Skip to main content

Blocked from the USRTK Facebook Page

I liked visiting the US-RTK Facebook page a lot like I liked visiting the dentist.  Yes, it is uncomfortable at times, but I leave feeling like something was accomplished.  The difference is that in the dentist office I just leave behind spit water. On the US-RTK Facebook page I leave behind compelling information that helps link their followers to legitimate science. 

At least I used to. 

I was a "Top Fan" of the site, a designation given to those with frequent comments. 

This week I returned from Australia and spent nights up late, taking advantage of jet lag.  I was working on a couple of work projects, but would check over at US-RTK now and then. I frequently commented.  Kindly.  Lovingly.  With great respect and patience.  And it drove them crazy. 

I took a few screenshots.  I'd comment on something that they posted that was not quite true (imagine that), using science as a basis for the discussion. 

They'd return comments, calling the science "Bayer Propaganda" and then go after me for being a Monsanto lackey and the same stuff they've said for ages.  The ad hominem is alive and well at US-RTK. 


This was my appropriate comment to the posted article. The title was quite imprecise.  (Click to Embiggen)


That scientific lead-in spawned a whole lot of commentary.  The point here is, the internet is a spectator sport.  When you comment with tact and class, especially reaching out to a new community, you can change hearts and minds. 


Some of their usual suspects chime in, and I responded kindly and with respect as always. 



Bad logic and tired tropes spew from US-RTK supporters. This is a site that hates science and scientists, but look at the number of supportive "likes" my comments get in this hostile forum. 


It is amazing how they just make claims about "corporate benefactors" and "corrupted science". These folks have a religion, it is deep beliefs that insulate from outside thought. 


Even folks that are a little more reasonable like Lisa M. still fail to try to understand, and instead dig in harder with their talking points. 


Then we just be extra more nicerly.


Today I chimed in on a conversation with a guy named Steven.  He was commenting on Terminator Seeds and other familiar fiction.  I gave him good information, backed it with evidence, and he kindly agreed to look into it.  I also posted my podcast link.  Here someone opened their mind to change.  Maybe it won't happen, and that's fine.  The point is, he took a step toward understanding someone else's view.  That's all we can ask for.  If we can achieve that, good science and good evidence are evetually persuasive. 

Clearly I was creating change at the US-RTK site.  The large number of 'likes', the respectful discourse... it was changing minds in a reinforced echo chamber. 

So I was banned. 


Can't have crazy talk like this here.
That kind of respectful discourse might hurt the cause.



... and gone! 


I block people too, but only after they are abusive or cause me problems.  In this case the problems I was causing at US-RTK's site were purely based on dissemination of credible information they didn't want their followers to see.  A right to know? 

The other main point is that discussing science via the ultimate high road can change minds.  While others assert we need to be brawlers and mudslingers, love-slinging works sometimes too.  Maybe it takes all kinds, but this blog shows evidence that a light touch can be persuasive. 

Popular posts from this blog

Scientific American Destroys Public Trust in Science

This is a sad epitaph, parting words to an old friend that is now gone, leaving in a puff of bitter betrayal. 
When I was a kid it was common for my mom to buy me a magazine if I was sick and home from school.  I didn't want MAD Magazine or comic books.  I preferred Scientific American
The once stalwart publication held a unique spot at the science-public interface, bringing us interesting and diverse stories of scientific interest, long before the internet made such content instantly accessible.  It was our trusted pipeline to the new edges of scientific discovery, from the mantle of the earth to the reaches of space, and every critter in between.
But like so much of our trusted traditional science media, Scientific American has traded its credibility for the glitz of post-truth non-scientific beliefs and the profits of clickbait.The problem is that when a trusted source publishes false information (or worse, when it hijacked by activists) it destroys trust in science, trust in s…

Chipotle's Ag-vertising to Fix their Anti-Ag Image

After years of anti-farmer rhetoric, disgusting anti-agriculture videos, and trashing farmer seed choice, Chipotle now seems to have found a love for the American farmer that is as warm and inviting as the gooey core of a steak burrito.  Their new "Cultivate the Future of Farming" campaign raises awareness of the hardship being experienced in agriculture, and then offers their thoughts and some seed grants in order to reverse it. 

But are they solving a problem that they were instrumental in creating? 

The crisis in agriculture is real, with farmers suffering from low prices, astronomical costs, and strangling regulation.  Farmer suicides are a barometer of the crisis.  Farms, from commodity crops to dairies, are going out of business daily. It is good to see a company raising awareness. 


From Chipotle's website- The "challenge is real" and "It's a hard living"-- and companies like Chipotle were central in creating those problems. 

However, Chipotle&#…

Mangling Reality and Targeting Scientists

Welcome to 2019, and one thing that remains constant is that scientists engaging the public will continue to be targeted for harassment and attempted reputation harm.  

The good news is that it is not working as well as it used to.  People are disgusted by their tactics, and only a handful of true-believers acknowledge their sites as credible. 

But for those on the fence I thought it might be nice to post how a website like SourceWatch uses a Wikipedia-mimic interface to spread false and/or misleading information about public scientists. 

Don't get me wrong, this is not crying victim.  I'm actually is screaming empowerment.  I spent the time to correct the record, something anyone can check.  Please look into their allegations and mine, and see who has it right. 

This is published by the Center for Media and Democracy.  Sadly, such pages actually threaten democracy by providing a forum for false information that makes evidence-based decisions in policy issues more challenging.  It…