Odd People

[H2O Man]

" Aren't a lot of people acting strange in a lot of different ways?" my daughter asked me. "Like getting into other people's faces if they disagree with them?" I enjoy her frequent phone calls from Boston. I had missed one yesterday, when my grandson was sleeping on my shoulder, and I couldn't get to the phone. But discussing this topic for an hour today was gun.

"Yes," I said. I noted that I have had numerous discussions on just this topic this week. Some in person, some on the telephone, and others on a couple of internet forums. There is a wide range of curious social and anti-social behaviors that people are noticing isn't quite "normal," what ever the heck normal is.

Next, my cousin called me. One of his friends from work visits him. They are both retired construction workers. Over the years, they have avoided discussing politics, as the guy is a Trump supporter. Union workers, or retired guys collecting a pension, who support Trump are lacking in common sense.

Everything went fine, until the guy was leaving. But the topic of politics was mentioned, which led to a heated argument, that came too close to a physical fight. It ended with "fuck you" being yelled both ways.

The most frequent question that I have heard this week is, "What are/were they thinking?" I sometimes ask myself that while watching the news. Hence, I have been sending the below link to a number of family and friends. It is a forensic psychiatrist talking about a range of people that seem to have deranged thinking. I think it is an important topic. It can be helpful in understanding that we exist in different "realities." This makes it difficult in many cases to maintain relationships with family members, friends, co-workers, and neighbors.

As one gets into the approximately one hour film, and the speaker documents the history of this strange "reality" of intertwined group of Americans, it doesn't really provide an answer to "are they sane" in the legal or psychiatric sense. It addresses this, in a way that should make us think. But it does answer one question, indirectly. And that is what, if anything, is the difference between Marjorie Taylor-Greene and Lori Vallow Daybell?

[2naSalit]

1. Bookmarking to watch later.

[H2O Man]

2. I'm confident that

you will like it. I sent the link to my brother (among others). I've heard more from him on e-mail than usyal since he watched it this evening.

[2naSalit]

5. It sounds interesting.

I want to be able to really listen to it and that will be later in the weekend.

[spanone]

3. Thanks H2O Man

...K&R...

[H2O Man]

4. Thank you!

[Laura PourMeADrink]

6. +1 but way too much to read.

[H2O Man]

14. More than anyone else,

you need to watch the linked film.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

40. Will try.. just for you :)

[Puppyjive]

7. Everyone is on a short fuse

I've noticed people are angry and tired. So what has changed in our lives? I keep coming back to the same conclusion. We are constantly exposed to rf (radio frequency) and a lot more than the generations before us. RF is bad for us. They don't want you to know that. The stronger the service the higher the radiation. We have these phones next to our ears all the time. I personally use the speaker, but none the less, cell phones use rf to transmit and receive the digital information. Call me crazy, but I was an avionics technician at one time in my life. We had so many warnings about RF and how bad it was for us. I think we are getting increased neck problems too.

[Easterncedar]

9. I wish I could disagree

But you are validating a thought I’ve had for a long time. And what is it doing to our fellow earthlings?

[H2O Man]

15. Very interesting!

I have to admit from the giddy-up that RF is something I know very little about .... so little that I qualify as completely ignorant. I've never had or used a cell phone. I know from riding with my children that they are handy for directions while driving. But other than that, I can think of no use for them. I have heard that RF may interfere with the flights of migratory birds, though I am not sure if that is accurate.

A few years back, on a sunny spring day, I went to visit my youngest daughter at her college. In a common area on her floor in a dorm, there were about a dozen young people, all pecking away at their cell phones, rather than intercting with those around them. When my daughter and I ventured outside, the vast majority of the students out in the sun had their noses stuck in their phones. This alone reinforced my thought that cell phones pose a risk to the ability of human beings to interact properly.

I thank you for bringing this to my attention. Since retiring, I've increasingly become a hermit. I've always been low-tech ...... I still have my grandfather's cross-cut saw, rather than a chain saw. My boys kind of resented that growing up, except for when it came to school sports, and their strength gave them advantages! My youngest daughter "worries" about me, like adult daughters are prone to, and insisted I get one of those platic cards "just in case." In case of what ? In case I need it some night and the gas station is closed, was all she could come up with. I rarely leave my property in the day -- at most, twice in a month -- and never do at night. But keeping her happy means everything to me, so I got a debit card that I've never used.

[panader0]

24. I've become a hermit too, but it wasn't just retiring. Covid changed many of my relationships.

My bi-weekly music sessions with friends (here at my place) ended for almost two years. Two friends were
anti-vax people, and there were arguments about things like would a magnet stick to my vax arm. For the
sake of sanity and preservation of whatever friendship remained, we agreed to not discuss certain things.
That made us more distant. Truth was the biggest victim of the trump administration. Facts and alternate
facts seemed to intertwine to some people as fake news became the blame for reality. So I stayed home most
of the time. It's amazing how many things there are to do around the house and the many outdoor projects.
I've got a few today, getting the garden ready to go and dealing with the swamp cooler which I'll need pretty soon.
Nothing wrong with being a hermit as long as you have some social dealings, or you can go nuts.

[H2O Man]

25. I think that the

defendant-covid era resulted in a significant reduction in social communications, for exactly the reasons that you note. But that era didn't change anything for me, beyond having to get a few shots.

I do have friends who suggest with the best of intentions that I get out more. Some ask me if I don't get bored? I can honestly say that I don't believe I've ever been bored ..... perhaps the closest thing to it was when I used to be around people who were not of any particular interest to me, but I would just think about other things! (I found concentrating on James Baldwin books would help me to tune others out.)

I've been out in the garden once this morning. Planning to spend much of the day there. My son & grandson are coming over this afternoon, and I always look forward to spending time with them.

[panader0]

27. I remember when I was young, telling my dad "I'm bored."

His answer was, "Then I'll find something for you to do". I learned not to be bored pretty quick.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

41. +1. Think we're into the gradually getting back to

normal phase!?

Although new variant in India sounds horrid


For me, all of it all, makes you realize who you truly care about.
MAGAts no matter what ilk, no matter how related, are persona non grata. To me anyway

[keopeli]

8. Wow! You opened a rabbit hole for me and I'm diving in! Thanks, H20!

[H2O Man]

16. It is a curious topic.

In the past week, I have literally had eight people -- family and friends -- contact me to ask questions relating to this. That suggests to me that the frequency of interactions with this type of person (or persons) is increasing. Some might deem that coincidence, but I don't subscribe to coincidence. Now, I'm a retired psychiatric social worker, who had a focus on forensics. And I also have a love for the study of sociology. So I knew right away what link I was going to send those people. And it has led to some fascinating conversations since they have invested the hour required to watch this film.

My west coast brother, now retired from the university where he worked, is primarily interested in environmental issues. (I assume that west coast people will increasingly become focused on environmental issues.) But he contacts me with his thoughts and questions about human behaviors -- for example, school shootings and the murder of the four college students in Idaho -- his youngest daughter went to that school, and it really bothered him. Last night, he asked if I thought society could resolve the issues documented in this film? I said that it will take several generations, the same as mass shootings.

I'm glad that you are interested in this rabbit hole!

[Easterncedar]

10. I always appreciate your posts

Thanks, H2O Man.

[H2O Man]

18. Thanks!

I'm glad to see that some people to be an interesting topic. I think it is important that we fully understand the thought patterns of those who are increasingly putting our democracy at risk.

Yesterday, an old co-worker visited me. He said he worries that this country is becoming so messed up (he used a different word than "messed&quot that an enemy will be able to take over. I said we are much more likely to simply implode. No one took over Rome or England. Empires tend to implode.

[PatSeg]

11. K&R

[H2O Man]

19. Thank you!

[Easterncedar]

12. I watched the video

What a great deal of intriguing and scary history. I appreciate having the various threads pulled together. The Moorish sovereigns stopped on 95 in Massachusetts were supposedly heading to training grounds in Maine. I haven’t heard anything since. That was a shocking incident.

I wish I had a better sense of how we can respond to these hate-driven whackaloons, to use the scientific term, but it certainly was interesting to hear how the problem of competency plays out in court.

Thanks for broadening my understanding.

[H2O Man]

20. Thank you!

I think that "whackaloons" is indeed the correct term! In my every day life, I tend to use some street slang to describe them, though there are times when I dip into guttr slang for accuracy!

[Prairie_Seagull]

13. Bookmarking for later today.

Thanks H20 Man.

[H2O Man]

21. Thanks!

I'm confident that you will enjoy it!

[Ms. Toad]

17. This is about sovereign citizens

not your average irrational person. There is probably some overlap, and I expect the video to be interesting, but at least from the title is isn't about people who are just generally out of touch with reality.

[H2O Man]

22. From the title,

it would seem that it is about the freaks that are convinced that they don't need a driver's license, insurance, or registration. But that isn't the focus -- though films about them might be fun on the DU lounge!

It is a much broader issue than that, and includes an array of groups and individuals. I think that you would enjoy the film, and find it of more value than a focus on those who insist that they travel, but do not drive.

[Ms. Toad]

23. That is what it is about (the sovereign citizens).

He suggests he'll talk about more at the end, if he has time, but I'm halfway through and he's still talking exclusively about sovereign citizens. I've had to deal with some of these people in real life, in the courtroom. Their ideology goes far beyond traveling v. driving.

[H2O Man]

26. I understand, and do not disagree with you.

It is a combination of tree/forest, and anopiaprotanopia/ deuteranopia. Is that not exactly the forest of which he speaks? Your experience in court results in your viewing the film one way. Those who are in the field of law enforcement another. Those in the field of mental health, yet another. Garland would perhaps focus on McVeigh's buddy.

There is a line in a book about my late uncle, a legendary investigator. Back in his day, he did trainings for the FBI and CIA. Not for ALL of the FBI and CIA, of course. But for those with the capacity and need to see the topics he spoke of. The single line that comes to mind was his saying, "Patience is not one of my virtues." Taken out of context, it has one meaning. In context, he was impatient with those under him that were impatient for immediate answers.

He knew that the best investigators have to be patient, and always keep an open mind. There are risks involved when one views part of a whole exclusively in the context of themselves. Their education and experience. For that is a form of blindness.

The people most commonly considered as "sov cits" are merely those most easily identified. But, as the speaker in the film so accurately identifies, they are merely part of a much larger social reality -- those who are "reality-blind." Now, obviously a psychiatrist will have some common ground with a prosecutor or defense attorney when doing a court evaluation. But s/he will also have other very different views on them. Just as Garland had a ifferent view than a cop who pulls over a jackass who is certain that he is traveling, not driving. The difference being that fellow does not have a reality-based opinion on what defines driving.

[Ms. Toad]

28. While there is a fair amount of overlap,

I take him at his word when he says the subject of his talk is on whether sovereign citizens are competent - especially since that (including an examination of how this ideology developed) constitutes the first 48 minutes of his roughly hour long talk.

He does discuss the overlap with others who also seem out of touch with reality in the last 12 minutes or so.

But sovereign citizens are a different breed of out-of-touch-with-reality than most, in that (as noted in the video) they have a different courtroom in their heads. They are not inherently conspiracy theorists - their flavor of out-of-touch is expressly connected to the law and they really do have a different courtroom in their heads and it is that courtroom which informs their interactions with police, counselors, and the actual courtroom. Their odd language and nonsensical declarations are all based on a set of rigid legal beliefs which tell them that a single misstep by them would be consent to the jurisdiction of the actual courtroom, not the courtroom in their heads.

[H2O Man]

29. Dusky v United States

I almost died laughing when he brought this up. And, at the same time, felt compassion for those in the legal system (beyond police) who have to deal with these freaks, who are fully invested in their delusional thinking. They are a degree or two different than those who are fully convinced that the defendant won the 2020 election -- enough so that the maga-ites at least tended to look to lawyers for help when confronted with January 6 arrests.

[Ms. Toad]

30. It's more than a degree or two.

I'd characterize the sovereign citizens as law-based. It's just a very twisted application of the laws. The laws they cite are real - they just aren't applicable for what they are citing them for. That makes it particularly hard to respond to from a legal perspective (and particularly hard for them to work with legal counsel). You can't just prove a fact wrong and follow the consequences in court. For example - they will freely admit they don't have driver's licenses (or whatever purely factual allegations are made against them). Their argument is that they are not required to have driver's licenses for a variety of reasons based in actual law - each of which has to be disproven by identifying they law on which their argument is based and demonstrating that th law is not applicable as they are trying to use it

Maga-ites don't tend to cite law, and in most instances are oblivious to law - or just make up what they believe the law to be, just as they make up facts. It's more of a word salad both as to the law and facts. Since they don't dispute the basic authority of the court (at least not in as intricate ways as the sovereign citizens), it is much easier to resolve disputed facts (if any) and dispel reliance on law which exists nowhere. To extend the word salad analogy for maga-ites it's more: That's not a radish (it's a cucumber), you didn't follow the recipe.

For the sovereign citizens, it's more: Yes, that's a valid recipe, but it's not a recipe for a salad for a state dinner. It's a recipe for a side dish at a barbecue. If you are entertaining the president of China in the main dining room of the White House you can't just substitute a barbecue side dish. Yes, that is a member of the brassicaceae familiy, but it is broccoli not a radish. The recipe calls for a radish. You can't just substitute any member of the brassicacase family in a dish and have it taste the same, or even use the same preparation. If you are going to alter the recipe, you need to take into consideration taste, texture, preparation. . . and on and on.

If I were a ghost-writer for a judge (the circumstances in which I have encountered these folks), I'd much rather have a completely non-reality-based jerk who acknowledged the authority of the court than a sovereign citizen. I'd be about a thousand times happier.

My recollection of one is that it took about a 20-page opinion for a parking ticket that had been appealed. All of the convoluted law-based bases for appeal had to be dealt to ensure there weren't grounds for a supreme court appeal.

[H2O Man]

33. Interesting.

There are, of course, a number of ways that people understand and thus view things. It is not restricted to "intelligence" or if a person is "hood." Let's take a brief look at what can be applied in general to the way that different people understand things, and thus take positions. It is something that applies to human beings throughout modern history.

Let's consider the example of even the topics discussed on this forum, but in the wider context of our society. A person might:
1: find it interesting, but not know enough about it to have a firm opinion;
2: not understand it, because it is not reduced to a meme or bumper-sticker;
3: understand it correctly, but recognize that there are other rqually valid ways to understand it;
4: understand it correctly, but lack the ability to accept that different perspectives are equally valid;
5: not have a clue, but be certain that they and those who agree with them are right.

1 and 3 have overall advantages in a greater number of situations. 2 are not prone to adding value to any discussion. 4 provides proof that my late friend Rubin was correct in saying that those who lack the ability to compare are restricting in their ability to understand. And 5, of course, are just obnoxious.

Now let's consider the primary overlap between groups 4 and 5: they are convinced that those who do not view things just as they do, are either ignorant fools or purposeful liars. We see this in the most pathetic examples of sov cits, be they on the roadside or in court. They believe in the superstitions and conspiracies handed down through the fenerations, exactly as noted in te linked film.

Also, that film provides a wonderful vehicle that allows group 4 to "travel" to greater understanding. As it notes, while there are many similarities within the sov cit groups, there are differences. "Moor," some of the exact same cognitive limitations -- not restricted to raw intelligence -- are found in an array of other groups. There may be one or two degrees of difference, or other times a greater number. But their inability to compare, to understand, and to realize their opinion is not the only valid one, might best be viewed in a context similar to Piaget's teachings on object permanence.

But I wrote about Piaget a week ago.

[Ms. Toad]

39. I wouldn't put them in any of those categories.

The laws and concepts they are reciting exist, and are correct. They are just inapplicable in the situations to which they are trying to apply them.

So they don't have a full understanding, at least in the context of the laws in this country, which puts them in your category 2 or 5. But they don't fit in category 2 because of the complexity of their belief systems (i.e. they aren't ruled by memes). And they don't really don't fit in category 5 because, they their non-reality isn't related to believing those who agree with them are right.

And none of this has to do with others having equally valid opinions.

To simplify it - it is as if someone told then to calculate the volume of a cone and they looked in their formula book and pulled out a formula for volume which included a radius and a height - specifically the one to calculate the volume of a cylinder. The formula for the volume of a cylinder was correct, their calculations were flawless. But it was the wrong formula - and no matter how many differing opinions you seek out, you can't calculate the volume of a cone using the formula for the volume of a cylinder. Even though both are valid formulas and both objects have a radius and a height. The formulas are simply not interchangeable.

But sovereign citizens treat legal rules, in similar settings, as if they were interchangeable. No amount of opinion, however, can make Article I of the UCC (which governs the sale of goods) apply to a sovereign citizen's interactions in court. No matter how flawlessly they execute any of the provisions. But that is the basis for tacking on "without prejudice" or UCC 1-308 to their signatures. In a commercial transaction it would be valid and have a purpose. But appearning in court as a defendant is not a commercial transaction.

[H2O Man]

43. Right.

You provide a valuable explanation of "how" sov cits think and act, and that is certainly important. For it is what we see in virtually every film of them when pylled over while driving, and in court. Now, I've only seen one film of a sov cit couple in court on a case involving a commercial transaction, and their behavior and the outcome were th same.

Now, I'm in group 1 -- a few commercial transaction cases are interesting, but I know very little -- if anything at all -- about that area of law, and am more than happy to leave it to those who are experts. Yet I can't help but think that sov cits get what they pay for.

In his first book, Dick Gregory spoke about interpretations of reality. He noted that if he was riding a bike, and another person insisted he was riding a book, that book only exists in that fellow's mind. No one questions that books exist, for they do. An books can literally be part of commercial transactions. If Dick were talking about a commercial transaction involving a book (or books), the other person would have had a valid point. But Dick was riding a bike.

Thus, we enter another area. It's related to "how," yet is not by definition a part of law enforcement and/or the courts. That, of course, is "why." Juries like hearing motive, but a prosecutor is not required to provide one. And frequently, when "why" is raised, the courts depend upon an expert witness from the field of mental health.

Now, in the film, it was noted that some sov cits think that judges are wizards, and that if they utter words -- including, but not limited to verbs and nouns -- in a correct sequence, the judge will rule in their favor.

When I was in high school, two of my good friends had been sentenced to incarceration. As they were teens, they were sent to a Division for Youth minimum security facility in the rural upstate region. Thus, a few from the facility were allowed to attend our public high school, a very different environment from NYC.

Both of my friends were of above-average intelligence. Neither had a major mental illness. Each had anti-social behaviors, rooted in their thinking that criminals were engaged in their job, just as surely as a cop or judge was simply engaging in their job. In the environment from which they came, a successful criminal was as respected as much as any other businessman.

The curious thing was that both of my friends -- who had not known each other before -- was convinced that if one wore a certain type of ring on their right hand -- gold with a black stone -- and gave a certain hand signal, the judge would rule in their favor. This was rooted in their firm belief that masons ruled the legal system. And we all know that secret societies communicate on all important issues with rings and hand signals!

(I think we are safe in skipping over a maga/Q belief that many in the political & legal system are lizards. Wizard lizards sit on the bench.)

Now, let's move on to another court, where we can easily see the distinctions between "how" and "why" play out. We can go to the vast majority of public schools in our country, and watch coaches that lack any concept of child/youth development, yelling at teens on a basketball court. They are doing their best imitation of university and professional coaches, just as surely as an Elvis impersonator does "Love Me Tender."

With some individual differences, a 15 year old reacts very differently from having a coach scream at them -- be it in practice, or more importantly, in front of an audience during a game -- than a 17 year old. When I was a school board member, I tried explaining this to coaches of all sports, because our minds can benefit from applying concepts to more than one specific setting. In the summer league, although my grasp of "how" basketball is best played, I know cild/youth development, and as a substitute coach, had surprising success.

But as important as knowing child/youth development is, we witness our society sometimes behaves as poorly as a red-faced coach bullying a youngster. Expecting that children have the ability -- and responsibility -- of an adult. The glaring example was when a 12-year old girl -- a child herself -- was deemed qualified to the extent of a law -- to carry a pregnancy.

[pwb]

31. Freaks like Alex Jones sells his own brand supplements ?

Many other right wing talkers do too? That and Fox news are fucking people up. I see a trend in Fox. That Douche Fox News White House reporter asks a stupid question and then on Fox News they answer it their way not the real answer making them look on top of things. What are you gonna do about it, they say to everything. Chase this lie, chase that lie.

[H2O Man]

34. Right.

Almost without exception, the Fox hosts know they are lying. Jones, of course, knows the same thing. They do it for money, the same as selling thei progucts.

[malaise]

32. I am speechless

Will watch again

[H2O Man]

35. I was sure

that you would be among those who understands it in the fuller context.

[malaise]

37. Odd people is kind

I have to let it soak in again in the early morning

[Nevilledog]

36. I think we'll be finding out more about how Covid (especially repeated infection) affects the brain.

[H2O Man]

38. Right.

[ExWhoDoesntCare]

42. It seems to be all some people understand anymore

As an example:

A new house is getting built next door to me. Lots of noise, lots of episodes of shouting, some music playing on a radio but I have no problem with that. It's temporary, so whatever. One guy has a super-annoying voice and yells too much for my tastes, but I realize that a crew isn't necessarily working next to each other but need to communicate. And that most construction workers don't have the best hearing because damaged hearing comes with the job.

But a few days ago, the husband was in the middle of his volunteer moderator tasks for a forum he and a bunch of buddies created and I was doing my DU thing when that boom box radio slipped through my tolerance levels. One of the idiots decided to put it right against the fence line, less than 8 feet from the (closed) window where we do our reading and computer stuff. And it was on full blast. I couldn't even hear my own computer's music playing. Even when I turned it up. And up. And up.

Because he thought they'd listen to a man before they would me, my husband went over twice to ask them to turn down the volume, but he's a very mellow guy. We're talking heart rate of 12 lizard-sunning-on-a-rock mellow. His request got ignored, both times.

I'm not mellow, but I'm that simmering intensity behind the stoic facade that seems to scare people--especially when it comes from a woman. I don't look for trouble, but if you bring it or tick me off, I'll bring it right back. So once I realized that nice wasn't going to work, then I knew what to do. The situation called for someone more, shall we say, assertive to speak in the language the idiots would understand.

I also have one of those deep, booming voices that carries--and carries far, even when speaking normally. I don't have to raise it much at all to sound like a drill sergeant at basic training.

So I go outside, and, even before I hit my driveway between us, I see one of the workers and call out in my military NCO voice, the one that scared the crap out of my kid when he was in trouble, "Hey--You! Yeah, you! Turn that radio down. People are trying to work or relax around here. We were nice about asking you to turn it down, and, twice, you blew us off. Well, we're done with that, so turn that down. Now."

Radio went off, and it's stayed off ever since.

It's ridiculous that the polite approach didn't work, and I had to resort to Sgt BadAss for those idiots to show some consideration for others around them; however, American society no longer has a firm grip on the concept of civilized behavior, especially that quaint thing called consideration for others. They don't understand how to communicate in a calm and thoughtful manner.

It's all 0 to off the charts pissed in a microsecond, all the time. The ubiquity of guns on top of that makes this a very frightening country to stay in.

[H2O Man]

44. Very interesting.

Our society at large has lost the ability to engage in conflict resolution. Instead of attempting non-aggressive steps -- as your husband did -- too many people immediately raise it to a level far beyond your more firm approach, after the first one failed to get results.

We often see this in dynamics between two people, not restricted to married couples. A small spark immediately rekindles a past level ofinsults, threats, and.or physical violence.

When I worked at the mental health clinic, one of my duties was to venture into the county jail, to teach groups and individuals conflict resolution skills. I also co-facilitated DV groups of male and female offenders, to try to teach those same skills. I had experience from volunteering with a Quaker group that went into state prisons with an "Alternatives to Violence" program. Eventually, Iroquois Clan Mothers provided the Quakers with some aditional lessons that I used.

No program is perfect, of course. None get 100% positive results. But many people did benefit from learning concepts they had never been exposed to before.