3 ms·

Anti-vaxxer Monica Smit arrested for ‘incitement’

4 points by graderjs 5y ago

jjgreen 5y ago
Don't you actually need to be inciting something to be accused of incitement? It seems like being accused of doing ...
- lucozade 5y ago
  She's being accused of inciting others to pursue conduct that would involve the commission of an offence. That's against the law in Victoria.
- graderjs 5y ago
  Perhaps another success for DC's precrime division? Or perhaps we live in an age where ideas are dangerous--ideas that cut into massive corporations' profits, or suggest curtailment or questioning of government power and control--and where the dissidents that merely speak such ideas, even in the so-called Western liberal democracies are worthy recipients of "masks of shame" like "anti-vaxx" or "conspiracy theorist", plus a good measure of a bit of the ol' ultraharassment from the legal system. I do feel sorry for the poor, "Julian Assange"-esque personality type that thinks that drawing attention to their martyr-like "noble sacrifices" is something either effective for their "cause" or in their self interest. It's clearly neither, and sometimes I wish dissenting voices were a bit smarter. Then again, engagement not activism is noble pragmatic rhetoric, but in an age where maybe dissenting ideas can't even get a word in edge-wise what's an engagement-minded divergent thinker to do? Who brought this plague of zero-nuance and idea-censorship upon us, that has so effectively choked-out a vibrant and diverse public discourse? And in democracies no less?! edit: I guess I didn't read the audience of this article here that well, because I expected that these well-written and impassioned pleas for a bit of open-ness in the discourse, as well as criticism and questioning of the homogeneity would be well received here. I feel pretty sad they weren't because if people here don't think critically enough, or have courage enough, to think outside the blinders that are so obviously on our society at this time, then who will? You know: the smart, savvy, mostly financially independent tech workers...if they can't afford a bit of dissent, or critical inquiry, then who can, seriously?
graderjs 5y ago
No idea who this Monic Smit person is or if they're good, or bad, a criminal, misinformed, or a smart person doing good, but I do love how the discourse has become so homogenous, orthodox and unipolar that any dissent from a full embrace of vaccine and government policy not only earns the title "anti-vax", but contains in that nouveau term-of-abuse the implicit notions both that: 1) dissent is bad, and 2) all dissidents are the same. It's like the Othering, abusive, zero-nuance, with-us-or-against-us wartime propaganda employed by every country in WWII. This is an effective tactic to sideline, silence and discredit anything that does not agree with the theory that vaccines, lockdowns and other transient emergences of government policy and corporate interest are the only solutions. The dogma that ivermectin and ICQ have "no quality scientific evidence" supporting their efficacy, is belied by the mountain of research demonstrating massive improvement[0][1]. Sad and a total scandal not covered by the mainstream media that: 1) effective generic, out-of-patent, well-tolerated treatments are being suppressed in favor of profitable proprietary experimental vaccines delivered with cartel-like shenanigans (including access being contingent upon a country NOT recommending HCQ/ivermectin and others); and, 2) researchers regularly use words like "ineffective", "no significant improvement" in their conclusion sections even when their results show improvement. Again, the same wartime propagandists' tactic is used. Support for HCQ or ivermectin is labelled as "crazy" and "stupid", and only stories that associate such ideas with people who display other crazy or stupid behaviors are promoted. Sadly, even people in biology and medicine display the same herd behavior, which lets me think, "These people do not know what they are saying is propaganda and wrong, they actually believe it!" In other words, they do not know that they are working as propagandists for whoever benefits, but they do so anyway, and willingly, likely corralled in no small degree, by the collective glee and individual dopamine rush of feeling, "We are so right, and smart! And that group there, man are they so wrong, and dumb!" I can't work out who benefits the most: vaccine making pharma companies, governments or someone else? [0]: https://c19hcq.com/ https://c19hcq.com/ [1]: https://c19ivermectin.com/ https://c19ivermectin.com/ edit: I guess I didn't read the audience of this article here that well, because I expected that these well-written and impassioned pleas for a bit of open-ness in the discourse, as well as criticism and questioning of the homogeneity would be well received here. I feel pretty sad they weren't because if people here don't think critically enough, or have courage enough, to think outside the blinders that are so obviously on our society at this time, then who will? You know: the smart, savvy, mostly financially independent tech workers...if they can't afford a bit of dissent, or critical inquiry, then who can, seriously?
foolzcrow 5y ago
Tyranny

4 points by graderjs 5y ago

jjgreen 5y ago

Don't you actually need to be inciting something to be accused of incitement? It seems like being accused of doing ...

lucozade 5y ago
She's being accused of inciting others to pursue conduct that would involve the commission of an offence. That's against the law in Victoria.
graderjs 5y ago
Perhaps another success for DC's precrime division? Or perhaps we live in an age where ideas are dangerous--ideas that cut into massive corporations' profits, or suggest curtailment or questioning of government power and control--and where the dissidents that merely speak such ideas, even in the so-called Western liberal democracies are worthy recipients of "masks of shame" like "anti-vaxx" or "conspiracy theorist", plus a good measure of a bit of the ol' ultraharassment from the legal system. I do feel sorry for the poor, "Julian Assange"-esque personality type that thinks that drawing attention to their martyr-like "noble sacrifices" is something either effective for their "cause" or in their self interest. It's clearly neither, and sometimes I wish dissenting voices were a bit smarter. Then again, engagement not activism is noble pragmatic rhetoric, but in an age where maybe dissenting ideas can't even get a word in edge-wise what's an engagement-minded divergent thinker to do? Who brought this plague of zero-nuance and idea-censorship upon us, that has so effectively choked-out a vibrant and diverse public discourse? And in democracies no less?! edit: I guess I didn't read the audience of this article here that well, because I expected that these well-written and impassioned pleas for a bit of open-ness in the discourse, as well as criticism and questioning of the homogeneity would be well received here. I feel pretty sad they weren't because if people here don't think critically enough, or have courage enough, to think outside the blinders that are so obviously on our society at this time, then who will? You know: the smart, savvy, mostly financially independent tech workers...if they can't afford a bit of dissent, or critical inquiry, then who can, seriously?

graderjs 5y ago

No idea who this Monic Smit person is or if they're good, or bad, a criminal, misinformed, or a smart person doing good, but I do love how the discourse has become so homogenous, orthodox and unipolar that any dissent from a full embrace of vaccine and government policy not only earns the title "anti-vax", but contains in that nouveau term-of-abuse the implicit notions both that: 1) dissent is bad, and 2) all dissidents are the same. It's like the Othering, abusive, zero-nuance, with-us-or-against-us wartime propaganda employed by every country in WWII. This is an effective tactic to sideline, silence and discredit anything that does not agree with the theory that vaccines, lockdowns and other transient emergences of government policy and corporate interest are the only solutions. The dogma that ivermectin and ICQ have "no quality scientific evidence" supporting their efficacy, is belied by the mountain of research demonstrating massive improvement[0][1]. Sad and a total scandal not covered by the mainstream media that: 1) effective generic, out-of-patent, well-tolerated treatments are being suppressed in favor of profitable proprietary experimental vaccines delivered with cartel-like shenanigans (including access being contingent upon a country NOT recommending HCQ/ivermectin and others); and, 2) researchers regularly use words like "ineffective", "no significant improvement" in their conclusion sections even when their results show improvement. Again, the same wartime propagandists' tactic is used. Support for HCQ or ivermectin is labelled as "crazy" and "stupid", and only stories that associate such ideas with people who display other crazy or stupid behaviors are promoted. Sadly, even people in biology and medicine display the same herd behavior, which lets me think, "These people do not know what they are saying is propaganda and wrong, they actually believe it!" In other words, they do not know that they are working as propagandists for whoever benefits, but they do so anyway, and willingly, likely corralled in no small degree, by the collective glee and individual dopamine rush of feeling, "We are so right, and smart! And that group there, man are they so wrong, and dumb!" I can't work out who benefits the most: vaccine making pharma companies, governments or someone else? [0]: https://c19hcq.com/ https://c19hcq.com/ [1]: https://c19ivermectin.com/ https://c19ivermectin.com/ edit: I guess I didn't read the audience of this article here that well, because I expected that these well-written and impassioned pleas for a bit of open-ness in the discourse, as well as criticism and questioning of the homogeneity would be well received here. I feel pretty sad they weren't because if people here don't think critically enough, or have courage enough, to think outside the blinders that are so obviously on our society at this time, then who will? You know: the smart, savvy, mostly financially independent tech workers...if they can't afford a bit of dissent, or critical inquiry, then who can, seriously?

foolzcrow 5y ago

Tyranny