Yes. It might not have been obvious, but the post I was replying to stated "I hope my daughter does not read this.", which is why my post started with "Me neither." and went on to refer to her (my daughter's) brother.

Sure, and I'm glad people still stand up for each other. What disturbs me is that you (and much of the media) either can't see it when men are targeted by much of the same kind of abuse, or simply don't care. Dozens of men were doxed during #GamerGate, why are they being left out?

Maybe because men, as a group, are blamed for it? Maybe because people can't just talk about harassment in general without the 'boys-vs-girls' political BS?

Woops. Too early for sarcasm, it would seem. :)

I believe the point was that they're being left out of the discussion because they're straight while males. You can't keep the focus on women if you admit that men are a large fraction of the victims, and that's more important to some people than ending the bullying.

I'm very careful to be just misogynistic enough to ask for evidence.

No.

Apparently not you. As for myself, about half of the people I love are men, so...

You sound like a parody of a clueless, narcissistic feminist. Good thing I know some kindhearted, open-minded ones.

And I would suggest the same of you. But that doesn't seem to be getting us anywhere.

Stabbing women doesn't make you a misogynist, but stabbing only women (or specifically targeting them) might.

Can you show me any evidence that these people would treat men they disagreed with any better?

I'm not so sure about that. But more importantly, aren't women defended for being women more than men are defended for being men?

Nope. Just because you aren't oppressed doesn't mean you don't have problems that need to be addressed.

Using words like 'oppression' to describe how women are treated in modern western countries is just a cheap political tactic - it defines the situation in terms of 'us vs them' (if someone is oppressed, someone must be oppressing), while exaggerating the issues women face and downplaying the issues that men face. That broken model is why you think that people who disagree with you must think than men are oppressed - you assume that other people are using the same framework, but are merely on the 'other team'.

There's no pigeonhole in that mindset for people who just want the world to be nicer for everyone.

I don't think they're oppressed, but I don't think "straight white females" are either.

Citation needed.

Me neither. Especially when the author absurdly implies that the primary targets of "rape threats, death threats, and the harassment of angry mobs" are women. Or when people state their position in high sounding language - "It is never appropriate to use slurs, metaphors, graphic negative imagery, or any other kind of language that plays on someone's gender, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, or religion.", but never seem to apply that standard when her brother is insulted in those ways.

I'm quite sure there are crazed misogynists out there, but don't mix them in with people who are simply treating women online as badly as they treat men in real life.

And then the one harmful change of these huge number of all sorts of random mutations becomes predominant in 90% of the wheat out there? Yeah, I don't see that happening as easily as when the GMO company selects the gene they want and put it into 100% of the seeds.

One of the major goals of modern breeding is to get extremely homogeneous (i.e. inbred) populations. So if a dangerous trait was caused by a gene that was being selected for, or was near a gene that was being selected for, then becoming 'fixed' in the new variety would be expected, because that' s the goal. The major difference from a GMO variety being that (at least for the time being) nobody's doing a complete sequencing to find those genes, and then researching them each for potential problems. For example, Golden Delicious apple trees all descend from one plant, often grafted clones of the original - and if the yellow color happened to be toxic...

And the only reason that 90% of US corn and soy ended up having the same glyphosate resistant gene was because of a lack of competition and the fact that it was very, very useful. Now that other companies are using GMO techniques, Roundup resistance has become an issue, and future developments are likely to have smaller benefits or more targeted uses, it's less likely for something similar to happen.

On top of that, glyphosphate is one of the least toxic herbacides out there that generally breaks down relatively quickly in the environment.

Sorry, that's just not true. Higher levels of it have been found in the internal organs of chronically ill people.

1. Which is irrelevant to the point that it breaks down faster than most other herbicides.
2. It's also irrelevant to the fact that it really is less toxic as well.
2. Chronically ill people have higher concentrations of lots of things, because they excrete it more slowly. So again, irrelevant.

We have many, many negative ecological/human impacts that have no known cause, that correspond roughly to the time that various kinds of GMO techniques and species came into use.

By that logic, GMOs cause people to be more accepting of gay marriage. We should do research to find the causes of these things, of course, but there's no reason to pick on whatever random tech/group/idea has an image problem at the moment.

the GMO companies have nicely prevented that, by making it impossible to determine precisely when and where different populations were exposed to different GMO species or techniques.

First, we have the US and Europe.
Second, it isn't any different than any other industry - what was the sulfur content of the oil used to make your keyboard?

If the GMO companies believed their products were safe, they would have proudly labeled them.

First, Monsanto et al do 'proudly' label their products, advertise them, even explain in great detail what all their varieties do - but you aren't buying large quantities of seed, so you don't see it.
Second, as long as people are freaking out about GMOs keeping quiet makes more sense than making yourself a target for anti-GMO activists. You really think it makes financial sense to be the only company with a 'Frankenfood' sticker on their products?

But if I could put a question to you - why this tech? Out of the thousand of fairly new techs that go into billions of products, why this one and not, say, cell phone radiation, hormone analogues in plastic, ...?