• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Fault! | Novak Djokovic refused Visa after 8 hours sitting in Melbourne airport. To be kicked out.

adamsapple

Member
A constant fucking smile on my face the whole weekend. I don't know what I did to deserve this, but thank you universe :messenger_tears_of_joy:

dwight schrute smirk GIF


Nobody_Important Nobody_Important reading this thread.
 

FunkMiller

Member
Looks like our boi will also not play in the Roland Garros:


Of course spineless cunts in the French Tennis Federation (and even State Secretary a week ago) tried once again to 'find a way' to make him play, but it warms my heart the cradle of egalité went:

Mikey Day No GIF by Saturday Night Live


Maybe the law will be change by the time the tournament starts in May, but for now it's bye-bye.

We were at some point always going to get a poster child for anti-vax dumbfuckery... and it might as well be Novax as anybody. Let's see how long it takes him to decide that all his unfounded 'concerns' about the covid vaccine aren't quite as important as that big fat bottom line.
 
Looks like our boi will also not play in the Roland Garros:


Of course spineless cunts in the French Tennis Federation (and even State Secretary a week ago) tried once again to 'find a way' to make him play, but it warms my heart the cradle of egalité went:

Mikey Day No GIF by Saturday Night Live


Maybe the law will be change by the time the tournament starts in May, but for now it's bye-bye.
At that point Le Pen will be president of France ;)
Also the law has the same "infection exception" as Australia.
 
Last edited:
He couldn’t prove he was infected in Australia, what makes you think he will prove it now?
He did. That was not the reason why his visa was revoked, lol
Was the failed mentioned travel history.
At least that was how the government argued. The real reason is obviously a different one.
 
Last edited:
T Taxexemption @tsumake

Here's the deal guys.

You've found a thread on a forum that has outlawed politics where you want to speak up for your problems with the vaccine. Good for you.

The problem is that whereas in the past this forum was replete with people who would clap you on the back and support you to the hilt, they've all been banned for spreading toxicity. The people who are left, like Nobody_Important Nobody_Important , are on the right side of history and the correct side of this discussion. You are basically outed as having allowed social media algorithm jockeys to make your mind up for you.

First of all, there is no intellectual conversation to be had about vaccine scepticism. Because any reasons* to not get this vaccine are by nature both subjective and false. You felt reasonable saying those things in your first post, T Taxexemption , which should have been your only post, but if we go outside your algorithm addled brain you'll see that you're actually not typing on gaf, you're on a street corner twiddling a straw fan with an aluminium hat on.

*Medical exemptions are valid, those poor people, but being anti-vax does not automatically give you grounds for an exemption.. as reasonable as that may seem on reflection.

Second of all, and here i must briefly bring in @Torrent of Pork though I'd rather not, vaccines are not grounds for personal freedoms. I made this point earlier in the thread: we would want to apprehend, punish and shun someone having unprotected sex and spreading STDs - likewise we want to apprehend, punish and shun Novak Djokovic, who has been caught having unprotected conversations and spreading the virus. The only valid equivalence to deliberately spreading covid is deliberately spreading other infectious diseases, NOT standing atop a mountain waving the flag of freedom with a six pack and a busty woman wrapped around your leg.

What you guys are oblivious to is that Covid vaccinations are not taken in a vacuum. You say that anybody should have the right to make a choice, and that we can't deny them, but when that choice affects other, innocent people, it becomes a legal matter.

I suspect roughly the same proportion of the population who don't take the vaccine will one day be shown to equal the rough proportion of the population who are incapable of empathy for strangers. Don't feel bad, it's not a universal skill.

I'll leave it there, i don't think i can say it any more clearly. I want you to consider the door to you posting replies to this post closed if you are planning on citing:
- individual freedom of choice in this context
- conflations between authority and evil
- anything you could only believe if you've swallowed an algorithm-generated opinion piece hook, line and sinker
- any propositions based on the foundation of your fundamental lack of empathy for strangers.
- any replies that take one small part of this post and focus on it, in an attempt to undermine its general truth.
- You stopped reading as soon as you didn't like what you were seeing and instead made a point that has already been nuked.

I'll post any of these criteria which your quotes fall under as my reply to your replies, as and when they do so read.

Thanks.

I had to think long and hard before I decided whether I would reply to this post. I have a lot of empathy for other people, to the point that it causes me problems and makes my life significantly harder than it is for the average person. My empathy is part of why I have the beliefs I do. I've been on a decades long quest of seriously pondering what is wrong with our society, because of my empathy.

I have unpopular beliefs about a number of subjects. I'm generally aware that I could probably be more popular if I just lied about what I think on a few topics. However, I think the truth is important. Either God, Evolution, or both made me to be the person making this argument. Mine is the brain that forms these thoughts, and for whatever reason I exist I think it's correct to express them.

Whether it's nature or nurture, or a combination of things, I think we all have a combination of factors that form us into being certain types of people, and at the point that we are a certain kind of person with certain types of beliefs you have to act in accordance with your nature. I could repress my beliefs and pretend to believe more socially acceptable things, for a time. Then eventually it would come out. It's not possible for a person to be something they aren't. I have controversial views on a bunch of subjects, and these views make people unhappy. I could benefit in a lot of ways if I lied, I'd probably not have as much trouble getting laid, some of the people I work with would respect me more, there could be all kinds of other benefits I'm not thinking about. I'm keenly aware that I have beliefs that other people think are kooky, I'm okay with that.

Due to my philosophical views I think it is correct for people to act in accordance with their beliefs even if they are wrong. I don't think it's possible for everyone to be right. My brain says X, therefore I say X, if I said Y when my brain says X that would morally wrong even if Y was actually correct. If I lie, then no one can have an honest conversation with me, and know whats going on.

Any society will have a certain amount of neurodiversity. That is what I am, neurally diverse. Also, for the record I think my neurodiversity makes me part of a protected class, at least in my state, and that it is illegal to discriminate against me. Honestly, I'm thinking of starting one if there isn't, or joining a 501c3 for the purpose of funding lawsuits to make neurodiversity a protected class. You shouldn't be able to fire people for having beliefs even if they are stupid.
 

Tschumi

Member
I had to think long and hard before I decided whether I would reply to this post. I have a lot of empathy for other people, to the point that it causes me problems and makes my life significantly harder than it is for the average person. My empathy is part of why I have the beliefs I do. I've been on a decades long quest of seriously pondering what is wrong with our society, because of my empathy.

I have unpopular beliefs about a number of subjects. I'm generally aware that I could probably be more popular if I just lied about what I think on a few topics. However, I think the truth is important. Either God, Evolution, or both made me to be the person making this argument. Mine is the brain that forms these thoughts, and for whatever reason I exist I think it's correct to express them.

Whether it's nature or nurture, or a combination of things, I think we all have a combination of factors that form us into being certain types of people, and at the point that we are a certain kind of person with certain types of beliefs you have to act in accordance with your nature. I could repress my beliefs and pretend to believe more socially acceptable things, for a time. Then eventually it would come out. It's not possible for a person to be something they aren't. I have controversial views on a bunch of subjects, and these views make people unhappy. I could benefit in a lot of ways if I lied, I'd probably not have as much trouble getting laid, some of the people I work with would respect me more, there could be all kinds of other benefits I'm not thinking about. I'm keenly aware that I have beliefs that other people think are kooky, I'm okay with that.

Due to my philosophical views I think it is correct for people to act in accordance with their beliefs even if they are wrong. I don't think it's possible for everyone to be right. My brain says X, therefore I say X, if I said Y when my brain says X that would morally wrong even if Y was actually correct. If I lie, then no one can have an honest conversation with me, and know whats going on.

Any society will have a certain amount of neurodiversity. That is what I am, neurally diverse. Also, for the record I think my neurodiversity makes me part of a protected class, at least in my state, and that it is illegal to discriminate against me. Honestly, I'm thinking of starting one if there isn't, or joining a 501c3 for the purpose of funding lawsuits to make neurodiversity a protected class. You shouldn't be able to fire people for having beliefs even if they are stupid.
Neurodiversity... Did you make that up or is it a thing? If someone's a hurtful dickhead they should be humiliated and forced to change their behaviour, i.e. fired. Be a better human and they won't have that problem.

You're making a false connection, I'll go into that at the end of my post...

Firstly: I appreciate your thoughtful post.

I'll just give you an insight into my own life: i do not classify my thoughts in the third person. I do not label myself "controversial" or otherwise. In my opinion, people who label themselves then live by that label, I've been seeing them since high school and i generally think it's because their parents didn't really give them a chance to understand their world for themselves. Through lack of exposure, through lack of encouragement, through too much declarative teaching from the parents, overriding their natural openness...

For whatever reason, they feel the need to communicate with the wider world through one mask of pre-conceived attitudes or another, rather than take the world in good faith on a case by case basis. This is a flawed personality and should be allowed to develop into a full personality.

In my head there are a range of ideas which I've arrived at on my own, most of them tend to be on a "progressive" spectrum, but i don't label myself anything, and when i make a new idea i don't have a little filter in my head telling me to take the controversial stance, or the progressive stance, or anything.

I'm lucky, as a kid i was able to live in Europe, the us, Australia and Asia before i hit 20, so i was just trained to be culturally open and still set apart from it somehow.

Anyway, the reason I've said these last few sentences is because you called yourself "controversial" and "neurowhatsit", and labelling yourself is, imo, chaining yourself. You should give yourself permission to just be positive about this, even if it *shock* means you have to agree with other people.

I think social media algorithms are dangerous for people who like to act as independent thinkers but are really, all said and done, just imitating and acting, because these algorithm jockeys skillfully allow these people to feel like legit, committed independent thinkers.. in actuality they're pawns to view counters...

.. Just like I'm a pawn to evilore's page view dolla dolla billz yoo

Okay finally, I've said this before, in the post you quoted actually:

- you simplify* Novak's situation into free will vs. rules.
- actually the decision he's making hurts, and potentially kills, people.
- beyond those first people, it hurts medical workers, family, friends, etc.
- these are the jumps which, if you can't make them, show you lack empathy. Take a look at yourself, maybe rather than being "very empathetic", you just see yourself in the people you weep for and want to comfort yourself through supporting them. That's not empathy, it's self obsession.
- when a "free choice" leads to happily infecting other people with a virus which affects some people worse than others, that "free choice" becomes, in Australia at least, a "criminal act".

You are defending his right to hurt innocent people. Do you want to be allowed to hurt people? No? Then why are you defending it?

I don't care if you're self-labelled "controversial", you might as well be defending a rapist, a std-infector, a murderer.

You might say covid is not rape, etc, and though we could actually list off the amount of people potentially hurt by a random covid infection, suffice it to say they're both acts where someone who had a CHOICE, chose to hurt others.

Saying Novak is a victim of not being allowed to make his own choices is equivalent to saying a murderer in jail is a victim of someone not liking his decision to kill someone.

I just want to say that if your reply to this part of my post is to say "lol i can't believe you compared Novak to a murderer or rapist" I'll just reiterate my point: he's making a decision to possibly hurt and possibly kill whole groups of strangers. It's close enough for it to be about more than freedom of choice.

(And this is the general problem polite society has with people who don't wear masks, they think they're free thinkers but actually they're just hurtful pawns to search algorithms)

Really i said all this in the post you quoted.

*Simplifying things to make it easy to dismiss them is bullshit, it's disingenuous to say Novak is simply having his freedom denied him.

Sorry for the wall of text, i took your one as an invitation to do my own lol
 
Last edited:
Neurodiversity... Did you make that up or is it a thing? If someone's a hurtful dickhead they should be humiliated and forced to change their behaviour, i.e. fired. Be a better human and they won't have that problem.

You're making a false connection, I'll go into that at the end of my post...

Firstly: I appreciate your thoughtful post.

I'll just give you an insight into my own life: i do not classify my thoughts in the third person. I do not label myself "controversial" or otherwise. In my opinion, people who label themselves then live by that label, I've been seeing them since high school and i generally think it's because their parents didn't really give them a chance to understand their world for themselves. Through lack of exposure, through lack of encouragement, through too much declarative teaching from the parents, overriding their natural openness...

For whatever reason, they feel the need to communicate with the wider world through one mask of pre-conceived attitudes or another, rather than take the world in good faith on a case by case basis. This is a flawed personality and should be allowed to develop into a full personality.

In my head there are a range of ideas which I've arrived at on my own, most of them tend to be on a "progressive" spectrum, but i don't label myself anything, and when i make a new idea i don't have a little filter in my head telling me to take the controversial stance, or the progressive stance, or anything.

I'm lucky, as a kid i was able to live in Europe, the us, Australia and Asia before i hit 20, so i was just trained to be culturally open and still set apart from it somehow.

Anyway, the reason I've said these last few sentences is because you called yourself "controversial" and "neurowhatsit", and labelling yourself is, imo, chaining yourself. You should give yourself permission to just be positive about this, even if it *shock* means you have to agree with other people.

I think social media algorithms are dangerous for people who like to act as independent thinkers but are really, all said and done, just imitating and acting, because these algorithm jockeys skillfully allow these people to feel like legit, committed independent thinkers.. in actuality they're pawns to view counters...

.. Just like I'm a pawn to evilore's page view dolla dolla billz yoo

Okay finally, I've said this before, in the post you quoted actually:

- you simplify* Novak's situation into free will vs. rules.
- actually the decision he's making hurts, and potentially kills, people.
- beyond those first people, it hurts medical workers, family, friends, etc.
- these are the jumps which, if you can't make them, show you lack empathy. Take a look at yourself, maybe rather than being "very empathetic", you just see yourself in the people you weep for and want to comfort yourself through supporting them. That's not empathy, it's self obsession.
- when a "free choice" leads to happily infecting other people with a virus which affects some people worse than others, that "free choice" becomes, in Australia at least, a "criminal act".

You are defending his right to hurt innocent people. Do you want to be allowed to hurt people? No? Then why are you defending it?

I don't care if you're self-labelled "controversial", you might as well be defending a rapist, a std-infector, a murderer.

You might say covid is not rape, etc, and though we could actually list off the amount of people potentially hurt by a random covid infection, suffice it to say they're both acts where someone who had a CHOICE, chose to hurt others.

Saying Novak is a victim of not being allowed to make his own choices is equivalent to saying a murderer in jail is a victim of someone not liking his decision to kill someone.

I just want to say that if your reply to this part of my post is to say "lol i can't believe you compared Novak to a murderer or rapist" I'll just reiterate my point: he's making a decision to possibly hurt and possibly kill whole groups of strangers. It's close enough for it to be about more than freedom of choice.

(And this is the general problem polite society has with people who don't wear masks, they think they're free thinkers but actually they're just hurtful pawns to search algorithms)

Really i said all this in the post you quoted.

*Simplifying things to make it easy to dismiss them is bullshit, it's disingenuous to say Novak is simply having his freedom denied him.

Sorry for the wall of text, i took your one as an invitation to do my own lol


My overall view on how these things should be handled and what effect it has is so different our views are completely irreconcilable. I wouldn't want 100% of the population to get any treatment, I think that's dangerous. I think there should be laws specifically making sure there is an unvaccinated population. Like, in my socialist utopia if more than a certain percentage of the population wants a vaccine the government pays people not to get it in case there are unintended consequences. There would also be people paid to live in like human terrariums where their only job is to not be exposed to the outside world in case we somehow ruin our civilization by accident. I think most civilizations go extinct before long distance space travel because they either invent a form of entertainment that is too good and they stop having kids, or they accidentally create a medication or other invention that ends up having a terrible side effect that wasn't intended. My entire conception of how things should work is so different I don't think it's ever possible for us to come to any kind of agreement.
 
Last edited:

Tschumi

Member
My overall view on how these things should be handled and what effect it has is so different our views are completely irreconcilable. I wouldn't want 100% of the population to get any treatment, I think that's dangerous. I think there should be laws specifically making sure there is an unvaccinated population. Like, in my socialist utopia if more than a certain percentage of the population wants a vaccine the government pays people not to get it in case there are unintended consequences. There would also be people paid to live in like human terrariums where their only job is to not be exposed to the outside world in case we somehow ruin our civilization by accident. I think most civilizations go extinct before long distance space travel because they either invent a form of entertainment that is too good and they stop having kids, or they accidentally create a medication or other invention that ends up having a terrible side effect that wasn't intended. My entire conception of how things should work is so different I don't think it's ever possible for us to come to any kind of agreement.
Mm, if you're not 18 you aughta grow up. If you're 18, i think you're cool. Jah bless.

(Everybody thought stuff like this at some point, i did when i was 18, it's not radical lol, it's unimaginative, and it has fuck all to do with Novak)
 
Last edited:

Spaceman292

Member
I had to think long and hard before I decided whether I would reply to this post. I have a lot of empathy for other people, to the point that it causes me problems and makes my life significantly harder than it is for the average person. My empathy is part of why I have the beliefs I do. I've been on a decades long quest of seriously pondering what is wrong with our society, because of my empathy.

I have unpopular beliefs about a number of subjects. I'm generally aware that I could probably be more popular if I just lied about what I think on a few topics. However, I think the truth is important. Either God, Evolution, or both made me to be the person making this argument. Mine is the brain that forms these thoughts, and for whatever reason I exist I think it's correct to express them.

Whether it's nature or nurture, or a combination of things, I think we all have a combination of factors that form us into being certain types of people, and at the point that we are a certain kind of person with certain types of beliefs you have to act in accordance with your nature. I could repress my beliefs and pretend to believe more socially acceptable things, for a time. Then eventually it would come out. It's not possible for a person to be something they aren't. I have controversial views on a bunch of subjects, and these views make people unhappy. I could benefit in a lot of ways if I lied, I'd probably not have as much trouble getting laid, some of the people I work with would respect me more, there could be all kinds of other benefits I'm not thinking about. I'm keenly aware that I have beliefs that other people think are kooky, I'm okay with that.

Due to my philosophical views I think it is correct for people to act in accordance with their beliefs even if they are wrong. I don't think it's possible for everyone to be right. My brain says X, therefore I say X, if I said Y when my brain says X that would morally wrong even if Y was actually correct. If I lie, then no one can have an honest conversation with me, and know whats going on.

Any society will have a certain amount of neurodiversity. That is what I am, neurally diverse. Also, for the record I think my neurodiversity makes me part of a protected class, at least in my state, and that it is illegal to discriminate against me. Honestly, I'm thinking of starting one if there isn't, or joining a 501c3 for the purpose of funding lawsuits to make neurodiversity a protected class. You shouldn't be able to fire people for having beliefs even if they are stupid.
tl;dr:
'I'm a wanker.'
 

VN1X

Member
Or because he's an anti vax nut who's behaving like a total twat. I never liked him personally, and this right here shows you what kind of a person he is, just like the pandemic has shown how many idiots there really on this planet.
Okay calm down Anatoly Dyatlov.

He's done a ton of work for/with charity and given away millions to different foundations over the years. He even has his own foundation that focuses on providing education for young children that might otherwise not have access to that. I get that he might come off as a "total twat" on the court but that comes with the territory. Some of the best athletes (no matter what the sport might be) are insufferable simply because of their dedicated mindset of always wanting to be the best and win every trophy there is to win. Give the man some credit.
 

ntropy

Member
Or because he's an anti vax nut who's behaving like a total twat. I never liked him personally, and this right here shows you what kind of a person he is, just like the pandemic has shown how many idiots there really on this planet.
not taking the vax doesn't make you anti-vax
 

FunkMiller

Member
not taking the vax doesn't make you anti-vax

Of course it does. The vax has proven to be safe and effective. The only reason to not get it now (two years into the pandemic and over a year into the vaccine program) if you don’t have a valid medical reason is you‘re an anti-vaxxer.
 

Tschumi

Member
Okay calm down Anatoly Dyatlov.

He's done a ton of work for/with charity and given away millions to different foundations over the years. He even has his own foundation that focuses on providing education for young children that might otherwise not have access to that. I get that he might come off as a "total twat" on the court but that comes with the territory. Some of the best athletes (no matter what the sport might be) are insufferable simply because of their dedicated mindset of always wanting to be the best and win every trophy there is to win. Give the man some credit.
GIF by ABC Network


Nah just kidding just kidding, he's ticked the precedent boxes Rafa and Roger set, and despite it clearly being a PR exercise it has done good. Gotta pay that.

Again though, you can't be much of a charitable figure if part of your charity is gifting people cute little packets of Covid.
 

ntropy

Member
Of course it does. The vax has proven to be safe and effective. The only reason to not get it now (two years into the pandemic and over a year into the vaccine program) if you don’t have a valid medical reason is you‘re an anti-vaxxer.
i don't think the ham-fisted, vaccinate everything moving is the right approach. i've always said it should go to those who are most at risk
there are at-risk people in poorer countries who have not gotten the vaccine that need it not elite athletes for god sakes
 
Last edited:

Cyberpunkd

Member
i don't think the ham-fisted, vaccinate everything moving is the right approach. i've always said it should go to those who are most at risk
there are at-risk people in poorer countries who have not gotten the vaccine that need it not elite athletes for god sakes
I think this topic should be closed and we should discuss this in Covid thread, but till then - you are just playing with numbers right now. Fact is there are people not at risk that catch Covid and react very badly, ending up in the ICUs. You have kids that are dying due to Covid.

Now if it was a less infectious disease I would agree (with exception to kids, since they should not be punished for their parents' beliefs - parents are caretakers, not owners) - you want to luck it out, your problem, especially if you live in the US where hospital costs are not shared equally by the society. But in this case - nah mang, get a fucking jab, then you can whine about your 'bodily autonomy' on the Internet.
 
Last edited:
Holy shit. The court released its reasoning.
https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/federal-court-releases-exact-reasons-for-upholding-immigration-ministers-decision-to-cancel-novak-djokovics-visa/news-story/2c1363bcea26aac5d392f4d1fa59fffa#:~:text=January 20, 2022 - 7:42PM 0 comments The,use of his personal powers was not irrational.

So it was in fact predominately his stance on vaccines against covid, that was the danger. Not at all his personal danger as someone who could spread covid, which is obviously lower than most other people with having covid 2 times already.
 
Last edited:

Raistandantulus

Gold Member
Holy shit. The court released its reasoning.
https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/federal-court-releases-exact-reasons-for-upholding-immigration-ministers-decision-to-cancel-novak-djokovics-visa/news-story/2c1363bcea26aac5d392f4d1fa59fffa#:~:text=January 20, 2022 - 7:42PM 0 comments The,use of his personal powers was not irrational.

So it was in fact predominately his stance on vaccines against covid, that was the danger. Not at all his personal danger as someone who could spread covid, which is obviously lower than most other people with having covid 2 times already.

“It was not irrational for the Minister to be concerned that the asserted support of some anti-vaccination groups for Mr Djokovic’s apparent position on vaccination may encourage rallies and protests that may lead to heightened community transmission.”
The judges also made reference to revelations Djokovic had breached COVID-19 protocols and attended an interview after learning he had contracted the virus.
The Serbian tennis player confirmed he knew at the time he had COVID but proceeded with the interview because he “didn’t want to let the journalist down”.
“Further, there was evidence … that Mr Djokovic had recently disregarded reasonable public health measures overseas by attending activities unmasked while COVID positive to his knowledge,” the judges said.
“It was open to infer this, if emulated, may encourage an attitude of breach of public health regulations.”

Glad Australia kept their focus. Things get fuzzy when resolving small and big pictures at the same time. The courts sorted it out pretty good. An individual, rich, professional athlete making a quiet personal medical decision isn't a big threat on an single basis to infecting covid into the nation directly. However, his publicized vaccine status, privileges and missteps has activists using him for their agenda which in turn increase problems for public health making the exemptions for his unvaccinated status a nuisance. Regrettable that his vaccine status becoming a focus for agendas may have been part of the entire debacle that kept him from competing.
 
They banned a tennis player from playing tennis because he had ideas they find scary. Ideas like “I don’t want to put that medicine in my body.” What a strong, powerful message from what is clearly a secure, facts-grounded government.
 

FireFly

Member
Based on the rules at the time, Djokovic shouldn't have been granted a visa in the first place. The authorities messed things up with their heavy handed treatment of him at the border, and then had to find a different reason to cancel the visa.
 
Holy shit. The court released its reasoning.
https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/federal-court-releases-exact-reasons-for-upholding-immigration-ministers-decision-to-cancel-novak-djokovics-visa/news-story/2c1363bcea26aac5d392f4d1fa59fffa#:~:text=January 20, 2022 - 7:42PM 0 comments The,use of his personal powers was not irrational.

So it was in fact predominately his stance on vaccines against covid, that was the danger. Not at all his personal danger as someone who could spread covid, which is obviously lower than most other people with having covid 2 times already.
wrongthink
 
Top Bottom