Medi-e-Vil BiAs

I get very frustrated with people who want to spread fear and hatred, which is really all this could be described as trying to achieve:
Medical [e] Vilification and Bigotry in Australia (ala Medi-e-vil BiAs)
http://nocompulsoryvaccination.com/2012/07/29/medical-vilification-and-bigotry-in-australia/


The humorous side of it, however, is the degree of hypocrisy and lack self-awareness it demonstrates.


The blogger starts trying to paint any who disagree with her opinion as "bigots", offering the initial definition of  "a bigot is anyone who is intolerant of those who hold differing opinions." Well it's a somewhat overly simplistic definition, used with bias to promote the blogger's own cause. Let's explore this a bit further...


The Mirriam Webster dictionary defines a bigot as:
A person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one who treats the members of a group ... with hatred or violence.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot


For some more context and depth, Wikipedia introduces bigotry as:

"'Bigotry' is the state of mind of a "bigot", a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance". Bigotry may be based on real or perceived characteristics, including age, disability, dissension from popular opinions, economic status, ethnicity, gender identity, language, nationality, personal habits, political alignment, race, region, religious or spiritual belief, sex, or sexual orientation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry

In the article, the blogger aims to prove the claim "So you could say that everyone who is a member of Stop the AVN – by definition – is a bigot.", and yet what the blog continues to present is a hateful diatribe based on the a group and members thereof, based purely on their beliefs or opinions solely because they dissent from the blogger's own.... hmm I believe that actually is the definition of bigotry.


Firstly, let's look at the origin of this claim. It is from the AVN- so the idea that some may oppose their stance would perhaps appear threatening, if they felt vulnerable to such criticisms. Humans in general do not like a difference of opinion- the challenge that they may not be 100% "correct" creates cognitive dissonance: a sense of unease or discomfort which may even be experienced physically. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

Secondly, as is much of the website, the article is presented with a slathering of martyrdom based on the claim that AVN are trying to achieve something laudable, and suffer greatly for their cause (if you consider a difference of opinion "suffering"). 


Then there is the selective representation of the case study "Bowditch compounded his shocking assaults against innocent supporters of the AVN as you can see below". In elementary school I think we all learned about character development in prose, or even inadvertently, through stories which describe the "wicked witch" vs the "charming prince" for example. It leads the readers' minds to side with the constructed protagonist. It's journalism ala Today Tonight. 

To vilify: To make vicious and defamatory statements about.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/vilification


I don't know Bowditch, and am not familiar with his personal or professional associations, or interaction history with the AVN, but can only assume that their past has not been amicable. The attribution of negative traits in any description of him or what intent his statements were made are an interesting demonstration of vilification, however.


Then there is the selection of tweets presented as follows:
"Innocent" AVN Supporter: Meanwhile you keep talking about dead babies and orgasms.
Bowditch: Why don't you just answer the question? How many does it take?


Followed by this interpretation of said tweets:
"So once again, he implies – to the mother of a vaccine-injured child – that she gets sexual pleasure from dead babies."


At this point I'm tempted to suggest a class in reading comprehension to the blog-writer. What I can see is mutual aggravation- baiting from both sides, and avoidance of the topic at hand, not one mercilessly attacking the innocent [unnecessarily emotive descriptive bias added for dramatic effect] other unprovoked. In this selection, at least, there was no such implication, and the insinuation makes as much sense as:


Q- Ask me if I'm an orange.
A- Are you calling me fat?
Once again, the Q implied that A has a dietary and weight issue and enjoys sexual activity with fresh produce.


I persevered, in the mistaken belief that there would be some sense, conclusion or at least a reasonable argument contained in the post, and was left wanting.


"I feel that people who cannot see what is inherently vile and disturbing about Bowditch’s rhetoric could be capable of anything."


I feel the same about the Catholic Church; that it is inherently vile and disturbing in its rhetoric. I also believe the behaviour of certain individuals who are members of this institution conduct acts which are reprehensible, for example, the systematic rape of children by some members of the clergy. Yet I don't assume this necessarily means every Catholic is vile or disturbing or insinuate that they must all condone such acts. To do so would be perceiving all Catholics to have the same characteristics, based solely on their membership of said group, and treating the members of that group with hatred and intolerance on that basis (refer above to definition of bigotry).


*End with staggeringly hypocritical statement *:
"Vilification and bigotry have no place in Australia."