It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: one4all
a reply to: chr0naut
I apologise if I came across as accusing you of being arrogant, I was simply trying to point out a dynamic habit of objectifying ideologies to support our perspectives many of us have adopted in our everyday lives.
Your written and other expressions are excellent.
My intention was to illustrate impact intentional or non-intentional, of specific conversational dynamic patterns most of us utilise but overlook in our daily lives.
A diety of god concept is created and objectified to represent our human emotons,in objectifying our emotions we give ourselves a sense of control.
If we want to control human emotions enmasse the best way to do it is to objectify them within a diety or god concept.
The diety of god concept is representative of Hunmanitys struggle to understand self-awareness and our emotional processes.To self-police and to control and bring into syncronicity many individual emotionally catalysed realitys.
God is Man,it is a parable.
originally posted by: one4all
a reply to: chr0naut
Please do not correct people on their punctution or writing skills,it is a suppressionist action which denotes that your or the STATUS QUOS reading comfort level is more important than what another PERSON has to say.
Your comfort zone is not important.
What the poster has to say is important.
Whether you read what the poster writes is not important to anyone but you.
Starting a communication by initiating a Greater Power dynamic and trying to get the upper hand is very religous like,par for the course for people taught to manipulate things to get what they want truth not being the Primary driver but protocal instead.
What you are doing to everyone with this Religous Holier than thou tactic of trying to set the conversational tone by instigating the greater Power dynamic,really upsets me,moreso than the spelling,or punctuation errors should upset you according to your status quo.
In all fairness you may not even know you are doing it,but now you do.
Immediatly allying yourself with a percieved ideological Geater Power while you disenfranchise another person at the same time by proxy is called manipulation.
You cannot objectify the ideological status Quo,so that you may defend it and in the process engage it as an ally.
The unwritten,agreed upon STATUS QUO says using spell-check is the right thing to do.
The Status Quo is a cumulatively agreed upon reality that uses numbers and peer pressure dynamics to attempt to "objectify" itself.
Just because a majority SAY and AGREE that something is a reality does not make it so.
Religons and Status Quos are identical,they are cumulatively agreed upon ideologys,they are not concrete and carry no tangible form which can justifiably be defended or indoctrinated.
Religons try to objectify themselves so that their members can endorse the idea of defending them as if they were an object or a reality or something tangible.This is what you did with the Status Quo at the beginning of your post,you tried to use it as a weapon a dynamic chess piece in a simple communication with someone else,you cheated,you tried to get an adge.
You tried to make the Staus Quo a concrete reality,when it isnt,reality says that as long as we can reasonably understand someones post thenn it is good enough for us all,if YOU have a problem keeping up with the MAJORITY of us who CAN understand posts with inaccurate punctuation and spelling,then pleae ASK FOR HELP,I am sure most people will try to help you out,but please dont try to put the impacts of your own shortcomings upon some innocent poster trying to share their ideas with us all.
This is a perfect example of how religons manipulate by using high numbers of members to attempt to OBJECTIFY an idea which CAN NEVER be objectified,and they do this because as soon as you can find a way to objectify something then you can justifiably ask your members to fight defend and die for it.
It may seem like a harmless dynamicI am outlining here but it is the deadliest dynamic known to Humanity and has killed more people than anything else Humanity has done.
You cannot artificially objectify an idea in order to enable artificially catalysed defense of it by calling upon the support of the Status Quo membership who are nearby,by immediatly pointing out an infraction upon the status Quo in the punctuation mistakes and requesting remediation with the support of the status quo now engaged and on your side you effectively BULLIED from your first comment forward.
Sorry for pointing this dynamic out and it is nothiig personal to you it is just that this is the Primary tactic religons and other manipulative structures most commonly use to control the masses,they think it is funny to use us against ourselves,to manipulate us using things like peer pressure and status quo ideologys.
And I am not trying to make a point either,I really prefer to read past punctuation and spelling errors putting primary focus and value on the person and their ideas,looking for the positive,not immediatly looking for the negative and then trying to manufacture sympathetic dynamics that allow me to defend that negative beginning.
And if a negative comment over a punctuation or spelling error makes someone not post again,i would rather have the person harping on the Staus Quo perspective not post again and have the unknown perspective heard.