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.

 

Professionalism in Political Ideology

page: 1
9

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 06:31 AM
link   
Professionalism in Political Ideology

The election of the President of the United States, arguably the single most powerful job in the world, incites emotional responses we do not experience at any other time.

We are passionate about our beliefs in what is best for this country, that is a natural phenomenon and to be expected. It is also to be expected that we will defend our personal choice for that position with all of our hearts, emotions and abilities.

The being said, what we should try and remember is this.

1. Just because someone supports a candidate that we do not believe in, does not mean they are somehow, all of a sudden, evil. They are the same, sane, reasonable person they were before all of this madness started, and we would do well to remember this when talking with them.

2. People who’s Ideology and/or Choice of Politician differs from us, are NOT Sheeple, Gullible or Flawed in any other aspect. They simply have a different opinion then we do. They are not inherently wrong and we are not inherently right; our opinions just differ.

Finally

All of this will end in a few months and we will hopefully all go back to normal here at our beloved ATS. No matter which candidate gets the position, we will all remain members and we will all continue to associate, discuss and debate other issues that will all of a sudden be as important as this election. At least they will once again seem that way.

When emotions run high, we can say things that we may regret when all of this is over. Remember that words can hurt and we do not really want to hurt someone who’s only fault is a different opinion from ours. The people, who support other candidates, are people too and they deserve your respect.

We can all argue our positions, debate other members and stand strong on our ideologies, without hurtful and derogatory words. I know that the Terms and Conditions are in place to protect us, but we all know and have experienced the subtle ways of insulting others that are within these guidelines. We have to keep asking ourselves if we are supporting our position, or just attacking someone that simply does not believe as we do….

These are just my thoughts on the current political atmosphere here and I hope that we can all just remain professional and support our personal choice for POTUS while allowing others to support theirs without condemnation, degradation or insults.

Semper




posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 06:41 AM
link   
Excellent post, semper.


And can we all please retire the word "sheeple" from our vocabulary once and for all? 'Cuz that'd be cool.



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


semperfortis:

With all respect, I would like to offer a mild rebuttal to your statement.

As preface, I want to offer my congratulations on a very well-stated position. I agree, in principle, with what you have said. But I am not certain, in this context, it can be anything more than an ideal towards which we should strive.

I do not believe that it is entirely practicable to reign in the outbursts and emotional disagreements prevalent in ideological discourse.

Given that differences in choice are inevitable, especially given different perspectives, backgrounds, and experiences present within the body of our community. And further, if you will agree, on certain issues there must be a logical correct and incorrect course of action, or policy. If only two opposing options exists, one must be right and the other wrong.

Now I don't want to digress into defining dialectics, but politics is no longer about dialectics. It's about marketing. Marketing and persuasive methods are used to implant ideas, not to explore premises or resolve disputes. In fact, politics as it seems to be exercised in our generation is about actually 'generating' a confrontation to the benefit of one's candidate, for the purpose of catering to the emotional. The emotionality is part-and-parcel of the experience because for the most part, that is what politicians use more than anything else in their 'marketeering'. Reason and professionalism would likely appear distinctly dry and un-engaging in the media circus that has been provided as a venue for political confrontation.

As a result, the red-faced, fist-pounding politician - spouting platitudes and cliche, by your stated standard could be considered quite 'unprofessional.' But the political effectiveness might be unsurpassed depending on the context.

People, taking up the cause of the politician, behave politically - and adopt the same perspective, forgoing the analysis of the underlying premise, but engaging in the same 'tenor' of the message. Antagonists are likely to respond in kind, regardless of the merits of the position they may be defending or espousing.

Controlling such exchanges, or attempting to throttle the intensity of the debate leads to a frustrated resurgence of verbal thrashing, as if the 'illusory' free-speech line had been crossed. Perhaps some may display the reserve to step back, take a breath, and resume on a more civil tone, but it's rare that both parties exercise the restraint.

In any event, and particularly since we have seen such a large increase in membership, the raucous sound of the partisan conflict will be echoing in our ears for some time to come.

I believe railing against this trend is always worth discussing, but expecting it to abate is unrealistic. People who lack the means or literary tools to express themselves will simply use what vocabulary they can to express their emotional reaction to the argument.

I think at times it's more embarrassing for them than it is for the reader.

Along those lines you have the institution of words like 'sheeple' which has divided so many. We are not immune from injury, verbally speaking, and this word has caused a few injuries, that much is evident. I fear that should you successfully 'ban' that word, another will pop up to take it's place.

At any rate, that's my take on this, thank you for the opportunity to respond; and your patience, should you have read my whole boring post.



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 10:49 AM
link   
its very humbling to read your post, semper.

Its strange how we fight against one another over a man who doesnt even know we exist


Its no secret who i stand for, but from now on, when i get angry, im just gona come re-read this post


If i could give 'applause' i would


Thank you.



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 11:36 AM
link   
Well written as usual Semper...

I'm still betwixt and between on which Presidential candidate I'm going to vote for. One thing's for sure though, I'm tired clear through of the sniping already...

If you find yourself getting angry with someone who disagrees with you, step away for a few...'cause like Semper said, it'll be over in a few months, and we all have to live together afterwards. Haven't we had enough of this folly over the past 16 years? Clinton's the antichrist, Bush's the antichrist...yadda yadda yadda. Do we really need four more years of that particular brand of nonsense? I think not.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 02:45 AM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


Of course, semperfortis, as always you are correct.

It takes decorum as well as patience to be able to discuss political ideologies with other differing views of people from various backgrounds. If you can't calmly and cooly discuss things that are important, you have no place in a political discussion.

You know, Archie Bunker types need to stay offline, they just inflame people to madness in that they only see one side, their side, and that's it.

While I do not support the current Administration, I still see both sides of the coin, so to speak. I understand warfare and the occasional necessity of it, as evidenced by the avatar and choice of name here on ATS.

I just know for what I want in life, the Art of War is something I turned into the Art of Peace.

I am a passive-aggressive individual in that I remain calm, cool, and collective, until you attack what I am, and then by that time, you're screwed as I'm already preparing the counter-attack, as well the next seven moves after that, and preparing for the victory I know I will achieve through dedication, knowledge, experience in combination with tactics and strategy.

Peace be unto you, unless you attack, then be forewarned.



[edit on 28-6-2008 by SpartanKingLeonidas]



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 04:36 AM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


Great post semper.

A valuable point that I take from it is we should all try our best to remove our negative emotions when referring to the opposing views of somebody else. Sure, there is nothing wrong with showing passion or "sticking to your guns" but we can all do so in a professional and respectful manner.

Even when debating with somebody who shares an exact opposite viewpoint to you on a certain issue, disrespecting them and underestimating them are two of the worst things you can do.




top topics



 
9

log in

join