你现在的位置 : &
游戏中的霸气英文网名 Misaya(救世主)
　　怎么才能早网上震住新认识的小伙伴？来挑一个霸气的英文网名吧~~让你的霸气无可阻挡！
Smile灬凉城丶
Moment 绝望
Superman♂
Review 旧爱
We are one
凉兮* Armani
Traveler过客
We Are One
亡魂复苏 Jesus
节奏感゜Rhythm
Promise丶陌影
ら.Pride 傲骨
Monster 怪兽
格调　Moment゜
Grieved丶放手
Britney 暮光
A lie.(谎言)
Promise&魅眸
あ宣泄 2Amor▍
Leave me弃我
Superman ▼
温唇&sunshine
Lonesome.孤寂
╰Sweet┃乱了夏天
心控　2/2star&
overdose 中毒
Misaya(救世主)
肆虐ヽ Ragingヽ
Pursue丶你的脚步
We are one
活腻了# genius
We Are One&
Be with me.
Moment & 如此
　　相关推荐》》
百科词条：
相关文章推荐
更多家长在看
热门文章推荐
热门话题推荐弥赛亚和以赛亚的区别和前者作为救世主的传说？
犹太文化 宗教历史
弥赛亚与以赛亚，区别很大。不亚于刘德华和马德华。以赛亚是先知，弥赛亚是救世主。先知指的是旧约历史时期以色列的神职人员，他们看到以色列的子民离弃了上帝，甚是悲痛。有以赛亚、耶利米、以西结、但以理四大先知。他们针砭时弊，痛斥当时社会的黑暗，在巴比伦、波斯帝国统治下，这些先知就相当于是以色列的精神领袖。弥赛亚是所有以色列人都盼望的救世主。在旧约时期，有“弥赛亚将拯救以色列脱离被奴役的苦海，进入上帝国度”的美好预言，预言的就是弥赛亚。弥赛亚就是耶稣。但是新约时期，以色列的长老和祭祀否认耶稣是弥赛亚的身份，依然在等待弥赛亚。就是现在，他们还是在等
关于弥赛亚的到来有很清楚的说明，如下：The Jewish requirements of messiah are: * Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28) * Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6) * Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4) * Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one.
(Zechariah 14:9) * must be descended on his father's side from King David (Genesis 49:10 and Isaiah 11:1) *
will lead the Jewish people to full Torah observance. The Torah states that all mitzvot remain binding forever, and anyone coming to change the Torah is immediately identified as a false prophet. (Deut. 13:1-4)看到没有？弥赛亚不是谁自称是就是的。
圣经中主张的是相信弥赛亚传达的信息并遵行，而不是相信弥赛亚并把弥赛亚当上帝一样来崇拜，所以现在的大部分基督徒所相信的三位一体、拜肉眼凡胎的耶稣为上帝那一套，是拜偶像、背弃上帝的行为。犹太教不认为耶稣是弥赛亚。 另外，弥赛亚的翻译也不是救世主。翻译的原则之一是不要搞出容易让人误会的东西来。救世主这个词牵涉了＂主＂，而＂主＂是专属于犹太教中唯一上帝的，不能用于救世主或弥赛亚或基督或耶稣头上或使人混淆。圣经从来没有说过弥赛亚是上帝。犹太人也不相信弥赛亚是上帝。犹太人只有独一的上帝。转帖网文两篇：网文一：应该问为什么基督教硬说耶稣是弥赛亚。犹太教的规矩相当森严，每天勤勤恳恳侍主，规规矩矩祷告，安安心心等弥赛亚到来，罗马人来了，踩了人家的家园，毁了人家的圣殿，亡了人家的国……时过境迁，罗马人突然说： 你们的信仰挺不错，借我用用吧，就是规矩太多了，好麻烦啊。这样吧，让一个人背负我们所有的罪，那些繁文缛节从此抹去，我们重新开始。于是耶稣出场了，还把杀死耶稣的罪归在犹太人头上。从此犹太教就变成罗马人的大众宗教了。最后，犹太人对圣经的最终解释权也被剥夺了，所有矛盾被归结为＂你们没读懂＂。犹太人为什么要接受这一切？当然，犹太教也有本质上狭隘的地方，比如说只有他们自己是被选中的人，其他民族都不能上天堂。另外犹太教的上帝也太邪恶，太难伺候了，动不动生气杀人。可是，人家自己信自己的，不让我们去他的天堂，我们就不去呗，我们自己开一个天堂。基督教非要用人家的天堂，为此曲解人家的经文，还逼人家承认。PS.我是无信仰的人，就事论事地说，基督教这件事，犹太人被揩油了。网文一 结束。**************再转帖个网文二，来回应可能出现的基督徒的狡辩：　　1　　当然没有什么神性，希伯来圣经弥迦书5章2节 只是在说明这弥赛亚的祖先可以追朔到很古老的源头。　　指的就是创世纪从亚当一直传下来的以色列人的祖谱。　　基督教的中文圣经翻译成[从亘古、从太初就有]是在迷惑基督徒。　　在希伯来原文中这里用的字与约书亚记24:2 中提到的[古时]你们的列祖是使用一样的字。　　24:2 约书亚对众民说、耶和华以色列的神如此说、古时你们的列祖、就是亚伯拉罕、和拿鹤的父亲他拉、住在大河那边事奉别神．　　如果基督徒以为提到[古时]这个字就有了神性，那以色列人的列祖通通都有神性了。 　　2　　希伯来圣经以赛亚书9章6 不是弥赛亚的预言，是在讲当时发生的事情，也没有神性。　　这是基督教在中文翻译上故意误导你们。　　首先是动词时态的部分；在希伯来圣经这段经文，一个婴孩出生、一个孩子赐给我们，是指一件已经发生的事，　　而在基督教圣经里，它却被描述成像是未来的事。　　其次，在基督教圣经里，奇妙策士、全能的神、永在的父、和平的君都是这个孩子将得到的尊称；　　然而在希伯来圣经里，这个孩子只会得到耶和华所赐的一个美名，就是Sar-shalom（和平的君）；至於奇妙策士、全能的神、永在的父，则是以赛亚赞美耶和华的用语。　　根据希伯来圣经，将以赛亚书9：6订正如下：因有一婴孩已经为我们而生，有一子已经赐给了我们，政权必担在他的肩头上；那奇妙策士、全能的神、永在的父称呼他的名为和平的君。　　从语境上来分析，以赛亚书第9章并不是有关弥赛亚的预言，而是关於以色列南邦（犹大王国）遭逢国难，而终能化险为夷的事迹。　　以赛亚用感性的口吻，说出耶和华如何拯救犹大王国脱离亚述帝国的蹂躏，如何使西拿基立王的大军全军覆没。　　在犹太人的文化里，耶和华的热心是很少用到的感赞语，在整部希伯来圣经里它只出现过三次，分别在列王纪下19：31、以赛亚书9：7、以赛亚书37：32，都是在叙述犹大王国以弱击强、战胜亚述帝国的这个奇迹，　　由此更加能确认以赛亚书9：6所说的那个已经出生的婴孩是亚哈斯王的儿子希西家，而不是七百多年后才出世的耶稣。　　只要基督徒将以赛亚书第9、10、37这三章仔细读过，同时参阅列王纪下18、19这两章，当能看清整个事件的来龙去脉。　　3　　如上说明，　　基督教找不到三位一体的希伯来圣经根据，就玩弄花招在翻译上骗骗你们这些不懂希伯来圣经的基督徒。　　请基督徒想想，在希伯来圣经中为了跟以色列人建立[独一的神]的信仰，可是再三强调[除我之外,你不可以有别神]这个诫命。　　如果耶和华有意要以色列人后来得改信[三位一体的神]，那应该也会再三的跟以色列人提出[你要信奉来的弥赛亚与我是三位一体的]的诫命。　　可是整个先知书都没有这样的诫命。　　基督教自以为的根据都是在玩弄翻译的花招，并不是如[除我之外,你不可以有别神]这般明确没有争议的诫命。　　基督徒可以理解我在说什么吗　　话说回来，如果耶稣认为自己不是像大卫那样的人类国王，那耶稣一直强调[我祖大卫]来替自己所为背书，这是为了什么?　　如果耶稣认为自己比大卫王还要伟大，那何必拿大卫王替自己背书?又何必强调自己是大卫的子孙?　　古代以色列人就跟古代中国人一样很喜欢强调自己的祖先是谁。　　你想一个不断强调自己的祖先是古代哪个名人的人，会以为自己比自己的祖先还伟大吗?　　既然基督徒相信自己信仰耶和华，那很简单，耶和华的诫命怎么说你就乖乖听话，　　不要自作聪明拿几句经文断章取义就想更改耶和华明明白白的诫命[除我之外,你不可以有别神]　　基督徒除了耶和华之外信仰耶稣这个人物为神，这是在亵渎神且拜偶像。网文二 结束。
已有帐号？
无法登录？
社交帐号登录【崔永元是对的！科学一样需要截图！一样需要挂！】【凯文第四集：有毒的遗产～死亡威胁、诽谤和谎言】
【崔永元是对的！科学一样需要截图！一样需要挂！】
【凯文第四集：有毒的遗产～死亡威胁、诽谤和谎言】
编辑：钟馗V巡世
==============================================================
&================================
死亡威胁、诽谤和谎言-第4部分:凯文Folta有毒的遗产
凯文Folta声称他退出了转基因辩论但乔纳森?马修斯警告他崇拜的持续影响力
pro-GMO科学家凯文Folta最近宣布他的“退出”转基因辩论为了专注于他的大学工作。
的消息引发了他的追随者,他们中的一些人把怪对于他的离开完全建立在“欺负”,“精神病患者”,“whackjobs”,“混蛋”,“算命家”、“骗子”,“塔利班”,“邪恶的社会运动”、“他妈的恐怖分子”从事“骚扰”、“威胁”,“恶性诽谤”,“可怕的人身攻击。”
但是凯文Folta总是值得的记住,你所看到的不一定是你得到的。几天后,在应对他的追随者之一在Facebook上,Folta倾诉他仍然在幕后努力:“我不会放弃,我转移公众视线。”他补充道,“有许多层面……我是不可见的,但我工作。”
鉴于Folta的记录诡计,他一定会看到一些最新举措是一个愤世嫉俗的策略,旨在将风从他的批评者的帆,同时继续他的竞选工作水平以下的公众监督。
Folta突然消失从社交媒体可能也是为了激励反对明显沉默,他的崇拜者之一把它”,这样一个伟大的公共科学倡导者和教育家”。
的真正原因Folta需要鸭子离开公众的视线是可疑的持续曝光滑稽已经成为一个严重的尴尬许多转基因支持者。但他的追随者们更愿意购买Folta投影自己是神圣的科学传播者面对殉难的危险的极端分子。
作为一个哀叹,“所有的人……选择凯文Folta就像选择罗杰斯。他是世界上最好的人。”罗杰斯,对于那些不知道,是一个温柔感人的美国电视角色为学龄前儿童,是谁说成为一个“象征着同情、耐心和道德”。
另一个忠实的追随者了图像与更大的权力象征。它把Folta当前的困境与基督在十字架上的横幅:“当你教和平,敌人不会停止。”近一百人“喜欢”的形象,而另一些人则抱怨说,“虚构的耶稣”几乎生与“我们的上帝和救世主凯文Folta”。
但有些Folta在线滑稽似乎更适合巨魔之王比和平的王子。
发送的巨魔
社会媒体是Folta的关系发展的关键和他的追随者。例如,当我们知道第一次提出公共记录请求查看他的行业电子邮件、Folta立即带他博客敦促他的支持者“进攻”。他鼓励他们做出USRTK试图“沉默或骚扰科学家”媒体。他们应该这样做,他告诉他们,而不是仅仅通过电子邮件,但通过媒体Facebook页面和网站上发表评论,并包括tweet。他提醒他的追随者的他们已经不知所措的活动家Facebook页面发布“1000”关键的评论。
如果Folta希望他的竞选将创建这样一个充满敌意的媒体环境,释放他的邮件无法吸引媒体报道,然后他要失望了。当这个消息打破了关于他的“关系密切”行业,几个Folta更直言不讳的批评者称他是“骗子”,他重复否认任何行业的连接。
在未来几周内的模式非常像报复开始上演。Ena
Valikov博士在加州兽医经常与Folta桅杆在社交媒体上,然后Folta最亲密的助手之一写道:有问题采取Valikov诊所外,似乎发出一个明确的信息。伊薇特D
'Entremont微博随后被删除。微博的背景包括一个漫长的竞选诽谤和恐吓,如下解释。
块不正常工作
与凯文Folta Ena
Valikov最初进入争端,因为她不喜欢他的方式作为首选专家综述和转基因生物的安全。Valikov博士不接受,成为一个植物学家让Folta任何形式的人类和动物健康专家。事实上,作为一个合格的兽医生物化学也有一个学位,她觉得自己远比Folta更好理解毒理学,动物研究和健康问题。
当她第一次开始挑战Folta在他关于转基因生物安全早在2012年,他积极响应,告诉开始“耕作”自己博客的读者,在她频繁的评论,她“礼物相干参数提高讨论。她有一个生物化学背景的所以她讲科学,可以讨论文学。”
他们的联系在这一点上是一般的亲切,她说他们有一个民用电子邮件交换持续直到2014年的秋天。Folta跟着她在Twitter上甚至邀请她出去午餐,会议与她在加利福尼亚和访问海滩兽医医院,在克服她担心转基因生物的希望。
她说什么恶化他们的关系是他意识到,她不打算让步对转基因生物安全的挑战他,和她2014年10月出版的影响力博客Folta拆除的一项研究()一直忙大肆宣扬,声称没有伤害已经造成数十亿动物被喂食转基因生物。
不久之后Valikov出发为什么她认为本研究”垃圾科学“那Folta第一发明了#
blockthewhackjob标签,他第一次对她使用,后来其他人。Folta创造不仅仅作为一种鼓励他的追随者忽略她不得不说什么但集体阻止她。他也越来越诉诸法律威胁尝试沉默她的
Valikov博士认为,Folta重复标签的她是一个“whackjob”,事实上她坚持挑战他,导致她成为对他的许多追随者的焦点。,这导致了一系列的惩罚和威慑性行动反对她。
这些包括批评她和她的兽医业务被张贴在Yelp业务页面以及在她的Facebook和谷歌页面,包括假评论说她是一个可怕的兽医。
“精神病婊子”
Valikov博士让我接二连三的坏评论贴在她的海滩兽医医院的Facebook页面。我发现40
- 1星评论,似乎没有她的诊所为普通用户。一些评论特别提到Folta
GMOLOL,孟山都的pro-GMO论坛在线参与导演帮助建立,Valikov说,袭击是孵化的。
这里有一些评论:
“博士”。Ena是精神病婊子到处谁将茎你在社交媒体上……不要让你的宠物靠近这个疯子。”
“夫人是疯狂和不养宠物的人……我不会相信这个白痴与任何我自己的宠物在一百万年。”
“我看到你坚持报复性打听别人的个人职业生涯,它不属于的地方。“很明显从上下文,这个“人”是Folta。)
“这个女人是一个科学否认跟踪狂。保存您的宠物,带它去兽医的时候生病了,不是女巫。”
“我不会给你带来我的动物。你拒绝所有科学证据支持自己的偏见的观点,你推线自己的口袋。恶心。你是一个动物施虐者”。
实际上我只遇到一个负面评论谁声称出席她的诊所,和Valikov博士说海滩兽医医院没有这个人相匹配的记录。一些消极的评论者甚至不居住在美国,更不用说加州。
但有些Folta支持者已知去访问她的工作场所的麻烦。以及Yvette
D 'Entremont,谁让她的名字按国内Folta袭击的食品宝贝,一个支持的游说团体经强化的,其中Folta部分发布一个照片他们的“Franknfoode”吉祥物外面海滩兽医医院。
加勒特?史密斯,短视频Valikov博士一直在承受什么,这就好比说:“我在这里在你的工作。我拥有你…它只是擦在她的脸上。它很威胁的。她只是一个人。”
史密斯继续,“他们之后Ena的原因是她有聪明的说……这是另一种方式…把压力和让她停止……这就是他们想让她做什么。他们想要她闭嘴。”
“我是一个专家,她是个怪人”
一旦他们风闻史密斯的视频,经强化的抗议他们没有意图恐吓。Folta也很快疏远自己活动的骚扰,告诉他的追随者采取“高路”,而不是“试图伤害她的生意”,虽然在同一时间管理暗示Valikov应得的“悲伤”。
虽然Folta声称Valikov把攻击自己,她认为他负责他的追随者的行为,认为这是他重复她的标签作为一种“whackjob”让她这样一个目标的团体像GMOLOL
Folta已经很大。当然假的评论发布在业务页面,有一个显著的复发的侮辱符合Folta“whackjob”指示:“螺母工作”、“疯狂”、“疯子”、“疯狂的老巫婆”,“严重精神错乱”,“精神病婊子”,等等。
由于加勒特史密斯的视频,Folta停止使用“whackjob”标签,但这并未阻止调用的名称。当他受到抨击最近在他接近的关系与行业,Folta发表挑战评论家像Valikov来讨论他们的担忧在他说生物技术播客。“没有人会接受,”他很快宣布,担心“他们的垃圾暴露”。
但当Valikov博士说她会很高兴参与如果有一个中立的主持人,和一个人建议电视节目主持人大卫派克曼的角色,突然Folta出尔反尔,他说:“它创建虚假的平衡。这不是一个辩论。我是一个专家,她是个怪人。”
还债的时候了
Valikov不得不面临来自Folta报复谁和他的支持者。即使是知名记者Folta对象时遭遇强烈反对他们的报告。例如,埃里克&利普顿两届获得普利策奖的记者为《纽约时报》,发现自己谴责由伊薇特维'Entremont的“白痴”谁会参加了塞勒姆女巫审判。保罗?查克和查尔斯Seife甚至有一个文章收回了在高度有争议情况下Folta后反对到它。和布鲁克波莱尔,尽管她坚实的pro-GMO报告,发现自己面临着一连串的批评和滥用Folta后有效贴上标签她一个曲柄是谁“伤害一个科学家”,因为她敢于报告使用的播客别名.
但一切没有相比下降后,著名的美籍黎巴嫩散文家,学者,统计学家,和风险分析师纳西姆&塔勒布宣布Folta不仅仅是一个说谎者,但诱饵和“较低”的人。Folta反应在各种不同的方面,包括法律威胁,他说他刚刚让塔”排放”,称塔勒布一个“可恨的人”谁会“消失”如果他Folta的大学说他“与纳西姆&爱披萨和啤酒”。
其中最成功的开场白是披萨,喝着啤酒。它导致Folta被宣布在推特上“真正的绅士”,而塔勒布,谁拒绝了报价,说他不会把面包这样“一个恶心的家伙”,获得一个整体博客谴责他为科学传播的耻辱,Folta担任他的陪衬。
这比具有讽刺意味,因为Folta系列罪犯当谈到侮辱和人身攻击。但比塔勒布Folta狡猾得多。他渴望魅力,他可以和快速生成博客和微博为自己辩护时,他甚至会在战术上编辑或删除如果他来承受压力。如果他仍然是质询,那么----不像塔勒布,他有时候提供了道歉,尽管杰克海指出,“一个惯犯侮辱连续道歉不是忏悔。”
Folta也是一个高手在画自己的受害者。因此,当骚扰Ena
Valikov开始,Folta不仅立即发射了一个博客要远离它,但他甚至试图对那些指责他的袭击指责煽动暴力的人:“你们想让某人燃烧弹我家或者让我的家人受到伤害。”
夸张的说法,他的家里,他的家人,他的实验室,甚至是他的学生,在某种程度上受到严重的威胁是一种支持策略Folta当面对的批评,我们看到的第一部分thisseries。但尽管Folta煽动性的言论,似乎有很少的证据来支持他的说法,当然也没有任何迹象表明,这些所谓的“威胁”曾经被***认为可信的。
但扮演受害者是一个有效的方式刺激他的支持者采取行动反对那些他声称迫害----甚至恐吓他。
我们喜欢转基因生物和报复
纳西姆&塔勒布的侮辱了直接进入Folta受害者的崇拜。塔勒布不仅包括支付的价格的推特讨厌但请愿书呼吁纽约“终止”他,图形将他比作希特勒。
希特勒的图形被Stephan
Neidenbach放在一起,Folta领先后卫的Facebook的个人资料用于显示他和Folta互相拥抱。
Neidenbach也经常有人Folta谢谢,告诉他有一次,“你是一个邪恶的天才。过奖了,感激佛(原文如此)这样的支持。”
Neidenbach
anti-anti-GMO行动吸引了重要支持。他的Facebook群组”,我们喜欢转基因生物和疫苗”,已经收到了超过35000个“喜欢”。当他最近组织了一次的反旨在中断食物公正3月在华盛顿,他的合作者包括迈克尔&谢伦伯格突破研究所的主席,以及Mark
Lynas和康奈尔大学科学联盟。可以看到Neidenbach搂着Lynas以下。
如果Neidenbach相信,他还享有行业支持。当然,行业的人明显的在他的Twitter追随者。在一个推特对跟踪Folta匿名在线的批评,Neidenbach声称,“我们有一些电脑人们凯彻姆雇来帮助我们。”
凯彻姆生物技术行业的吗有争议的公关公司,那些爱对其影响转基因辩论在线和能力做***手凯文Folta。凯彻姆也有参与的历史从事间谍活动在团体担心转基因生物。Neidenbach
tweet随后删除.
那些在Twitter上关注Neidenbach,似乎他的同事做的,不能不意识到他的行为的极端性质。例如,不满足于塔勒布搭配阿道夫?希特勒,Neidenbach公共记录请求塔勒布的电子邮件----尽管他自己相比这样的请求“McCarthy-style迫害”当凯文Folta目标。
而USRTK陷害他们的请求以微弱优势,限制只是Folta的电子邮件交流与命名agrichemical公司和公关公司,前组,Neidenbach要求马萨诸塞大学交出所有塔勒布的邮件没有例外,即包括那些包含纯粹的个人或学术信息。鉴于塔勒布十年前大学停止工作并发表在转基因作物时,很难看到这是一个惩罚性搜罗----或者,Neidenbach告诉他的追随者,“希望我们找到一些有趣的事情。”
开心的Neidenbach找到另一种方法是建立一个微博从塔勒布通过修改塔勒布最初所说,使“他”微博显得可笑。Folta的另一个批评的时候,系统生物学家乔?诺曼,这和问题图形Neidenbach袭击诺曼自己生产,Neidenbach的反应是揭示:“乔Folta教授诺曼?如果你道歉,我们可以离开你的。”
在另一个场合Neidenbach回应诺曼,读起来很像一个威胁:“你骚扰生物技术科学家太多……我们不原谅。我们不要忘记。希望我们。“他使用黑客组织Anonymous的口号与模仿他们在其他方面的关系,包括使用《V字仇杀队面具,已经成为他们的商标的资料图片为自己的“我们爱转基因生物和疫苗”集团,以及张贴自己的照片戴着面具。
虽然很多人愿意睁一只眼闭一只眼的治安方面匿名,因为集团愿意承担的专制政府,强大的企业,好战的暴君,甚至像伊希斯》和“三k党”为卸除,Neidenbach这样的组织的“报复”似乎是针对个人,他们觉得过于批判凯文Folta和/或他们自己。
多远这个“报复”可能是由一些Folta的追随者还很难说,但写这篇文章我遇到的人相信,他们的电子邮件和社交媒体账户被黑,或者认为他们已经接受,Ena
Valikov等各种形式的阴险的报复,在批评Folta和/或他的一些主要的支持者。很明显,我甚至还发现硬活动家焦虑不以任何方式被引用或引用,即使他们很高兴这个问题被提出。正如一位告诉我,“我不想让自己再比我已经的一个目标。”
当然,威胁的本质上的一些文章“我们爱转基因生物和疫苗”没有任何歧义。最近的一个海报将Ena
Valikov和其他批评人士称为“混蛋”,“女人”和“诽谤的大便”,有人“应该会膝盖骨”。
虽然这篇帖子被删除,这不是谴责,甚至批评。相反,我们爱转基因生物和疫苗向其追随者有人发出警示,“现在正在截图的人从这个线程”。他们贴出一张截图,膝盖骨威胁这种不合理行为的证据。
“惹公牛的角”
如果这是网络暴民的暗示,那么,符合人跟着凯文Folta使用,并在线组织,支持他的一部分,必须说。根据攻击Folta山姆?杨,纳西姆&塔勒布给自己“变成一个与网络暴民”。
在成名之前,“我跟着凯文Folta战斗食物宝贝,连同其他Facebook页面在这个圆,”杨写了在一个反应博客这对侮辱Folta纳西姆&塔勒布的攻击。
这些团体,根据杨,“纳西姆&在做同样的事情,许多进一步把它。我的意思是这是彻头彻尾的意思。我不同意,但网上暴民心态?提醒我的旧学校街正义,就没有理由的……他们没有脸。这是一个集体,而纳西姆&脸。他只能推那么多的侮辱,而集体可以轰炸他……本文介绍了纳西姆&的推文的意思是,和一些亲切的反对者。为什么不推攻击Nassim
当然,你不必那么磨料纳西姆&塔勒布受到攻击Folta和他的支持者。人士公开挑战Folta是一个明显的目标。GMO自由美国告诉我,“我们总是处理巨魔,但当我们关于Folta的帖子数量成指数增加。说我们有多少巨魔是不可能禁止的一个人很难保持我们通常呼叫帮助。”
攻击并不仅限于社交媒体。这是来自电子邮件GMO免费美国有批评Folta后:“神圣的大便。今天你完全一巴掌还是什么?
? ? ?混乱与公牛的角…得到一个线索,别惹凯文或者页面将再次降临。”
Folta的肖像
Stephan Neidenbach索赔Folta警告他“住嘴炎症模因”。但是模因Neidenbach给图形表达几乎总是源于Folta自己。所以当Neidenbach帖子图片比较塔勒布极权大屠杀的凶手,他仅仅是在meme
Folta的回应USRTK比较他们的行为上的斯大林主义冲击伟大的苏联的植物学家和遗传学家尼古拉?瓦维洛夫。
“事实有时可以方便激进议程,因此他们必须消除或排斥老师,“Folta博客。“在1930年代后期在围捕USRTK会骄傲的,遗传学家,被逮捕。他们中许多人被杀害……”
Folta声称他不是直接将自己比作瓦维洛夫但寻求“比较科学的意识形态暴力否决。“换句话说,他故意将USRTK放入公共记录请求与极权主义的恐惧。
因此意义非凡,Neidenbach形象三明治塔勒布希特勒和斯大林之间也需要USRTK主任加里?拉斯金。的形象还包括另一个宠物然而Folta和他的支持者,宝贝----有人Folta的食物指责“可怜的食品恐怖主义”和有意煽动暴力对他,即使Vani哈里似乎更丑陋的威胁和受累滥用比他。
Folta的支持者鹦鹉不仅他的模因,他的语言。当他宣布他的“退出”转基因辩论,他的许多追随者的愤怒评论“whackjobs”,“骗子”和“恐怖分子”他们负责直接取自Folta的词汇滥用。有人甚至抱怨,“恐怖分子”,这正是Folta这个词使用孟山都公司授予后送给了一个学生食品储藏室。
Folta和他的追随者的语言太夸大了,有时很难相信他们不参与自嘲:“这只是这么该死的令人沮丧的看到塔利班赢。这就是这个感觉。关闭了知识分子已经被许多邪恶的社会运动的第一步:***的文化大革命,红色高棉,塔利班,伊希斯……和食物宝贝。”
但极端的言论是一个严肃的目的。Folta殉难的模因、恐怖主义和极权主义会激起愤怒和仇恨他的迫害,所以鼓励他的追随者从事虐待行为他声称的受害者。这是《爱丽丝梦游仙境》凯文Folta的世界,在那里他抱怨被诋毁,边缘化,沉默,然而这些都是非常战术似乎,他和他的追随者采取。
这种行为在他的一些支持者似乎根深蒂固,即使现在Folta幕后操作在很大程度上,它看起来仍将是他的遗产的重要组成部分。
真正的信徒
但有一个更有毒方面Folta比刺激它的遗产给了恶意破坏和其他威胁的行为。这就是他阻碍了他的追随者们从批判性地看着他们表达这种强大的意见的问题。
Folta最成功的策略之一,在这方面已经被插入到一个怀疑论者的疲软部分运动,真正的地方怀疑,或开放的疑问,被教条的热情和部落制度。Folta美联储这些pseudo-skeptics谎言,转基因作物和综述等商业产品的安全性是给定的,说,进化的理论。并通过将那些质疑他们怀疑论者敌机像创世论者,心理学或疫苗活动家,他鼓励人们谴责的这样的质疑,没有进一步调查。
的经典例子Folta利用这种错误是他的牵连攻击在注册营养师支持转基因标签是类似于“通灵,一个不明飞行物专家,或者登月骗子,或大屠杀。“同样的,正如我们所见,他使用的推论攻击把娱乐的科学家们怀疑转基因生物和摘要为骗子,操纵者,骗子和白痴。
山姆杨,曾跟随Folta,捕捉Folta的原教旨主义特征的粉丝:“我跟着这些网站,加入这些团体,因为大部分时间我们的信念一致,(但)的严重程度的方法,他们的伪善言辞,和他们的专制主义拒绝了我。我的意思是他们通常被称为“怀疑论者”,但怀疑论者没有选择性,他们质疑,怀疑一切。绝对不怀疑一件事,关于另一个。这是用自己的方式“教条”,同样的教条他们鄙视。”
孟山都公司我的恋情
正如阴险的是Folta使得pro-GMO等同于pro-Monsanto。Ena
Valikov一再挑战他和他的支持者的一个例子Folta被孟山都的关键产品或孟山都的一项研究中,或在任何其他方式“孟山都的不同路线”。没有令人信服的例子物化。
事实上,Folta了令人难以置信的努力保卫孟山都公司产品综述。他不仅多次喝醉了综述在公众面前所谓“证明无害”,但他甚至鼓励其他人也这样做。这个可疑的窍门是科学和完全的否定不负责任的.
暴露在这种情况下,尽管Folta反复使用维护他“与孟山都公司”,在寻求他的支持者攻击USRTK,他告诉他们恰恰相反:”我&总是保持与这些公司的关系,也许有一天我会很幸运地说服孟山都公司赞助&你的在最初的研究”(双强调)。
和生物技术行业人员不仅可以发现在他的坚定支持者,但他的一些其��主要防守似乎也希望他们的行业工作。例如,斯蒂芬Neidenbach似乎喜欢摆姿势在孟山都t恤一样《V字仇杀队》的面具。
Neidenbach也公开鼓励孟山都公司副总裁公司雇佣他。
另一个Folta的坚定捍卫者,伊薇特D
'Entremont,工作直到最近的农药生产商Amvac,合作在孟山都GMO-and-pesticides包。D
'Entremont,风格自己“SciBabe”,有超过140000的追随者脸谱网,告诉她的支持者,他们不能被视为pro-GMO除非他们也回孟山都公司:“如果你自称是“pro-GMO但反-,”你是问题的一部分。”
'Entremont当然不能被指责试图维持公司的任何临界距离,滔滔不绝的孟山都公司的副总裁,她是喜欢你的工作和你的美妙的员工”,而要求他帮助她写的书。
'Entremont显然难以想象的利益驱动的技术可能被滥用的数十亿美元的产业。然而,记录agrichemical巨人像孟山都似乎证明给公司生物技术自由通过。
这就是凯文Folta的遗产:不加批判地GMO-supporting军团,Monsanto-loving爱好者,准备野蛮人不签署他们的教条。
凯文Folta球迷俱乐部
珍妮丝-孟山都的人在线参与导演。帮助建立GMOLOL
朱莉?凯利-pro-GMO博客的丈夫是agribiz巨头ADM的说客
前(左到右):
阿纳斯塔西娅?博德纳尔----一个主管经强化的。凯文Folta是一个副主任
伊薇特D 'Entrement - aka
SciBabe。工作直到最近的农药生产商和孟山都公司合作者Amvac
卡米瑞安-孟山都的社会科学领导
朱莉板机----高级研究员独立女性的论坛公共政策的反女权主义右翼集团源于克拉伦斯?托马斯的女性。托马斯是一个极端保守的最高法院前孟山都公司律师。
============================================================
Death threats, libel, and lies & Part 4: Kevin Folta’s toxic
&Published: 03 December
Kevin Folta claims he’s withdrawn from
the GMO debate but Jonathan Matthews warns about the continuing
influence of his cult
The pro-GMO
scientist Kevin Folta recently&announced&that
he was “bowing out” of the GMO debate in order to concentrate on
his university work.&
The news caused consternation among his followers, some of whom put
the&blame&for
his departure squarely on the “bullies”, “psychopaths”,
“whackjobs”, “assholes”, “fearmongers”, “charlatans”, “Taliban”,
“evil social movements” and “fucking terrorists” who engaged in
“harassment”, “threats”, “vicious smear campaigns”, and “horrible
personal attacks.”
But with Kevin Folta it’s always
worth&remembering&that
what you see is not necessarily what you get. And just a few days
later, in responding to one of his followers on Facebook,
Folta&confided&that
he was still hard at work behind the scenes: “I'm not abandoning
this, I'm shifting out of the public view.” He added, “There are
many levels to this... I'm not visible, but I'm
working.”&
Given Folta’s track record of&subterfuge,
some are bound to see his latest move as a cynical ploy aimed at
taking the wind out of his critics’ sails while continuing his
campaigning work below the level of public
scrutiny.&
Folta’s sudden disappearance from social media may also be intended
to galvanize opposition to the apparent silencing of, as one of his
admirers&put
it, “such a great public science advocate and educator”.
The real reason
Folta needed to duck out of public sight is that the continuing
exposure of his dubious&antics&has
become a serious&embarrassment&to
many GMO supporters. But his followers prefer to buy into
Folta’s&projection&of
himself as the saintly science communicator facing martyrdom at the
hands of dangerous extremists.&
As one&lamented,
“Of all the people to pick on... picking on Kevin Folta is like
picking on Mr Rogers. He is the nicest guy on the planet.” Mr
Rogers, for anyone who doesn’t know, was a gentle heart-warming
American TV character for preschool children, who
is&said&to
be a “symbol of compassion, patience and morality”.
Another devoted follower posted an&image&with
even greater symbolic power. It put Folta’s current travails on a
par with those of Christ on the cross, under the banner: “When you
teach peace, your enemies won’t stop.” Nearly a hundred people
“liked” the image, while others complained that the “fictional
Jesus” hardly bore comparison with “our Lord and Saviour Kevin
But some of Folta’s online&antics&seem
more suited to the king of the trolls than the prince of peace.
Send in the trolls
Social media is
key to the relationship Folta has developed with his followers. For
instance, when US Right To Know first filed public records requests
to see his industry emails, Folta immediately took to
his&blog&to
urge his supporters to “go on offense”. He encouraged them to make
USRTK’s attempt to “silence or harass scientists” known to the
media. They should do this, he told them, not just via emails, but
by posting comments on media Facebook pages and websites, and by
including them in tweets. And he reminded his followers of how they
had already overwhelmed an activist Facebook page by posting “over
1000” critical comments.
If Folta was hoping his campaign would create such a hostile media
environment that the release of his emails would fail to attract
coverage, then he was to be disappointed. And when the
news&broke&about
his “close ties” to the industry, several of Folta's more outspoken
critics called him a “liar”, given his repeated
public&denials&of
any industry connections.&
Over the next few weeks a pattern that looks very much like
retaliation started to play out. In the case of Dr Ena Valikov, a
California veterinarian who frequently spars with Folta on social
media, then one of Folta’s closest acolytes tweeted a selfie taken
outside Valikov’s clinic that seemed to send a clear message.
Yvette D’Entremont’s tweet was subsequently deleted. The background
to that tweet includes a long campaign of vilification and
intimidation, as explained below.&
Block the whack job
Ena Valikov
originally got into dispute with Kevin Folta because she disliked
the way he presented himself as a go-to expert on the safety of
Roundup and GMOs. Dr Valikov doesn’t accept that being a plant
scientist makes Folta any kind of expert on human and animal
health. Indeed, as a qualified veterinarian who also has a degree
in biochemistry, she feels she is far better placed than Folta to
understand toxicology, animal studies and health
When she first began to challenge Folta on his claims about GMO
safety back in 2012, he responded
positively,&tellingthe
readers of his&blog that in her frequent comments,
she “presents coherent arguments that elevate the discussion. She
has a background in biochemistry so she speaks science well and can
discuss the literature.”
Their contact at this point was generally cordial, and she says
they had a civil email exchange that lasted right up until autumn
2014. Folta followed her on Twitter and even invited her out to
lunch, meeting up with her out in California and visiting her Beach
Vet Hospital, all in the hopes of overcoming her concerns about
What she says soured their relationship was his realisation that
she wasn’t going to back off challenging him over GMO safety, and
her publication in October 2014 of an
influential&blog&demolishing
a study, which Folta (among others) had been
busy&hyping,
purporting to show no harm had been caused to billions of animals
by being fed GMOs.&
It was not long after Valikov set out why she thought this study
was “junk
science” that Folta first&invented&the
#blockthewhackjob hashtag that he used first against her, and
later&others.
Folta coined it as a way of encouraging his followers not just to
ignore what she had to say but to collectively block her. He also
increasingly resorted to legal&threatsto
try to&silence&her.
Dr Valikov
believes that Folta’s repeated labelling of her as a “whackjob”,
and the fact she persisted in challenging him, resulted in her
becoming a focus of hatred for many of his followers. And it is
this that led to a series of punitive and
intimidatory&actions&against
These include
criticisms of her and her veterinary business being posted on her
Yelp business page as well as on her Facebook business and Google
pages, including fake&reviews&saying
she’s a terrible vet.
“Psychotic bitch”
Dr Valikov
allowed me access to the spate of bad&reviews&posted
on her Beach Vet Hospital’s Facebook page. I found 40 negative
1-star reviews, none of which seemed to be by normal users of her
clinic. Some reviews specifically referred to Folta as well as to
GMOLOL, a pro-GMO forum that
Monsanto’s&Online
Engagement Director&helped establish, where
Valikov says the attacks were hatched.&
Here are some of the comments:
“‘Dr.’ Ena is
a psychotic bitch who will stalk you everywhere on social media...
Do not let your pets get near this lunatic.”
insane and wildly inappropriate with pet owners... I wouldn’t trust
this idiot with any of my own pets in a million years.”
“I see you’re
sticking your vindictive nose into someone’s personal career, where
it doesn’t belong.” [It’s clear from the context that this
“someone” is Folta.]
“This woman is
a science denying stalker. Save your pet by taking it to a vet when
it’s sick, not a witch.”
“I would never
ever bring my animals to you. You DO REJECT ALL scientific evidence
in favor of your own biased views that you push to line your own
pockets. Disgusting. You are an animal abuser.”
I only came
across one negative reviewer who actually claimed to have attended
her clinic, and Dr Valikov says Beach Vet Hospital has no records
that match this individual. Some of the negative reviewers didn’t
even reside in the United States, let alone California.
But some Folta supporters are known to have gone to the trouble of
visiting her workplace. As well as Yvette D’Entremont, who made her
name by pressing home Folta’s attacks on the Food Babe, a pro-GM
lobby group calledBiofortified,
of which Folta is&part,
posted a&photograph&of
their “Franknfoode” mascot right outside Beach Vet
Hospital.&
According to Garrett Smith, who made a
short&video&about
what Dr Valikov has been subjected to, this is like saying: “I’m
right here at your work. I own you... It’s just rubbing it right in
her face. It’s very intimidatory. She’s just one person.”
Smith&goes
on, “The reason they're coming after Ena is that she has
something intelligent to say... It’s another way... to put the
pressure on and get her to stop... And that’s really what they want
her to do. They want to shut her up.”
“I’m an expert, she’s a kook”
As soon as they
got wind of Smith’s video,
Biofortified&protested&that
they had no intent to intimidate. Folta also
quickly&distanced&himself
from the campaign of harassment, telling his followers to take the
“high road” and not “to try to harm her business”, although at the
same time managing to&imply&that
Valikov deserved “the grief”.
But although Folta claims Valikov brought the attacks on herself,
she holds him responsible for his followers’ actions, believing it
is his repeated labelling of her as a “whackjob” that made her such
a target for those in groups like GMOLOL, where Folta has a big
following. And certainly among the fake reviews posted on her
business page, there is a notable recurrence of insults that tally
with Folta’s “whackjob” designation: “nut job”, “insane”,
“lunatic”, “insane old hag”, “seriously unhinged”, “psychotic
bitch”, etc.
Thanks to Garrett
Smith’s video, Folta stopped using the “whackjob” hashtag, but that
didn’t stop the name calling. When he came under fire recently over
his close&relationship&with
industry, Folta issued a&challenge&to
critics like Valikov to come and discuss their concerns on his
Talking Biotech podcast. “None will accept,” he
quickly&declared,
for fear “their crap is exposed”. &
But when Dr
Valikov said she’d be perfectly happy to get involved if there was
a neutral moderator, and someone&suggested&the
TV host David Pakman for the role, Folta
suddenly&backtracked,
saying: “It creates false balance. This is not a debate. I’m an
expert, she’s a kook.”
Payback time
It’s not just Ena
Valikov who has had to face retaliation from Folta and his
supporters. Even well established journalists suffer a backlash
when Folta objects to their reporting. For instance, Eric Lipton,
the two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter for the New York
Times, found himself&condemned&by
Yvette D’Entremont as the kind of “idiot” who would have
participated in the Salem witch trials. Paul Thacker and Charles
Seife even had an&article&retracted
in highly controversial&circumstances&after
Folta&objected&to
it. And Brooke Borel, despite her solidly
pro-GMO&reporting,
found herself facing a volley of criticism
and&abuse&after
Folta effectively&labelled&her
a crank who was out to “harm a scientist”, because she dared to
report on his use of a shady podcast&alias.&
But all that is
as nothing compared to what went down after the celebrated
Lebanese-American essayist, scholar, statistician, and risk analyst
Nassim Taleb declared Folta not just a liar, but a shill and a
“lowly” person. Folta responded in a variety of different ways,
including legal&threats,
saying he’d just let Taleb “spew”,
calling Taleb a “hateful
man” who’d be “gone” if he were at Folta’s university,
and&saying&he’d
“love a pizza and a beer with Nassim”.
successful of these gambits was the pizza and beer. It lead to
Folta being&declared&a
“true gentleman” on Twitter, while Taleb,
who&rejected&the
offer by saying he wouldn’t break bread with such “a disgusting
fellow”, earned a whole&blog&condemning
him as a disgrace to science communication, with Folta serving as
This is more than ironic, given that Folta is a
serial&offender&when
it comes to insults and character assassination. But Folta is far
more wily than Taleb. He is keen to charm where he can, and quick
to generate blogs and tweets in his own defence, which he will then
tactically edit or even delete if he comes under pressure. And if
he is still called to account, then & unlike Taleb & he sometimes
proffers an apology, even though, as Jack Heinemann
has¬ed,
“A recidivist of insult serially apologizing isn't
contrition.”&
Folta is also a past master at painting himself the victim. Thus
when the harassment of Ena Valikov started coming to light, Folta
not only immediately fired off a blog distancing himself from it,
but he even tried to turn the tables on those who blamed him for
the attacks by&accusing&them
of inciting violence: “You guys are trying to get someone to
firebomb my house or [get] my family
harmed.”&
Melodramatic claims of himself, his home, his family, his lab, or
even his students, somehow being under serious threat is a favoured
tactic of Folta’s when facing criticism, as we saw in
part&of this&series. But
despite all Folta’s inflammatory rhetoric, there seems to be very
little evidence to back his claims up, and certainly no indication
that any of these supposed “threats” have ever been judged credible
by the police.&
But playing the victim is an effective way of galvanizing his
supporters into action against those he claims are persecuting & or
even terrorizing & him.
We love GMOs and vendetta
Nassim Taleb’s
insults played straight into Folta’s cult of victimhood. The price
Taleb paid included not just a sea of Twitter hate but
a&petition&calling
on NYU to “Terminate” him, and graphics comparing him to Adolf
The Hitler
graphics were put together by Stephan Neidenbach, a leading
Folta&defender&whose
Facebook profile used to show him and Folta with arms around each
Neidenbach is
also someone Folta regularly thanks,&telling&him
on one occasion, “You’re an evil genius. I’m flattered and grateful
fo [sic] such support.”
Neidenbach’s
anti-anti-GMO activism attracts significant endorsement. His
Facebook group, "We Love GMOs
and Vaccines", has received over 35,000 “likes”. And when he
recently organized a&counter-protest&aimed
at interrupting a Food Justice March in Washington DC,
his&collaborators&included
Michael Shellenberger, the President of the Breakthrough Institute,
as well as Mark Lynas and the&Cornell
Alliance For Science. Neidenbach can be seen below with his
arm around Lynas.
If Neidenbach is
to be believed, he also enjoys industry support. Certainly,
industry people are notable among his Twitter following. And in
a&tweet&about
tracking down Folta’s anonymous online critics, Neidenbach claimed,
“We have some computer people Ketchum hired to help us out.”
Ketchum&is
the biotech industry's&controversial&PR
agency, which&brags&about
its ability to influence the GMO debate online and
which&ghostwrote&for
Kevin Folta. Ketchum also has a history of involvement
in&spying&on
groups concerned about GMOs. Neidenbach’s tweet was
subsequently&deleted.
Anyone who
follows Neidenbach on Twitter, as all his collaborators seem to do,
cannot fail to be aware of the extreme nature of his actions. For
instance, not content with pairing Taleb with Adolf Hitler,
Neidenbach put in a public records&request&for
Taleb’s emails & even though he himself
had&compared&such
requests to “a McCarthy-style witch hunt” when Kevin Folta was the
And whereas USRTK framed their
request&narrowly,
limiting it just to Folta's email exchanges with named agrichemical
companies and their PR firms and&front
groups, Neidenbach demanded the University of Massachusetts
hand over all Taleb's emails without exception, i.e. including ones
containing purely personal or academic information. Given that
Taleb stopped working at the University a decade ago and published
nothing on GMOs while he was there, it is hard to see this as
anything but a punitive fishing expedition & or, as
Neidenbach&told&his
followers, “Hopefully we find something fun.”
Another way Neidenbach found of having fun was to forge a tweet
from Taleb by modifying what Taleb originally said so as to make
“his” tweet appear ridiculous. And when another of Folta's critics,
the systems biologist Joe Norman, took issue with this and
with&graphics&Neidenbach
was producing that attacked Norman himself, Neidenbach's response
was revealing: “Joe Norman if you just apologize to Professor
Folta, we can leave you out of this.”
On another
occasion Neidenbach responded to Norman with what reads very much
like a threat: “You have harassed biotech scientists far too
much... We do not forgive. We do not forget. Expect us.” His use of
the tagline of the hacktivist group Anonymous ties in with his
aping them in other ways, including using the V for Vendetta mask
that has become their trademark as the
profile&picture&for
his own “We Love GMOs and Vaccines” group, as well as posting
photographs of himself wearing the mask.
But while many
people are willing to turn a blind eye to the vigilante aspect of
Anonymous because of the group’s willingness to take on tyrannical
governments, powerful corporations, belligerent despots and even
the likes of ISIS and the KKK, groups like Neidenbach’s seem to be
targeting for “vendetta” individuals that they feel have been
overly critical of Kevin Folta and/or themselves.
How far this
“vendetta” may be taken by some of Folta’s followers is hard to
say, but while writing this article I came across people who were
convinced that their email and social media accounts had been
hacked, or who believed that they had been subjected, like Ena
Valikov, to various forms of underhand retaliation, after
criticizing Folta and/or some of his leading supporters. Tellingly,
I also found even hardened activists anxious not to be referenced
or quoted in any way, even though they were glad the issue was
being raised. As one told me, “I don’t want to make myself any more
of a target than I already am.”
Certainly, the threatening nature of some of the posts on "We Love
GMOs and Vaccines" lacks any ambiguity. One recent poster referred
to Ena Valikov and other critics as “scumbags”, “cunts” and
“slanderous pieces of shit” that someone “oughta kneecap”.
Although the post
was deleted, it wasn’t condemned or even criticized. Instead, We
Love GMOs and Vaccines issued an alert to its followers that
someone “was taking screenshots of people from this thread now”.
They posted a screenshot of the kneecapping threat as evidence of
this unreasonable behaviour.
“Mess with the bull and get the horns”
If any of this is
suggestive of a cyber lynch mob, then that tallies with what
someone who used to follow Kevin Folta, and was part of the online
groups that support him, has to say. According to Sam Yang, by
attacking Folta, Nassim Taleb got himself “into a fight with the
internet mob.”
“I followed Kevin
Folta before he became famous fighting Food Babe, along with other
Facebook pages within that circle,”
Yang&wrote&in
a response to the&blog&that
attacked Nassim Taleb for insulting Folta.&
Those groups,
according to&Yang,
“did the same things Nassim was doing, many took it further. I mean
it was downright mean. I get not agreeing, but online mob
mentality? Reminded me of old school street justice, just uncalled
for... They don't have a face. It’s a collective, whereas Nassim
has a face. He can only tweet so many insults, whereas that
collective can bombard him... This article showed the tweets of
Nassim being mean, and some cordial opposers. Why not the tweets
attacking Nassim?”
And, of course,
you don’t have to be as abrasive as Nassim Taleb to come under
attack from&Folta&and
his supporters. Activists who openly challenge Folta are an obvious
target. GMO Free USA told me, “We are always dealing with trolls
but the number increases exponentially when we post about Folta.
It’s impossible to say how many trolls we have to ban as it’s hard
for one person to keep up so we usually call out for
The attacks are
not limited to social media. This is from an email GMO Free USA got
after criticizing Folta: “Holy shit. Did you get totally spanked
today or what???? Mess with the bull and get the horns... Get a
clue and don’t mess with Kevin or your page will be descended upon
Folta’s iconography
Neidenbach&claims&Folta
has warned him to “knock it off with inflammatory memes”. But the
memes Neidenbach gives graphic expression to almost invariably stem
from Folta himself. So when Neidenbach posts images comparing Taleb
to totalitarian mass murderers, he is merely following a meme of
Folta’s, who responded to USRTK by&comparing&their
actions to the Stalinist onslaught on the great Soviet botanist and
geneticist Nikolai Vavilov.
“Facts sometimes can be inconvenient to activist agendas, so they
must eliminate or marginalize the teachers,”
Folta&blogged.
“During the late 1930's in a roundup USRTK would be proud of,
geneticists were arrested and tried. Many of them were murdered...”
Folta claims he’s not directly comparing himself to Vavilov but
seeking “to compare where ideology violently overrules science.” In
other words, he deliberately associates USRTK putting in public
records requests with totalitarian terror.
It therefore makes perfect sense that a Neidenbach image that
sandwiches Taleb between Hitler and Stalin also takes in USRTK’s
co-director Gary Ruskin. The image also features another pet
hate-figure of Folta and his supporters, the Food Babe & someone
Folta has&accused&of
“abject food terrorism” and of being intent on
fomenting&violence&against
him, even though Vani Hari appears to have suffered far uglier
threats and&abuse&than
he ever has.
supporters parrot not just his memes but his language. When he
announced he was “bowing out” of the GMO debate, many of his
followers’ angry comments about the “whackjobs”, “charlatans”, and
“terrorists” they held responsible were taken directly from Folta’s
own lexicon of&abuse.
Someone even complained, “The terrorists have won”, which is
exactly the phrase Folta&used&after
his Monsanto grant got given away to a student food
The language of Folta and his followers is so overblown that at
times it’s hard to believe they are not engaging
in&self-mockery:
“It's just so damn disheartening to see the Taliban win. That's
what this feels like. Shutting up intellectuals has been the first
step in many evil social movements: Mao's cultural revolution, the
Khmer Rouge, the Taliban, ISIS... and Food
But the extreme rhetoric serves a serious purpose. Folta’s memes of
martyrdom, terrorism and totalitarianism serve to stir up anger and
hatred against his supposed persecutors, so encouraging his
followers to engage in the kind of abusive behaviour he claims to
be the victim of. This is the Alice in Wonderland world of Kevin
Folta, where he complains of being vilified, marginalized, and
silenced & yet those are the very&tactics&that
he and his followers seem to adopt.&
This behaviour seems so ingrained in some of his supporters that,
even with Folta now operating largely behind the scenes, it looks
set to remain a significant part of his legacy.
True believers
But there is an
even more toxic aspect to Folta’s legacy than the stimulus it has
given to trolling and other intimidatory behaviour. And that is the
way he has discouraged his followers from looking critically at the
issues they express such strong opinions
One of Folta’s most successful strategies in this regard has been
to plug into a weakness in parts of the Skeptic movement, where
true&skepticism,
or open-minded doubt, is replaced by dogmatic fervour and
tribalism. Folta has fed these pseudo-skeptics with the lie that
the safety of commercial products like GMO crops and Roundup is as
much a given as, say, the theory of evolution. And by associating
those who raise questions about them with skeptic bogeys like
creationists, psychics or anti-vaccines campaigners, he has
encouraged people to condemn out of hand such questioning, without
investigating further.&
A classic example of Folta making use of this kind of guilt by
false association is his&attack&on
a registered dietitian who supports GMO labelling as being akin to
“a psychic, a UFO expert, or a moon-landing hoaxer, or a Holocaust
Denier.” Similarly, as we have seen, he uses ad
hominem&attacks&to
dismiss scientists who entertain doubts about GMOs and Roundup as
liars, manipulators, charlatans and
Sam Yang, who used to follow Folta,&captures&the
fundamentalist character of Folta’s fan base: “I followed these
sites and joined these groups because our beliefs aligned most of
the time, [but] the severity of their approach, their sanctimonious
rhetoric, and their absolutism turned me off. I mean they often
called themselves 'skeptics', yet skeptics aren't selective, they
question and are skeptical of everything. Not skeptical of one
thing and absolute about another. It was in its own way 'dogma',
the same dogma they despised.”
Monsanto mon amour
Just as insidious
is the way Folta has made being pro-GMO synonymous with being
pro-Monsanto. Ena Valikov has
repeatedly&challenged&him
and his supporters to produce one example of Folta being critical
of a Monsanto product or a Monsanto study, or
in&any other
way&“diverging from Monsanto's party line”.
No convincing example has materialized.&
In fact, Folta has gone to incredible lengths to defend the
Monsanto product Roundup. He has not only
repeatedly&drunkRoundup
in public to supposedly “demonstrate harmlessness” but he has even
encouraged others to do the same. This dubious showmanship is a
negation of science and is utterly&irresponsible.&
It’s revealing in
this context that although Folta used to
repeatedly&maintain&that
he had “nothing to do with Monsanto”, in seeking to fire up his
supporters to&attack&USRTK,
he actually told them the exact opposite:
“I’ll&ALWAYS&maintain
relationships with these corporations and maybe someday I’ll be
fortunate enough to talk Monsanto into
sponsoring&YOURresearch”
(double emphasis in original).
And not only can
biotech industry personnel be&found&among
his staunchest supporters, but some of his other leading defenders
appear to wish they were working for the industry too. Stephan
Neidenbach, for instance, seems to enjoy posing in a Monsanto
T-shirt almost as much as a V for Vendetta mask.
Neidenbach has
also openly&encouraged&Monsanto’s
vice-president to get the company to hire him.
Another of
Folta’s staunchest defenders, Yvette
D’Entremont,&worked&until
recently for the pesticide maker Amvac,
which&collaborates&with
Monsanto on its GMO-and-pesticides packages. D’Entremont, who
styles herself the “SciBabe” and has over 140,000 followers
on&Facebook,&tells&her
supporters that they can’t really be considered pro-GMO unless they
also back Monsanto: “If you claim to be ‘pro-GMO but
anti-,’ you're part of the
problem.”
D’Entremont
certainly can’t be accused of trying to maintain any critical
distance from the company,&gushing&to
Monsanto’s vice-president that she is a “Big fan of your work and
your wonderful employees”, while asking him
to&helpwith
the book she is writing.
For D’Entremont
it is apparently unimaginable that a technology could be misused by
a profit-driven multi-billion dollar industry. Yet
the&record&of
agrichemical giants like Monsanto hardly seems to justify giving
corporate biotech a free pass.
This, then, is
Kevin Folta’s legacy: a legion of uncritically GMO-supporting,
Monsanto-loving devotees, ready to savage anyone who doesn’t sign
up to their dogma.
The Kevin Folta fan club
Back (left to
Janice Person & Monsanto’s&Online
Engagement Director. Helped set up
Julie Kelly &&pro-GMO blogger
whose&husband&is
a lobbyist for agribiz giant ADM
Front (left to right):&
Anastasia Bodnar & a director at&Biofortified.
Kevin Folta is a&co-director&
Yvette D’Entrement & aka the SciBabe.&Worked&until
recently for the pesticide maker and Monsanto collaborator
Cami Ryan & Monsanto’s&Social
Sciences Lead&
Julie Gunlock & Senior Fellow at&The
Independent Women's Forum, an anti-feminist right-wing
public policy group, which grew out of Women for Clarence Thomas.
Thomas is an ultra-conservative member of the Supreme Court and a
former Monsanto attorney.
已投稿到：
以上网友发言只代表其个人观点，不代表新浪网的观点或立场。