This site is filled with Reactionaries

reply to post by beezzer

see, all of your stances fall in the reactionary part of the chart

Don't worry. I'll answer the questions too. I gotta go somewhere for a few hours, but when I get back.

Originally posted by badgerprints

Originally posted by Ghost375
Is a progressive going to get offended by being called progressive? No.
So why do you reactionaries get so offended when you are called reactionaries? Riddle me that.

It is a simple difference between the progressive mind and other...people.

A progressive mind feels more secure and powerful when he (or she) can quantify, define, or outline who another person is. This method is the context from which a progressive views society and the world. It's simple and quick and requires no assessment of an individual beyond the label they are given.
This allows the one doing the labeling to establish where he and others fit within the progressive societal ideal and to guiltlessly dismiss all of those who fall below their standard.


Ultimately this is all simply shallow opinion but it is a more effective shorthand for reference when dealing with large groups of people in politics. And to progressives, the world is politics.

Others, not all but most, do not see themselves as a simplified and defined peg to be labeled and placed into the proper place as others see it.
Being stamped as "Item X", quantified and labelled at another persons narrow perceptions is, in and of it's self, offensive.

So obviously, you knew you would offend some people and get to gloat about being able to forsee that you would offend them as you set out to troll....er, set out to do.


These people are different from you because they don't NEED to label every person so that they know how to fit them into a way of thinking.

Maybe labeling every person you see is simply a social shorthand like doing algebra with letters instead of known values.

Maybe you simply want to avoid the heavy lifting of calculating the mantissa and only want to handle the integers. Maybe you don't see the individual as worthy of a name and labeling is a better system for you.


And yes, we know HOW to label people.
We simply don't need to constantly use these labels as a crutch.



You should know this though.
When it comes to people, all the best stuff is to the right of the decimal point.

Enjoy your social algebra.

edit on 6-7-2013 by badgerprints because: (no reason given)

And yet another excellent post by badgerprints.

Great insight and very well written.

And by the OP's lack of response to your post, it's obvious he/she lacks the wherewithal to grasp the concept of his/her own illogical and erroneous thought processes.

Apparently obvious isn't so obvious to some.



Bravo badgerprints, bravo.

Originally posted by Ghost375
reply to post by beezzer

 

see, all of your stances fall in the reactionary part of the chart

Don't worry. I'll answer the questions too. I gotta go somewhere for a few hours, but when I get back.

Gee, I loved being labeled. I still call bs. Your "charts" are designed to provide you and others with support to your preconceived notions.

Fail on a variety of levels.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
you're tossing around words that sound the same, yet have different definitions, in an attempt to deceive people.

people respond very reactively? may as well say "people respond very respondingly" there is a difference between reacting to a post, and subscribing to the "reactionary" take on the theory of government, yet you would want people to not see this.

"when something happens they don't like, they respond vigorously" like the OP from you? look at your vigorous reaction, you MUST be a reactionary, right?

I'm just trying to put out my observations of people on this site.

and yes, I know I can respond quite vigorously lol. Definitely a fault of mine. But I think in general this site has a lot of reactive posts too.

and I'll discuss where I fall on that spectrum when I get back. I'll say this though, many of the issues, I'm kind of split on the issue. I can see logical explanations for both sides. But I'll give a more detailed explanation later.

reply to post by Ghost375



reply to post by sartre

I think the GOP are Neo-cons.

Then how does one explain the neocon currently sitting in the oval office?

Good evening Ghost,

I haven't had time to read the entire thread but I have read the OP and I'd like to add my two pence.

I think we all knew this site has Conservative tendencies, but recently I realized this site houses a specific type of conservative, Reactionaries.

As a Republican myself, I felt very threatened by what I thought was a hardcore neocon presence on ATS at one point. But I came to realize there is a good mix of ideologies. Certain threads and discussions attract certain types of members. The fact that you may run in to these types really says more about what you're doing.....than it does about them.

Food for thought.

Another source I found describes them in more detail, and I think you will agree, it describes the majority of people on this site rather well:

I disagree. It's easier to lump people into larger groups because its the lazy way out. You will find that each person has their own set of beliefs and styles of expressing that belief. Its much easier to say "most people on this site" than it is to have a discussion with individuals and weed out those "reactionaries" from the members that just happen to have a different opinion.

Putting people into generalized groups is dangerous.

That source has a chart that compares Reactionaries, Neocons, Progressives, and Fascists. For government, they choose state's rights and individualism. For Foreign policy, they are very American centered and oppose immigration. For taxes, very anti-tax in all forms. For education, they generally support homeschooling, and oppose the public school system.

I'd be willing to bet that most people on this site DO agree with at least one of those criteria.

Who wouldn't support individualism and why does home schooling have to be politically motivated?

Its a personal choice and not a political one. We should support their right to educate their children as they wish and not attempt to tie it to radical political ideology.

My advice to you, for what it's worth, is that you relax a bit and realize that your actions/comments may be just as polarizing and partisan as those you point fingers at. What we really need to combat is hypocrisy.....which flows through this site more than anything else.

SS

and yes, I know I can respond quite vigorously lol.

oh, so you're a reactionary then, because you react, right?

But I think in general this site has a lot of reactive posts too.

and here we have it: the deceptive use of "reactive". EVERY POST ON THIS SITE IS A REACTION TO SOMETHING. (caps for emphasis) you then make this thread and try to confuse people into thinking that reacting to something is the same as being a "reactionary".

if you believe the bunk that you're saying, you wouldn't be saying it in the first place because it is a reaction; which, by your definition, means one is reactionary. this isn't true.

i wouldn't be a bit surprised if this thread was created with the express purpose of letting people categorize themselves in narrow, predetermined boxes, so that individual poster's views can be boiled down into "pro-government" and "terrorist" categories for future reference.

reply to post by Ghost375

Because I'm late to the show, I see that most everything has been posted. I do have a rather superficial observation to make.

Getting people to examine their political positions? Very good. Promoting a site that presents things in a different way (batr)? Very good.

Choosing to do it in such a way that alienates the people you wanted on your side? Managing to create anger instead of light? Sorry, it didn't work at all. It was worse than a failure, it left batr in a worse position than when you started.

Oh well, I suppose "Any publicity is better than no publicity."

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz


i wouldn't be a bit surprised if this thread was created with the express purpose of letting people categorize themselves in narrow, predetermined boxes, so that individual poster's views can be boiled down into "pro-government" and "terrorist" categories for future reference.

Well done! My thinking exactly! Though you were able to put it better.

reply to post by charles1952


charles1952,

Never expect everyone will agree on any position. While some may have never visited the site, hope that those who do come away with a motivation for personal inquiry and have the courage to confront and reach their own conclusions.

No subject should be taboo. This country is in severe trouble because most people escape from their responsibility to interact in the political arena. The unfortunate result is that the most efficient evil crooks rise to position of ill-gotten authority.

SARTRE

reply to post by sartre


Sartre, I don't think you're being honest.

You say you want people, more people to engage in the political forum, yet you endorse speech that is divisive in nature.

Regardless of your political bent, a forum of "inclusive" rather than "divisive" speech might be in order.

Finding commonality might be more difficult, but stands to garner the greater reward.

Using labels and psychological buzzwords is not a means to a good discussion. It is an intellecually bankrupt means to attack the messenger (ad hominum) and discredit them than to address the issues at hand. It's one thing to say, "I don't agree with you and here's why..." than to say, "you're an ultraconservative reactionary, so you are irrelivant." It's a weak means to support a weak argument by taking the focus off the issue and place it on the individual. Just like using: bigot, racist, left winger, right winger, commie, (*prefix*)aphobe, ect. I think if anything is needed on ATS, it is a more honest discussion between its members.

My 2 cents.

ETA:
We should spend less time saying, "I'm right, your wrong..." and more time asking Why. Why do you believe what you believe? Show us plausible evidence to back your claim. That's what I mean when I say we need a more honest discussion.

reply to post by beezzer


beezzer,

This country does not need more milquetoast deniers of reality. This is a system of divisive authoritarianism. We have had enough of "inclusive" policies. If that is your goal, you are front and center in the camp of the delusional capitulators.

There is a cultural war and power battle that is being waged and you advocate that I should play nice because someone might be offended. Sorry, keep your head in the sand. The nation is lost because of the “can’t we just get along” attitude that compromised our heritage out of existence.

SARTRE

reply to post by sartre

There is a cultural war and power battle that is being waged and you advocate that I should play nice because someone might be offended. Sorry, keep your head in the sand.

i think he was pointing out the hypocrisy of wanting more people to become involved in the discussion, then bashing everyone who gets involved in a rude manner.

being rude and purposefully offensive isn't conductive to your stated want: that more people would get involved.

i've been around here for a bit, and i have found that beezzer is one who definitely doesn't have his head in the sand. he's a bunny you fool! a bunny!!! you're thinking of ostriches.

Originally posted by sartre
reply to post by beezzer

 

beezzer,

This country does not need more milquetoast deniers of reality. This is a system of divisive authoritarianism. We have had enough of "inclusive" policies. If that is your goal, you are front and center in the camp of the delusional capitulators.

Milquetoast. First time for that. Delusional capitulator? Also a first.

There is a cultural war and power battle that is being waged and you advocate that I should play nice because someone might be offended.

No. Just quit endorsing racism and calling it "friendly fire".

Sorry, keep your head in the sand. The nation is lost because of the “can’t we just get along” attitude that compromised our heritage out of existence.

SARTRE

No. Wrong again. We have had years (currently) of a "community organizer" who justifies his parties existence by creating enemies.

Bush also. The "You are with us or against us" attitude found us peace (nope) prosperity (nope) and a future (only in bread lines).

reply to post by sartre

Dear sarte,

Never expect everyone will agree on any position. While some may have never visited the site, hope that those who do come away with a motivation for personal inquiry and have the courage to confront and reach their own conclusions.

No subject should be taboo.

Absolutely fine with me, I agree. My point was, and is, that if the OP had presented the message in a less offensive manner, your site would have gained more ready acceptance. I liked the essay, sort of, when I read it, but your marketing department and your writers have to have a get together. It's fine to be cutting edge, but don't slice your friends.

I understand the desire for a dramtic and attention getting OP, but you can see for yourself the response it's been getting.

I'm not sure where you go from here. Come clean, apologize to those who have had their fur singed, and start over, or start a new thread a little later.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Ghost375

 

reply to post by sartre

 

I think the GOP are Neo-cons.

Then how does one explain the neocon currently sitting in the oval office?

I will take Drone strike on Americans citizens, and Gitmo still open, Alex.

This country does not need more milquetoast deniers of reality

Gee wonder why the reality of this post was 'denied' also ignored:

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


Discussions are meaningless without knowing the nature of the issues and action against the globalists.

Wasting time and energy because feeling are hurt is foreign to my world. Serious people focus on the NWO banksters who run the drill that has destroyed the nation.

reply to post by sartre


You might want to read up on this guy. Named Mahatma Gandhi.

Seemed to know a bit about conflict resolution.