Sovereign Citizens

[donquixote99]

People readily follow 'opinion leaders' who cue them on what 'people like us' believe and say.

Identity groups can and do kick people out for saying the wrong things, or not saying the right things. This can have severe status and income consequences. I'm not just talking extremist groups now. I'm talking all sorts of groups.

'Mainstream reporter,' for example, is an identity as well as a job, but violate the rules of the identity and the job is at risk.

The rules are made by a loose consensus among people of reputation in the group.

This is ordinary and everywhere. But leaders of political/ideological movements often try to make more intentional and aggressive use of these social dynamics, with varying success.

[BlueStreak]

Can there not be leaderless movements that never really coalesce into a political organization but nonetheless have an impact upon society? A poisonous (or not) idea that spreads and changes they way large numbers of people think and act?

Dave

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

Can there not be leaderless movements that never really coalesce into a political organization but nonetheless have an impact upon society? A poisonous (or not) idea that spreads and changes they way large numbers of people think and act?

Dave

Certainly, though such 'movements' will nonetheless have more articulate/respected members who function as informal 'opinion leaders.'

In the old days, respected newspaper columnists often had 'opinion leader' roles, which they exercised with a good amount of independence. More and more, though, they seem, with the decline of the financial strength of newspapers, to have become more vulnerable to the influence of well-funded PR efforts, to the point in many cases of becoming mere mouthpieces in orchestrated 'talking-point' schemes.

[BlueStreak]

Except now, it's moved to the internet and any idiot can set up a page that can be viewed by the public, free of charge.

That's my point. In the "old days" it basically had to be, at the very least, a "respected journalist" serving as an "opinion leader". Now, it can be any looney tune with an I-Pad. Look at some of the clowns who simply set up their own website and became "opinion leaders" reaching thousands (Millions?) of dedicated readers every day.

In the old days, there was a degree of difficulty in reaching a substantial audience. It was an analog world, wherein a nutcase had to find a sympathetic, established media outlet willing to distribute his rubbish, or travel the country, set up a tent and make rousing speeches to reach anyone.

None of this is necessary anymore, not in the digital world.

Dave

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

What do y'all think of this;

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/pu...reign-citizens

These Sovereign Citizens consider themselves "Patriots", fighting for our "Freedom". I think they're little more than gun-toting Anarchist a-holes and a direct threat to our freedom.

To my mind, there is such a thing as "too much freedom" and that's when civilization breaks down, everyone starts doing just as they damn well please and every day simply becomes a fight to survive.

Dave

All that matters here is the definition.

sov·er·eign noun \ˈsä-v(ə-)rən, -vərn also ˈsə-\

one possessing or held to possess supreme power or authority


They see themselves as imbued by their creator with supreme privilege. I don't know if this phrase is used all across the fruited plain all that much, but here in Chicago, one of the worst things one fella could say to another fella is "...what are you, some kinda privileged fucking character?" "Sovereign Citizens" are the ultimate privileged characters.

[donquixote99]

With the Internet, anybody can reach dozens. Reaching millions is a little harder.