You're viewing a single thread.
SovCits are a symptom of the breakdown of the social contract, not one of the causes.
It's more a symptom of village idiots finding each other on the web and convincing themselves that they are not idiots. Its a feature of an interconnected world.
It makes sense when you realize they are truly stupid and have been taken in by a con. They get into situations they don't understand, people say magic words they don't understand and they get put in jail. Someone comes along and explains it in such a way only an idiot would believe about magic words and they want to get out. They don't actually understand the words they are using or the context/concepts thar the words that are being used against them represent... And suddenly here we are.
They have the morality of an atomized corporation. Always trying to externalise costs to the rest of the planet. All that matters is their own short term needs.
It's like a cargo cult of late stage capitalism.
It's rooted in white supremacy and anti-Semitism. They are the ones breaking the social contract.
Feels like people just say "It’s rooted in white supremacy and anti-Semitism" about anything now.
Well, anything associated with the right, which the SovCit movement very much is...
Definitely not a cause. For a while they were a pain in the ass. Courts and lawyers didn't know how to deal with them and they would keep coming back and back with appeals and collateral actions. Now there's a whole playbook for disposing of their bullshit, doesn't jam things up anymore.
It was originally a mail order scam targeting poor, uneducated people who were charged with crimes, desperate to believe any promise of help.
I know a lawyer about a decade ago who worked for a country government dealing with one. He told me that if the guy had 6 friend he could probably fully demolish the entire government of the county. They would be bankrupt from lawsuits, everyone would be afraid to do anything for fear of getting dragged in, nothing could get approved.
I don't know if he was exaggerating or not but I think there is some truth to it. Things do seem to work only because no one has decided to stop it from working.
Maybe they rattled your friend. A while back a Canadian judge wrote an excellent legal opinion, that is more like a textbook, on who they are, where they came from, and how to deal with their arguments. It's an amazing work of legal research and writing and actually made me sympathize with them. They are victims of a scam and desperate to escape the criminal justice system.
https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2012/2012abqb571/2012abqb571.html
Or maybe they never got past the stage of development where they understand that other people exist.
I think they're more a symptom of some people wanting to feel special. Everywhere has selfish people indignant that they have to pay for goods and/or services they use.
Those are just words.
There’s that damn social contract I keep hearing about. Still have yet to seen one written.
What exactly is the constitution, or any law, if not a social contract.
If you don't like the social contracts we have, vote for someone to make them better.
Especially when it comes to the social contracts around elections.
What exactly is the constitution, or any law, if not a social contract.
What exactly is a BDSM dungeon, if not a social contract?
What exactly is a thanksgiving dinner with the family, if not a social contract?
What exactly is a lemmy shitpost and a dipshit commenting on it, if not a social contract?
What exactly is a terms and conditions, if not a social contract?
What exactly is a terms of service, if not a social contract?
What exactly is a “please, harder daddy” if not a social contract?
My issue with “social contract” is how vague the concept is. I get that it’s an agreement we accept to have certain conditions met. But that definition itself is so vague why are we even discussing it?
You are right in that people seem to be misusing the term "social contract". The actual definition is not vague, but broad. The point is that a person who wants to live in a society accepts its fundamental tenets as they exist in exchange for society at large letting it live amongst itself.
So one example of a social contract might be the one that the USSR and aligned countries' societies had, which had the fundamental law of "things will continue to improve for you, but in exchange you must support our politics". When things stopped improving, people stopped staying out of politics and the society collapsed and reformed.
As far as I understand, the US "social contract" is at least on the level of ideology that if you "pull yourself up by the bootstraps", you get to "live the American Dream". When they talk about people "rejecting the social contract", what they mean is that they don't think that they are getting what they want out of society at large. If it's few people that do this, you get criminals and sovcits.
This theory is just to explain why people at large behave differently if they perceive their society as good, just, liveable, honourable and all manner of positive things.
Consider the sentiment of "If you saw someone steal from Walmart, you didn't, but don't steal from mom-and-pop shops, they need the money".
People say this is because since Walmart is perceived as not adhering to the social contract by stealing wages, killing off small businesses and mooching off public money. That means that, unlike mom-and-pop shops, they are fair game and not dishonourable to steal from. Formal law still applies to them, you will go to jail if they catch you all the same, but society will not shun you. In a way if you break the "unwritten law", then it does not protect you either.
As far as I understand, the US "social contract" is at least on the level of ideology that if you "pull yourself up by the bootstraps", you get to "live the American Dream". When they talk about people "rejecting the social contract", what they mean is that they don't think that they are getting what they want out of society at large. If it's few people that do this, you get criminals and sovcits.
You’re probably right, emphasis on “probably” because the term is so vague we don’t really know what anyone who uses it really means. By the terms you’ve put forth, I too “reject the social contract” of “pulling yourself up by the bootstraps” allowing you to “live the american dream” on account of those words not having any real meaning. As an american, I can draw my own meaning from those words, but it will differ from the meaning others put on those words.
This theory is just to explain why people at large behave differently if they perceive their society as good, just, liveable, honourable and all manner of positive things.
And that’s the thing, because it’s different to each person, we’re all talking about different contracts, that we don’t understand but we assume about each other, causing difficulties in communication.
I’m happy to discuss law, constitution, policy, morality, etc.. but discussing a “social contract” to me sounds like we’re just discussing the unspoken assumptions of others.
As for my social contracts, those who know, know, you know?
social contract noun
A usually implicit agreement among the members of an organized society or between the governed and the government defining and limiting the rights and duties of each.See also: law
Laws are explicit, not implicit. You said you didn't understand what a social contract was and I answered you. Now you're just being intentionally obtuse.
I never said anything of the sort. I said I didn’t understand the wording of the social contract. Please just link this one contract to me, since everyone’s always discussing it.
I can’t have a conversation unless I know the topic.
Topic like “agreement” is bit too vauge but hey, I’ll try: “Isn’t it great when everyone? I know, right?!”
You have all the tools you need at your disposal. At this point, you are the biggest obstacle to your success.
And what benefit will me understanding the precursor to “agreements” grant me?
Folks keep thinking I don’t understand what a social contract is.
I don’t understand why such an old term is relevant when it can’t even be defined and is different for each person. The best we can come up with is something like “well, you do the things society wants and you get treated well”. Which one person will interpret as “I give food to the homeless, because they need food” and another person will interpret as “I don’t give food to the homeless because they need to understand the grind, they need to feel the hunger, it will motivate them to do better”. Both people obey “the social contract” yet, both are participating in opposite actions.
“The social contract” sounds a lot like “don’t be a dick” which, while nice sounding on the surface really needs clarification and this is why we have written contracts, governments, law, etc.
Sure, this wasn’t the case prior to law, but we have law now so..
Sorry! It’s not law, it’s a sOciAl CoNtRacT i learned about it on the wikipeeds. Will you ever forgive me, sensei?
is like breaking the law is better than having no lights dawg
It's not against the law to not pay your bills. Just don't expect any electricity, water, a roof, etc.
See also: morality
Do you not have Google?
As usual, a link to wikipedia completely cured my stupidity. Thank you!
No, it didn't.
It couldn’t. Same goes for the person finding the link. Same goes for the person assuming I needed to be educated.
Why don’t you agree with my social contract?
It is an implied thing not a tangible written down thing. Which is common in life. For example you are sitting on a bus with your headphones on, it is understood that I don't sit next to you and try to talk to you, unless something out of the ordinary happens and this is critical. In the grocery store you know that your cart goes on the same side of the aisle as you drive on.
All this stuff adds up and it becomes a basket of little rules. Follow them and things will go smoothly, don't and they will go less smoothly. It doesn't mean that your life is going to be even good it doesn't mean nothing bad will happen to you it doesn't mean everyone who breaks it will be punished. It is not even aspirational it is empirical. It is is how human civilization works.
Rules meant to be rules are written. Everything else is just made up.
Please provide evidence for your claim.
You just broke my rules.
name checks out. shitty troll tho. be funnier.
We are not the same. Added to bio to avoid confusion.