It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What do they mean by 'WE' ?

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 05:20 PM
link   
You will listen to talk shows and the interviewer, person being interviewed, or person calling in will say 'we' could do this, 'we' could have done that
or 'we' should do this. The question is who or what is this 'WE' that they are talking about? They act like the USA is and has been a unified nation
with uniied goals and objectives.

Is there an American 'WE'? What does 'WE the People' mean today? What do you who call yourself American mean when you say WE? Do you have common goals and objectives? What are they?
edit on 26-1-2016 by AlienView because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 05:22 PM
link   
a reply to: AlienView

By 'we' they mean 'us' so he is referring to 'them'.

Make sense?



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 05:29 PM
link   
a reply to: AlienView

As good as any response to your question is the answer of "Birds of a feather."

Now, they all have feathers, but some birds has black feathers and some have brown and some have any other variety under nature. So the terms while inclusive, it is not necessarily definitive beyond a certain general degree.


Psst: There no answer to your question, only argument over it which shall probably proceed immediately here upon ATS.



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 05:30 PM
link   
There is no WE . Our government goes against almost everything it is supposed to represent.
WE should get rid of Them.
And have a US for us.



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 05:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: JHumm
There is no WE . Our government goes against almost everything it is supposed to represent.
WE should get rid of Them.
And have a US for us.


OK, then what does US for US mean? Still the same problem,



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 05:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlienView

originally posted by: JHumm
There is no WE . Our government goes against almost everything it is supposed to represent.
WE should get rid of Them.
And have a US for us.


OK, then what does US for US mean? Still the same problem,


It's a collective noun, a part of speech. There isn't any real mystery. It's not philosophical except for the grammar-impaired. It's not worth worrying about.



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 05:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: AlienView

originally posted by: JHumm
There is no WE . Our government goes against almost everything it is supposed to represent.
WE should get rid of Them.
And have a US for us.


OK, then what does US for US mean? Still the same problem,


It's a collective noun, a part of speech. There isn't any real mystery. It's not philosophical except for the grammar-impaired. It's not worth worrying about.


Yes, BUT the USA was founded on philosophical principles - a belief in legal equality, and a whole bunch of guaranteed
rights to maintain this equality for all mind set - Is there anything left of the principles of the the USA? Or is it survival of
the fittest, might makes right and screw anyone who gets in your way?



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: AlienView

Well now, that depends on context.

When a media personality says it, they mean everyone else. It's not like some crappy cable news anchor or talk show host is going to actually do anything, about anything. So depending on the specific context, they could be talking about the people of the nation, just as long as they themselves get to keep doing what they do, and getting overpaid for it.

When a politician says we, it also depends on context. Sometimes, when addressing the congress, or a parliament, or a state function, or another assemblage of high powered persons somewhere in the world, they might be talking about their party, or the national breadth of politicans as a whole, or indeed the entire worlds political figures, especially if they are addressing the UN at the time. Sometimes a politician will address the nation, to rally support for a campaign or a bill. Sometimes they will talk directly to the people to reassure them, that "we are doing all we can to alleviate this crisis". Sometimes that means that they are referring to the political arm, the military, law enforcement, disaster relief teams, and so on.

Too much depends on context, to make an answer to your query easy to digest, leave alone compose!



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 05:56 PM
link   

OK, then what does US for US mean? Still the same problem,


You asked about the word "we" and are apparently having trouble understanding it. It is a collective noun, as in "We, the people," the same way "The United States" was originally a collective noun, a collection of self-governing states that decidedly did NOT agree on everything.

That doesn't mean every individual has to buy off on every detail.


edit on 1/26/2016 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 06:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlienView

originally posted by: JHumm
There is no WE . Our government goes against almost everything it is supposed to represent.
WE should get rid of Them.
And have a US for us.


OK, then what does US for US mean? Still the same problem,


It means we start over and use common sense, shouldn't be a problem if we can get rid of the people who do more damage in our name than they do good.

Or you may understand this better. ...so we can have a united States that is for the people and not the government that sells us out to the highest bidder.
edit on 26060000001 by JHumm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 07:37 PM
link   
We you know, all the voices in my head

nah joking, we as in the ones that feel represented by this opinion AKA not you, you know who you are...

edit on 26-1-2016 by Indigent because: The joke is that the voices in my head never get consensus on anything to refer themselves as a we



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 07:57 PM
link   
Hello again.
I'd say its a time saving device and is dependant on context. It saves having to describe all parties involved.
For example if you said "we need to get to the hospital" I'd assume you meant a small group of those directly involved in an incident.

If you said "We need to leave this planet"/ I'd assume you meant everyone.

And everything in between.

I think you'd call it the hypothetical we, maybe the common we. Anyway we've had a long day . we're getting tired and we need to get some sleep so we'll catch you later.
Cheers.



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 10:33 PM
link   
a reply to: AlienView

We means you and me



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 11:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlienView

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: AlienView

originally posted by: JHumm
There is no WE . Our government goes against almost everything it is supposed to represent.
WE should get rid of Them.
And have a US for us.


OK, then what does US for US mean? Still the same problem,


It's a collective noun, a part of speech. There isn't any real mystery. It's not philosophical except for the grammar-impaired. It's not worth worrying about.


Yes, BUT the USA was founded on philosophical principles - a belief in legal equality, and a whole bunch of guaranteed
rights to maintain this equality for all mind set
- Is there anything left of the principles of the the USA? Or is it survival of
the fittest, might makes right and screw anyone who gets in your way?


Uh, no it wasn't. It was founded on equality for white men. And even then, poor white men had to work to get access to those "equality" rights. The millions of African slaves weren't granted those freedoms, and neither were the millions more women and Native Americans. In fact, the "Indian Removal Act" & "Slave Codes" were direct, legal proof of that inequality. Remember, women were only guaranteed the right to vote when the 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920. The nation's founders were long dead by then.

Edit to Add: As for the OP, the "we" and "us" is just relating to the speaker and their audience. If I was performing a show, I'd say the same thing to the crowd since "we" would all be in the current situation together. People like to feel like they're a part of something; hence "we" & "us".
edit on 26-1-2016 by enlightenedservant because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 12:18 AM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Yes, and you would be right in questioning all the hypocrisy of saying "We the People" and not including all people.

But that was a long time ago and reflects a certain idealism that 'may' have been genuine. Does the American conscious
idealism that created the Constitution and all it is related to still exist? Are we the people of the United States still a people
of ideals or does every Tom, Dick, and Hillary running for office say we to satisfy a political power base lacking any
conscious idealism whatsoever?

You see me using the online persona of an alien species from elsewhere looking to make contact but hesitating, asking
themselfves do these people have any capability of understanding higher orders of existence or are they nothing more than
sophisicated animals seeking power and dominance over each other? If we said we wanted to make contact with your
species and wanted to speak to a representative could you send us someone who could say 'WE' and trust that he really
could speak for your species - OR is your species so fragmented that that would be impossible



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 12:58 AM
link   
a reply to: AlienView

We're far too fragmented so it would be impossible. And the people who want to create a united global faction are usually demonized (which isn't always a bad thing).

Though honestly, hypothetical aliens/inter-dimensional beings would only need to negotiate with the world's powerbrokers. Most citizens are too busy struggling in our daily lives (or enjoying our daily lives) to care. So, if I were advising aliens/inter-dimensional beings, I'd advise them to reveal themselves at a Bilderberg meeting or something similar. Realistically, that would give the best results.

Though idealistically, I'd encourage them to reveal themselves to the world at large, in public, and in numerous flashy ways. Then I'd let the public decide for themselves how to respond. I actually think most of the public would choose celebrities to represent them, but who knows for sure.




top topics



 
1

log in

join