51
I was going to point out that Fox owns 73% of National Geographic. Turns out thar Disney bought that 73% stake several years ago.
Probably because they are caving to demands from Trump. Fucking cowards.
OK, but also what does being queer have to do with climate science?
Absolutely nothing. But it seems like for the alt right, being queer is enough to disqualify your credentials and even your personhood.
maybe not that extreme, but that's a pretty fair claim I think
Both are against the Republican cult's beliefs. Science in general, but especially climate science.
A queer person did some excellent climate science, that’s how the two subjects relate. If you ignore either aspect of the story, well, it isn’t the full story.
Did you know that queer people have a right to exist and that questioning the relevance of their queerness to their work is essentially denying their humanity?
never knew that.
does the same go for all subgroups world wide?
Yes.
Would one question the relevance of a biography that mentioned that an accomplished straight male scientist was a ‘family man’ or that a scientist was also a married woman with children?
Questioning the validity of mentioning that a scientist is queer is identical to the attitude that queer people are fine as long as they are invisible.
It was a biography, biographies mention biographical details. Yet when that detail is ‘queer’, people feel empowered to complain it was even mentioned.
I’m not on the defensive here. I intend to come across as offensive. You tell US exactly why mentioning that a person is queer is not relevant in a biographical sketch.
OK so where is the representation of people with arthritis, Zoroastrians, & people from Bangladesh?
Ok, you are a sealion, cool, good to know.
Did you know you can mention multiple facts about a person in a biography and they are all valid and mentionable?
Especially when that particular part of their identity is under attack.
I know that my engagement in this exercise will not change their opinion. I am engaged because this shit is exhausting and it is exactly the thing to challenge at this moment.
I think it’s time to start wearing these, before they become mandatory again.
I mean, you'll never really get the full story of anything if it requiers every adjacent detail, there's just too much detail in any event to document it all. So, I think it's more that being queer is an important part of this story because queer people have been marginalised. Which means it's important that they have good representation and their achievements are celebrated.
Representation matters in all areas of life.
not sure the climate cares. It's already killed countless species.
Isn't National Geographic owned by Murdoch? I think that's your answer (and all why Nat Geo magazine has been almost unreadable for 20 years).
From the article:
There are multiple organizations broadly known as “National Geographic,” so before we go any further, let’s run through some definitions and distinctions. In 2018, Disney bought a majority stake in an entity called National Geographic Partners, LLC—or NGP, for short. This is the for-profit company that encompasses the magazine, the television channel, and other properties that live under the Nat Geo brand. It was formed in 2015 by then–majority partner 21st Century Fox and the 137-year-old National Geographic Society. The Society is a registered non-profit organization, and it remains a 27 percent-owner of NGP, even after Fox’s sale of its 73-percent share to Disney. When I refer to “National Geographic” in this story, I mean the National Geographic Society unless otherwise specified.
In other words, this article is about the nonprofit that has existed for 137 years. The for-profit subsidiaries were 73% acquired by Fox/Murdoch, and then sold to Disney when Disney bought Fox. But this film was published directly by the nonprofit and not the for-profit subsidiary that is partially owned by Disney.
This long form article is why I pay for a Defector subscription. It's a good, well researched article that gives the appropriate background and tells a story that nobody else has told, and that maybe never would have been told, by any other outlet.
The people who care about the climate are probably the same who find something else to read because of this.
I think the official 'wokeness' was a US campaign to ensure western rage for a war against a conservative/orthodox Russia, but it didn't work as intended, so now all 'woke' projects have been cut off again. I suspect lgbt+, and climate causes/news/events are getting axed while the US Plutocracy prepare for war against China while shielding themselves from a crumbling Dollar. A bit sad that good causes are used like that. Btw, it would have happened with or without Trump.
Explanation?
So the line is from a surrealist section of an americana surrealist horror series about the fight between anarchism, liberalism, and fascism. I've always interpreted that particular answer to the question "why did the chicken cross the road" to mean people had to take action because progress turned to backlash. Why did this work disappear? Because progress turned to backlash
The fact that those are the only three ideologies tells me it was probably written by an anarchist lol
this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2025
51 points (98.1% liked)
science
20964 readers
373 users here now
A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
rule #1: be kind
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS