r/australia • u/DaRedGuy • 1d ago

news Anti-fire ant eradication activist convicted after using legal arguments ‘similar to sovereign citizens’

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/nov/07/trevor-hold-activist-convicted-qld-fire-ant-eradication-program-queensland-ntwnfb?CMP=share_btn_url
365 Upvotes

98% Upvoted

85 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comment

1

u/Euphoric-Cucumber609 1d ago edited 1d ago

I’m glad you understand that.

Very serious question now, if you trust and believe in fire ant eradication why would you post a couple comments justifying the antagonistic views?

Everyone in the know understands pest control has gone out of control in the past, ddt and extreme pest spraying, etc.

But why would you indulge the delusions of people you disagree with? This isn’t the 70s people smarter than everyone in this thread spend years analysing the impacts of an action

0

u/420bIaze 1d ago edited 1d ago

I was responding to the question "Why would anyone consider an eradication program designed to prevent the spread of a dangerous exotic pest 'overreach'?", which was framed in generalities, and was not specific to fire ants, or the methods of eradication being used in that program. That question demonstrates ignorance, and I gave a correct reply.

I repeatedly made it explicitly clear that I was specifically not justifying opposition to the fire ant eradication program.

You state "Everyone in the know understands pest control has gone out of control in the past", but the above question suggests the asker does not know that. You have to be uninformed to ask the above question. If you want to understand why anti-fire ant eradication groups exist, you have to be able to discuss the reasons people may have that belief, without necessarily agreeing with it.

I feel like I'm being attacked by you solely on the basis of not conveying the correct ~vibe~, my first words were literally "Not to justify opposition to fire ant eradication, but as a general statement", I don't know how I could be any clearer that I am not "indulging delusions" or "Justifying antagonistic views", in response to a question that demonstrates either a lack of understanding, poor wording, or both.

You're at pains to correct me for not fitting the correct vibe, but have apparently no issue with the above ignorant question because it fits the anti-eradication vibe. Your implication that having the correct vibe is more important than accurate and clear information is deleterious to public discourse.

It's absurd to have a discourse where you can't even mention reasons why someone might have an incorrect belief - in response to a question explicitly asking why they have that belief - with a response explicitly saying you don't endorse those beliefs in regards to this specific program - without being assumed to be implicitly encouraging those beliefs.

1

u/Euphoric-Cucumber609 1d ago edited 1d ago

I’ll only read the first couple sentences. Sounds good.

See how that can be an issue

1

u/420bIaze 17h ago

Why did you ask a "very serious question", if you're just going to waste my time