3 ms·

If you think that people saying that glyphosate is safe are arguing in bad faith I can see why you'd think there's a lot of disingenuousness around here. I can'

If you think that people saying that glyphosate is safe are arguing in bad faith I can see why you'd think there's a lot of disingenuousness around here. I can't speak for other people but I've defended glyphosate in plenty of threads simply because I've seen no compelling evidence of any significant danger from it in general and the specific stories we're discussing are often even weaker, with the comments sections drawing massive conclusions from equivocal evidence. Take this article as an example, people are drawing some quite radical conclusions from it when if you read the original paper, the data isn't strong and the stats are incredibly weak. The authors are hypothesising a quite long pathway from glyphosate in a country with a ban to water contamination to glyphosate-metal complex to kidney disease. Given the lack of existing compelling literature for this chain (and kidney disease in Sri Lanka has seen a lot of study), I'd want to see some compelling evidence, but this paper isn't it. I'm sure you don't want to argue over one specific case but it does bother me how they brush off the far more significant fluorine so easily, treat glyphosate differently in the analysis to all other contaminants, and didn't consider a dose response calculation over all wells between glyphosate and kidney disease. This isn't me deflecting or gaslighting. Just disagreeing and trying to do it as intellectually honestly as I can on a subject which is massively important to the modern world.

mandmandam 3y ago
> If you think that people saying that glyphosate is safe are arguing in bad faith I can see why you'd think there's a lot of disingenuousness around here. Some people can’t detect astroturf - that’s why it works. Consider that you may be one of them. > I've defended glyphosate in plenty of threads Can I see an example? Google couldn't find your name + glyphosate, or + roundup together anywhere. > I've seen no compelling evidence of any significant danger from it in general Respectfully, I don't have any idea who you are. I’ve seen compelling evidence. So have many judges, and respected scientists, and health groups. > This isn't me deflecting or gaslighting. The way you blow off the link between glyphosate and kidney disease is concerning, tbh, but let's say you’re on the level. That does nothing, absolutely nothing, to dispel the notion that a giant corporation with a long history of evil and greed might employ PR goons to spread FUD and manipulate votes to warp a narrative and protect profits.
- kirrent 3y ago
  I think we're talking past each other a bit. In this moment I'm not trying to persuade you of anything about glyphosate though I obviously disagree with you, just saying that there are plenty of us out here who do argue in good faith and asking you to consider that what may look like astroturfing is just honestly held opinions by people who disagree with you. In this case, I read the article, the paper, skimmed a couple of citations from the paper, the Wikipedia article, and a paper cited in Wikipedia on contaminants, especially fluorine, and kidney disease in Sri Lanka. I found it all quite interesting and didn't do it out of a desire to blow off a link (blowing off work on the other hand...). Sure, if you find a comment section spammed by new accounts with thin histories that look synthetic, call that out. I'm not even trying to persuade you that it doesn't happen (though to me it would feel like a misallocation of resources to do it to HN if you were going to do it). Maybe I'm bad at detecting it as you say. As for examples, I've mixed up message boards a bit as well as glyphosate/Monsanto, but here's me from 2017 implicitly arguing that controversy over Monsanto suing farmers is a bit overblown (no pun intended): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14794627 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14794627 From around the same time here's me saying that Monsanto's editing of a paper related to roundup safety was dumb but didn't concern me as far as glyphosate safety: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14974180 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14974180 In that second link in the wider comments Dang replied to a flagged comment: 'Someone holding a different view than you do is not evidence of bad faith, and the internet trope of you-must-be-a-shill is poison'. I agree with him and it's part of why I enjoy the HN community where this isn't the typical mode of reply.
  - mandmandam 3y ago
    Your linked comment is a good example of something I'd perceive as either written by a shill, or someone convinced by shilling. You say: > All of the science still says glyphosate is safe in the concentrations we encounter it in. What makes you qualified to say that? "Skimming a few papers"? The kindest thing I could say about that is that it's a dangerous oversimplification, on a thread where Monsanto have been caught red handed doing something "stupid" and immoral. The interactions between chemicals in Roundup can do much worse than glyphosate on its own - synergistic effects, increased bioavailability, etc. Then there's buildup from constant exposure. Then there's unexpected interactions with minerals in the environment, as suggested in the linked study, etc. And so on. There's WAY too much smoke to declare a total lack of fire, speaking on behalf of "all of the science", even if you were the head of the IARC (who call out a link to cancer, btw). > Someone holding a different view than you do is not evidence of bad faith I don't go around here accusing people with different views of acting in bad faith. But every time - every single time - the topic of glyphosate comes up, I see evidence of shenanigans. Fucky voting, misrepresentations, toxicity, distraction, FUD, outright lies, smears, etc etc. Look for it, and you might start to see it.

mandmandam 3y ago

> If you think that people saying that glyphosate is safe are arguing in bad faith I can see why you'd think there's a lot of disingenuousness around here. Some people can’t detect astroturf - that’s why it works. Consider that you may be one of them. > I've defended glyphosate in plenty of threads Can I see an example? Google couldn't find your name + glyphosate, or + roundup together anywhere. > I've seen no compelling evidence of any significant danger from it in general Respectfully, I don't have any idea who you are. I’ve seen compelling evidence. So have many judges, and respected scientists, and health groups. > This isn't me deflecting or gaslighting. The way you blow off the link between glyphosate and kidney disease is concerning, tbh, but let's say you’re on the level. That does nothing, absolutely nothing, to dispel the notion that a giant corporation with a long history of evil and greed might employ PR goons to spread FUD and manipulate votes to warp a narrative and protect profits.

kirrent 3y ago
I think we're talking past each other a bit. In this moment I'm not trying to persuade you of anything about glyphosate though I obviously disagree with you, just saying that there are plenty of us out here who do argue in good faith and asking you to consider that what may look like astroturfing is just honestly held opinions by people who disagree with you. In this case, I read the article, the paper, skimmed a couple of citations from the paper, the Wikipedia article, and a paper cited in Wikipedia on contaminants, especially fluorine, and kidney disease in Sri Lanka. I found it all quite interesting and didn't do it out of a desire to blow off a link (blowing off work on the other hand...). Sure, if you find a comment section spammed by new accounts with thin histories that look synthetic, call that out. I'm not even trying to persuade you that it doesn't happen (though to me it would feel like a misallocation of resources to do it to HN if you were going to do it). Maybe I'm bad at detecting it as you say. As for examples, I've mixed up message boards a bit as well as glyphosate/Monsanto, but here's me from 2017 implicitly arguing that controversy over Monsanto suing farmers is a bit overblown (no pun intended): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14794627 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14794627 From around the same time here's me saying that Monsanto's editing of a paper related to roundup safety was dumb but didn't concern me as far as glyphosate safety: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14974180 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14974180 In that second link in the wider comments Dang replied to a flagged comment: 'Someone holding a different view than you do is not evidence of bad faith, and the internet trope of you-must-be-a-shill is poison'. I agree with him and it's part of why I enjoy the HN community where this isn't the typical mode of reply.
- mandmandam 3y ago
  Your linked comment is a good example of something I'd perceive as either written by a shill, or someone convinced by shilling. You say: > All of the science still says glyphosate is safe in the concentrations we encounter it in. What makes you qualified to say that? "Skimming a few papers"? The kindest thing I could say about that is that it's a dangerous oversimplification, on a thread where Monsanto have been caught red handed doing something "stupid" and immoral. The interactions between chemicals in Roundup can do much worse than glyphosate on its own - synergistic effects, increased bioavailability, etc. Then there's buildup from constant exposure. Then there's unexpected interactions with minerals in the environment, as suggested in the linked study, etc. And so on. There's WAY too much smoke to declare a total lack of fire, speaking on behalf of "all of the science", even if you were the head of the IARC (who call out a link to cancer, btw). > Someone holding a different view than you do is not evidence of bad faith I don't go around here accusing people with different views of acting in bad faith. But every time - every single time - the topic of glyphosate comes up, I see evidence of shenanigans. Fucky voting, misrepresentations, toxicity, distraction, FUD, outright lies, smears, etc etc. Look for it, and you might start to see it.