InsanePeopleFacebook

2660 readers

5 users here now

Screenshots of people being insane on Facebook. Please censor names/pics of end users in screenshots. Please follow the rules of lemmy.world

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Lifecoach5000@lemmy.world

BonesOfTheMoon@lemmy.world

252

Not today sovcit. (lemmy.world)

submitted 9 months ago by BonesOfTheMoon@lemmy.world to c/insanepeoplefacebook@lemmy.world

61 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Hobo@lemmy.world 36 points 9 months ago (2 children)

A sticker wouldn't count according to sovcit logic. Basically if it's not pants on head insane chicken scratch then it isn't binding under their "wet ink" belief. Also something about red ink is special, but I haven't quite nailed that down yet. It doesn't help that sovcit lore is harder to trace than time travel in the movie Primer, and has more continuity issues than the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise.

[–] a9cx34udP4ZZ0@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

I would assume it's because most government forms require you to fill them out in blue or black in. Being the edgelords they are, they picked a color of ink that would be rejected by most government institutions.

Nope, crazier than that:

They use red ink (or sometimes even blood) instead of blue or black ink to signify to the evil shadow government and their puppet judges that it is the true flesh-and-blood person who is signing a particular document and not the corporate shell.

[–] Hobo@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

Oh man, I had gone down a red herring with it not long ago. I figured it was because of the original Hungarian Blood Oath/Contract. Good info! I'll update my sovcit lore accordingly.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_oath_(Hungarians)

[–] massacre@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I'm almost afraid to ask, but I keep seeing this shit... what is so magical about a "wet ink" signature? Ink dries fast, so I presume this means it's the original signture and not a copy of whatever contract (or treaty?) in question. I'm so confused.

[–] Hobo@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Really it's just a misunderstanding of contract law. While it's getting less common, because of esignatures growing in popularity, wet ink signatures used to be required on some contracts. Which is really someone just physically making a mark on a physical piece of paper. Basically sovcits decided that "wet ink" applied to everything, which I can assure you is not the case.

Here's some more actual info about wet ink signatures:

https://www.adobe.com/acrobat/business/resources/wet-signature.html

[–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 2 points 9 months ago

A misunderstanding of contract law explains the whole sovereign citizen movement.