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.

 

On being "divisive", and other nonsense.

page: 1
12

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2016 @ 06:18 PM
link   
I cringe whenever someone charges a political opponent for being “divisive”. For some reason I always picture one man parting large swaths of individuals like the Red Sea, risking his life against a stampede of people whom only wished this daring magician would allow them to embrace one another.

Perhaps they would prefer the opposite. Sure, a little unity of the sort we expect from those with a child-like need for belonging is beneficial in certain situations; but in politics and ideological matters, unity could only ever lead to a nullity of mediocre consensus, “truth” no longer grappling with error, but the party line grappling with whatever dissent and criticism may come its way.

And I hate the type of unity they desire, probably something along the lines of the “solidarity” or “harmony” found naturally in herds of animals and insects, yet which can only ever be demanded of large groups of human strangers through coercion or bribery or oppression. The utopian notion that people should be walking hand-in-hand towards some vanguard party or harmonic unity with people they have never met, nor company they would ever keep, could only ever be for the sake of some self-serving gratification. The demand for unity among otherwise disparate individuals and peoples is usually a sign that their thinking is mob-derived.

Worse, and more suspect than this, is the claim that certain political campaigns are using “divisive rhetoric”, as if rhetoric itself was able to sever off from one another entire groups of people like a fence or barricade, which they have no choice but to break down with force. Looking around for any such barrier, one only sees their political opponent innocently speaking his mind to listeners. Meanwhile, the very same people claiming “divisive rhetoric” are usually too busy pointing out the “division” to notice that it is they who are imposing it.

Their charge isn’t a statement of blame any more than it is a confession of guilt. I mean this because, since rhetoric cannot erect anything more than a metaphorical barrier, and since being “divisive” in these cases doesn’t involve any actual dividing, it is always themselves who end up isolating their preferred mob (whom they claim to speak for but could never represent) from the speaker heretofore mentioned.

Clearly, in the absence of any actual division, whatever division they speak of is occurring only in their thoughts and nowhere else, perpetrated by the only one who matters. They must realize this at some point in their imaginings, because it isn’t long before they act out their fantasies against their opponents and the speaker in a divisive manner, if only to make it real.

In conclusion, the criticizing of a speaker for his “divisive rhetoric” is as vacuous as criticizing the Pied-Piper for his seductive music. It belongs in fable.

Thank you for reading,

LesMis
edit on 2-6-2016 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 2 2016 @ 06:25 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

If if if if if if if if if we fall for a bunch of um...okie doke



posted on Jun, 2 2016 @ 07:04 PM
link   
Unity is never a bad thing so I'm not sure why you think it would be. The problems with the world today are largely caused by divisiveness, whether it be from religion, gender, sexuality, race, nationality, political affiliation, etc. our differences are used to divide us by those in power. The last thing those in high places want is for us to unify together.



posted on Jun, 2 2016 @ 07:05 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

This was totally divisive, and I enjoyed it.

S&F



posted on Jun, 2 2016 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

If the proposed solution to unity is my intellectual and individual liberty which must be forced to stifling social conformity, then you can take your proposed unity and shove it.



posted on Jun, 2 2016 @ 10:39 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

You should know that God wishes everyone to come to complete unity. No liberties have to be sacrificed in order for unity to be achieved.



posted on Jun, 3 2016 @ 03:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: [post=20805243]3NL1GHT3N3D1[/post

You should know that God wishes everyone to come to complete unity. No liberties have to be sacrificed in order for unity to be achieved.



Does God exist


Can you prove it


In nature and naturally *Birds of a feather flock together*

UNITY? Does it really NEED to be acheived


Can you put a square peg into a round hole



posted on Jun, 3 2016 @ 05:29 AM
link   
Perhaps. It depends.
I tend think there is a time for everything.


There are times of expansion and loose bonds, in which a creative flow is happening, a collective brainstorm, in which individuals are all bubbling like oil in a pan, with ideas. Memes being lanced out, competing, neutralizing each other, achieving victory, dying... growing, developing, falling apart...

Then there are times for collective force, for revolutions, for strong and substantial movements only possible through a collective force focused in concert.

Whether I am speaking of a nation, or an individual, I see it this way.

I love the many different ideas, emotions, perspectives and intents that are within me. I think they are creative forces. They make me talk to myself, or let another person carry the projection of one side and I do the other, in order to let them battle. Whether searching for a compromise between the two, or a decisive duel, with intent for action, I think these different parts are valuable and do not want to make them all into one voice... at least not ALL the time.

Because there are moments when my own unity of purpose and vision is necessary, for quick, strong and accurate action.
The ambiguities need to be oppressed in those moments. There will be parts of my psyche that will have to "suck it up" and accept this is what "we're" doing, in the name of the greater good. Like cells in my body agreeing to forego their particular desires for a short period in order to save the body from dying.

I don't think either of these states needs to be permanent, neither on a national scale or inside an individual.

I think that there are times some people feel there is a current need for a big and strong action carried out by a collective concert. That means they are going to try to bring people together to do that.

It also means that who or whatever is part of the old systems threatened will scramble to try to avoid that, and keep everyone separated and boiling, perhaps being creative, or perhaps just needlessly boiling away until the pan is dry, on issues fo no importance that can never lead to an action of any force.

I kinda of think that at this time, it is possible that in the US, the current powers that be have reason to be concerned and to try to stimulate a lot of discord, or lack of congruity, amongst the American public. The internet provoked a rise in awareness all over the world, as individuals gained access to information, and it is causing uprisings world wide.
The US has only been able to avoid it so far because of their values set in place which keep people from joining forces (through a fear of being the cursed herd member- ironically insuring you remain an esteemed member of the herd which denies it is),
and now, in stirring up stupid debates which inflame peoples emotions, keep them arguing endlessly, and keep them distracted from the problems growing in the current decrepit systems.
edit on 3-6-2016 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2016 @ 07:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: ketsuko

You should know that God wishes everyone to come to complete unity. No liberties have to be sacrificed in order for unity to be achieved.


God's idea of unity and the world's idea of unity are also two different things.



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 09:30 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Hey LesMis

3 threads in 1 month - much to digest. I feel like Christmas has come early. Thanks for waking me up again. All I see on ATS lately is Trump/Clinton or Transgenderism.

Time to shake off the cobwebs and chew on a literary smorgasbord.

thank you



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 09:40 AM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

hmmm so we move from a thread on divisiveness used as a weapon by the Political babbling class; to then invite god to the party? I see... (shakes head)



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: eletheia

Can you see the end of your nose, or hear your inner ear hair moving herein?

If a wheelchair falls in a forest does anyone smell it.

Cogito ergo sum



Can you put a square peg into a round hole


yes, a lug nut on my wheel hub.

your turn



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko




God's idea of unity and the world's idea of unity are also two different things.


I see, so therefore we weren't made in its image, or as above so below.
What do we know of gods idea of unity?

Well there was a rebellion in heaven and humanity was made to pay the price.

I call for the arrest of these imposter gods/demiurges.



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 10:06 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

How I see it is when a new plan for unity is called, division is automatic because the old group will not accept it, nor will those that have diverse attitudes. What are the causes of division? How do we define whose attitudes are wrong?



new topics

top topics



 
12

log in

join