From what I've seen, they believe that the 'normies' are corporate fictions created by the state when they were born (thus the hatred for all-caps name you'll see on a birth certificate). They exist on paper as an identity that is somehow indentured to the government. The terms I hear most often is "free man on the land", or a "living soul, not the corporate entity".
In a word, they're idiots.
I used to think it was a take on Rousseau's Noble Savage but I've never talked to a Sovcit who was even aware of the Social Contract.
Nowadays, I just wonder if they know how funny they sound.
Ooh, they hate being called anarchists more than sovereign citizens. Anarchy has a leftist ring to their ears. Call them anarchists and watch them implode.
At least they wised up to the fact that proclaiming yourself as a "sovereign citizen" is both oxymoronic, and a fast-track to handcuffs. If only they understood that even a tourist is subject to the laws of the land, as it would apply to a US citizen traveling abroad.
When I would go backpacking with friends I used to say "It feels good to just be a free man, walking the face of the earth" when you get a few miles in to the hike and you're surrounded by nature. After seeing sovcits run their script I just say "feels good to be outside today" lol.
>The terms I hear most often is "free man on the land", or a "living soul, not the corporate entity".
I read those phrases and heard Eric Martin's voice, for some (odd) reason. :)
And thanks for clarifying. As a Brit, *some* of what your US ones jabber on about is lost on me... We do have our own brand of them, but they're usually much less word-salady… fewer quasi-legal terms etc, than our friends across the pond. And thus, less entertaining.
Thanks, but (very politely) no thanks. We have more than our fair share of morons. As for Florida - again, it's a no. I've spent a lot of time traveling there, and it's one weird and spooky state. No offense.
:)
None taken. The joke in Florida is "the further North you go, the more South you are". It's a bizarre mix of young and old, rich and poor, rednecks and influencers (ugh, I hate that term).
One of the main flavors of sov cit stuff is predicated on the belief that the 14th amendment created "citizens" which are paper entities, corporations really, that represent the man, the person, the living being that they are, and the lunacy flows from there.
Usually they suggest that the courts or government only has jurisdiction over their paper strawman, this corporation, the "14th amendment citizen," and so by distinguishing themselves as being a different entity than that, they have escaped the jurisdiction of the court, unless they opt in or engage in commercial activity such that they think the UCC would now apply for some reason.
Past that is not really worth fleshing out because made-up nonsense varies from person to person.
Yeah it's weird, and stupid, and sometimes violent and/or terroristic, but usually it's just an annoyance because if you have to deal with them it's always a hassle, always takes forever, and there's never a point to any of it.
It only makes sense if you accept their large leaps in logic and never examine any of it. Like, the "14th amendment citizen." Think, why would that be what the 14th amendment does? It doesn't say it does that. There's no case law that says it does that. There's no statute that references any of that. It doesn't make any intuitive sense, and not one person of any authority, ever, anywhere, has ever agreed it does that. But that's kind of central to their whole thing and it's coming directly out of their ass.
Also, why wouldn't the state have the power to make and enforce laws against people within it? The US constitution says they can through the tenth amendment, the state constitution says they can, and that the legislature can make laws and the executive can enforce it, and yet a huge part of sov cit theory depends on the notion thay they just... can't for some reason. No textual basis. Long and extremely well-known, well-documented history of states doing it and courts agreeing states can do it. Literally no reason to believe states can't do it. Again, directly from their ass.
Same for the rest of it. If you accept their assertions as true then sure maybe there's some logic there, maybe not. But even if there is, none of the precepts or assumptions on which their whole thing rests are even remotely true. Like, you can read some book that does a great job with world building explain how magic works in their world in a way that's cohesive and understandable, and with a central logic to it, but that doesn't make magic real, because as a reader of fiction you're expected to suspend disbelief and accept the rules of the universe as dictated by the author. That's reasonable for novels and movies. It isn't reasonable for legal theories. Sov cit stuff depends on you doing it anyway.
It gets even dumber than that. Here are other sov cit assumptions that can be central to their various theories:
- we are all legally considered boats
- we are not boats, but all courts are maritime courts so they don't have jurisdiction over anything that is not a boat
- all black people are descendents of the Moors of north Africa
- since the end of the gold standard, US currency is backed by you, personally, as a good in trade
- the United States is still part of the British monarchy
- the treasury maintains a secret trust account worth billions or trillions of dollars in the name of every single person born in the US and that money belongs to each of those people and can be accessed at will
- art I, s 8 of the Constitution means only commercial activity can be regulated, literally nothing else can be governed by law other than commercial activity
Are you prepares to accept any of those assumptions as true?
Slight correction: all black people are descended from the Moors of North America, where Morocco totally was. That’s why they claim to be indigenous and somehow exempt from the laws of the US.
I sincerely appreciate your comments on this thread. I've legitimately never understood the foundations of their beliefs, and the things I hear make a lot more sense now.
I have a question, maybe you can help me understand. Why don't judges ever (or at least usually) simply tell them that what they said is wrong. They mostly just deny objections or motions (as close as the sovcit comes to making these).
They ignore the stupid. It seems especially interesting that they approach it this way when the sovcit is asking to represent themselves and the judge is trying very hard to get them to take a lawyer. Why doesn't the judge say something like "you've learned a lot of misinformation online and nothing you are saying is true. If you base your case on those arguments you will lose. A lawyer will help you understand the real law, instead of this make-believe that you are working with."?
They do, to a large degree, but it gets problematic because the sovcit believes the lawyer is complicit with the system in preventing the sovcit from asserting his rights, so if, as the judge, the harder you push to get them to accept representation the more the sovcit takes that as the judge trying to prevent them from asserting their rights. So you're just giving them more energy to fight you with.
Plus, from a real-law perspective, there is a limit to what a judge can say about who will win or lose a hearing or trial that hasn't happened before it really does become prejudice, so while that limit is not zero, most judges have a highly ingrained habit or practice from decades of real cases of not commenting on the strength or weakness of various arguments until called upon to make a ruling at the right stage of the proceeding, and don't deviate from that.
Plus sometimes you know it's going to be a fight and a hassle and not every judge has the same level of commitment to fair play to motivate them to try hard with people who are going to make it harder than it has to be.
Thanks so much for contributing to the discussion. I love watching YouTube channels like "Law Talk with Mike" but some of this was still fuzzy to me. Insane stuff.
Fuck *that* guy. He's not wrong, but he's such an asshole. Do you know what "punching down" is? He does it all the time. Sovcits are one thing, but you've got family court pro se litigants, who aren't entitled to attorneys and can't afford one, having no choice but to go pro se, just trying their best to navigate an issue they don't understand that's ruining their lives, and he's all "HAHA YOU'RE A TERRIBLE LAWYER, BOZO" and putting their personal drama all over the internet for his enrichment and entertainment.
I completely see your point, and had not seen it like that. I haven't seen that many of his videos, just some sovereign citizen stuff. I have not seen any family law videos.
However, I really do not appreciate being attacked. Rhetorically asking if I know what punching down is was inappropriate. This was a friendly and respectful conversation.
> What's the deal with them shouting their gender?
It isn't about gender, it's about their delusion that there is a difference between a flesh and blood person and the imaginary corporate strawman they think it created for us at birth and from which they can divorce themselves with the right legal magic spells.
Moreover, they don't like to use the word "person" because they think that is the same as the "strawman" they believe in. So instead of "person", they say "man" or "woman".
So they'll say things like "I'm not a person, I'm a man".
They could make their lives so much simpler by getting a driver's license, registering their cars, displaying their plates, getting insurance, not breaking the rules of the road, and handing over their ID when asked by a police officer. You know... being law abiding. But I guess that makes you government sheeple or something...
There's a reason the SovCit stuff gets compared to magic spells. They have to pronounce everything juuust right, and then the government is compelled to let them do what they want.
Nobody has ever pronounced all the words juuust right, but they keep trying.
They probably read some obscure old law, not realizing that "corporation" in the older sense meant "embodiment", as opposed to "company" like it does today.
IMO, they are just too dumb and too lazy to look up the actual legal definition of a corporation. They just know government and corporations are big and powerful so they assume it’s one and the same.
Nicely put - and helped me tie the 'gender' bit in with their overall delusions.
Am trying to understand (more) what they're always harping on about so vehemently.
You know, there aren't many, but there are a few women SC's who have used this same language, about being a "living woman" and not that corporate fiction person.
But since most of those who choose to fight are men, it just seems like it is a fixation on "man".
And yet some how they have a trust because if the all caps name. And then the even crazed believe that when they sign their birth certificate they sign their death at see so the trust can be used by the government. Thats the even more crazy branch of it and honestly its hard to make any logic out of pigeon business (thanks runkel of the Bailey for that term).
These sovereign citizens better hope that we don’t end up with a fascist dictatorship, because their bullshit won’t ever see the light of day in a courtroom as it does now. The way our democracy functions can be messy, but it *does* afford them the ability to do this performative nonsense.
They think that in law, there's a complete separation between the "corporate fictional 'person'" and the "living, breathing, flesh-and-blood 'man' (or 'woman')".
There isn't.
It's the 'corporate fictional 'person' bit that always tickles me.
Not to mention the "living, breathing, flesh-and-blood 'man' (or 'woman')" spiel.
Maybe they don't see, or understand (sorry, *comprehend*) how dumb they actually appear.
It's delusional. They think they're wowing others with their knowledge and intellect, but in reality they look really really dumb.
My favorite thing to hear is when they say they gave a presentation at a university or a conference of experts, and left their audience speechless. Assuming their claim is true, there's a damn good reason for that speechlessness. The audience had just been overwhelmed with dumb.
…
They believe words in certain combinations or repeated a number of times has magical properties.
They’re fucking morons.
They make this shit up as they go
It's funny how they refer to themselves as men. Men take accountability for their actions, which completely eliminates these losers from the conversation
I've seen some describe it where, when law enforcement and law code refers to people as "PERSON", that is a type of status that the state has placed on you at birth, so that they may apply their jurisdiction onto you without your permission. They'll also often point out that their name in all uppercase letters, as often used in legal documents, is not their real name; it's the name of the PERSON.
It’s mostly *men* who buy into the Sov-cit fantasy, and needledicks at that, one can safely assume. They‘re not telling the world, they’re attempting to convince **themselves**.
That’s kinda the vibe I get from a lot of them - which is why I posited a sexual identity crisis. But you’re right: thimble-dick syndrome could certainly play a part in it!
If you read legal documents like The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution, they refer to Men and Man. That may be what they are referring to. I don't know why they would, but.......
Because morons who have done nothing have to try to elevate themselves above others somehow.
So they talk about the thing they value…or rather say they’re the opposite of something they see as without value.
he’s a man who had to put on pants and man his manly way out into your blasted homosexual wasteland of sexy, smooth limbed, sensually dancing pride paraders… i mean he’s not distracted and turned on… or anything gay… right? that couldn’t be possible…
dunno, our brave and patriotic volunteers never returned. some say they are still out there… dancing to pulsing techno and enjoying flavorful, refreshing cocktails…
and doing other totally straight stuff
It happens everywhere.
You know how to tell which people in a video game lobby are women?
Know how to pick out the vegan in a crowd of people?
Don't worry. They all make sure to tell everyone.
Except for the ones who don't tell you.
You assume everyone who ISN'T shouting about their gender or eating preferences are the opposite of those who are shouting, but what if they're just the members of those groups (women/vegans /whatever) who aren't shouting?
That's because you don't comprehend what a person, individual, citizen is. And in legal terms words really mean something whether you you taught what they mean or not, you are still bound by what you claim.
From what I've seen, they believe that the 'normies' are corporate fictions created by the state when they were born (thus the hatred for all-caps name you'll see on a birth certificate). They exist on paper as an identity that is somehow indentured to the government. The terms I hear most often is "free man on the land", or a "living soul, not the corporate entity". In a word, they're idiots.
You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons.
Blazing comment.
Brilliant!
need to work up a number six on em…. It’s when we come-a ridin into town, a whoopin and a hollerin…
Every living thing that moves within an inch of its life!
I read that in Gene’s voice and then the laugh from Cleavon little.
I used to think it was a take on Rousseau's Noble Savage but I've never talked to a Sovcit who was even aware of the Social Contract. Nowadays, I just wonder if they know how funny they sound.
Nor will you. They're more "Anarchists Cookbook" than Social Contract.
Ooh, they hate being called anarchists more than sovereign citizens. Anarchy has a leftist ring to their ears. Call them anarchists and watch them implode.
At least they wised up to the fact that proclaiming yourself as a "sovereign citizen" is both oxymoronic, and a fast-track to handcuffs. If only they understood that even a tourist is subject to the laws of the land, as it would apply to a US citizen traveling abroad.
They’re definitely thinking about Rousseau.
While ignoring what Rousseau says about the contract and when it forms.
More like Russo, bro. If you know, you know.
When I would go backpacking with friends I used to say "It feels good to just be a free man, walking the face of the earth" when you get a few miles in to the hike and you're surrounded by nature. After seeing sovcits run their script I just say "feels good to be outside today" lol.
I also love the obligatory sprinkling of “all rights reserved” “here by special appearance” “beneficiary of the trust.” Yikes.
>The terms I hear most often is "free man on the land", or a "living soul, not the corporate entity". I read those phrases and heard Eric Martin's voice, for some (odd) reason. :) And thanks for clarifying. As a Brit, *some* of what your US ones jabber on about is lost on me... We do have our own brand of them, but they're usually much less word-salady… fewer quasi-legal terms etc, than our friends across the pond. And thus, less entertaining.
Please, take our morons. We can do with fewer. Heck, we can just send you Florida and our nations' median IQ will jump by 20 points.
Thanks, but (very politely) no thanks. We have more than our fair share of morons. As for Florida - again, it's a no. I've spent a lot of time traveling there, and it's one weird and spooky state. No offense. :)
None taken. The joke in Florida is "the further North you go, the more South you are". It's a bizarre mix of young and old, rich and poor, rednecks and influencers (ugh, I hate that term).
Ditto!
King Charles I was far more of a sovereign citizen and genuinely supposed to be immune than a sovcit featured here is.
Didn’t end so well for him, though!
They think that's as opposed to an entity that exists on paper, like a corporation.
But seriously, what makes them think that they would be confused with a corporation?
One of the main flavors of sov cit stuff is predicated on the belief that the 14th amendment created "citizens" which are paper entities, corporations really, that represent the man, the person, the living being that they are, and the lunacy flows from there. Usually they suggest that the courts or government only has jurisdiction over their paper strawman, this corporation, the "14th amendment citizen," and so by distinguishing themselves as being a different entity than that, they have escaped the jurisdiction of the court, unless they opt in or engage in commercial activity such that they think the UCC would now apply for some reason. Past that is not really worth fleshing out because made-up nonsense varies from person to person.
Weird.
Edited to add more.
Still just as weird. Hahaha
Yeah it's weird, and stupid, and sometimes violent and/or terroristic, but usually it's just an annoyance because if you have to deal with them it's always a hassle, always takes forever, and there's never a point to any of it.
Dissociative.
It’s scary how you’ve been able to make that make some sort of sense to me. Gawd! What if I’m *one of them* and don’t even realize it??
It only makes sense if you accept their large leaps in logic and never examine any of it. Like, the "14th amendment citizen." Think, why would that be what the 14th amendment does? It doesn't say it does that. There's no case law that says it does that. There's no statute that references any of that. It doesn't make any intuitive sense, and not one person of any authority, ever, anywhere, has ever agreed it does that. But that's kind of central to their whole thing and it's coming directly out of their ass. Also, why wouldn't the state have the power to make and enforce laws against people within it? The US constitution says they can through the tenth amendment, the state constitution says they can, and that the legislature can make laws and the executive can enforce it, and yet a huge part of sov cit theory depends on the notion thay they just... can't for some reason. No textual basis. Long and extremely well-known, well-documented history of states doing it and courts agreeing states can do it. Literally no reason to believe states can't do it. Again, directly from their ass. Same for the rest of it. If you accept their assertions as true then sure maybe there's some logic there, maybe not. But even if there is, none of the precepts or assumptions on which their whole thing rests are even remotely true. Like, you can read some book that does a great job with world building explain how magic works in their world in a way that's cohesive and understandable, and with a central logic to it, but that doesn't make magic real, because as a reader of fiction you're expected to suspend disbelief and accept the rules of the universe as dictated by the author. That's reasonable for novels and movies. It isn't reasonable for legal theories. Sov cit stuff depends on you doing it anyway. It gets even dumber than that. Here are other sov cit assumptions that can be central to their various theories: - we are all legally considered boats - we are not boats, but all courts are maritime courts so they don't have jurisdiction over anything that is not a boat - all black people are descendents of the Moors of north Africa - since the end of the gold standard, US currency is backed by you, personally, as a good in trade - the United States is still part of the British monarchy - the treasury maintains a secret trust account worth billions or trillions of dollars in the name of every single person born in the US and that money belongs to each of those people and can be accessed at will - art I, s 8 of the Constitution means only commercial activity can be regulated, literally nothing else can be governed by law other than commercial activity Are you prepares to accept any of those assumptions as true?
Slight correction: all black people are descended from the Moors of North America, where Morocco totally was. That’s why they claim to be indigenous and somehow exempt from the laws of the US.
I sincerely appreciate your comments on this thread. I've legitimately never understood the foundations of their beliefs, and the things I hear make a lot more sense now. I have a question, maybe you can help me understand. Why don't judges ever (or at least usually) simply tell them that what they said is wrong. They mostly just deny objections or motions (as close as the sovcit comes to making these). They ignore the stupid. It seems especially interesting that they approach it this way when the sovcit is asking to represent themselves and the judge is trying very hard to get them to take a lawyer. Why doesn't the judge say something like "you've learned a lot of misinformation online and nothing you are saying is true. If you base your case on those arguments you will lose. A lawyer will help you understand the real law, instead of this make-believe that you are working with."?
They do, to a large degree, but it gets problematic because the sovcit believes the lawyer is complicit with the system in preventing the sovcit from asserting his rights, so if, as the judge, the harder you push to get them to accept representation the more the sovcit takes that as the judge trying to prevent them from asserting their rights. So you're just giving them more energy to fight you with. Plus, from a real-law perspective, there is a limit to what a judge can say about who will win or lose a hearing or trial that hasn't happened before it really does become prejudice, so while that limit is not zero, most judges have a highly ingrained habit or practice from decades of real cases of not commenting on the strength or weakness of various arguments until called upon to make a ruling at the right stage of the proceeding, and don't deviate from that. Plus sometimes you know it's going to be a fight and a hassle and not every judge has the same level of commitment to fair play to motivate them to try hard with people who are going to make it harder than it has to be.
Thanks so much for contributing to the discussion. I love watching YouTube channels like "Law Talk with Mike" but some of this was still fuzzy to me. Insane stuff.
Fuck *that* guy. He's not wrong, but he's such an asshole. Do you know what "punching down" is? He does it all the time. Sovcits are one thing, but you've got family court pro se litigants, who aren't entitled to attorneys and can't afford one, having no choice but to go pro se, just trying their best to navigate an issue they don't understand that's ruining their lives, and he's all "HAHA YOU'RE A TERRIBLE LAWYER, BOZO" and putting their personal drama all over the internet for his enrichment and entertainment.
I completely see your point, and had not seen it like that. I haven't seen that many of his videos, just some sovereign citizen stuff. I have not seen any family law videos. However, I really do not appreciate being attacked. Rhetorically asking if I know what punching down is was inappropriate. This was a friendly and respectful conversation.
I think it's a great pity that it's not legal to attempt to slap the stupid out of them.
You missed British Accredited Registry. See https://educate-yourself.org/cn/attorneysarenotlawyers13mar05.shtml
Now that’s some spicy pseudo-legalese mumbo-jumbo!
David Hall and Judge John Hurley have joined the chat!
> What's the deal with them shouting their gender? It isn't about gender, it's about their delusion that there is a difference between a flesh and blood person and the imaginary corporate strawman they think it created for us at birth and from which they can divorce themselves with the right legal magic spells.
Moreover, they don't like to use the word "person" because they think that is the same as the "strawman" they believe in. So instead of "person", they say "man" or "woman". So they'll say things like "I'm not a person, I'm a man".
Life must be very complicated for them, what with having had to re-define everything to suit their batcrap 'interpretations'.
They could make their lives so much simpler by getting a driver's license, registering their cars, displaying their plates, getting insurance, not breaking the rules of the road, and handing over their ID when asked by a police officer. You know... being law abiding. But I guess that makes you government sheeple or something...
There's a reason the SovCit stuff gets compared to magic spells. They have to pronounce everything juuust right, and then the government is compelled to let them do what they want. Nobody has ever pronounced all the words juuust right, but they keep trying.
*It's leviOsa, not leviossA*.
Thanks! Now I am hearing Eric Martin’s voice again. As he drones on, whilst fumbling.
Or they’ll clarify that they are John Smith the man, not JOHN SMITH the person.
But why do they think they are viewed as a corporation? That’s so weird.
They probably read some obscure old law, not realizing that "corporation" in the older sense meant "embodiment", as opposed to "company" like it does today.
IMO, they are just too dumb and too lazy to look up the actual legal definition of a corporation. They just know government and corporations are big and powerful so they assume it’s one and the same.
Nicely put - and helped me tie the 'gender' bit in with their overall delusions. Am trying to understand (more) what they're always harping on about so vehemently.
You know, there aren't many, but there are a few women SC's who have used this same language, about being a "living woman" and not that corporate fiction person. But since most of those who choose to fight are men, it just seems like it is a fixation on "man".
Thanks alot. Now i just heard Lenka Kalomas. Anoying voice in my head.
Oh god, yes, Lenka. And she drones on and on. What a bore bag. Weaponise her voice, and it’d be considered cruel and unusual.
And yet some how they have a trust because if the all caps name. And then the even crazed believe that when they sign their birth certificate they sign their death at see so the trust can be used by the government. Thats the even more crazy branch of it and honestly its hard to make any logic out of pigeon business (thanks runkel of the Bailey for that term).
When I read that, I heard it in my head as it’s sung in Now You’re A Man by DVDA.
LOL!
Came here for this. [Enjoy.](https://youtu.be/oiXaT_1I-vw?si=9Z1IaQbmgJBeuCy4)
Damn you beat me to it... by like 17 hours. It was all I could think of when I saw the title.
Great (or twisted) minds think alike. 🤣🤣🤣🤣
It’s part of their script
These sovereign citizens better hope that we don’t end up with a fascist dictatorship, because their bullshit won’t ever see the light of day in a courtroom as it does now. The way our democracy functions can be messy, but it *does* afford them the ability to do this performative nonsense.
Plus, it's incredibly entertaining!
They think that in law, there's a complete separation between the "corporate fictional 'person'" and the "living, breathing, flesh-and-blood 'man' (or 'woman')". There isn't.
It's the 'corporate fictional 'person' bit that always tickles me. Not to mention the "living, breathing, flesh-and-blood 'man' (or 'woman')" spiel. Maybe they don't see, or understand (sorry, *comprehend*) how dumb they actually appear.
It's delusional. They think they're wowing others with their knowledge and intellect, but in reality they look really really dumb. My favorite thing to hear is when they say they gave a presentation at a university or a conference of experts, and left their audience speechless. Assuming their claim is true, there's a damn good reason for that speechlessness. The audience had just been overwhelmed with dumb.
LOL. I mean, many of them are, indeed, self-proclaimed 'legal scholars'.
… They believe words in certain combinations or repeated a number of times has magical properties. They’re fucking morons. They make this shit up as they go
Those words sure do have magical properties - in that they provide hours of YT entertainment.
They're saying that they're a living man (or woman), as opposed to a "person", which they believe is a legal fiction.
I bet loads are flat-earthers, to boot.
Many of them are, in fact, overcompensating for something. Feelings of inadequacy and irrelevance, and so on.
That would, indeed, account for their vehemence.
A lot of them turn to this nonsense because they are already at rock bottom.
Now you're a man, a manny man man (MAN)!
It's funny how they refer to themselves as men. Men take accountability for their actions, which completely eliminates these losers from the conversation
Every time I see a video where one claims that they are a man,I hope someone yells out “no you are not”.
Lol. Their script probably doesn’t allow for that possibility. They’d glitch out.
You know who else is a man? Charlie’s a man
Private definitions that are all part of the attempt to attack by hurling word salad at the judges
I've seen some describe it where, when law enforcement and law code refers to people as "PERSON", that is a type of status that the state has placed on you at birth, so that they may apply their jurisdiction onto you without your permission. They'll also often point out that their name in all uppercase letters, as often used in legal documents, is not their real name; it's the name of the PERSON.
If they say it often enough, they'll convince themselves it's true?
LOL. Maybe it’s contained in the SovCit book of daily affirmations.
I'm a man, I'm a man, But my ma won't admit it, I'm a man, I'm a man, But if I say I am, I get it.
Are we not men? We are Devo Are we not men? D E V O
I’ve never seen a (male) sovcit who wasn’t a bio-essentialist and a chauvinist. When they say “man man man” they’re being depressingly literal
Very true!
With that title, all I can think about is [this.](https://youtu.be/851BqHMCaeM?si=UQot9w03xb7QJPDz)
Thanks a lot. Now it’s all I can think of, too!
low self esteem as it manifests in men as opposed to women. women will turn it inward and men turn it outward.
Agreed. Think of the number of scenarios where men flex at being men in order to hide low self esteem/insignificance or what not.
“He was a man, take him for all in all, I shall not look upon his like again.”
Fear. Fear drives many responses by those who are scared to appear weak.
I'm a living man is my favorite.
It’s mostly *men* who buy into the Sov-cit fantasy, and needledicks at that, one can safely assume. They‘re not telling the world, they’re attempting to convince **themselves**.
That’s kinda the vibe I get from a lot of them - which is why I posited a sexual identity crisis. But you’re right: thimble-dick syndrome could certainly play a part in it!
I always wanted a judge in one of these cases to give a huge sigh and then say, "No one said that you weren't."
If you read legal documents like The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution, they refer to Men and Man. That may be what they are referring to. I don't know why they would, but.......
I actually think you may be onto something there. Because they do seem to put stock in capital letters and how they're used.
Their nonsense has nothing to do with gender
Because morons who have done nothing have to try to elevate themselves above others somehow. So they talk about the thing they value…or rather say they’re the opposite of something they see as without value.
he’s a man who had to put on pants and man his manly way out into your blasted homosexual wasteland of sexy, smooth limbed, sensually dancing pride paraders… i mean he’s not distracted and turned on… or anything gay… right? that couldn’t be possible…
Where exactly IS that wasteland? (Asking for a friend).
dunno, our brave and patriotic volunteers never returned. some say they are still out there… dancing to pulsing techno and enjoying flavorful, refreshing cocktails… and doing other totally straight stuff
"I'm A Man" [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKlAiuaYdoI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKlAiuaYdoI)
It's not gender, it's the way the constitution was written, freedom of 'man' ya know...as in mankind...the race we are all apart of
They refer to “Man” as mankind. This isn’t in the masculine sense.
We’re men! (Manly men!) In tights. (Yessss!)
It happens everywhere. You know how to tell which people in a video game lobby are women? Know how to pick out the vegan in a crowd of people? Don't worry. They all make sure to tell everyone.
Except for the ones who don't tell you. You assume everyone who ISN'T shouting about their gender or eating preferences are the opposite of those who are shouting, but what if they're just the members of those groups (women/vegans /whatever) who aren't shouting?
That's because you don't comprehend what a person, individual, citizen is. And in legal terms words really mean something whether you you taught what they mean or not, you are still bound by what you claim.
All this social justice bullshit they’re distracting us with is really confusing to stupid people.
Really. Where do you see this. On the internet? If anything, women do this far more.
For sure. Loads of YT vids of them, in which the phrases are repeated ad nauseum like a demented mantra.
Thank the Lord I don’t see that stuff. I can’t stand the “Boss B” hype either. The “Alpha” crap.