Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Be a good puppet...Let's all buy into the us -vs- them paradigm. It'll be fun...

page: 4
57
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by seagull
 


I too have noticed this ad infinitum. It was so bad during the election that I took a seven month hiatus from ATS to 'get my head straight'! And it hasn't changed since... While there are a number of members here who can intelligently discuss and debate an issue with an open mind and ponder the position of the 'other side', there are also a great number of members who ram their fingers in their ears and shout 'LALALALALA' at the top of their lungs! If you were to check out my 'friends' list, you would find several members whom don't see things the way I do, and we often disagree, we at least show each other respect and debate the issues in a civil manner. Sometimes they make me look at something differently, and sometimes I make them look at something differently.

There are also those who throw out 'bogus' data, or twist data to fit their needs, and calling them out on it is just useless. Instead of an exchange of ideas in a civil manner, they prefer to initiate flame wars, which kills the thread. It's a shame, really.

Another member explained this well on another thread of mine... I can't remember which thread, so I'll have to paraphrase:

Some hold ideas, and ideas can change with the available data. But others cling to beliefs, and beliefs are deep held and cannot be changed no matter what data is provided.

Those who hold onto beliefs use obvious bogus 'sources' to verify their position, which one can find such sources on any subject on the internet. The internet is NOT the bastion of truth, by any stretch of the imagination! I would be willing to bet that most of the 'factual' information on the web is in fact false. One must look at any 'source' with a critical eye and challenge the logic of such 'sources' before embracing them.

Us v. Them is as old as mankind. The real shame is that in one way or another, we all get sucked into it!




posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by mikerussellus
 


Moral absolutes? Yes, I believe that there are. With this proviso, many of our moral absolutes are drawn from our cultural background...that doesn't make them invalid, or wrong in comparison to others morals. It makes them different. This is where the trouble begins, and where the solution, to my eyes anyway, lies.

Bear with me here, my thinking might get a little strange.

Morals are life lessons passed down to us through our family elders, teachers, and others who have profound effects upon us even as adults. They are also, based on what society at large thinks about a certain type of behaviour...murder is generally considered a taboo, for example. Stealing, Sexual Assault, things of that nature, are as well taboo behaviour.

I don't see morals as what seperate us, but as something that should bring us together, though some might attempt to make us believe that morals differ from person to person, country to country, race to race. Save for some truely abberant individuals, or groups that believe otherwise, morals are what build a society.

Don't know whether I answered your question or not...



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikerussellus
...We have to look beyond what is politically expedient and look at what is morally right.

At least, that's the side I'm choosing.


The problem with this is that one person's morals are not those of another. Then there is the fact that morals change. For example, slavery was once 'morally right'. Forced segregation was once 'morally right'. Forced conversion to a specific religion or death was once 'morally right', in fact, it was a 'moral imperative'. Arranged marriages were once 'morally right'. These things were all accepted by society at the time, but now they are considered 'immoral'.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


He has a point though...

Our morals are what we use to decide right and wrong... Without that basis, you have social anarchy.

Morals are different in different cultures...but for the most part they are recognizable even to outsiders.

That's my take on it, anyway.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by seagull
 


Don't get me wrong, there are definite morals, rights and wrongs if you will. No one disagrees that murder is morally wrong, or rape, or child molestation, etc. But some things fall into that sticky 'gray area', that someday we will be judged as 'immoral' for holding onto them and classifying them as 'moral'. Socialism is an example of this. It is neither right or wrong, moral nor immoral, it is merely a description of a societal system. How it's used, however, can be right or wrong. For instance, we have 'socialized' education, fire protection, police protection, national defense, etc. While one might debate whether some of these systems are working (education, for example), no one would say that they are 'immoral'. Does that clarify my point here?

[edit on 8-9-2009 by JaxonRoberts]



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by chuckk
This is no longer about Democrats vs Republicans but where we are along the line between Totalitarianism and Anarchy as a country.


My vote is Anarchy...for a while. Long enough to burn off the anger, punish those that have been enslaving us and then, when all the rats lie dead in the street, begin the cleaning process. Republican and Democrat, liberal and conservative, side by side, sweeping the vermin into the gutter where they came from.

Then...and only then, can we look at the other "sweepers", smile and walk off into the sunset of a new country, ready for growth and living in peace. Kinda a nice thought...huh?



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by open_eyeballs
reply to post by OhZone
 


I completely disagree. Us vs. Them is propogated by those who wish to divide because it makes for good profit margins. Makes for good enemies. Makes for good ratings, and makes for damn fine religious rhetoric...

I dont believe it is natural at all...



Can you name a time when it was not us-vs- them?
There have always been territory wars.
There is also us vs the environment.
and finding food -vs- starving.
The opposites will always be with us.
It is a fundamental law of physics.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 08:43 PM
link   
All true.

Many members here are simply too gullible, racist, ignorant and paranoid.
All they can do is deny it.

So much for being delusional and thinking they are "beating the system" by reading conspiracy theories.
They are still mere parasitic puppets being used to spread hatred, confusion and paranoia.

Tools for the Plutocrats, these fools are.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by thebeast2012
 


I don't get it. It's something to point out the problem, It's quite another to offer a solution.

So what is the solution, just be apathic while others redefine the world for us while we sit on our hands fearful of being accused of playing into the hands of some enslaver?



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 07:31 AM
link   
reply to post by useless eaters
 


People say we have to "change the system", but unfortunately, that's out of our control. However, there are some things we can do. A perfectly good next step for us was given in this post, but was virtually ignored. I can't help wonder if it was because people didn't read it or if they just aren't willing to take that step. Sadly, I suspect the latter. People are just too attached to their political parties and ideologies to let them go.

We the people make up the political parties, and we the people CAN make them irrelevant.

There have got to be some more things we have control over that we can actually do. I propose (along with the suggestion mentioned above) that we STOP seeing people as political parties. I don't know how many times I've given a response and been told something like, "Of course a Democrat would say something like that" or "All you liberals think alike" or whatever... The funny thing is that I have never been a Democrat and while many of my opinions lean to the liberal side, I also have many conservative beliefs. If, in our discussions here, we got away from seeing everyone on the board with a D or R behind their name, we could have some fantastic discussions about policy - We could talk about what's IN the health care bill instead of "death panels" and "rationing"... We could talk about what's going on in our government instead of what religion the president is or how much we hate Pelosi, etc...

I mean, stop putting people into boxes because of their opinion on one subject. Stop making them the enemy just because they don't share your opinion on a particular subject. Stop compartmentalizing people based on their political leanings. Stop hating the "other team".

[edit on 9-9-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 



A perfectly good next step for us was given in this post, but was virtually ignored. I can't help wonder if it was because people didn't read it or if they just aren't willing to take that step.


I didn't respond to it but did read it and considered it a wonderful idea. During the election, I did not vote along party lines. But I noticed a 'postcard' type letter was sent to my home that was stamped 'voted Republican' or something along those lines.

That really opened my eyes as to how they do things. Because I am a registered republican, they assumed that is how I voted? Since votes are private, they cannot possibly know how I voted but due to my registration, they thought they knew.

So I will definitely be looking into changing my registration. Just because we didn't acknowledge the post doesn't mean we're not in agreement.


[edit on 9/9/2009 by AshleyD]



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
That really opened my eyes as to how they do things. Because I am a registered republican, they assumed that is how I voted? Since votes are private, they cannot possibly know how I voted but due to my registration, they thought they knew.


Yes. As long as we're so solidly attached to a party, we're pegs on a board. We have a color (red or blue) and a number, but not a thinking mind. And that's what they count on. I don't want them to be able to "count on" my vote. I want them to have to work for it.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 09:56 AM
link   
Its people like you, and threads like this, that are going to be fueling the fires of change, great thread.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by thebeast2012
 



Many members here are simply too gullible, racist, ignorant and paranoid.
All they can do is deny it.



What are we denying? I'm many things, gullible isn't one of them. Nor racist. I'lll plead to being guilty of ignorance of many things, we all are...and paranoid, that too. Oh well, 2 outta 4...

I am very curious to know what it is we're denying.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 



Because I am a registered republican, they assumed that is how I voted?


If you think about it, that's a good thing, Ash. That means contrary to some beliefs, your vote is secret...cool thing, huh?

In the almost 30 years of voting, I don't think I've ever voted a straight ticket...come close a few times, but not through intent to do so. I just liked one parties candidates better than the others...



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 11:04 AM
link   
Love this thread, its much better than all of the Alex Jones madness that's been going on.

One thing which I think most people on this forum would agree with is the danger bankers pose to society. Their massive greed and parasitic practices causes problems to so many people. Right now they have far to much power.

Anyway off my soapbox, if you want a real look at these special interests check this out.

Top contributors for Obama + McCain look similar?

Break the Left - Right prison.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by seagull
 


I don't get your logic here. Can you explain? If they assume that a registered Republican is going to vote Republican (which is overwhelmingly the case), how is that a secret?



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


It means that they just assumed that, they wouldn't have sent the card, I would suppose, if they had known Ash had voted a mixed ticket.

That help any? My brain is a little frazzled at the moment...long, long night at work...



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 11:14 AM
link   
Yes, it's an assumption, but a pretty safe one. After all, the majority of registered party members vote with their party, so BEFORE the election, the candidate counts on the votes of the registered party member.

If we all shook off our party affiliation in our registration, they wouldn't know WHAT to assume. They'd have to try a lot harder to be assured of the majority of the vote.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


The assumption is, you're right, a valid one in most cases.






top topics



 
57
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join