Who is this "we" you speak of?

[tod evans]

I keep reading posts that refer to "we" and "us" as if there is some sort of collective here that can be driven or directed by persuasive speech..

I'll read what you write but make no mistake, this inclusive verbiage is a big red flag to me.

There has been a whole lot of this BS going on since Mr. Bundy stood up.

I am just me, I don't speak for you and you damn sure don't speak for me!



Thought I'd reiterate this sentiment due to recent threads...

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I keep reading posts that refer to "we" and "us" as if there is some sort of collective here that can be driven or directed by persuasive speech..

I'll read what you write but make no mistake, this inclusive verbiage is a big red flag to me.

There has been a whole lot of this BS going on since Mr. Bundy stood up.

I am just me, I don't speak for you and you damn sure don't speak for me!



Thought I'd reiterate this sentiment due to recent threads...

It's the Republican influence. As collectivists, Republicans think in terms of "We". It's been this way since the dawn of Republicanism. (democrats are the same way, of course) I personally loathe the royal "We" myself, and go out of my way to avoid it.

 

[otherone]

I keep reading posts that refer to "we" and "us" as if there is some sort of collective here that can be driven or directed by persuasive speech..

I'll read what you write but make no mistake, this inclusive verbiage is a big red flag to me.

There has been a whole lot of this BS going on since Mr. Bundy stood up.

I am just me, I don't speak for you and you damn sure don't speak for me!



Thought I'd reiterate this sentiment due to recent threads...

 

[Deborah K]

I do it. I mean no offense. I'll try to keep that in mind when I post.

 

[DamianTV]

Im selfish and dont do it. I often call out others when they do it.

"We like Obama!" Uh, no, you like Obama.

---

The Lone Ranger AND Tonto?
(lone + "and" = contradiction)

That always made me laugh...

 

[donnay]

I do it. I mean no offense. I'll try to keep that in mind when I post.

*Ducks* I do it, at times, too. But since I am frequently lumped in with Conspiracy theorist nut job truthers, I forget.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I do it. I mean no offense. I'll try to keep that in mind when I post.

I've done it too and probably will continue to do it. Along with those others who speak of "libertarians" as if they have some kind of hive mind. In other words, heavenlyboy's BS is not limited to just the Rs and Ds.

 

[cajuncocoa]

I do it. I mean no offense. I'll try to keep that in mind when I post.

I think I do too. And I apologize, because I, too, abhor collectivism. Will try to be more mindful of it.

 

[DGambler]

We all do it at times and we should be ashamed. We'll try better next post.

 

[erowe1]

I keep reading posts that refer to "we" and "us" as if there is some sort of collective here that can be driven or directed by persuasive speech..

I'll read what you write but make no mistake, this inclusive verbiage is a big red flag to me.

There has been a whole lot of this BS going on since Mr. Bundy stood up.

I am just me, I don't speak for you and you damn sure don't speak for me!



Thought I'd reiterate this sentiment due to recent threads...

Great. Then you don't have to say "we." The rest of us will.

 

[otherone]

Great. Then you don't have to say "we." The rest of us will.

....I see what you did there....

 

[HVACTech]

We all do it at times and we should be ashamed. We'll try better next post.

yes, we agree on that.

no, us agree on that.

I am easily distracted by the mouse in my pocket....

 

[DamianTV]

Alternate Perspective.

The word "We" is the most condensed form of Group Psychology that it can be reduced to.

What the word "We" conveys as far as informational is that "my expressed opinion should replace your own individual opinion due to the power of the individual being less than that of a collective group". "We" is ALWAYS stated by one individual, which can be repeated later. "We" alters the way we percieve the individual to no longer be that of just an individual, but replaces that individual indentifier with that of a group, which has a much stronger influencing factor on the mind.

Examine each member of the group as an individual for a moment. The group as a whole may support an expressed opinion or idea. However, what ever level of participation each individual has in the group conclusion does NOT indicate the individual belief, but the group belief. Thus, the individuals of that group are expressing Group Think and not concluding individually. Some groups have leaders of single individuals or smaller sub-groups of individuals. The followers of these types of groups allow their own conclusions to be replaced by the ideas expressed by the Leaders.

Obedience vs Cooperation.

The type of Group Think that I was talking about above is Obedience. But there is a Cooperative form of "We". That form would result from two individuals first drawing their own conclusions, sharing those conclusions, then agreeing with the conclusions of the other. Many of us here (yes, that is a form of Group Think) have challenged the ideas of our Leaders and rejected them. "We" have learned to operate more as individuals which makes us less suseptible to accepting ideas from would be Leaders without challenge. Each of us have drawn our own conclusions, then shared those conclusions with others, and when others accept our expressed ideas, we form the Natural Group of "We".

Distinguishing between a Natural Group, one that is formed through Cooperation, and Assigned Group, one that is formed by a Leader barking orders, is quite important. Ron Paul supporters are the formation of a Natural Group, where the cooperation of each individual has concluded that Ron Paul is someone they want to be their Leader. Republicans take the opposite approach, where a person is Assigned an identity of "support Mitt Romney", or what ever other idea that can be expressed by the Leaders of the Republican Party.

Natural Groups tend to challenge ideas before accepting them. Assigned Groups are expected to not challenge ideas and blindly accept them. There is a Level of Acceptance that can still be exceeded. A declaration of expectation by a Leader that demands all members of a Group should prefer Horse Radish Ice Cream over all other forms of food. The Level of Acceptance here would exceed tolerance of both types of Groups. So keeping that Level of Acceptance within operating parameters is necessary for Assigned Group Think to function. This is where "We" deviate. "We" operate individually, thus, have a much lower threshold of Level of Acceptance.

The Group Think of the Republican Party Leaders expects all self identified Republicans who are not Leaders to blindly accept whatever candidate they throw our way. There are many tactics that are employed to increase that Level of Acceptance. First being the Illusion of Choice. "We" understand that being given a choice between two candidates selected by the Leaders of the Republican Party is NOT a choice. "We" challenge each candidate presented. The Obedient Group Think followers tend to not challenge the limitation of Choices presented. This causes "Them" to accept what they are told to accept. "Their " time is spent comparing the Choices presented as to which candidate each individual desires more. Then the individual Obedient Group expresses the individual conclusions and the more popular of the two candidates is selected. For the minority members of the Obedient Group, many allow the Group Conclusion (vote) to replace their individual opinion. This becomes obvious when previous Romney supporters (2008 election) change who they support, and supported McCain when Romney dropped out. Some did not. The effect is that there is an increase in the number who now support the Majority, despite several non Romney and non Ron Paul supporters having no longer offered their support to McCain.

There are two definitions of "We". I tried to be very careful in my application of the word in question, with reference to both the Natural Group and Assigned Group definitions. Natural Groups, the "We" of Ron Paul supporters and likeminded individuals does need to be maintained. At the same time, "We" need to be careful to not allow ourselves to fall into the category of the Assigned Group, which extends well beyond the Republican / Democrat paradigm.

In summary, each individual has the potential to benefit far more from seeking a Natual Group that is formed through Cooperation than one that is Assigned where Obedience is demanded. Let us (each as individuals) continue to make efforts to Cooperate and refuse Obedience.

 

[HVACTech]

bump for a good post.
what were "we" arguing about again?

 

[Suzanimal]

bump for a good post.
what were "we" arguing about again?

You don't speak for us.

 

[HVACTech]

You don't speak for us.

yes, dear.

 

[francisco]

I think I do too. And I apologize, because I, too, abhor collectivism. Will try to be more mindful of it.

Same here

 

[Christopher A. Brown]

I keep reading posts that refer to "we" and "us" as if there is some sort of collective here that can be driven or directed by persuasive speech..

Thank you for this thread. I've said many times, there is no "we". For like 8, 9 years now. People do not get it. Lately I've not done it, rather I've focused on making a "we". But your thread title, and singling out the issue might make a difference.

Let me say right off, that the powers that be have sent covert groups amongst us to pretend they are of us, their agenda is to prevent a "we" from forming. They do not really stand out until one actually tries to create the unity which justifies the term "we".

My effort has been to use human instinct which is also constitutional intent to form a unified group that can justifiable say "we". Our phylogenetic social instincts have a feature of mutual respect and understanding of others having much the same instincts as ourselves. This is termed natural law by philosophers of the past.

Our constitution is based in this.

My effort uses one simple natural law that sincere Americans inherently respect, whether they know it or not. It relates to the definition of the purpose of free speech in human society.

The purpose of free speech is to assure information vital to survival is shared and understood.

The insincere, the covert group jumped all over the effort, recognizing it as a threat to the powers that be so organized to reject it vehemently.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ricans-Accept-The-Root-Purpose-Of-Free-Speech

Unfortunately years of influence by "cognitive infiltration", the covert groups, have conditioned unwary Americans who perceive their behavior as normal; because they are a self assured group; as "cool" or acceptable in a social realm, and have mimicked them fairly widely.

The thread asks for overt acceptance of the purpose of free speech for the purpose of exposing the infiltrators and excluding them from discussion on constitutional defense, which is defined through these links.

Sincere Americans need to exercise their first constitutional right, to "alter or abolish". First action, clean up states.

http://algoxy.com/poly/principal_party.html

A step by step process in a forum which stands un opposed because it is fully lawful and logical.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...V-convention&p=5433668&viewfull=1#post5433668

 

[Brian4Liberty]

We will not stand for collectivism!

 

[Christopher A. Brown]

Isms are cognitive distortions.