For me the easiest tell is the up front, unprompted, and unsolicited declaration of nonpoliticalness. When someone takes the time and expends the breath to announce how nonpolitical they are, what follows is almost always a rant about how everything/everyone else is too political these days, and that of course leads into something between status quo advocacy and outright reactionary/regressive sentiments for some fabled time before those wicked politics were visible to the nonpolitical ranter. 
People that are hostile to service workers. Some just want to take some ideological stand against tipping when the service worker doesn't really have a choice and needs those tips to survive in the current unjust system in a way where ideological purity gestures toward that service worker just look like being a greedy and sanctimonious asshole. The worst of such people will actually declare, shamelessly, that they believe that service workers don't deserve a living wage. The implications of that are 
worthy.
I may get shit for this, but I'll say it anyway: this hair and beard combo, seen on living people. 
I have yet to meet anyone in person with that look that wasn't a chud.
(If one of you is a comrade with that look, I am sorry in advance for the prejudice and if I ever meet you in person I will atone by buying you a drink or something.)
Couldn't have said it better, so
. I understand that GMOs aren't likely to be directly harmful to eat, but the longer-term effects on the wider ecosystem is the real (and thoroughly not studied nor understood) concern.
Your understanding is half accurate only because most gmo (81% of all genetically modified crops https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-015-0052-7) is used to make crops "Round Up Ready" and immune to the herbicide Monsanto's Round Up which increases the use of glyphosate. Consuming glyphosate is directly harmful to eat.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9101768/
Glyphosate, a non-selective systemic biocide with broad-spectrum activity, is the most widely used herbicide in the world. It can persist in the environment for days or months, and its intensive and large-scale use can constitute a major environmental and health problem. In this systematic review, we investigate the current state of our knowledge related to the effects of this pesticide on the nervous system of various animal species and humans. The information provided indicates that exposure to glyphosate or its commercial formulations induces several neurotoxic effects. It has been shown that exposure to this pesticide during the early stages of life can seriously affect normal cell development by deregulating some of the signaling pathways involved in this process, leading to alterations in differentiation, neuronal growth, and myelination. Glyphosate also seems to exert a significant toxic effect on neurotransmission and to induce oxidative stress, neuroinflammation and mitochondrial dysfunction, processes that lead to neuronal death due to autophagy, necrosis, or apoptosis, as well as the appearance of behavioral and motor disorders. The doses of glyphosate that produce these neurotoxic effects vary widely but are lower than the limits set by regulatory agencies. Although there are important discrepancies between the analyzed findings, it is unequivocal that exposure to glyphosate produces important alterations in the structure and function of the nervous system of humans, rodents, fish, and invertebrates.
Oof, that was the stuff they hilariously claimed you could safely drink by the gallon, then refused to drink. Very good point that I've not considered before!
If anyone is coming to the defense of Monsanto it is because they are being paid or are suffering liberal brain damage. They are Nestle levels of corrupt, probably worse.
this is all pretty new to me tbh, are we getting harmful levels of exposure just from eating produce or is this more about acute exposure?
There is evidence that the amount we consume is harmful but Monsanto is one of the most powerful lobbies in the world so the information stays muddled. There are some countries in the EU that have banned it or are planning to but the EU as a whole reversed course after cash infusions.
I didn't want to go into "one health" or "ecosystemic health is human health" concepts because I felt it would derail the conversation, but I think they're important to take into account.
I think it is fundamentally eurocentric to consider that the agricultural and food systems in which one lives aren't deeply linked to one's wellbeing, and that the indiscriminate use of GMOs couldn't have an effect on that.
There's alot of specific ways specific GMOs suck and of course Monsanto gets the wall for shit like round up and the abuse of termination genes (great for research, terrible for farmers)
But so often the protesters are out against something like a scientific research project on soil redmediation, or of course the Golden Rice debacle.