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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Defining Our Relationship and Moving Forward

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 11:19 AM
link   
When any relationship experiences hardship it's a good idea to take a step back to define our roles. We do this in an effort to determine if we're in compliance with our objectives.

For instance, if a boyfriend and girlfriend are arguing it's likely they'll have the talk about their status as boyfriend / girlfriend, and then determine how each party can better assume that role.

We can all agree our political relationship is symbiotic, simply meaning we're two parties existing within the same system. However I believe the left has misconstrued our symbiotic relationship as mutualistic while it's actually parasitic.

A mutualistic relationship occurs when two parties work together for the betterment of the whole. Instead i believe we exist within a parasitic relationship in which one party benefits and the other is harmed.

I believe most all contentious issues from education to healthcare to gun violence exemplify this parasitic relationship. For instance democrats call for increased funding to urban schools demonstrates one party's intention to benefit while the other is harmed.

Now that we have properly identified our relationship we can better define our roles.

Do you think we've developed a parasitic relationship?

Does the proper identification of our relationship better determine our roles? If so, how?


edit on 30-11-2016 by AlphaIron because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: AlphaIron

I've been compelled over the years to label it as things such as parasitic.

Then in recent months, it finally occurred to me that its all a big case of textbook Sadomasochism. Initially I wasn't exactly sure about the definitions related to it, I just knew it was to do with "bondage" which is the fetishized 'art' of dominance & obedience. As such, it took me something like a couple weeks of pondering the overall idea, google around here & there, to even figure out how to even write that piece. But as I dug in it just went deeper and deeper and Yahzee!



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I'm interested to read your thread in full when I have the time but briefly I'd argue sadomasochism presents itself within the leadership of any group. Simply sadomasochists aspire to lead in an effort to punish, and as a result any group not led by sadomasochists soon will.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a reply to: AlphaIron

Well the sadists are the 'dominators' (the politicians), and the masochists are the 'dominated' (the public).

I had meant to mention above, that said sadists also tend to be sociopathic / psychopathic, to further cement the general reality of the idea.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Very well I did not know that despite high school Latin and I'm in full agreement. Still within the realm of left right masochists exists parasitic behavior which I think would define the relationship of the factions of plebs.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 05:30 PM
link   
I didn't mean to thread kill ya. This overall thing has proven surprisingly taboo around here!





top topics
 
2

log in

join