When Albert Einstein expressed political opinions I'm assuming that removed his credentials of being a scientist. It is law.
How is she doxxed? She is posting these voluntarily publicly under her real name. What matters is whether you have a reasonable expectation of privacy when you make your posts. Posts here are made under a fictitious screen name, unless the poster decides to make his/her real name public. That's a choice. If someone does not make that choice, but someone else violates their privacy and discloses their real name, that's doxxing. But she is posting under her real name, nobody forced her to do it. And no, I would not be comfortable with my real name being put out there, primarily because some of the posters here have made it pretty clear that they support Hamas and other terrorist organizations. I don't know how far their level of fanaticism goes. Secondly, like some others here, I run a business, and I don't want my business to be affected by my personal discussions which I conducted under a reasonable expectation of privacy. If I had wanted to publicly argue under my real name, I could have done that on Facebook or LinkedIn. How would you feel about it? I only know you as "Agent94". I assume you have good reasons that you didn't choose your screen name to be your real name.
I would also warn anyone who considers doxxing that they would have to expect legal consequences of such actions.
Scientific American editor steps down after election comments draw backlash Criticism of Laura Helmuth’s comments increased after X owner and Trump ally Elon Musk weighed in. https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/media/2024/11/14/scientific-american-laura-helmuth-quits/
What does that mean? I know what it means but I kinda want you to explain it to show why what I said was a non-sequitur.
From her wiki: Seems like a person well qualified to be labeled a scientist. I guess that means she shouldn't ever express any thoughts of hers outside of her field of study though I'm sure Neuroscience experts may have a better understanding of transgenderism than the general public also.
Science does not prevent one from having political opinions, especially when science has been made a political issue.
you said, "When Albert Einstein expressed political opinions I'm assuming that removed his credentials of being a scientist. It is law." First, nobody that I know of is suggesting Helmuth's "credentials of being a scientist" should be and/or automatically are "removed." The tweet in the original post certainly does not make that assertion. That's non sequitur number one. Second, the statement that you are "assuming" (your wording, not mine) something, i.e., what you assume about credentials, is also a fallacy of relevance. What you believe or assume is not the issue here--the questions asked in the original post are what's relevant. So you making an assumption is non sequitur number two. Third, in her capacity as editor in chief of a science journal, Helmuth has role-specific obligations that pertain to that official, institutional role. When Albert Einstein "expressed political opinions," he had no such specific institutional role-specific obligations; generally he spoke as a private citizen. Now, if you want to talk about scientists engaging in extra-curricular political discourse as private citizens, you can certainly go ahead and do so. But Einstein rationally weighing in on, for example, nuclear policy (his area of scientific expertise) does not necessarily equate with Helmuth emotively ranting about a presidential election result that she disagrees with. So the attempted analogy of Einstein=Helmuth falls short, mostly for lack of detail in the comparison. It could work, if you could provide more detail for the comparison. As it stands, however, the attempted comparison is inapt and pretty much a red herring--which is another kind of non sequitur. Finally, I have no idea what "It is law" means. That's probably its own non sequitur on top of the other non sequiturs.
Explain the positive and negative effects of a sacrifice American editor on Twitter in their private account expressing political thoughts? Be sincere. I'm not getting the point being made still. How does her identity as a trans person and political beliefs expressed on twitter effect her editorial standards at a scientific themed magazine?
look, I explained the non sequitur. No interest in going down a rabbit hole on the topic with you, not at 8:30 at night anyway. sorry.
You did sincerely explain it in good faith. I acknowledge . I still think it's a valid reference. I'm of the mindset to never trust a source of journalism or media that tells me they have no biases anyways. We just have very different views on editorial ethics I guess. I like my editors, journalists, reporters etc to admit they have biases and be frank about it. I've never met a non-biased human in my life and I doubt they all magically just end up being journalists and editors that I never met at the NYT or WSJ.
Because you know you would probably be fired in 3 minutes due to the lack of critical thinking skills you display on here. It isn't your opinions. It is you don't understand nuance. That is an extremely poor trait in a CEO and most businesses wouldn't stand for it.
