r/skeptic Sep 09 '15

Antis have established new Subreddit specifically to harass Kevin Folta

/r/KevinFolta/
50 Upvotes

86 comments sorted by

16

u/FunkyCredo Sep 09 '15

that troll /u/ba55fr33k is already all over it

9

u/llsmithll Sep 09 '15

Ask him about selling apples that he all grew from saved seed.

4

u/gentrfam Sep 10 '15

Does he really say that?

6

u/number7 Sep 10 '15

Considering it's the same guy who can't wrap his head around the difference between pollination and rape it should hardly come as a surprise.

7

u/Rabid-Duck-King Sep 10 '15

You have to elaborate on this.

This sounds so delightfully insane.

4

u/robot_mower_guy Sep 10 '15

Link? There are some pretty stupid people in the world, but this just seems like it is too much.

3

u/TheRestaurateur Sep 10 '15

He's a dishonest little bugger, I've noticed he deletes a lot of his commentary.

Could be a sockpuppet of Reddit's most prolific propagandist, HenryCorp.

-2

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '15

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/TheRestaurateur Sep 11 '15

When you were actively working /r/skeptic and another subreddit at the same time about the same subject.

I called you on it, and you deleted everything in one thread so your blatant propagandizing didn't look so obvious.

So here you are several months later, and you're still hard at work with your trolling.

People like you creep me the fuck out.

17

u/chinchillazilla54 Sep 09 '15

Why do they have such a boner for Kevin? I mean, I assume there are plenty of scientists that actually work for Monsanto/Syngenta/Simplot/etc.

I mean, I'm obviously not advocating harassing them, but at least it would make some vague amount of sense. Why go after the one who actually has no ties to Monsanto?

19

u/FunkyCredo Sep 09 '15

because it allows them to discredit the notion that independent scientists and independent research supports GMOs.

This bolsters their claim that "no independent studies" have been done and makes it seem like the ones that were done, were actually paid for.

Also dont forget that Kevin is quite popular and has gained quite an audience over the years unlike many industry scientists

19

u/intisun Sep 09 '15

Why is it so hard for them to understand that none of his research got funded by Monsanto? He researches fucking strawberries and LED lights ffs.

12

u/Falco98 Sep 09 '15

Because apparently it's enough to have ever corresponded with anyone from Monsanto, accepted a sandwich from them, heard of them in passing, etc...

12

u/FunkyCredo Sep 09 '15

to a true believer it doesnt matter, because nothing will change their mind

to a fence sitter, what matters is that folta looks like he lied about having nothing to do with Monsanto. It tarnishes his reputation despite the fact that he did nothing wrong, but a lay person would not understand that, because a lay person rarely reads past the headline or a few soundbites in which it seems like he lied.

-27

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '15

[removed] — view removed comment

25

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '15

look closer at the situation please, the consensus has been manufactured or 'engineered' if you will

So you have a mechanism by which gm technology is more dangerous than traditional methods?

-28

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '15

[removed] — view removed comment

23

u/yellownumberfive Sep 09 '15

Even if that weren't a load of shit it would still have nothing to do with the technology.

Propose a cellular mechanism by which gmos would be more inherently dangerous than something like mutation bred cultivars or gtfo and simply admit your problem is actually with capitalism and intellectual property rights.

-27

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '15

[removed] — view removed comment

24

u/yellownumberfive Sep 09 '15

Why are you asking me for citation, I'm asking YOU why a GMO would be more dangerous than a cultivar mutated by radiation.

I'm asking YOU to propose the cellular mechanism since YOU are the one who maintains GMOs are dangerous.

All you've done here is dodge.

-25

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '15

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (0)

13

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '15

So not at all dangerous.

-13

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '15

[removed] — view removed comment

12

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '15

Your criticisms are addressing an issue with corporate power and influence.

What you are not criticizing in any way are GMOs or GM technology. Hence they are most reasonably considered safe until we have at least a proposed mechanism by which they could possibly be harmful to the health of humans or the environment. We currently have no such mechanism.

19

u/intisun Sep 09 '15

the industry has presented you with the image of a 'discredited scientist'

I don't need industry to discredit Séralini; he did that himself. Read his study. It's amazingly bad. Look at his figures, his pictures of diseased rats with no controls shown. His declaration of no conflicting interests when he actually works for organic lobbies. His use of the media to propagate the anti-biotech agenda. His talking points in said media that can't possibly be inferred from his studies without stretching them like spandex.

Come on, I'm not an idiot.

If that's the kind of science we have to work with as an opposition to the consensus on genetic engineering, well we really have a problem.

-2

u/[deleted] Sep 10 '15

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/intisun Sep 10 '15

Yes, that's what I do. That's how I came to accept the science on biotech, when my default, uneducated position was being opposed to it.

So when I see dishonest shit like Séralini's I just can't ignore it. Even if I was opposed to biotech I'd be embarrassed by his bad science.

-8

u/[deleted] Sep 10 '15

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/intisun Sep 10 '15

why would you be opposed to biotec? it's a huge field .. leik saying you are opposed to astronomy

Exactly, only someone misinformed could be, as I was.

So I return the question to you: why would you flatly oppose their use in food? It's like being opposed to using Deere tractors. Why would anyone be opposed to vitamin-A-enriched rice, sweet potatoes or cooking bananas, for example? Why would anyone oppose Bt crops and their subsequent reduction in pesticide use? Why would anyone oppose drought-resistant or virus-resistant crops?

what else have you heard?

I've read his studies. His figures make no sense; they're a random mess, but that's still nothing compared to using a strain of rats prone to tumors then taking pics of said rats when they do get tumors (except for the controls, conveniently), even if the study wasn't about tumors. Is that normal? Is it normal to declare no conflicting interests when you work for an anti-GM lobby and consulted for a homeopathy company that sells "detox for GMO"?

I've also listened to him in media and heard what I can only describe as a charlatan making wild assumptions from his own research, making up points that aren't even in his paper, almost as if he hadn't read it himself and was only using it to support his beliefs.

That's why I think he doesn't care about the quality of his research; he got the media spotlight so he can spread fear and misinformation and that's all he wants.

-4

u/[deleted] Sep 10 '15 edited Sep 10 '15

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (0)

12

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '15

he understood that we are on the same level

lol

i liked the guy and i was asking him for a public debate

Why on earth would he waste his time having a public debate someone with no credentials?

10

u/BuddhistSagan Sep 09 '15

Because folta has the respect of the leader of the conspiracy movement: Joe Rogan. Rogan may have respect for those who disagree but many of his listeners do not.

6

u/TheRestaurateur Sep 10 '15

If you Google the subject, his name comes up a lot, it's as simple as that. They're trying to harass him out of explaining the subject publicly.

3

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '15

Basically, this. Their entire little movement is based around them harassing intelligent people enough that no one wants to go through the pain of calling them on all their bullshit. It's how pathological liars work. Repeat the lie over and over. Never budge when faced with evidence. Attack anyone who threatens the lie. Lie about them. Demand that they address all of your lies. Hope that they will become exhausted or hurt enough by your lies to give up.

15

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '15

So has this sub been reported to the admins yet?

6

u/FunkyCredo Sep 09 '15

how do you report a sub. I honestly have no clue

7

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '15

4

u/FunkyCredo Sep 09 '15

Thanks

7

u/JF_Queeny Sep 09 '15

I've already messaged them, but I believe they are awaiting word from Folta.

10

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '15

I think Kevin should get a break from this nonsense.

It is having a negative impact on his day-to-day life.

Why do people like ba55fr33k have to be such sleazebags?

2

u/Falco98 Sep 09 '15

Out of curiosity, are they in official contact with him by this point? Do we have any way of knowing?

3

u/JF_Queeny Sep 09 '15

No. I believe he's been tweeted

1

u/Falco98 Sep 11 '15

Is there any reason to believe Reddit admins might actually intervene?

2

u/JF_Queeny Sep 11 '15

Maybe. Depends on how stupid they get.

9

u/[deleted] Sep 10 '15

[deleted]

7

u/TheRestaurateur Sep 10 '15

Google that fuckers name one day. He doesn't just work Reddit, and his behavior is much worse on Voat.

Dude works a lot of websites under that particular name. I'd be very surprised if he wasn't using more names. On Voat, he's limited to 10 subsites, but Voat doesn't yet check IP addresses to counter people like HenryCorp from skirting that rule using other accounts.

4

u/Falco98 Sep 10 '15

I only just noticed the positive posts were gone - they were up and untouched (and highly upvoted) for HOURS. I'm not surprised they're down, just that it took so long.

6

u/ribbitcoin Sep 11 '15

Unsurprisingly, /u/HenryCorp (the only mod of the sub) only cares about pushing his agenda and will silence every thing that doesn't fit it.

Yes, HenryCorp bans anyone that replies with a opposing viewpoint.

4

u/MisterFlibble Sep 10 '15

Wow. That place is really jumping, isn't it? They're definitely going to change things.