7 ms·

It isnt mental illness. Having incorrect beliefs is different than being insane. But it is a mental heath issue that leads people to adopt these beliefs. Be i

It isnt mental illness. Having incorrect beliefs is different than being insane. But it is a mental heath issue that leads people to adopt these beliefs. Be it flat earth, Qanon or Sovcit, people under stress will reach out to conspiracy theories in an attempt to regain a sense of community and control whilst thier lives are otherwise going off the rails. The beliefs are the symptom, not the disease. With sovcit specifically, there is also a rational layer. Many people think the law some sort of elite club where mastery of a secret language can allow one to escape legal scrutiny. This comes from TV and the news that never explain the nuance of legal practice. They arent insane, just very incorrectly educated. Rosa parks was not insane. She knew she was breaking the law. The rational sovcit thinks themselves the next Rosa Parks, but mistakenly believe that means they cannot be arrested. Rational but wrong.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> people think the law some sort of elite club where mastery of a secret language can allow one to escape legal scrutiny pc86 didn’t say sovereign citizenry is mental illness per se. They said it’s indistinguishable from mental illness if pursued all the way to a hearing. At that point, enough flags have been intentionally ignored to validly cross into delusion.
- sandworm101 2y ago
  But i would say they are very distinguishable. The man who drives as 85mph because the spiders are chasing him is insane. The man who drives as 85mph because facebook told him that the state lacks jurisdiction over roads painted with yellow lines is not. The incorrect behavior (speeding) is identical but the overall situation is very distinguishable.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > man who drives as 85mph because facebook told him that the state lacks jurisdiction over roads painted with yellow lines This is a stretch, but possible. It breaks when that man is pulled over, cited, given the opportunity to research or consider another viewpoint, and then shows up in court to plead that case. That’s invisible-spiders levels of delusion, and while it may not be caused by a chemical or physical problem in the brain, it’s indistinguishable from it.
  - jfengel 2y ago
    As I read the original comment, it sounds as if they meant that continuing to insist that you were legally in the right is the problem. Being gullible is one thing. Insisting on your gullible belief when it's about to result in a prison sentence comes much closer to "invisible spider" territory.
  - Suppafly 2y ago
    >The man who drives as 85mph because the spiders are chasing him is insane. The man who drives as 85mph because facebook told him that the state lacks jurisdiction over roads painted with yellow lines is not. They are both insane, just in different ways. Sane people don't just automatically believe random stuff from facebook that is contrary to everything they know and have been taught.
    - ConspiracyFact 2y ago
      Unfortunately, stupidity is much more common than insanity.
pas 2y ago
How can you think you're breaking a law that does not apply to you? > They arent insane, just very incorrectly educated. Well, they can be both. The test of insanity is to see what happens as they are faced with the usual adversity that comes with these beliefs. Are they capable of learning or keep doing something that every sane person recognizes will certainly lead to ruin (or at least failure)?
greenavocado 2y ago
> Many people think the law some sort of elite club where mastery of a secret language can allow one to escape legal scrutiny. Freemasons exist and your judges, lawyers, and cops are freemasons. (1/3) https://www.travelingtemplar.com/2017/05/justices-of-supreme-court-and.html https://www.travelingtemplar.com/2017/05/justices-of-supreme... (2/3) https://www.travelingtemplar.com/2017/06/justices-of-supreme-court-and.html https://www.travelingtemplar.com/2017/06/justices-of-supreme... (3/3) https://www.travelingtemplar.com/2017/09/justices-of-supreme-court-and.html https://www.travelingtemplar.com/2017/09/justices-of-supreme...
- Suppafly 2y ago
  >Freemasons exist and your judges, lawyers, and cops are freemasons. Sure, but they don't have a secret language that allows them to escape legal scrutiny. Freemasonry isn't even an elite club, they'll take pretty much anyone willing to pay the dues and memorize some stuff.
  - greenavocado 2y ago
    Not talking about lower levels here because those are the commoners. High ranking freemasons such as those found in positions of power are obligated to get each other out of trouble to the greatest effort possible given the circumstances.
    - chefandy 2y ago
      Freemasonry only has 3 “ranks”. The organizations that have other levels, like the Shriners, York Rite, Scottish Rite (created in France in the 19th century) aren’t organizationally or legally related to any actual Masonic grand lodge — they’re a completely separate organization that only accept 3rd degree masons— the highest Masonic rank — as members. The conspiracy theory information you cite can’t even keep basic facts straight about the way freemasonry operates. I’m not even a Mason— this information is really really easy to find online.
      - 2y ago
devilbunny 2y ago
Rosa Parks also was a handpicked woman of unimpeachable character who deliberately chose to break the law that day. Various civil rights organizations had guaranteed her family that they would replace any income lost. Still a brave woman, but it was not a random decision on her part. Fun fact along the same lines: Homer Plessy (of Plessy v. Ferguson) had one African-American great-grandparent. He was of mostly European descent and would have been unnoticed had he not declared to the conductor that he was “colored”. He was sponsored by the railroad, which wanted to save money by not having to have separate cars for “white” and “colored” passengers, as it was rare to have a full complement of each.
- trogdor 2y ago
  As cool as those anecdotes sound, I am not sure that either of them are true. Homer Plessy The Wikipedia article on Plessy v. Ferguson explains the following: “In 1890, the State of Louisiana passed the Separate Car Act, which required separate accommodation for black and white people on railroads, including separate railway cars. A group of 18 prominent black, creole of color, and white creole New Orleans residents formed the Comité des Citoyens (Committee of Citizens) to challenge the law. Many staff members of The New Orleans Crusader, a black Republican newspaper, were among the group's members, including publisher Louis A. Martinet, writer Rodolphe Desdunes, and managing editor L. J. Joubert, who served as president of the Justice, Protective, Educational, and Social Club at the same time Plessy was vice president. The group contacted attorney and civil rights advocate Albion W. Tourgée, who agreed to help them bring a test case to court in order to force the judiciary to determine the constitutionality of Jim Crow laws. In his correspondence with Martinet, Tourgée suggested finding a plaintiff who had "not more than one-eight colored blood" and could pass as white.” Rosa Parks The Wikipedia articles on Rosa Parks and on The Montgomery bus boycott seem very clear that Rosa Parks decided on her own to break the law. Nowhere do they suggest that Parks was specifically selected to engage in her act of civil disobedience: “In 1955, Parks completed a course in "Race Relations" at the Highlander Folk School in Tennessee, where nonviolent civil disobedience had been discussed as a tactic. On December 1, 1955, Parks was sitting in the foremost row in which black people could sit (in the middle section). When a white man boarded the bus, the bus driver told everyone in her row to move back. At that moment, Parks realized that she was again on a bus driven by Blake. While all of the other black people in her row complied, Parks refused, and she was arrested for failing to obey the driver's seat assignments, as city ordinances did not explicitly mandate segregation but did give the bus driver authority to assign seats.” “During a 1956 radio interview with Sydney Rogers in West Oakland several months after her arrest, Parks said she had decided, "I would have to know for once and for all what rights I had as a human being and a citizen." In her autobiography, My Story, she said: People always say that I didn't give up my seat because I was tired, but that isn't true. I was not tired physically, or no more tired than I usually was at the end of a working day. I was not old, although some people have an image of me as being old then. I was forty-two. No, the only tired I was, was tired of giving in. When Parks refused to give up her seat, a police officer arrested her. As the officer took her away, she recalled that she asked, "Why do you push us around?" She remembered him saying, "I don't know, but the law's the law, and you're under arrest." She later said, "I only knew that, as I was being arrested, that it was the very last time that I would ever ride in humiliation of this kind. ... "” Although I haven’t spent much time looking, a few minutes on Google didn’t turn up any evidence confirming either of your claims. Why do you think they are true?

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> people think the law some sort of elite club where mastery of a secret language can allow one to escape legal scrutiny pc86 didn’t say sovereign citizenry is mental illness per se. They said it’s indistinguishable from mental illness if pursued all the way to a hearing. At that point, enough flags have been intentionally ignored to validly cross into delusion.

sandworm101 2y ago
But i would say they are very distinguishable. The man who drives as 85mph because the spiders are chasing him is insane. The man who drives as 85mph because facebook told him that the state lacks jurisdiction over roads painted with yellow lines is not. The incorrect behavior (speeding) is identical but the overall situation is very distinguishable.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > man who drives as 85mph because facebook told him that the state lacks jurisdiction over roads painted with yellow lines This is a stretch, but possible. It breaks when that man is pulled over, cited, given the opportunity to research or consider another viewpoint, and then shows up in court to plead that case. That’s invisible-spiders levels of delusion, and while it may not be caused by a chemical or physical problem in the brain, it’s indistinguishable from it.
- jfengel 2y ago
  As I read the original comment, it sounds as if they meant that continuing to insist that you were legally in the right is the problem. Being gullible is one thing. Insisting on your gullible belief when it's about to result in a prison sentence comes much closer to "invisible spider" territory.
- Suppafly 2y ago
  >The man who drives as 85mph because the spiders are chasing him is insane. The man who drives as 85mph because facebook told him that the state lacks jurisdiction over roads painted with yellow lines is not. They are both insane, just in different ways. Sane people don't just automatically believe random stuff from facebook that is contrary to everything they know and have been taught.
  - ConspiracyFact 2y ago
    Unfortunately, stupidity is much more common than insanity.

pas 2y ago

How can you think you're breaking a law that does not apply to you? > They arent insane, just very incorrectly educated. Well, they can be both. The test of insanity is to see what happens as they are faced with the usual adversity that comes with these beliefs. Are they capable of learning or keep doing something that every sane person recognizes will certainly lead to ruin (or at least failure)?

greenavocado 2y ago

> Many people think the law some sort of elite club where mastery of a secret language can allow one to escape legal scrutiny. Freemasons exist and your judges, lawyers, and cops are freemasons. (1/3) https://www.travelingtemplar.com/2017/05/justices-of-supreme-court-and.html https://www.travelingtemplar.com/2017/05/justices-of-supreme... (2/3) https://www.travelingtemplar.com/2017/06/justices-of-supreme-court-and.html https://www.travelingtemplar.com/2017/06/justices-of-supreme... (3/3) https://www.travelingtemplar.com/2017/09/justices-of-supreme-court-and.html https://www.travelingtemplar.com/2017/09/justices-of-supreme...

Suppafly 2y ago
>Freemasons exist and your judges, lawyers, and cops are freemasons. Sure, but they don't have a secret language that allows them to escape legal scrutiny. Freemasonry isn't even an elite club, they'll take pretty much anyone willing to pay the dues and memorize some stuff.
- greenavocado 2y ago
  Not talking about lower levels here because those are the commoners. High ranking freemasons such as those found in positions of power are obligated to get each other out of trouble to the greatest effort possible given the circumstances.
  - chefandy 2y ago
    Freemasonry only has 3 “ranks”. The organizations that have other levels, like the Shriners, York Rite, Scottish Rite (created in France in the 19th century) aren’t organizationally or legally related to any actual Masonic grand lodge — they’re a completely separate organization that only accept 3rd degree masons— the highest Masonic rank — as members. The conspiracy theory information you cite can’t even keep basic facts straight about the way freemasonry operates. I’m not even a Mason— this information is really really easy to find online.
    - 2y ago

devilbunny 2y ago

Rosa Parks also was a handpicked woman of unimpeachable character who deliberately chose to break the law that day. Various civil rights organizations had guaranteed her family that they would replace any income lost. Still a brave woman, but it was not a random decision on her part. Fun fact along the same lines: Homer Plessy (of Plessy v. Ferguson) had one African-American great-grandparent. He was of mostly European descent and would have been unnoticed had he not declared to the conductor that he was “colored”. He was sponsored by the railroad, which wanted to save money by not having to have separate cars for “white” and “colored” passengers, as it was rare to have a full complement of each.

trogdor 2y ago
As cool as those anecdotes sound, I am not sure that either of them are true. Homer Plessy The Wikipedia article on Plessy v. Ferguson explains the following: “In 1890, the State of Louisiana passed the Separate Car Act, which required separate accommodation for black and white people on railroads, including separate railway cars. A group of 18 prominent black, creole of color, and white creole New Orleans residents formed the Comité des Citoyens (Committee of Citizens) to challenge the law. Many staff members of The New Orleans Crusader, a black Republican newspaper, were among the group's members, including publisher Louis A. Martinet, writer Rodolphe Desdunes, and managing editor L. J. Joubert, who served as president of the Justice, Protective, Educational, and Social Club at the same time Plessy was vice president. The group contacted attorney and civil rights advocate Albion W. Tourgée, who agreed to help them bring a test case to court in order to force the judiciary to determine the constitutionality of Jim Crow laws. In his correspondence with Martinet, Tourgée suggested finding a plaintiff who had "not more than one-eight colored blood" and could pass as white.” Rosa Parks The Wikipedia articles on Rosa Parks and on The Montgomery bus boycott seem very clear that Rosa Parks decided on her own to break the law. Nowhere do they suggest that Parks was specifically selected to engage in her act of civil disobedience: “In 1955, Parks completed a course in "Race Relations" at the Highlander Folk School in Tennessee, where nonviolent civil disobedience had been discussed as a tactic. On December 1, 1955, Parks was sitting in the foremost row in which black people could sit (in the middle section). When a white man boarded the bus, the bus driver told everyone in her row to move back. At that moment, Parks realized that she was again on a bus driven by Blake. While all of the other black people in her row complied, Parks refused, and she was arrested for failing to obey the driver's seat assignments, as city ordinances did not explicitly mandate segregation but did give the bus driver authority to assign seats.” “During a 1956 radio interview with Sydney Rogers in West Oakland several months after her arrest, Parks said she had decided, "I would have to know for once and for all what rights I had as a human being and a citizen." In her autobiography, My Story, she said: People always say that I didn't give up my seat because I was tired, but that isn't true. I was not tired physically, or no more tired than I usually was at the end of a working day. I was not old, although some people have an image of me as being old then. I was forty-two. No, the only tired I was, was tired of giving in. When Parks refused to give up her seat, a police officer arrested her. As the officer took her away, she recalled that she asked, "Why do you push us around?" She remembered him saying, "I don't know, but the law's the law, and you're under arrest." She later said, "I only knew that, as I was being arrested, that it was the very last time that I would ever ride in humiliation of this kind. ... "” Although I haven’t spent much time looking, a few minutes on Google didn’t turn up any evidence confirming either of your claims. Why do you think they are true?