religion [...] and on woo. Apparently this issue, highlighted by fellow skeptic Phil Ferguson on his Facebook page, is about trying to validate woo, or at least about implying that there might be something to it. (Until recently National Geographic was owned by Fox, but as of this year it’s a Walt Disney property.)

Yes, it is sad, and I wasn’t pleased by the prospect of trying to find out what was between the covers [...] But I was saved from having to read this tripe by Hayley Stevens, who wrote an analysis and critique of the issue’s contents on her website, Hayley is a Ghost. Stevens researches claims of the paranormal, trying to find out what’s behind them (she says she isn’t committed to debunking these claims, but to understanding them).

You’re not going to be happy about National Geographic after you read what she wrote [...] Stevens’s beef is that the magazine blew a big chance to actually describe how scientific investigations have debunked many of these phenomena ... Apparently, the magazine is trying to leave the door open that. . . there may really be something out there. ... National Geographic has lost half of its subscription base in the last few decades, and so they must osculate religion, the numinous, and the supernatural to try to retain what credulous readers they can. As for me, I have no use for the rag. (MORE - details)

You’re not going to be happy about National Geographic after you read what she wrote

any journalist worth more than a cheap cup of dirty sink water(very poor quality cup of tea)
would read the magazine and then offer an opinion

DVD/Documentary-o-philes will notice the stark change in History channel  documentary style to now be more like conspiracy web site home movies with a touch of glam

i am guessing their producers & directors may have all retired or been re-structured into retirement