4 ms·

The idea being presented is obviously nonsense. I don't mention their mental health as an attempt to discredit their idea; the idea itself is not credible enoug

The idea being presented is obviously nonsense. I don't mention their mental health as an attempt to discredit their idea; the idea itself is not credible enough to be worth arguing about. It's not the idea that made me question their mental health. It's the sheer incoherency of their presentation, e.g. on their website (http://legalnamefraud.com/ http://legalnamefraud.com/). The style strikes me as the written equivalent of a schizophrenic person standing on a street corner shouting inanities at passersby. You wouldn't want to have a shouting match with that person on the street and draw a crowd around them, and I don't think we should do the same here.

fit2rule 10y ago
I'm not at all defending these peoples opinions - just pointing out the unwarranted hatred they attract as a result of having an idea that is not mainstream/not supported by establishment politics. The speed and ease with which someones' mental health is called into question is just as alarming and .. frankly .. disturbing, as the idea that we are not subjects of the States in which we dwell. "That person is mentally ill" is the clarion call of establishment doublethink, and I put anyone who uses it as a means of justifying their bigotry against anti-establishment thought in the same bin as the loonies who think they can change their name to get out of a parking ticket .. Alas, its quite acceptable behaviour to call into question someones mental health if they propose an idea non-mainstream/aligned with establishment ideals. I think this, in itself, is a more destructive social response which, unfortunately, doesn't require expensive billboards to propagate throughout society ..
- Frondo 10y ago
  It's not establishment double-think, and that claim itself is rather silly. I'm quite sympathetic to claims that we're too quick to dismiss people with mental illness, but when it comes to people living their lives in harmful ways based on delusions (which is common in the sovereign citizen movement), I'm all in for calling it mental illness, or something like that. People can believe whatever nutty things they want, I say, but once they put themselves (or loved ones, or whatever) in harm's way based on those beliefs, and don't change them when consequently harmed, well, what else do you want to call it? Delusional stupidity?
  - fit2rule 10y ago
    Can you think of any other marginalized folks whose ideas you don't like who might be considered valid targets for your "mentally ill" label, and therefore not worthy of any further attention? Might these folks be minorities, or under-represented segments of society, who nevertheless have as much of a right to their opinion as you do? There is nothing here that demonstrates these people are harming themselves. Do you have such evidence? In a free society, people are free to be stupid and live their lives according to how they see it. People are free to interpret the law, personally and socially, however they wish. This doesn't mean they need to be classified as "ill" by all and sundry, for the sake of a few differences of opinion. Or .. does it? You know who else was good at calling 'unsavory elements' mentally ill for the sake of social isolation? Stalin.
    - Frondo 10y ago
      What? The sovereign citizen movement is full of people who get arrested, imprisoned, get their stuff impounded. I don't think you really have any idea who you're trying to defend as "differently normal" here. This is a movement that tells its adherents, "repeat these legal incantations, and you get out of speeding tickets or paying property taxes". And its adherents actually try that nonsense out, and invariably go to jail or whatever. (Occasionally they end up in shoot-outs with cops, and end up dead.) Delusion? Check. Self-harm? Check. I really suspect you just haven't heard or read anything about these folks. I think you're barking up the wrong tree in this case, buddy.
      - fit2rule 10y ago
        They're only 'self-harming' because they're a minority, and they stay a minority because people write off their opinion as "mentally insane". If more people were attracted to their movement, the State would change and there would be less harm - such is the way of all collective movements. Its kind of like, the Quakers were 'insane' in the eyes of many, too. But look how that turned out. Anyway, I see you don't care for my point, which is this: you can't just call people you don't agree with "mentally ill" and think this doesn't make you a bigot.

fit2rule 10y ago

I'm not at all defending these peoples opinions - just pointing out the unwarranted hatred they attract as a result of having an idea that is not mainstream/not supported by establishment politics. The speed and ease with which someones' mental health is called into question is just as alarming and .. frankly .. disturbing, as the idea that we are not subjects of the States in which we dwell. "That person is mentally ill" is the clarion call of establishment doublethink, and I put anyone who uses it as a means of justifying their bigotry against anti-establishment thought in the same bin as the loonies who think they can change their name to get out of a parking ticket .. Alas, its quite acceptable behaviour to call into question someones mental health if they propose an idea non-mainstream/aligned with establishment ideals. I think this, in itself, is a more destructive social response which, unfortunately, doesn't require expensive billboards to propagate throughout society ..

Frondo 10y ago
It's not establishment double-think, and that claim itself is rather silly. I'm quite sympathetic to claims that we're too quick to dismiss people with mental illness, but when it comes to people living their lives in harmful ways based on delusions (which is common in the sovereign citizen movement), I'm all in for calling it mental illness, or something like that. People can believe whatever nutty things they want, I say, but once they put themselves (or loved ones, or whatever) in harm's way based on those beliefs, and don't change them when consequently harmed, well, what else do you want to call it? Delusional stupidity?
- fit2rule 10y ago
  Can you think of any other marginalized folks whose ideas you don't like who might be considered valid targets for your "mentally ill" label, and therefore not worthy of any further attention? Might these folks be minorities, or under-represented segments of society, who nevertheless have as much of a right to their opinion as you do? There is nothing here that demonstrates these people are harming themselves. Do you have such evidence? In a free society, people are free to be stupid and live their lives according to how they see it. People are free to interpret the law, personally and socially, however they wish. This doesn't mean they need to be classified as "ill" by all and sundry, for the sake of a few differences of opinion. Or .. does it? You know who else was good at calling 'unsavory elements' mentally ill for the sake of social isolation? Stalin.
  - Frondo 10y ago
    What? The sovereign citizen movement is full of people who get arrested, imprisoned, get their stuff impounded. I don't think you really have any idea who you're trying to defend as "differently normal" here. This is a movement that tells its adherents, "repeat these legal incantations, and you get out of speeding tickets or paying property taxes". And its adherents actually try that nonsense out, and invariably go to jail or whatever. (Occasionally they end up in shoot-outs with cops, and end up dead.) Delusion? Check. Self-harm? Check. I really suspect you just haven't heard or read anything about these folks. I think you're barking up the wrong tree in this case, buddy.
    - fit2rule 10y ago
      They're only 'self-harming' because they're a minority, and they stay a minority because people write off their opinion as "mentally insane". If more people were attracted to their movement, the State would change and there would be less harm - such is the way of all collective movements. Its kind of like, the Quakers were 'insane' in the eyes of many, too. But look how that turned out. Anyway, I see you don't care for my point, which is this: you can't just call people you don't agree with "mentally ill" and think this doesn't make you a bigot.