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: ketsuko
a reply to: Vroomfondel
And look at how much people who have been pushed onto opposing sides tend to dehumanize the ones on the other side. Once you start thinking of the opponent as the "other" rather than another human being, it gets that much easier to rationalize all kinds of actions against him or her.
Why do you think they used to much racial propaganda during WWII? It wasn't because we'd suddenly become a land of racists so much as it was because they had to stave off war weariness, and nothing will start doing that faster than warm and fuzzy feelings for the people who are doing their best to conquer you.
So you have all those old disney cartoons where Donald Duck is drawn like a ridiculous Japanese stereotype among others.
originally posted by: SolAquarius
I'm almost certain that despite this thread rasing the question of divisive and polarising issues being a distraction, that ATS will continue to argue over trivial and polarising issues.
Here on ATS I have seen several similar threads rasing this issue and they never seem to change anything here.
I guess folks like to argue about trivial and polarising things.
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: FyreByrd
Fix the 'blaming' in yourself. Take action however you can instead of waiting for someone else to do it. Start realizing that you (and you and you and me) are part of the problem in some fashion or another and, at the same time, have some small part of the solution.
What part of my answer was over your head?
The problem is that people "take action" as you put it and use the government as a cudgel to compel others to think, feel, live, do, etc., as they prefer them to instead of allowing them to go their own way in life.
Were I to "take action" and move to use the government, how would I not become another part of the current problem? At what point would I cease to be just another person seeking to use the power of government as a cudgel to compel others to do as I would prefer them to.
Be honest now, if I ever were able to mobilize enough people to take that sort of power, how would you feel? I think you know my opinions on things well enough by now to get a general gist of what would happen were I anointed god-queen of the US.
Imagine being compelled to live your life exactly the way I think people ought to live. Then tell me how much you want me involved in taking power in this country.
The only reason you dare to suggest it is because you don't believe I or others like me have any shot.
However, imagine a government that concerned itself less with everyone. That only took care of making sure we didn't kill each other, steal from other, and defended our borders ... basically the things spelled out specifically in the COTUS, not the sugar daddy, bestower of special dispensation it has become. Maybe then it would matter a lot less to everyone just exactly who was in charge of what and what @sshole every had.
originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: angeldoll
I like to take the positive side of things, but I wonder though, if we will be able to stop this. Look how far we have fallen already. Look at the atrocities we enact against each other, and evil as they may be, are only in limited confrontations. Imagine if a point is reached were a fairly significant percentage of the population is pushed over the line. Short fused reactions, aka trigger events, are a fairly common thing. But large scale unorganized efforts by masses are not triggered events, they are built up over long periods of time. Sure, there will be a straw that breaks the camel's back, but the whole movement as a mass has been building for a long time now. You can only stretch a rubber band so far. And when it snaps back its going to leave a mark. I think this one is going to sting for a while.
The answer to each of these questions lies in “child logic”–a term that I have coined to describe logic that is hijacked by emotion. I use this term without any attempt at disparagement. Rather, it emphasizes that regardless of age or intelligence, we at times engage in magical thinking associated with earlier development. Such logic fuels unrealistic expectations and heightens the potential for destructive anger. It’s as if the emotional brain and the rational brain are not effectively communicating with each other. Whether emotions override logic or the rational brain is ill prepared to correct the surge of emotion. The result is impaired judgment.
That document traces its roots to a January 6, 1941, speech by U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt, in which he insisted that everyone was entitled to four freedoms: freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want and freedom from fear.
the freedom from want calls attention to issues of official corruption or certain groups being guaranteed more of their country’s resources than others.
Pervasive fear can “cut generations out of society” through malnutrition or being unable to send children to school. Put another way, she added, lives lived in fear miss out on countless opportunities and can never recover those losses, even if peace is restored.
All too often, child-logic infuses our expectations with emotions rooted in our wishes and hopes, insufficiently tamed by the facts of reality. It is child logic that supports beliefs such as: “Life should be fair”–when “Life just is”; that good efforts should always yield rewards–when they sometimes don’t; and that we should be able to control all aspects of our lives. In effect, it is child logic that may at times convince us we should always get what we want, that others should act as we believe they should, and that we should not have to suffer–even though all of us suffer.
Letting go of unrealistic expectations doesn’t mean the passive acceptance of what is. It may involve recognizing that certain expectations are aspirational rather than attainable. Or, letting go can free us to consider alternative strategies for increasing the likelihood of their satisfaction.
originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
They're all SUBJECTIVE, meaning they are dangling these subjective and inconsequential issues in our face so that we argue over things that will change nothing all while their divide and conquer psyop rolls along full speed ahead.
They do this to condition us to accept their stories at face value.
Then, when they tell us baby incubators are being unplugged, most people believe it.