We all have them. This brother-in-law or sister-in-law, who is very active on social networks. You accepted his friendly request for family duty …. while trying not to engage in his conspiracy speeches against technology, science, industry, and food.
My sister-in-law Rachel (name changed to protect the innocent … really innocent) is a fascinating specimen that I’m studying not only as a naturophile casepathological radical, but that I also use as a resource to find many sites of activists that I could never find alone.
…
Rachel has been conditioned to attack anyone who challenges the simplistic solutions of her tribe …. Their answers are simple: those who do not agree with them are hired by Monsanto (This is the short form for any industrial organization that manages in one way or another to control each scientist and each government representative).
…
Related on the SLP
Viewpoint: No more Christmas trees? Why proposed bans on neonicotinoids won’t protect bees but will threaten many other plants
Roundup litigation reprieve? U.S. government backs Bayer’s claim that its glyphosate is safe-as-used finding preempts random, conflicting state-by-state ‘failure-to-warn’ claims
So, how should I talk to my sister-in-law this Christmas?
…
- Speak in contextual rather than numerical terms …. Rachel is numerically illiterate …. So when she says that breakfast cereals are “stuffed” with pesticides or that Cheerios are “sprayed” with glyphosate, do not give her the number of parts per billion, but tell her that she should eat 4,000 cans per day to be exposed to insignificant risk.
Read full, original article: How to talk to your pathologically naturopathic sister-in-law at Christmas
