(I know this is about Rifftrax, but we don't have a Rifftrax community.)
this post was submitted on 29 Mar 2024
315 points (100.0% liked)
MST3K
1038 readers
1 users here now
Rules/guidelines/info
- Please be nice to each other
- Don't post stuff that doesn't belong
- These rules are temporary as the community is new - suggestions welcome
- Watch out for snakes!
You know you want links, baby!
- MST3K.com
- Gizmoplex
- Rifftrax
- The Mads Are Back
- The Mary Jo Pehl Show
- YouTube
- Wikipedia
- TV Tropes
- Annotated MST
- Fandom
- Suggestions welcome
This community is hosted at https://lemmy.world/c/mst3k and moderated by:
If you were a mod on /r/MST3K give me a shout.
Confused about Lemmy/Fediverse? Here's a useful infographic
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is what these nauseating pro-GMO types always seem to forget - developing a food crop for thousands of years to become useful to humanity is not the same thing as destroying food security through capitalist monocropping with the aid of a few dodgy genes injected into something that never needed it in the first place.
Yeah, all scientists are evil, all corporations are evil, all people working there are evil, it's all evil.
Oh look... the bootlicker brigade has shown up.
This has very little to do with GMOs.
You want to claim that capitalists are (somehow) not the only people that stands to benefit from GMOs?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
That's such a stupid statement I don't even know how to respond. Like I'd probably need to recreate several years of basic education before we could even be in the framework to consider a proper answer to your question. But which point you'd realize what a stupid premise it is.
Let's start here: why the hate for GMOs, when your problem is with capitalism?
Good lord - I so hate dealing with liberals.
The only reason we have GMO food crops in the first place is due to capitalist profiteering - nobody else has any need for it, genius. GMO food crops is a "solution" to a "problem" that never existed.
Is this hard to understand, liberal?
This has nothing to do with being a liberal. Scientists have said it's more sustainable to use GMOs because genetic manipulation is just a tool you can use for good or evil. We have a larger population than ever before and an environmental crisis to deal with. We need every technological advantage we can get. This problem isn't just about capitalism. Even if we get rid of capitalism and find we have enough food it's always better to use less land and cause less environmental damage by using pest resistant crops and nutritional crops like golden rice. That's assuming a revolution solves all food shortages despite the progress of climate change and pollution taking their toll on global food security.
Yes it does, liberal - you swallowing this liberalese hook, line and sinker has everything to do with your shitty liberal politics.
Oh, really? And where is their evidence?
So your shitty liberal politics have absolutely nothing to do with the right-wing histrionics you are regurgitating here? You do know that shills get paid for shilling, right? Are you getting yours?
You mean that exact thing GMO foodcrops have abysmally failed at accomplishing so far?
I mean from a quick google search I found:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1360138522000048
https://www.news-medical.net/news/20201117/Scientists-reveal-how-genetically-modified-organisms-can-help-mitigate-climate-change.aspx
https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2021/08/20/how-gmos-can-help-farmers-tackle-climate-change/
You mean facts? It's a fact that the population has been larger than ever and that's happened largely over the last century. It's still growing. I don't expect that to last forever (check the demographic transition model), but I don't expect it to shrink much either. Current agriculture and industry destroys the planet and had done since the industrial revolution. We need more than just politics to combat that. I know politics is obviously an important part of stopping the climate crisis and I won't deny capitalisms role in slowing progress and causing issues to be ignored or exacerbated. Capitalism however didn't invent the steam engine or monocropping.
Also I am not a liberal, you are jumping to insane conclusions. If you stop acting insane people might actually listen.
As everyone here keeps saying a tool can be used for good or ill. Just like how computer technology is used for organising both left and right wing protests. Maybe try to understand what a tool is.
Have you tried doing a quick google search to find pro-Israeli and pro-genocide articles yet? Yeah... those have been bought and paid for, too.
Should I mention that your third "source" is literally a front group for Bayer? Should we take a closer look at your other two "sources," liberal? Or would you rather I don't?
Here's some facts for you, liberal - food production is easily adequate for the entire human population. See, liberal? This is what a fact looks like.
If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck. A liberal you are - your brand of brain-rot is pretty unmistakeable.
You mean as all your fellow liberals on here keep saying? Gosh... I wonder why liberals would peddle pro-capitalist narratives by pretending that you can separate capitalist reality from liberal ideology?
It's a complete mystery, I tell you!
I am aware we have the food to feed everyone. Why are you ignoring all the damage to the environment that making all that food causes? You're also informing the fact that climate change will make it much harder to produce and distribute good. Distribution is already a problem today.
Let's say what you have said is true and that GMOs are worthless. What are you going to do about the environmental impact of food production instead? Surely you have some master plan?
Calling someone a liberal isn't going to help your cause. What exactly have I said that makes you think this? Making accusations without having anything to back them up is just going to turn people against you and whatever ideology you support. Is this why leftists always fight? Because they are too busy calling the other side liberals? What ideology is it you support anyway?
I'm not the one ignoring it, genius. You are the one peddling the techno-fetishist idea that you can simply handwave all these problems away with capitalist-approved techno-fixes that is designed from the ground up to preserve the destructive status quo they created in the first bloody place.
No, liberal - the ability to cause targeted famine amongst people is not a "problem" in a capitalist society. It is a feature. What do you think comes first for a capitalist - the actual, real-world value of a crate of corn, or it's market price?
Spoiler alert - it's not the former.
I guess it's true what they say - a liberal will rather imagine the end of the world than imagine the end of capitalism. So much for liberal "rationality," eh?
Why? Do you not like being reminded that the liberal ideology you are beholden to is actually an ideology? It is not "rational." It is not "normal." It is not "common sense." It is an ideology designed to protect a status quo that has brought us to the precipice of environmental disaster that it has no intention of saving you from.
You're also completely ignoring that GMOs are required to produce modern insulin. Without them we would have to resort to using pigs again which some people are allergic to. So I guess those people can just die according to you, right?
You want to talk about insulin? You want to talk about an instance where GMOs actually managed to deliver something worthwhile and yet the the powers that controls these GMOs has still managed to price tons of people out of insulin?
Sure. We can do that.
They don't know where I live because we have state-run medicine.
Also the fact it took you this long to admit that GMOs could be actually useful when used correctly is hilarious. It's what everyone had been telling you this whole time. Actual creature.
Oh... I never denied that. Maybe you (and the rest of the liberals here) should reserve your flexes for when you deserve it, no?
You mean you and all the liberals that will happily allow Bayer and Bill Gates to threaten the world's food security with their GMO monocropping as long as you get to buy your way out of it?
Gee... I wonder why I'm so unimpressed by your shitty and self-serving liberalese?
That is exactly what you have been doing. Now you're just arguing in bad faith.
Prove it, genius.
Read this whole discussion. It's entirely obvious to anyone who isn't you. Looking at both this conversation and your post history it's clear your either a troll or your brain is soup. Actually thinking marxists can be liberals - what the fuck.
So your proof is... absolutely fuckall?
How predictable.
So not only can't you come up with proof to substantiate your accusations - you also feign expertise in things you know nothing about.
At this point I have to wonder if you're not a chat algorithm.
Since I don't defend capitalists how am I a liberal? I want a world where the people own the businesses they work for and have a say in how they are run, instead of shareholders owning them. I don't see how that's liberal at all.
What is it you believe anyway?
handwave all these problems away with capitalist-approved techno-fixes that is designed from the ground up to preserve the destructive status quo they created in the first bloody place.
I am not saying they will fix all issues. Just that they are a useful tool. You are bending what I have said to support your own bad arguments.
Wasn't it a marxist who said socialism or barbarism? It seems liberals and marxists are both death cults. Makes sense when you know that Marxists kill all the other socialists like the anarchists.
You don't have to defend capitalism to be a liberal.
I think you mean, "own the means of production."
Oh, it's useful for many things... colonialism, for one. Just ask Bill Gates!
I think you mean Marxist-Leninists. Very different from just plain old Marxists. Marxist-Leninism is "Marxist" in the same way that Social Darwinism is "Darwinist."
Do you support some non-Leninist version of Marxism? Leninists are the most common form of Marxist. It's therefore difficult to say they aren't real Marxists. I am actually not against some ideas like libertarian marxism as it's Leninists I fell out with.
Also weren't you saying that liberals are all about capitalism earlier? How can you be a liberal and not support capitalism? I swear liberal is an American term anyway hardly anyone uses it where I live. Shouldn't you just say capitalist?
No, they're not. There are plenty of Marxists that doesn't even self-describe as Marxists - in the same way that physicists who study and use Einstein's theories don't self-describe as "Einsteinists." It would be silly. Even anarchists accept Marx's critique of capitalism - does that make them "Marxists?" Generally, Marxist-Leninists use Marx's image in the same way the Catholic Church uses images of Christ - ie, they care more about "owning" Marx for political capital than anything Marx actually wrote or meant.
Capitalism is a feature of liberalism.
Lots of liberals purport to criticize capitalism - you simply have to look at politicians like Bernie Sanders to see that. However, their criticism is purely constructive - their purpose is to protect the liberal status quo by reigning in the most overt excesses of capitalism. Their purpose is most definitely not to dismantle it. Dismantling capitalism (whether through peaceful means or otherwise) is where the left starts - it doesn't matter what CNN or France24 decides to call "leftist."
You think people don't need to eat food?
Do you mind being a bit more coherent, liberal?
Ah, so you're just trolling. Got it.
Sooo... no coherence from you?
No surprises there.
Yes, while monocultures aren't great, GMO crops just speed up the process you mentioned first. Developing a food crop over thousands of years. If we can speed up that process and generate better crops, why wouldn't anyone want that?
The whole politics around GMOs and greedy companies is something I wish didn't exist, but GMOs is the way to go.
No. It doesn't. It shits all over the process I mentioned first and then it gets called "progress" by techbros like you.
Why would we want that when our food crops have already been developed for us over thousands of years before our food supply was hijacked by a class of profiteering parasites?
Are you listening to yourself?
No. It isn't. Unless you're a fan of everybody but the ultra-rich suffering famine - then it's pretty much a ready-made recipe for you.
You literally make one argument: "nuh-uh!"
Maybe read into GMO, what it does?
Yeah, companies like Monsanto can suck dicks, but it's not the only one and even they make loads of advanced too. Blame the managers, not the biologists. Changes to tomato DNA makes it that they stay good much longer, those are the results of GMO, these are the things that people like you are trying to stop.
If the world is to survive the coming climate change disaster, we'll NEED GMO more than anything but we can rest easy knowing that people like you will be on the line to stop that and make sure we'll continue to go hungry.
Learn a little, become less extremist.
You mean the people whose propaganda you are shilling here?
Yeah... that's what's been holding our civilization back, genius - tomatoes that don't act according to what your techbro sci-fi fantasies dictate they should.
Right, right... it just so happens (totally coincidentally) that we will (allegedly) "need" the (alleged) "solution" the very capitalists who caused the problem in the first place happens to be selling.
What else do you believe, liberal? That Musk will reserve a spot for you on his Mars colony?
No one is mentioning Musk. He can go fuck himself on Mars, he's a pile of shit.
It's a harsh reality that food may become hard to produce with the climate crisis. Obviously it's large corporations to blame for that, but regardless of the blame, we may need to find new ways to farm depending on the climate.
I'd rather rely on science than "thousands of years of selective breeding" to achieve the same result.
Harsh words for a bunch of people who shares his ideology, methinks. You should'nt be. Either be nice to your idols - or critique him properly. You're a scientist, right? Shouldn't be too difficult for you.
Oh look... another "scientist" that completely fails to apply their "scientific mind" to political reality. Why is that a feature amongst scientists?
What kind of scientist doesn't recognize the scientific process in action? That is... unless you believe that it's only white people in lab coats who could possibly ever do "science."
One gross overgeneralization after another. It's clear that you are just regurgitating bullshit you heard from one "reliable" source.
I'm done replying, so kindly, fuck off.
So I guess that's a no on the whole "apply their “scientific mind” to political reality" thing, eh, "scientist?"
I guess Bill Gates is not just the PR industry's sugar daddy, is he?
I'm not into tech, but I am a scientist (chemistry, not biology) but I have a pretty good grasp on it.
If it can generate more hearty crops, it's a net good for everyone.
Yes, because we don't already have the ability to do this, right? Our food crops is so "non-hearty" one has to wonder why we bothered with civilization at all.
That's an asinine take on everything. The only reason we need "more hearty" crops is the increase in population, and the climate crisis.
Also "food crops are" not is.
Ah, yes... another "scientist" that wants to fix the climate crisis while completely ignoring the very thing that caused the climate crisis in the first place.
How "scientific."