Stop saying "we"

[solletica]

Right here:



haha




Ignorant nihilism aside, a death sentence for gays demonstrates a lack of representation.

As does spying on all citizens' every communication all the time, and detaining them without trial.

 

[solletica]

There are all kinds of activism that, if we all took responsibility for it, would easily overwhelm the power of money.

That would be like saying that 300,000,000 ants could lift and move a boulder.

The power of money is like the power of gravity--both stem from natural laws (the first being a law of human behavior, the latter being a law of physical nature).

Without sufficient force to counteract the large weight of a boulder, it can't be lifted.

Likewise, without sufficient financial incentive (or a credible threat to his/her personal life) given to pols, they can't be motivated to act in one's favor.

Fact is, we are lazy citizens, and we thereby fail to truly nurture our freedom and our control of the government. We are not victims, but are complicit in this mockery of a republic.

 

[PirateMk1]

so who died ?

2.5 mil to 3.1 Japanese
370 thousand to 480 thousand Koreans
1.0 mil to 1.5 Indonesians
10 mil to 20 mil Chinese
1.5 mil to 2.5 mil Indians
100,000 New Zealanders and Australians
400,000 United States
500 Thousand to 1.2 mil in the Philippines

That's the guesstimated body count from the Japanese aggression. You can see why certain countries don't like the Japanese. Like I said the nukes stopped the meat grinder.

 

[ChuckBerry]

I believe in nationhood and I believe, to a reasonable degree, in nationalism. It is necessary for social cohesion, especially in country as large and diverse as the U.S. ...despite our differences, we are all Americans, and we should hang together, or we will surely hang separately.

 

[Dezaad]

That would be like saying that 300,000,000 ants could lift and move a boulder.

The power of money is like the power of gravity--both stem from natural laws (the first being a law of human behavior, the latter being a law of physical nature).

Without sufficient force to counteract the large weight of a boulder, it can't be lifted.

Likewise, without sufficient financial incentive (or a credible threat to his/her personal life) given to pols, they can't be motivated to act in one's favor.

Except that humans have been shown to be capable of curbing moneyed interests and ants have never been shown to be able to move a boulder. And ants are not shown to be intelligent or to have free will, for gods sake. And YOU have the nerve to speak in your OP about denigrating ourselves by saying "we"?

 

[Wiggen]

WRONG. An election of a pol is an election of that pol's sponsors, because the sponsors pay the bulk of a pol's earnings, so that's who it works for.

Furthermore, a "choice" between 2 pols of only the 2 major parties is not a choice. And it needn't be said that if anyone attempted to use non-lobbying means (i. e. the illusory democratic process) to get a candidate he/she really wants up to a general election w/significant support, and that candidate represented a sincere (as opposed to illusory) threat to the lobbyists already in power, that person would be arrested, declared an "enemy combatant"/member of al Kida (along w/the pols supported) by the govt. and never heard from again.

All those who acquire power will always impede those who attempt to seize it from him, using any means (legal or illegal). The people who buy pols are no exception.

We get the Libertarain philosophy you are spouting. We just don't agree with it.

 

[DDD]

So you are asking more than one person not to use the plural "we"? :roll:

Yeap. That is "effective immediately" too! Got that soldier?!

 

[Risky Thicket]

Yeap. That is "effective immediately" too! Got that soldier?!

We get it.

 

[solletica]

Except that humans have been shown to be capable of curbing moneyed interests and ants have never been shown to be able to move a boulder.

When have humans shown to be capable of curbing moneyed interests? Cite.

And ants are not shown to be intelligent or to have free will, for gods sake.
And YOU have the nerve to speak in your OP about denigrating ourselves by saying "we"?

Free will is irrelevant. The relevant factor is having sufficient power to move/control something.

Just as 300,000,000 ants can't lift or move a boulder, because it's just too heavy, the people as a whole cannot control pols, because the average person doesn't have the money to buy any of them.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

I've noticed in many of these threads re: discussion of the US govt's (typically silly, childish) military forays into the ME and other areas of the world, when referring to the US military, many posters still resort to the word "we."

When a person uses the word "we" when discussing the action of the govt., he/she includes himself and all the People as being culpable (or complicit) in those actions.

Now think: to all those who use the word "we", ask yourself a ridiculously simple question: did you have any say in the US govt's/POTUS's actions, meaning are one of the POTUS's or Congressional lobbyists?

If not, then. . .

YOU ARE NOT INVOLVED IN THE DECISION!!!

So when you drag yourself in using the word "we", you're disrespecting yourself. You're saying to yourself: "I am responsible or partially responsible for this mess", which is, of course, not true.

Therefore, effective immediately, everyone who is not an active federal lobbyist and/or pol needs to terminate this habit.

You will notice I never say "we" when talking about the military or the US govt., because it shows a lack of self-respect, blaming myself for something I never did, or had any part of.

You shouldn't either. So when the US govt. goes on its stupid adventures overseas, say the government invaded this or the government wants to bomb whoever. Or you can say the lobbyists did this or the lobbyists want to bomb.

We are responsible because we are the only ones with the power to change the government.

 

[Mach]

I think if you'd have focused instead on how far removed we actually are from our centers of power, you'd have support. I mean, we have a number of people who don't even vote because they know not even their vote really matters. And nearly all of us know that unless we devoted a significant amount of our life energy on a single political issue, we are unlikely to have any effect at all (unless random chance) on the actions of our government. And it most certainly is controlled by two parties, neither of which may represent our own views, etc. So in that regard, you're right. Even more, in this day and age where we're all moderately informed via the digital age, our form of government seems incredibly outdated and sluggish, corrupt but without any way to uncorrupt it without going through layers of corrupt government entities. One big joke.


But when you claim that we should not feel responsible for the violent actions of our government...it strikes a different chord. I'm not sure why I feel more inclined to claim responsibility for the bad with the good, haven't really thought about it. Perhaps I know that our military men and women have committed their lives to the country for their time of service, and to act as though we're not responsible at all for the horrors they engage in seems like abandoning them in brotherhood. Throw our hands up and say "not my problem"? Just doesn't seem responsible. Rejecting the military rank and file I think was something our society engaged in, and is ashamed of, possibly that's why.

I do agree that it does seem contradictory in principle.

 

[solletica]

We are responsible because we are the only ones with the power to change the government.

Why haven't you done so yet?

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Why haven't you done so yet?

I only have one vote.

 

[polisciguy]

I've noticed in many of these threads re: discussion of the US govt's (typically silly, childish) military forays into the ME and other areas of the world, when referring to the US military, many posters still resort to the word "we."

When a person uses the word "we" when discussing the action of the govt., he/she includes himself and all the People as being culpable (or complicit) in those actions.

Now think: to all those who use the word "we", ask yourself a ridiculously simple question: did you have any say in the US govt's/POTUS's actions, meaning are one of the POTUS's or Congressional lobbyists?

If not, then. . .

YOU ARE NOT INVOLVED IN THE DECISION!!!

So when you drag yourself in using the word "we", you're disrespecting yourself. You're saying to yourself: "I am responsible or partially responsible for this mess", which is, of course, not true.

Therefore, effective immediately, everyone who is not an active federal lobbyist and/or pol needs to terminate this habit.

You will notice I never say "we" when talking about the military or the US govt., because it shows a lack of self-respect, blaming myself for something I never did, or had any part of.

You shouldn't either. So when the US govt. goes on its stupid adventures overseas, say the government invaded this or the government wants to bomb whoever. Or you can say the lobbyists did this or the lobbyists want to bomb.

While I certainly see your point, and I do agree that we, as individuals, must be careful when speaking to not inaccurately include everyone of a certain demographic or as you mentioned, at times, even ourselves, I have always been under the assumption that individuals using "we" in such discussions, who I have no reason to assume are anything other than intelligent, use it for the sake of simplicity and designating the players in simple terms. I would imagine most of the users of this forum know that "we" are not a part of the decision outside of any political impact we can make collectively, and certainly all 330 million of "us" in the United States don't agree on much of anything save for oxygen--yeah, oxygen is probably a good thing. I do still see your point though.

 

[MadLib]

Taking a stand in SE Asia was important and the war was fought under the standards of the time. Bombing Hiro was merciful and saved millions of lives, American and Japanese.

I agree with you on Hiroshima, but Indochina was extraordinarily ill-conceived. It (unlike Iraq) was very unpopular in Vietnam, and unlike in most of our recent wars the vast majority of excess deaths were our fault. The violation of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, the sabotaging of the Paris peace talks, the bombing of Cambodia (which led to the Khmer Rouge taking power), My Lai, the use of napalm and defoliators, etc. either already constitute war crimes or they should, and those responsible should face trial at the ICC; there are also tens of thousands of American casualties. And for what? The very communists that we spent over a decade fighting are now our trading partners. We should have figured out to stay out of it once France lost.

******
As for the topic, it is ultimately up to the voters to decide who is in power. I agree that the power which lobbyists yield is a bad thing, but we are still a democratic republic, if an easily manipulated one.

 

[ecofarm]

:shock:

was it you who bombed vietnam and hiroshima,eco ?

Yes, democracy did. Maybe we had no business taking a stance in SE Asia, but we were trying to make sure that freedom remained the likely outcome of world politics. Were mistakes made? Yes, on every level. Were the a-bombs a mistake? No, they were merciful just on lives saved. And what happened to Japan? Well, let's just say that a Japanese citizen would have an easier time getting a visa from Turkey than vice versa. Must we continue to fight for human rights? Yes, until every brother and sister is free.

 

[ecofarm]

As for the topic, it is ultimately up to the voters to decide who is in power. I agree that the power which lobbyists yield is a bad thing, but we are still a democratic republic, if an easily manipulated one.

Lobbyists are experts advising the government. Any corruption is vigorously pursued by political competitors.

 

[MadLib]

Lobbyists are experts advising the government. Any corruption is vigorously pursued by political competitors.

By lobbying I was mostly referring to campaign contributions, especially after Citizens United.

Lobbyists are experts at manipulating the government to serve the interests of their institution. Anything that they get right is either a coincidence or based on the nature of the institution they represent.

 

[ecofarm]

Lobbyists are experts at manipulating the government to serve the interests of their institution. Anything that they get right is either a coincidence or based on the nature of the institution they represent.

You are against specialized (in the field) advice regarding government policy? The problem is not expert advice regarding policy, it's career politicians. The solution is term limits, not a limitation on free speech.

 

[MadLib]

You are against specialized (in the field) advice regarding government policy?

Lobbyists are advisers to politicians in the same way that lawyers are advisers to juries. Their goal isn't to help Congress make better decisions, their goal is to help Congress make decisions that benefit them.

 

[iguanaman]

Good point. The voters bear extremely minor responsibility because they're the ones who chose the lobbyists that are currently in power (a vote for a candidate is a vote for his/her lobbyists).

But recall that's typically only a choice between one of two lesser evils. And I'd be hard pressed to equate that w/being responsible or being complicit.

As for those who serve in the military, they are significantly more responsible. So I stand corrected on that: it's OK for members of the military to lump themselves in w/the word "we" because they're the ones carrying out the govt's orders.

So the final list for those who can appropriately use the word we is

1) Lobbyists
2) Federal politicians
3) Members of the US military
4) Offense contractors and their employees

Unless you're among one of the 4, you're not responsible, in any way, for the US govt's actions.

You left out....5) You are an American Citizen and have pledged allegiance to the flag of the United States of America

 

[Medusa]

Yes, democracy did. Maybe we had no business taking a stance in SE Asia, but we were trying to make sure that freedom remained the likely outcome of world politics. Were mistakes made? Yes, on every level. Were the a-bombs a mistake? No, they were merciful just on lives saved. And what happened to Japan? Well, let's just say that a Japanese citizen would have an easier time getting a visa from Turkey than vice versa. Must we continue to fight for human rights? Yes, until every brother and sister is free.

l appreciate your thoughts ,eco but l still believe it is your personal humanistic approach to these military actions

teh government doesnt agree with you

 

[ecofarm]

teh government doesnt agree with you

And you base this on your vast knowledge of the US and its government?

That you claim such while also claiming esoteric knowledge of Turkey (by way of living there) is hysterical.

 

[Medusa]

And you base this on your vast knowledge of the US and its government?

That you claim such while also claiming esoteric knowledge of Turkey (by way of living there) is hysterical.

topic is not turkey,eco

 

[ecofarm]

topic is not turkey,eco

The topic, at hand, is your claim to absolute knowledge of the US and its government while at the same time claiming esoteric knowledge of Turkey based on living there. The point is, you know virtually nothing about the US or its government and your claims to esoteric knowledge contradict your claims of knowledge regarding the US, as compared to mine. At the same time as you claim superior knowledge by way of residence, your deny that to others. Your position is based in ignorance and an inconsistent application of resident esoterism.