this post was submitted on 09 May 2025
118 points (98.4% liked)

No Stupid Questions

40606 readers
579 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The phenomenon of sovereign citizens persistently trying to win court cases with their principles, despite a lack of success, is indeed puzzling. On YouTube alone, there are around 5,000 videos showing sovereign citizens facing defeat in the courtroom. These individuals often make claims that have yet to prove successful and frequently end up incarcerated.

Why do people continue to adopt this seemingly futile approach? It's akin to watching 5,000 parachutists attempt a failed jump from the Eiffel Tower, only for newcomers to keep trying despite knowing, or perhaps ignoring, the inevitable outcome. Despite the growing pile of mangled bodies at the base of the tower, every day people decide to climb up and try for themselves.

The dedication of these individuals is noteworthy; they invest a great deal of time mastering the intricacies of their "sovereign" defense. Yet, it seems that they dedicate little time to researching previous legal outcomes or understanding why their arguments haven't held up in court historically.

What drives this persistence? Is it a deep-seated belief system that overrides rational analysis, or is there another factor at play that encourages them to keep going despite overwhelming evidence of failure?

(page 2) 8 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] aramis87@fedia.io 3 points 1 day ago

Because they see other people gaming the system or somehow otherwise being protected from the consequences of their actions. Ethan Couch, who drove drunk underage and killed four people and fled the scene, and who got probation. Brock Turner who raped an unconscious woman, and who got stuff months in county jail and was released after three months. Matthew Broderick, who drove into the wrong lane, hit a car head-on, killed two people, and was fined a hundred pounds. Hundreds of cases, some high-profile, some only known to the local community, where people get off - sometimes on technicalities, sometimes on connections, sometimes on good lawyering, sometimes on bribes.

Then people wonder why they can't get away with things. Millionaires and billionaires get their debts written off, so they should be able to do so as well. They should be able to claim that they're not subject to laws just like those other people. So they start looking for things that might exempt them, patterns of how to get away with things. Every time something goes wrong, it's not because they're poor or unconnected, it must be because that other guy's lawyer wrapped his case in a red ribbon, or capitalized the defendant's name, or something else esoteric that they didn't notice or didn't think of.

And they talk to each other, sharing their theories of his to get away with things. And there's also a rich ecosystem of fraudsters and conmen who are absolutely willing to take advantage of them, selling them false license plates and fake "passports", selling handbooks and online courses on how to get away with stuff. If they're caught (and haven't just changed over to some other URL), it's because the law changed or there was some nuance in their situation, and you just need this other thing that'll fix it, it's only $129.99, payable in four easy installments ....

[–] Zwuzelmaus@feddit.org 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Isn't it one of the fundamentals that everybody has the same right to go to courts?

So, even the idiots must be allowed.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] CrayonDevourer@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'm pretty sure at this point that most of them think that Legal jargon is the equivalent to a druidic incantation and they just need to find the right incantation for it all to work in their favor.

[–] deafboy@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Just as “magic spells” use special rhymes and archaic terms to signal their power, the convoluted language of legalese acts to convey a sense of authority, they conclude.

In a study appearing in the journal of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the researchers found that even non-lawyers use this type of language when asked to write laws.

“People seem to understand that there’s an implicit rule that this is how laws should sound, and they write them that way,” says Edward Gibson, an MIT professor of brain and cognitive sciences and the senior author of the study.

https://news.mit.edu/2024/mit-study-explains-laws-incomprehensible-writing-style-0819

[–] ExtantHuman@lemm.ee 1 points 1 day ago

They are not smart people.

That's it.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›