I was lured into Monsanto’s GMO crusade. Here’s what I learned
1–8 of 8 posts
Re: I was lured into Monsanto’s GMO crusade. Here’s what I learned
#2Author has a political axe to grind.
Re: I was lured into Monsanto’s GMO crusade. Here’s what I learned
#3Author has a political axe to grind.
Seems that way. Misrepresenting Peterson's views and disregarding why he was invited to the talk (to give his opinion on why people hold anti-GMO views). She does have a point about the driving force behind much of the GMO debate being about uncertainty. This is especially true when Monsanto is hiring ghost writers and sponsoring biased research. You just can't rely on the science.
Re: I was lured into Monsanto’s GMO crusade. Here’s what I learned
#4Author has a political axe to grind.
Seems that way. Misrepresenting Peterson's views and disregarding why he was invited to the talk (to give his opinion on why people hold anti-GMO views). She does have a point about the driving force behind much of the GMO debate being about uncertainty. This is especially true when Monsanto is hiring ghost writers and sponsoring biased research. You just can't rely on the science.
"while I'm at it I'm going to attack people with whom I disagree politically". Easiest way for me to disregard something someone is saying, especially in the name of science.
Re: I was lured into Monsanto’s GMO crusade. Here’s what I learned
#5Author has a political axe to grind.
Seems that way. Misrepresenting Peterson's views and disregarding why he was invited to the talk (to give his opinion on why people hold anti-GMO views). She does have a point about the driving force behind much of the GMO debate being about uncertainty. This is especially true when Monsanto is hiring ghost writers and sponsoring biased research. You just can't rely on the science.
No doubt that she is framing her concern from a political context which undermines her very good point: GMO's are scientifically safe but companies like Monsanto need to stop playing shady games to make their point. The overwhelming scientific consensus speaks for itself.
Re: I was lured into Monsanto’s GMO crusade. Here’s what I learned
#6Author has a political axe to grind.
Seems that way. Misrepresenting Peterson's views and disregarding why he was invited to the talk (to give his opinion on why people hold anti-GMO views). She does have a point about the driving force behind much of the GMO debate being about uncertainty. This is especially true when Monsanto is hiring ghost writers and sponsoring biased research. You just can't rely on the science.
What is misrepresenting his views?
Re: I was lured into Monsanto’s GMO crusade. Here’s what I learned
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems that way. Misrepresenting Peterson's views and disregarding why he was invited to the talk (to give his opinion on why people hold anti-GMO views). She does have a point about the driving force behind much of the GMO debate being about uncertainty. This is especially true when Monsanto is hiring ghost writers and sponsoring biased research. You just can't rely on the science.
What is misrepresenting his views?
In her linked Slate article (that she authored) she said (about Peterson)
"[Peterson] became hugely popular following his swift rise to notoriety in the fall of 2016, when he refused to comply with university policy on addressing students with preferred gender pronouns." He publicly stated be had no issue using preferred pronouns, but his non-compliance was with Canadian federal Bill C-16 which forced their use and he felt was 'compelled speech' therefore unconstitutional. He framed it as a free-speech issue, but his opponents tend to frame him as a bigot who doesn't respect trans rights.
Re: I was lured into Monsanto’s GMO crusade. Here’s what I learned
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is misrepresenting his views?
In her linked Slate article (that she authored) she said (about Peterson) "[Peterson] became hugely popular following his swift rise to notoriety in the fall of 2016, when he refused to comply with university policy on addressing students with preferred gender pronouns." He publicly stated be had no issue using preferred pronouns, but his non-compliance was with Canadian federal Bill C-16 which forced their use and h…
The problem is that Peterson himself misrepresents the situation. The bill simply classified trans people as a class similar to racial or religious minority. Meaning don't discriminate. It wouldn't make it illegal to misgender someone per se. Like walking down the street or by accident, but as a teacher to repeatedly and knowingly misgender a student you are pretty much by definition harassing and discriminating against them. Its basic common sense, but he tries to pretend it's a free speech issue. He's invented an innocuous sounding argument for allowing harrasment and discrimination against trans people and its allowed him to tap into a general anti-trans sentiment which runs deep through conservative culture which has resulted in fame, wealth, and notoriety.
Think it's kind of dark.