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.

 

The Polarization of ATS and the World

page: 1
13
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2010 @ 11:30 AM
link   
The Polarization of ATS and the World



I have been a member of the ATS community for almost five months. In this time, I have contributed to, created, and commented on various threads in varying degrees of topics: everything from politics to the paranormal. I feel that at least in my own right, I have tried to stay as "in the gray" as possible when approaching all of the various topics. I have agreed and disagreed with both sides, trying very hard to keep a calm, cool demeanor, especially in the more hot button topics. It didn't always work this way, and I think we can all agree that we have fallen into this pitfall more than once.

In my arguments, I typically take the time to see both sides of the debate, comment on both, and then bring my own conclusions; this is something that any good debater should be doing from the beginning. I can be a devil's advocate at times, and other times I can agree with the point trying to be made. However, in the past month or two, I have even found myself being polarized on some topics, while others I can keep a very even keel of things. I can be just as bad as a troll, or as innocent as a newborn baby...it depends on the topic at hand. Some anger me to no end (injustice, police brutality, the dirty deals of the government, etc.), while others make me smile and really think (Proto's "All Roads Lead to Rome" thread is the one that really started to make me think, so thank you Proto).

I have felt that at the microcosm level of our little web community, the polarization is just too much to handle. There are posters that use irrational thinking, extremist points, and just plain trolling to push an agenda. At the opposite end of the spectrum there are posters who take all data and facts into account before letting their mind flow into their posts. The political topics are of course the most polarized of them all, and those that do support (to some extent) the government, are adamant about labeling those of us who don't as terrorist, or Un-American, or what have you.

At the macro level, this polarization is seen all over the world. We have right wing and left wing, we have Islam and Christianity, we have pro-green and anti-green, we have Pro-Obama and Anti-Obama, we have Pro-EU and Anti-EU, etc. You get the point.

The point I am trying to hit at is: why is there all of this polarization? What would it take for humanity to finally reach a consensus that we are all in this together?

I have a few theories/scenarios:

1) There is a massive imminent global catastrophe in the making. People start to realize that if we don't work together to somehow save ourselves, that we will all be destroyed in the process. This catastrophe would end everything as we know it, and we would have to pick up the pieces in hopes of saving what we can of our humanity. This would cross religious, country, political, and financial boundaries. Everybody is in it together. If we don't work together, we die. Would this ensure the salvation of humanity? Would we just go right back to fighting about stupid things such as politics and religion after we "clean up" so to speak?

2) An alien race(s) descend onto Earth to show us the error of our ways. They explain to us that we will eventually kill ourselves off we if don't start coming together as a whole. We come together as humans, in a united front to realize the error of our ways (wishful thinking at best). Of course, there is still the problem of religion. Some would say that they are demons willing to trick us. Some would say that they are indeed the angels that have come to save us. Right back to polarization; right back to square one.


As Proto mentioned in his "All Roads Lead to Rome" thread, the main theory behind total global domination is divide and conquer. Well, in my 27 years on planet Earth, I have never seen such animosity, such anger, and well, such polarization.

In my opinion this is the granddaddy of conspiracies. The conspiracy to end all conspiracies. Polarization is the tool in which we lose. Polarization is what humans were perhaps designed for. If we cannot even agree to disagree, then how can we progress as a species? How can humanity survive? Who is pushing this agenda? Or is it simply a human trait that we will never learn to overcome?

It makes me sick thinking about the wars fought over religion, money, power, land, boundaries, etc. Why do we have to have such things if we are all in it together? What would it take for humanity to finally step up and say: We all bleed the same color?

Sit down and think about this for a while. Think about what you have said in response to a thread and figure out if you were really contributing to a greater good, or supporting this polarization, further continuing the left vs right debate. I will be doing the same, as I think it's time that we start coming together in a collective voice rather than fighting against each other.

Once you have thought about this topic for a while, come back with a well thought-out response and let me know what you think. What are your theories about how we as a species could come together as one voice? How can we progress and transcend the polarization that has plagued us for so long?




Peace be with you.

-truthseeker




posted on May, 23 2010 @ 12:09 PM
link   
Freedom of choice, absolute freedom of choice.

I want the freedom to fail or the freedom to succeed.

I want others to have the freedoms that they so choose to embark on their destiny.

Life is a finite endeavor. To not have the choice of ones own convictions, what else is there? To live and toil for existence only?

One has the choice, to force your convictions on another or let them decide their own path. Anything else is tyranny. If one wants Socialism, let that be your choice and your choice alone. If one wants Libertarian, Anarchist or whatever ideals, let that be your choice.

Life should be about choices. Otherwise it is tyranny. The absolute right of Life, Liberty and Property should be everyone's goal. If it is not, you then become the tyrant. If you do not harm another or infringe upon their absolute rights, their is no victim. Without a victim there is no crime. Why do you want to put me in prison for a belief that is so righteous that to argue or debate otherwise can only be obfuscatory in origin.

Polarization OP is the weapon of the tyrant and should always be fought to the extreme. I do not want anything for myself except freedom, why do others have to take that from us?



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by endisnighe
Freedom of choice, absolute freedom of choice.

I want the freedom to fail or the freedom to succeed.

I want others to have the freedoms that they so choose to embark on their destiny.

Life is a finite endeavor. To not have the choice of ones own convictions, what else is there? To live and toil for existence only?

One has the choice, to force your convictions on another or let them decide their own path. Anything else is tyranny. If one wants Socialism, let that be your choice and your choice alone. If one wants Libertarian, Anarchist or whatever ideals, let that be your choice.

Life should be about choices. Otherwise it is tyranny. The absolute right of Life, Liberty and Property should be everyone's goal. If it is not, you then become the tyrant. If you do not harm another or infringe upon their absolute rights, their is no victim. Without a victim there is no crime. Why do you want to put me in prison for a belief that is so righteous that to argue or debate otherwise can only be obfuscatory in origin.

Polarization OP is the weapon of the tyrant and should always be fought to the extreme. I do not want anything for myself except freedom, why do others have to take that from us?


You have no rights, in certain countries you have privileges, but you have no rights.

Life is about choices. You can choose to do anything you want to do.
What you are effectively asking for is choice with no consequences.

Because with absolute freedom of choice (no consequences), the guy that disagrees with you can use his absolute freedom to shoot you (with no consequences) for not agreeing with him.

In other words the "law" may be an ass, but it is certainly better than the alternative.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Noncompatible
 


Your statement may be true, but what do you have to say about the topic at hand?



Peace be with you.

-truthseeker



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by truthseeker1984
 


Well, your age is an indicator of why you are concerned.

The issues that are dividing the country and the world have been almost the same since the beginning of the last century.

Nothing has really changed except for the ability to communicate on a global scale.

The late seventies when I was your age were almost the same issues as we have today.

I suggest you Google "what happened in 1979" and see what comes up.

Mankind some how figures it all out and society goes on.

That is how it has been for millenniums and that is how it will continue.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 12:48 PM
link   
I've been on ATS for over ten years, Sure I've trolled, hated/loved, got warned/ go applause, won/lost arguments, stormed off cursing the mods vowing never to return lol! I've been right/left wing, I've made people smile, made people angry, posted threads for my own amusement, typed passionately on subjects close to my heart, I've lurked and joined. I've seen people stand firm on topics and points of view even when the evidence has gone against them. I've even seen people concede and change their minds but that is rare lol! All in all just as in life I've took part!

For me, its all part of journey. Its life! How can one put themselves in another mans shoes if he hasn't walked down a similar path. We must all play the part of the idiot/genius/hero or villian at one point during our individual journey, to know how it feels to be THAT guy/girl. This is a learning planet, everyone here has something to learn about themselves, some new experience to gain. Its all wheels within wheels my friend, Don't be affected by another mans spiritual path just because it conflicts with yours. Leave your dreams of revolution aside, The status quo is there for a reason.....


Peace be with you all......



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Noncompatible

Originally posted by endisnighe
Freedom of choice, absolute freedom of choice.

I want the freedom to fail or the freedom to succeed.

I want others to have the freedoms that they so choose to embark on their destiny.

Life is a finite endeavor. To not have the choice of ones own convictions, what else is there? To live and toil for existence only?

One has the choice, to force your convictions on another or let them decide their own path. Anything else is tyranny. If one wants Socialism, let that be your choice and your choice alone. If one wants Libertarian, Anarchist or whatever ideals, let that be your choice.

Life should be about choices. Otherwise it is tyranny. The absolute right of Life, Liberty and Property should be everyone's goal. If it is not, you then become the tyrant. If you do not harm another or infringe upon their absolute rights, their is no victim. Without a victim there is no crime. Why do you want to put me in prison for a belief that is so righteous that to argue or debate otherwise can only be obfuscatory in origin.

Polarization OP is the weapon of the tyrant and should always be fought to the extreme. I do not want anything for myself except freedom, why do others have to take that from us?


You have no rights, in certain countries you have privileges, but you have no rights.

Life is about choices. You can choose to do anything you want to do.
What you are effectively asking for is choice with no consequences.

Because with absolute freedom of choice (no consequences), the guy that disagrees with you can use his absolute freedom to shoot you (with no consequences) for not agreeing with him.

In other words the "law" may be an ass, but it is certainly better than the alternative.


Did you miss this part of my comment?-



Life should be about choices. Otherwise it is tyranny. The absolute right of Life, Liberty and Property should be everyone's goal. If it is not, you then become the tyrant. If you do not harm another or infringe upon their absolute rights, their is no victim. Without a victim there is no crime. Why do you want to put me in prison for a belief that is so righteous that to argue or debate otherwise can only be obfuscatory in origin.


Or did you miss it on purpose?



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeker1984
reply to post by Noncompatible
 


Your statement may be true, but what do you have to say about the topic at hand?



Peace be with you.

-truthseeker


The topic at hand. My opinion remains as it has always been. Place three people in a room and you will have a three way fight over the basics, until the strongest will prevails.
Polarization is nothing new. It can be as simple as

Man One :"Cake is the ultimate dessert"
Man Two :" No ! Pie is obviously superior."

After all, beliefs and opinions are like buttholes..........



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


I missed nothing. There is no such animal as a righteous belief that can brook no argument.
For it is an opinion always and only. One which, with ultimate freedom someone could choose to oppose with violence.

All choices have consequences (victims). Any and all choices you can make will impact on others, even choosing to die.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Noncompatible
 


I see you use the polarization well my friend.

Force being exerted is always opposed by an equal and opposite force.

Basic tenet of physics. Yes, not a sociological tenet but it applies the same.

No, my choices of what I do with my Life, Liberty and Property does not impact another, unless I break the only true law which is harm upon another.

You are using your basis of contention that since someone could harm another, a societal control is necessary because harm COULD happen. Sounds like precrime to me.

And the use of my death impacting others is just fallacious in the debate.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Noncompatible
 





Because with absolute freedom of choice (no consequences), the guy that disagrees with you can use his absolute freedom to shoot you (with no consequences) for not agreeing with him. In other words the "law" may be an ass, but it is certainly better than the alternative.


The insidious attempt to define freedom as absolute freedom of choice without consequences is as ridiculous as the geocentric view of the universe pushed for millennium by oppressors who uttered their mystical incantations demanding that all stand, sit, kneel, stand, sit, kneel, and surrender their will to the church. No different from the religiosity of church, the anti-freedom crowd will attempt to utter their own mystical incantations, and pretend that they offer logic and reason, when what they reason is that logic is inherently flawed, and that only the enlightened can know what law is.

How much more clear can these sycophants of government be when they arrogantly place quotation marks around the word law, and ascribe metaphorical behavior to it? The law, whether it be gravity, the speed of light, or murder and theft, is universal and ignoring these laws come with very real consequences. It is nothing more than a pretense that freedom can not exist because one mans freedom will inevitably devour another mans freedom. It is simply double speak as part of propaganda designed to convince people that they can only have the liberties that governments allow. It is spoken and written loudly and often because this is the only way propaganda can insinuate itself in the hearts and minds of the people.

Law is as natural as gravity, life and death, and legislation is as artificial as the governments instituted to codify this legislation, and perhaps it is due to that artificial nature that this institution attracts so many who ignore law in order to create legislation that facilitates the few over the many. Since humanity has graced this planet, their have been those who fight for their freedom, and understanding the universal nature of law, will fight just not for their freedom but for the freedom of all, and since time immemorial, where there are those fighting for freedom, there are those tyrants who will declare a divine right to rule, and the sycophants of tyrants who will whimper and simper, and offer up strange mystical incantations that deign to contradict what is self evident. What is self evident, is that all people are endowed with inalienable rights, and that these rights can not be secured through government, but must be continually fought for and jealously guarded, and zealously protected by the individuals who recognize fallacy for what it is, and understand that what is self evident, is what can be trusted.



[edit on 23-5-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Very thought provoking and well, polarized responses so far. Thank you for all that have posted. The question still remains, however: What would it take for humanity as a whole to come together regardless of belief, country, financial status, etc.? What would be the ultimate be-all-end-all of our debate about our ideological differences?



Peace be with you.

-truthseeker



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeker1984
Very thought provoking and well, polarized responses so far. Thank you for all that have posted. The question still remains, however: What would it take for humanity as a whole to come together regardless of belief, country, financial status, etc.? What would be the ultimate be-all-end-all of our debate about our ideological differences?


Peace will never be an option as long as freedom is disparaged and treated as if it is a dirty word. Only when we are all free, and all willing to accept responsibility for our own actions can we find alliances with those who may fundamentally oppose our own ideas, yet recognize that their own freedom is as necessary as any others. As long as there are those who would preach subjugation as the answer to peace, there just won't be peace, and if and when we can all learn to not just accept responsibility for our own actions, but for as much as we can outside of that, will we find peace.

The parent of a young child can not find peace if the parent insists on being a victim to the messes their children make. At first, the parent must reconcile the fact that it is more conducive to peace to simply clean up the mess themselves, and all the while, as peacefully as possible, illustrating why it is so important to accept responsibility for actions. Soldiers are trained to make war, and warriors are trained to find peace. We can be the soldiers of others, or we can be the warriors of our own making, and all warriors accept responsibility for their actions, whereas soldiers thrust that responsibility up the chain of command. Freedom is not about shirking responsibility, but about accepting it, and regulating their own choices so they may minimize the dire consequences and maximize those consequences that accomplish the greatest good.

This is ethics, the greatest good to the greatest amount, and no one can effectively quantify what constitutes this greatest good if they are intent on being victims not responsible for their own actions.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by truthseeker1984
 


My supposition is that Human polarization is a reflection of Universal polarity.

We are part of the All, collectively and as individuals. When we became self aware, our spiritual energy entered into a symbiotic relationship with the Universe. We and the Universe evolve together.

The nature of polarity, the dual nature of our existence, corporeal and noncorporeal, is to enter into conflict and this is no bad thing.

Conflict feeds and fuels growth toward Unity.

Humans being what we are, reflect an ultimately loving universe in that on our journey to full Enlightenment, we nevertheless do sometimes reach concensus for the greater good, where conflict does not result in negativity or endarkenment.

I really enjoy reading conflicting views, even if they vehemently oppose my own. Even if it annoys me, (usually annoyance with myself for being judgemental!), I want to know what my ideological opponants believe and why, I want to learn.

And as I'm fairly sure that I am not alone in this desire to learn and understand, that it is in fact part of the human condition, I perceive ideological conflict as being part of our spiritual development, preparation for the final conflict, all out spiritual warfare, with the polarized universal life-forces battling it out for domain of the One, of whom we are very much part.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 03:45 PM
link   

In my opinion this is the granddaddy of conspiracies. The conspiracy to end all conspiracies.


I applaud the OP for this statement.
Making two people in disagreement
into something that requires two in
agreement, like a conspiracy, is an
amazing bit of perspective to see.

So this is saying that dissagreement
itself is, in fact, a conspiracy.
You imply that our beleif
and beleif systems
were taught
to us.


David Grouchy



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Peace will never be an option until the word freedom does not equate to opposition of legitimate authority and the rule of law.
Now to clarify, the law must be just, the law must be even handed and blind trust in any authority is foolish.

You appear to see structured government as the enemy of freedom.
Why is that ?
Without structure, without societal restraint, customs and traditions any unit larger than the extended family will tear itself apart, and within every grouping there is inevitably a hierarchy, you know..structure.

Should it be monitored ? of course it should.
Should it always pander to the individual ? Impossible to do.

The very organizations you appear to dislike are the ones that give you the freedom to voice that dislike. But at the same time you have the option to change that organization.

Annoying isn't it.

Absolute freedom is a pipe dream in groupings larger than the individual.
The only vaguely possible way to have zero impact on another ?
Choose to do nothing. Nothing whatsoever.

As for inalienable rights. Another phantom. You have no rights, you depending on where you reside may have some privileges, but rights ? no sir.

Incidentally. Soldiers are indeed trained to make war. They do not however abstain from taking responsibility for their actions. With no compulsory draft, an individual makes a choice to join the armed forces.

P.S. The quotation marks around law signified nothing more than the fact that it encompassed the making, the maintenance and the application. Not everything is insidious, not everything is about governmental control. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Sometimes a post is simply the posters opinion based on life experience and observation.

Peace



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Corporations & their government frontmen/persons spend Billions on PR, propaganda & lies.

The planet is headed to ruin.

I think it is DAMN high time for PEOPLE to rise up & feed the bastards to the sharks. [is that feeding sharks to other sharks? well whatever]

There is a time to angry, and NOW is one of those times.

Granted it is better to cerebrally see & understand how & why,
but sometimes it is sufficient to simply follow your gut & instinct.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Noncompatible
 





Peace will never be an option until the word freedom does not equate to opposition of legitimate authority and the rule of law.


The only legitimate authority is that of the People, and the rule of law demands that power be spread equally among the people lest it be centralized and corrupted.




Now to clarify, the law must be just, the law must be even handed and blind trust in any authority is foolish.


The law does not do what people say it must do, the law is law, and either we discover this law or we don't. When all people are recognized as possessing Inalienable Rights, then the Justice of Law is more evident, and when tyrants seek to diminish those rights, the absence of Justice is just as evident.




You appear to see structured government as the enemy of freedom. Why is that ?


I see governments as artifices made by humanity, and where tyrants seek to usurp those governments I see them as the enemy. Why would you have a problem with this?




Without structure, without societal restraint, customs and traditions any unit larger than the extended family will tear itself apart, and within every grouping there is inevitably a hierarchy, you know..structure.


Society can't even tie its own shoes, precisely because society not only does not have shoes, it doesn't even have feet! Societal restraint is an oxymoron, and either people will govern themselves, or pave the way for tyranny, but it is the advocate of the collective who will preach the loudest that society has more value than any individual, yet take individuals away from society and there is no society, but take the society away from an individual and there still is that individual. Each person is more than capable of building their own structures, and those who don't like my structure, even though it does no one any harm, will justify tyranny to impose their own structures on me.




Should it be monitored ? of course it should. Should it always pander to the individual ? Impossible to do.


Free people need not pandering in order to be free, victims who insist on remaining victims do, and will demand that pandering at every turn.




The very organizations you appear to dislike are the ones that give you the freedom to voice that dislike. But at the same time you have the option to change that organization.


No one ever gave me my freedom, what freedom I have I took because it was my Natural and Inalienable right to do. Tyrants argue they give me freedom, but tyrants are dangerous fools.




Annoying isn't it.


Tyrants? They're more than annoying, they are flat out dangerous.




Absolute freedom is a pipe dream in groupings larger than the individual. The only vaguely possible way to have zero impact on another ? Choose to do nothing. Nothing whatsoever.


Take note the semantics you use, framing freedom as absolute freedom, implicit in this argument is that there are no absolutes, ignoring the absolutism of such a remark, and herein lies the double speak you employ.




As for inalienable rights. Another phantom. You have no rights, you depending on where you reside may have some privileges, but rights ? no sir.


You can scream your empty rhetoric as loud and as long as you want, those who know their rights are inalienable see nothing reasonable about your assertions, and understand what side you are choosing as you draw the battle lines.




Incidentally. Soldiers are indeed trained to make war. They do not however abstain from taking responsibility for their actions. With no compulsory draft, an individual makes a choice to join the armed forces.


Soldiers are more than capable of becoming warriors and those who do, will certainly not abstain from accepting responsibility for their actions.




P.S. The quotation marks around law signified nothing more than the fact that it encompassed the making, the maintenance and the application.


This was, of course, understood, and presumed that you aren't so arrogant as to declare gravity an artificial construct made by humanity and maintained and applied by the proper authorities. You wanted to make a distinction, and it was duly noted.




Not everything is insidious, not everything is about governmental control. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Sometimes a post is simply the posters opinion based on life experience and observation.


And yet, here you are posting again, and reiterating that freedom is just a pipe dream and rights can only be granted by government and this agenda is more than just a cigar baby, even if it is clear that it is merely your opinion.

[edit on 23-5-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 04:19 PM
link   
I do think that polarization is indeed a major hurdle.

Kind of makes one wonder why the Tower of Babel was included as a parable...it essentially describes a divide and conquer scenario (unless I am mistaken)...



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by davidgrouchy

In my opinion this is the granddaddy of conspiracies. The conspiracy to end all conspiracies.


I applaud the OP for this statement.
Making two people in disagreement
into something that requires two in
agreement, like a conspiracy, is an
amazing bit of perspective to see.

So this is saying that dissagreement
itself is, in fact, a conspiracy.
You imply that our beleif
and beleif systems
were taught
to us.


David Grouchy


I'm glad that someone saw the greater picture in my post. Star for you my friend....and maybe a cookie if you are lucky.



Peace be with you.

-truthseeker



new topics

top topics



 
13
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join