Relevance Linguistics of Pseudolegal Reasoning to Society? (new member, apologies for noobness)

[LaVidaRoja]

I suppose it's no coincidence that those lyrics keep running through my brain in election years.

[MRN]

Palate cleanser from St Leonard of Montrèal?



I hope it's not skirting the edges of the no-politics rule too closely to say that I'm holding a good thought for y'all today.

[Hercule Parrot]

One of the small number of flaws in the Quatloos forum is that the "Sovereign Citizen and Redemption Scams" board is rigidly subdivided into US, Canada, UK and [Other].

So just to point out there was a collaborative attempt, with a definite UK focus, at what you suggested, here:
Sovcit Glossary - translating the nonsense

Truly our finest hour.

Lien: In UK footlerism a piece of paper made worthless by the application of ink.

Bankster: Jew.

Global banking system: Jews.

New World Order: Jews again.

(C) Longdog J

[Hercule Parrot]

Upon looking at the UK glossary, I think it is more of a rough guide by frustrated people (I know the feeling) but not a good effort to analyze how the mistakes came to be and how to decipher the pseudolegal ideas.

Fair point, but it is a proud tradition of the UK board that we don't worry too much about understanding our indigenous sovcit & FMOTL loons, but concentrate on laughing at them instead.

Pseudolegal jibber-jabber arguably mutates and proliferates faster than any research effort can follow. Events like Covid and 5G create new, spontaneous tangents of specious wibble, especially in the low-oxygen environment of Facebook.

Not to say that a rigorous academic analysis isn't useful, there has been some fine work (including our splendid Donald Netolitzky's papers), but we're more in the battle-space, contesting the legitimacy of sovcit nonsense in our popular culture. In that context, the Duck Test serves well.

[MRN]

I had the realization recently while mentally noodling about these matters, as one does, that there's a LOT of DARVO (deny, accuse, reverse victim and offender) happening with SovCits.

I got stuck for a considerable period of time on the fact that quite a lot of the injustices they claim to be highlighting do actually occur. Banks pull some incredibly slimy stuff on occasion. Traffic cops have been known to not so much cut corners as file them down entirely. And so forth.

They just don't, by and large, happen to the people who become SovCits.

I stop short of concluding that falling for OPCA methods in itself is reason to believe that a person has no actual grievance and very likely a number of people have legitimate grievances against THEM, but I'd go as far as taking it as reason to go over everything they say with a fine-tooth comb. Twice.

Meanwhile, much as Q-Anon might as well actually be a conscious conspiracy by a web of high-status child abusers given the actual probable results of their actions, the SovCits are doing a SPLENDID job, on the side, of damaging the credibility of anyone who holds some actually quite reasonable positions.

[JamesVincent]

One of the things I've said several times is that, if it wasn't for the way Sovs act, I'd have a lot of sympathy for their viewpoints. I've had enough issues over the years with some serious attitude from officers, family law issues, courts just doing what they want, and some severe issues with society itself that I agree with some of their points. None of that justifies the actions they take though. There's some serious issues in this world that need addressed. Sending in a 89 page motion is not the way to solve them.

[MRN]

There's some serious issues in this world that need addressed. Sending in a 89 page motion is not the way to solve them.

There's that. And I say this as someone who has spent 30-odd years being various kinds of activist. SOME actual grasp of where the deal presently is is necessary if you're gonna change it. These dumbasses have genuinely convinced themselves that if they can just EXPLAIN LOUDLY enough the State will crumble.

That's not activism. It's toxic entitlement.

But also, talking of toxic entitlement, I got fascinated by specifically the family court subsection of SovCits for awhile, and a) Christ, it's depressing and b) With the exception of a few outliers taking them entirely at their own valuation and going by their own actual words I wouldn't let these people look after a houseplant for a weekend. As soon as they're legally allowed to choose who they live with and refuse visitation their kids are gonna be gone like the Nordiques.

Meanwhile this shit happens:
https://www.aptnnews.ca/national-news/b ... d-welfare/

And the silence is deafening.

I used to think that that was the kind of injustice that propelled people into the arms of SovCittery, but to my surprise, not really. At least, not the people involved, unless they have the appalling luck to fall into a guru's orbit at exactly the wrong time, when they are most desperate.

The actual family court sovcitters appear to be, um. The exact demographic who are generally treated with great care, respect, and leniency by the courts.

ETA sheer curiosity but what kind of platform uses square brackets for coding? The interface here is quite usable (now that I've worked out the right setting on my content blocker to let me see the buttons) but I don't think I've ever seen it before.

[wserra]

ETA sheer curiosity but what kind of platform uses square brackets for coding?

BBCode, sort of pidgin HTML. For those not familiar with it, webhick did a very useful tutorial.

[JamesVincent]

I used to think that that was the kind of injustice that propelled people into the arms of SovCittery, but to my surprise, not really. At least, not the people involved, unless they have the appalling luck to fall into a guru's orbit at exactly the wrong time, when they are most desperate.

Years ago on here I wrote a reply about a Georgia couple who, after being caught high as a kite at an anti-government rally, lost their daughter. And even though CPS placed the child with the maternal grandmother and allowed visitation while said couple were supposed to clean their act up the distraught couple decided the only real remedy was to kidnap the child and flee the state. Which, of course, made it a federal crime and not only guaranteed them some jail time it also guaranteed that they weren't getting custody back. The Sov'run world is awash with stories like that. Children are property and no ebil guv'mint can take their property.

As far as your linked story goes it's just another day in the life. The funny thing is that, more often than not, the hostile environment that offices like CPS try to use as justification is created by CPS trying to justify their meddling in peoples lives. And, just like in family law court, it all comes down to whether the agents involved like you or not. If they don't there is just no way you'll ever get a fair assessment from them. I had a friend who, years ago, was charged and convicted of failure to pay child support. He had actually paid his child support, even took his paycheck stubs in to court to show the judge that, indeed, his monthly obligation was taken directly from his check every payday. What apparently happened was that the state never bothered to collect his payments from his employer. So instead of admonishing the Office of Child Support to get their collective acts together the judge convicted him of failure to pay, told him that it was his sole responsibility to ensure payments were made and sentenced him to 5 weekends in jail. A year or so later his ex was pulled over with his son in the car. She was found to be driving under the influence of maryjane, had a good amount of it on her and his son was found to be malnourished and dehydrated and taken to the hospital. He immediately filed an emergency change in custody and tried to get custody of his son. CPS and the court used his being convicted of failure to pay as a justification to deny the change of custody and returned his son to the mother. That sort of thing happens all the time in dealing with family law but it's never a valid reason like that for sovs.

Like I said there's a lot of change needed. They aren't doing it.

[MRN]

That sort of thing happens all the time in dealing with family law but it's never a valid reason like that for sovs.

Like I said there's a lot of change needed. They aren't doing it.

I'm not QUITE ready to suggest the family court corollary of Justice Rooke's suggestion that (paraphrasing) people advancing OPCA arguments should be presumed upfront to be using them vexatiously and for an improper purpose, which would be that people advancing SovCit/OPCA arguments in family court should be presumed to be abusive or neglectful of their children and/or controlling and punitive wrt their soon-to-be-ex, but man. It's certainly grounds for an immediate stir of quiet alertness and some serious additional fact-gathering and I'm glad judges seem to increasingly realize this.

[grixit]

ETA sheer curiosity but what kind of platform uses square brackets for coding?

BBCode, sort of pidgin HTML. For those not familiar with it, webhick did a very useful tutorial.

BBCode specifically uses brackets instead of angles so that browsers won't try to interpret it as html.

[MRN]

ETA sheer curiosity but what kind of platform uses square brackets for coding?

BBCode, sort of pidgin HTML. For those not familiar with it, webhick did a very useful tutorial.

BBCode specifically uses brackets instead of angles so that browsers won't try to interpret it as html.

Belatedly, thank you. It's very cool. I feel like I'm back on Cafe Utne in 1999, but that is emphatically not a bad thing.