Okay. I can be contrary, and opinionated, but I do my best to be civil, and I don't swear much because I'm not very good at it.
I'm not mad at a specific person, or even a specific group of people, it's this cycle of behavior from a lot of sources, that keep feeding into the worst parts of the attention economy.
That helps me. So to rephrase it, it's a good idea but you think they used poor rhetoric to convey that idea.
It's more than just the rhetoric, when you write and article, you're setting parameters on the discussion. The information you include or leave out, like "some people are worried touching a mosquito could infect an organism with mosquito DNA", is a statement about what's relevant and worth discussing. There's a lot that gets taken for granted. If you don't take for granted that "GMO" is an exciting buzzword to get you page views, we could talk about concerns that don't presuppose we are in the Axe Cop universe.
There's a desperate need for intelligent people to be mindful of how engaging with things, even to trash talk them, gives them attention. Ideas are powered by attention.
Anyway, I want to go back to talking about the episode.
I really like literature that takes a hard-sci-fi take on the soft sciences.
I'm curious about the Masters of Horror episode, but I'm concerned it'll just be exploitative and high shock value, with out the in depth psychology of the story.