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.

 

Damage Control Via Deflection AKA "Passive Regressive" defensive tactics

page: 1
17
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 09:36 PM
link   
For a while now I've been throwing around the term "Passive Regressive" in regards to when people enter certain hot topics and set about doing "Damage Control Via Deflection".

Note that "Damage Control Via Deflection" is a typical sort of response Binary Mentality types (liberals / conservatives, atheists / christians, etc) often do in response to stories that makes their side look bad. We all do it at some point. And for a lot of stuff oh well it's not really that big of a deal. It's an odd cat & mouse sort of hypocrite / counter-hypocrite game.

Example usage:
A Hillary person starts a thread something along the lines of:
Pence had a private email server.
Then a Trump person comes in and says:
What about Hillary's servers duh.

But then we have the dark topics, and here is where my "Passive Regressive" concept comes into play.

Items of behavior and culture so sick and heinous that there should be no meeting in the middle with said cat & mouse hypocrite / counter-hypocrite game; there should be nothing but brutal condemnation in response no matter your binary mentalist position.

Example topics:
Open hate crime atrocities (assault, murder, rioting, etc), and stuff along these lines such as Sharia Law mandated "honor killings", child rape, female genital mutilation, wholesale barbaric oppression of females, genders, other sects, infidels and so on.

Example usage:
Someone posts a thread titled:
Islam in government: 9yo girls ready for sex, women must marry rapists and its about a politician proclaiming these Sharia Law's.
Next:
Several people come in and start derailing the thread making the issue about how other religious texts might happen to have certain passages not unlike the ones that today in the modern world hundreds of millions of Islamists openly live by.

Running "Damage Control Via Deflection" routines like this deflects outrage away from the actual target subjects. It effectively kills criticism of them. And it allows it to persist. That is, it protects and nurtures the types perpetrating such wickedness.

In these barbarically hypocritical "Passive Regressive" type subjects, aside from the targets of the topics themselves, protecting and nurturing such behaviors is about the only thing I can think of that really compares to the barbarisms themselves.
edit on 5-4-2017 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 09:41 PM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

edit on 4-5-2017 by worldstarcountry because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 09:42 PM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

It is Bush's Fault!




posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 09:46 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker




It is Putin's Fault!
There I fixed it for you



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 09:50 PM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I like your "passive aggressive" example below where you've reversed the order of events to imply that a Trump supporter is catching a Hillary supporter at being hypocritical. Thereby making the Trump supporter seem like the smarter of the two.



Example usage:
A Hillary person starts a thread something along the lines of: Pence had a private email server.
Then a Trump person comes in and says: What about Hillary's servers duh.


Regardless of who's actually smarter, the Trump supporter or Hillary supporter, I'm curious why you felt you had to reverse the order of events. Because it was Hillary's email server that was first exposed then later Pence's server was exposed which shows the obvious Hypocrisy of all the Trump supporters who railed against Hillary and gave a pass to Pence.

That was the actual order of events as we all know. I find it interesting that our of all examples you could have used you chose that one but needed to use it in a way as if to imply Trump supporters as not being total hypocrites in that situation when in fact they were when you keep the timeline of which came first in order.

I'm sure you'll disagree and will have all manner of excuses as to why you think I'm incorrect. But I did find that curious that you would do that within the topic context of talking about deflection.



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 09:56 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Personally I don't think anything started or addressed on these boards will ever change anything. None of us have a bully pulpit.

As an aside, I wouldn't use Atheist/Christian as an example of binary thinking. Pretty sure Atheists don't believe in any deities, not just those in the Christian ethos.



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 10:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I like your "passive aggressive" example below where you've reversed the order of events to imply that a Trump supporter is catching a Hillary supporter at being hypocritical. Thereby making the Trump supporter seem like the smarter of the two.



Example usage:
A Hillary person starts a thread something along the lines of: Pence had a private email server.
Then a Trump person comes in and says: What about Hillary's servers duh.


Regardless of who's actually smarter, the Trump supporter or Hillary supporter, I'm curious why you felt you had to reverse the order of events. Because it was Hillary's email server that was first exposed then later Pence's server was exposed which shows the obvious Hypocrisy of all the Trump supporters who railed against Hillary and gave a pass to Pence.

That was the actual order of events as we all know. I find it interesting that our of all examples you could have used you chose that one but needed to use it in a way as if to imply Trump supporters as not being total hypocrites in that situation when in fact they were when you keep the timeline of which came first in order.

I'm sure you'll disagree and will have all manner of excuses as to why you think I'm incorrect. But I did find that curious that you would do that within the topic context of talking about deflection.


This is a good example of the type of behavior that this thread is about.
edit on 2017-04-05T22:02:01-05:002201705America/Chicago4 by c2oden because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 10:05 PM
link   
a reply to: c2oden

I'm not deflecting from the topic though. I'm actually examining it closer and the examples that are given by the OP himself.

How is that a deflection??? I am just trying to point out a bit of irony within the topic itself.



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 10:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Lab4Us

What does that mean to think in binary in this context???

Why does an Atheist think in binary, or not think in binary and a Christian does??

What does that even mean???

Give an example???



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 10:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: c2oden

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I like your "passive aggressive" example below where you've reversed the order of events to imply that a Trump supporter is catching a Hillary supporter at being hypocritical. Thereby making the Trump supporter seem like the smarter of the two.



Example usage:
A Hillary person starts a thread something along the lines of: Pence had a private email server.
Then a Trump person comes in and says: What about Hillary's servers duh.


Regardless of who's actually smarter, the Trump supporter or Hillary supporter, I'm curious why you felt you had to reverse the order of events. Because it was Hillary's email server that was first exposed then later Pence's server was exposed which shows the obvious Hypocrisy of all the Trump supporters who railed against Hillary and gave a pass to Pence.

That was the actual order of events as we all know. I find it interesting that our of all examples you could have used you chose that one but needed to use it in a way as if to imply Trump supporters as not being total hypocrites in that situation when in fact they were when you keep the timeline of which came first in order.

I'm sure you'll disagree and will have all manner of excuses as to why you think I'm incorrect. But I did find that curious that you would do that within the topic context of talking about deflection.


This is a good example of the type of behavior that this thread is about.


I was going to say the same thing. Classic example. I think he was being serious too.



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 10:11 PM
link   
a reply to: visitedbythem

You know, rather than talk about me like I'm not here. Why not show how it is that I'm deflecting from the topic when I'm literally talking about the topic itself???

I'm not even opposing it. I agree with the topic itself and Bliss. I just find it ironic that his example of "Passive Regressive Deflection" is in itself an attempt at "Passive Regressive Deflection".



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 10:13 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm



I merely thought of a more recent example where the 'exact' same plot device was involved.

Since I wrote this in merely less than 24 minutes straight through one pass first draft, it's a riot that you've figured out how to turn this the most off the top of my head example I had into a partisan bickery podium.

a reply to: mOjOm

Technically, you're diverting the actual topic by going after my rough example and then doing "Damage Control Via Deflection" on that topic.
edit on 5-4-2017 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 10:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: c2oden

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I like your "passive aggressive" example below where you've reversed the order of events to imply that a Trump supporter is catching a Hillary supporter at being hypocritical. Thereby making the Trump supporter seem like the smarter of the two.



Example usage:
A Hillary person starts a thread something along the lines of: Pence had a private email server.
Then a Trump person comes in and says: What about Hillary's servers duh.


Regardless of who's actually smarter, the Trump supporter or Hillary supporter, I'm curious why you felt you had to reverse the order of events. Because it was Hillary's email server that was first exposed then later Pence's server was exposed which shows the obvious Hypocrisy of all the Trump supporters who railed against Hillary and gave a pass to Pence.

That was the actual order of events as we all know. I find it interesting that our of all examples you could have used you chose that one but needed to use it in a way as if to imply Trump supporters as not being total hypocrites in that situation when in fact they were when you keep the timeline of which came first in order.

I'm sure you'll disagree and will have all manner of excuses as to why you think I'm incorrect. But I did find that curious that you would do that within the topic context of talking about deflection.


This is a good example of the type of behavior that this thread is about.



See I told You. He is doing it again



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 10:22 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

That.. has to be one of the oddest replies I've seen in a while.

 


IIS, I think that the behavior you describe is a good indicator of where a given individual has given their focus, and specifically, the areas they ignore in order to maintain that focus. It really highlights the "sports team" mentality that is so pervasive in so many social arenas, or a "rules for thee but not for me" mentality.

It seems so straightforward on the surface, but the psychology and physiology driving it is anything but straightforward. Its so interesting how differently we perceive our own processes versus others. Its the very reason I tend to read my own words from the past and treat it as someone else speaking; it can be profoundly revelatory.

In most cases, I believe it is entirely unintentional but that has no bearing on the impact.



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 10:23 PM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Ok. That's a perfectly fine reason for why you did it.

Your example works fine like that. It just ignores the fact of why Hillary supporters brought it up in the first place.

But anyway, never mind. I thought it was ironic that you used it in that way, that's all. Or that you even chose to use that example at all when you could use others that wouldn't need to be flipped around.

I'm not disagreeing with you though. I get what you're saying and agree. Just thought it was a strange choice of an example to use.



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 10:24 PM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

It seems almost as bad as, if not worse than, the sin itself.

I mean, it's one thing to sin and keep it in the dark because you know it is sin, but when you start trying to bring it into the light and call it good and try to advocate for the behavior, that is when it becomes completely disgusting.



Proverbs 17:
15 He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous, Both of them alike are an abomination to the LORD.



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 10:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: visitedbythem

See I told You. He is doing it again


You're talking about me as if I'm not here again too.



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 10:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lab4Us

As an aside, I wouldn't use Atheist/Christian as an example of binary thinking. Pretty sure Atheists don't believe in any deities, not just those in the Christian ethos.


As an agnostic, I find both sides equally annoying. When I see staunch evangelism, blind faith, fallacious hardlinerology, etc, yep it's a religion.

Example:
Atheists find a flaw in a specific holy text, and then declare that God, gods, etc dont exist because look there I debunked the creation stuff from x religion. That covers blind faith & 'fallacious hardlinerology'. Then when its common for these types to set about stickin it to the other guy their findings, there be evangelism. And for s&g, within the realms of science we have already numerous 'proper' 'religious sects' such as Global Warming Alarmists, Singularians, Transhumanists, etc, many complete with proper prophets, doctrines, doomsday scenarios, promised lands, and so on.
edit on 5-4-2017 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 10:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Ok. That's a perfectly fine reason for why you did it.

Your example works fine like that. It just ignores the fact of why Hillary supporters brought it up in the first place.


For various reasons, I have a keen eye for this sort of thing forever now. I so lost count of all the topics that went the way of deflection this election I never even bothered trying to count them!

And even I'm guilty of this 'sin' on occasion, although I generally try to keep it within a very specific method to minimize cause for shame and atonement (hypocrisy and such is a brutal pet peeve of mine).
edit on 5-4-2017 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 10:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Bleeeeep

It's part of the spectrum of perpetration is what I meant.

Which goes something like:

Gradient A: Defend something.
Gradient cross-section: Promote something.
Gradient B: Perpetrate something.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<<   2 >>

log in

join