In 2020 we had dissenters labelled as a "threat to granny" if they refused to comply with lockdown. Beforehand we had "hate", "abuse" and "harassment". In 2021, we had "anti-vaxxers" as part of the worldwide mRNA vaccine rollout. In 2022 the word paraded around was "harm" as part of new laws in numerous countries, the emotional argument of protecting children which will also affect adults.

In 2023, we are seeing the word "disruptive" become the new buzzword off the back of the Public Order Act in the UK. You're not just being a threat or against the establishment or hateful, you're now disruptive. Disruption is defined as the concept of going against or preventing the status-quo or the norm from continuing as usual or as expected. A word that is easily extrapolated to cover a wide range of behaviours, ideas and beliefs. But will only be applied to things that are For example, automation will be disruptive to employment and the workplace but as they agree with automation, it's an opportunity and not disruptive to them.

Free speech is now disruptive. All peaceful protest is now disruptive. An idea not in the status-quo is now disruptive. Disruption is a threat. On Saturday, days after that act became law, women's safety campaigners, environmental protesters and republicans were all deemed disruptive - a threat to safety, not because of their actions, but because of their ideas. Their "disruptive" ideas causing offence. Their "disruptive" presence could cause something bad to happen, regardless of how small the probability of that thing happening is. End-to-end encryption is "disruptive" to law enforcement and the security forces. Therefore to keep people "safe" and to ensure "security", all individuals, organisations and ideas must be removed. Republic, the republican campaign group, got raided and had their property seized, its CEO and a number of protesters arrested in what could only be described as pre-crime and it's only a matter of time before the Government shut them down. For your "safety" and the "security" of the nation.

We've known of individuals in the past who were opposed to lockdown and inquiring of the mRNA vaccine, not necessarily anti-vax, being spied on and kept surveillance on by security forces. Spiked, an online publication who are normally on the anti-woke side of the debate, are now seeing the wind of where things are going and throwing Andrew Bridgen MP under the bus and denigrating anyone who agrees with him, including their readership, a "conspiracy theorist" and "dangerous". "Disruptive", even?

The opposition Labour Party is now pretty much a carbon copy of the Conservatives who are bringing these laws in. maybe also sensing the wind of where things are going and now wishing to maintain the status-quo. The shock jocks and radio commentators are also towing the line now, actively being staunchly pro-police and towing the Government line.

Governments have also enacted the concept of effective banning as opposed to outright banning. Where laws are written to have a chilling effect and stigma on a unwanted behaviour, idea or concept - such as restrictive and bureaucratic requirements - whilst allowing a defence should someone come out and confront them about banning something where they can actively said they haven't banned it. Peaceful protests in the UK, end-to-end encryption including VPN's in some countries and age verification for pornography in a couple of US states (for now) are three recent examples.

And what is black pilling is how the average person outside of discussion forums like here is not just embracing this, but actively suggesting that both the Police and Government are not going anywhere near far enough. Lee Anderson MP was suggesting people emigrate if they don't agree with a monarchy. He got flak from republicans but far outnumbering them, he also got flak from a lot of people who suggested that he should bring in a new law to strip citizenship from any republican and expelling them from the country. They are also staunchly pro-police, pro-safety laws and pro-security laws on the concept that keeping people "safe" and "secure" where everyone agrees with everyone else will bring about a utopia, peace and order. Free speech, dissent and civil liberties are now deemed disruptive and a threat and must be ended by most people in the real world, no matter how big or small. Advocating for the abolition of privacy based on the phrase "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear". And there is a desire to implement pre-crime strategies in the same name of safety and security. What was used to justify lockdown is being repeated.

I'm hearing a lot of "I'm a feminist/environmentalist/republican, but..." now.