Hacker News Reader

Comment by eznzt | Hacker News Reader

Is this a joke on his 'I don't like them putting chemicals in the water that turn the friggin' frogs gay!' famous sentence? Because it's true: https://www.pnas.org/content/107/10/4612

View on HN

Atrazine causing feminization in frogs is an undisputed fact, but the statement as given ("they put chemicals in the water TO turn frogs gay") is absolutely not. Atrazine is used because it's a cheap and effective herbicide, frog feminization is a side effect which doesn't factor into decisions about its use.

Ah yes, technically the chemicals are being put in the water and are turning the frogs gay but you see, they only intended to put the chemicals in the water and didn't specifically intend to turn the frogs gay.

Atrazine isn't intentionally put into water, it ending up in water reservoirs is a second order effect of its primary use as an herbicide. Its subsequent tertiary effects on the ecosystem are far removed from the people who applied it, who were just looking for an easy way to kill weeds.

That is a misquote. He implied human social engineering potentially as a side effect.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Alex_Jones

The chemicals are not being intentionally put in the water at all. They are sprayed onto plants and then run off into the water. Atrazine is a herbicide.

Fair point, so the intentionality is one level back

The Alex Jones quote is "I don't like them putting chemicals in the water that turn the friggin frogs gay".

Where'd you get your quote? or did you make it up?

It's a direct quote from the comment I replied to. They've since edited their post.

Yes sorry, I typed it out from memory. I didn't think the exact wording would be relevant, when that was not the point I was trying to make. I have corrected it to the actual quote.

This is my favorite hn handle to date.

Here's the actual quote for those curious

https://youtu.be/THFoayEgsV8?t=238

Eeeesh. No. "Chemical castration" does not equal "gay". Also who are "they"? And define "put".

Is it concerning that endocrine disruptors are leeching into waterways? Yes.

Is there a plot to turn frogs gay? I doubt it.

Well, "to" would imply it was intentional, which I don't believe is the case here. :)

I have corrected the quote.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com