Have these people read “1984” or the Nuremberg Codes?
The editors at Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary have changed the definition of “anti-vaxxer” to mean anyone who stands in opposition to state-forced injections.
This is terrifying.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary changed its definition of ‘anti-vaxxer’ to mean anyone who opposes laws that mandate vaccination.
And Burack offers Breaking 911’s May 12 tweet featuring the screen-cap of the new definition.
Wrote Breaking 911:
NEW: The Merriam-Webster dictionary has changed their definition of ‘anti-vaxxer’ to include ‘people who oppose laws that mandate vaccination’
And the screen-cap of the dictionary entry reads:
: a person who opposes vaccination or laws that mandate vaccination
Which is odd, because, logically, one can support the idea of vaccination as a valuable tool to reduce one’s risk of disease and the idea of voluntarily choosing to get vaccinated (and allowing others to choose), while still opposing state compulsion of anything – including injections. And one would think that such a stance would not be justifiably characterized as “anti-vax.”
Of course, “anti-vaxxer” already was an ad-hominem tossed at people who expressed concerns about the safety of jabs, and also was a term errantly thrown at people who pushed for informed consent when it comes to injections.
But now, the editors at Merriam-Webster have taken it a step further, appearing to think it is “anti-vax” to agree with the Nuremberg Code’s prohibition against state-mandated injection or experimentation.
Let’s allow that to settle in the mind for a moment.
For context, and even more to share with those the reader might think would like to read and retain this information, here is the pertinent wording, reprinted by the state of Oregon, from the 1949 printing of the 1947 Nuremberg proclamation:
’The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved, as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision.’ ["Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10", Vol. 2, pp. 181-182. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1949.]
It sure is interesting to see that Merriam-Webster appears to lean more towards the side of Nazi War Criminals than those who tried and convicted them.
But, then again, people who enjoy mandating that their neighbors do things already are on the path towards fascism.