Homesteading Forum banner
1 - 20 of 39 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,250 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Ok, first off, when I heard the guy talking I thought maybe next time they are sitting around the back yard fire he should maybe have a lot less Jim Beam??

But the guy was saying he always thought "they" were ruining everything for him, out to get him, and focused on destroying him. By that he meant an organized group somewhere trying to make the "little guy" disappear or obey the "they."

But events lately have him asking what if there is no "they" doing that. What if it is just "them", which by his definition was just individual incompetence taking place in just about every way imaginable.

Or as he asked, is there a "they" out to get us or just a huge number of "them idiots?"

I have no philosophical answer for him, but thought it might be fun to see what hopefully more sober folks think.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
11,134 Posts
had an acquaintance who if you used they or them in a conversation he would stop the conversation and ask you to define who they or them were specifically before continuing.

it did make you stop an think a bit and it better convey to the listeners who exaclty you were talking about


much hate type indoctrination uses They , them , those people , and lets your mind define who your hating the reality is 50 people may hate 50 different things but they play into the one indoctrination if they all use the same they them those people , the ones out to get us

it also dehumanizes the the them in the peoples minds
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
762 Posts
Well there is definitely a "they" but whether or not they are also 'them' idiots is hard to know. You have a group of world leaders. all in power now that ran on the banner of "build back better" which came out of the WEF, so "they" are coordinating and signaling their allegiance to that agenda [ which has been spelled out in their books and statements ].

Also look at the Trump situation...I mean can anyone with 2 braincells deny there was a vast collaboration between media, FBI, deep state leakers, and etc? Of course they conspired against the president, there is no doubt about it. Members of the FBI were fired for it, they manufactured evidence and lied to the FISA court. The supposedly independent and free press all coordinated and ran stories about Trump that later turned out to be lies....did they all make the same mistakes, at the exact same time, and all collectively forgot to vet their sources? No of course not, they conspired.

Now the question is...is there an end-goal...a common agenda that involves screwing us all over? Or, is it a collection of various factions that are simply conspiring together at various times, for various reasons [ to stay in power, to stay in the money, to stay relevant, in pursuit of some political ideology ]?? I really dont know [ and it might not matter if the end result is the same ].

Remember for many decades people in this country didnt believe in the mafia. The official position was that there was no mafia..just individual thugs and small unorganized gangs. It wasnt until the 1960's that it became widely understood that there was a vast underground secret society with ranks, titles, secret ceremonies and tentacles of power that reached all the way to the Whitehouse.
 

·
Be powerful. No other option exists.
Joined
·
46,098 Posts
Adirondakian said:

"Now the question is...is there an end-goal...a common agenda that involves screwing us all over? Or, is it a collection of various factions that are simply conspiring together at various times, for various reasons [ to stay in power, to stay in the money, to stay relevant, in pursuit of some political ideology ]?? I really don't know [ and it might not matter if the end result is the same ]."

I think that's hitting the nail with the hammer. Bingo.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,787 Posts
had an acquaintance who if you used they or them in a conversation he would stop the conversation and ask you to define who they or them were specifically before continuing.

it did make you stop an think a bit and it better convey to the listeners who exaclty you were talking about


much hate type indoctrination uses They , them , those people , and lets your mind define who your hating the reality is 50 people may hate 50 different things but they play into the one indoctrination if they all use the same they them those people , the ones out to get us

it also dehumanizes the the them in the peoples minds
I actually do that a lot, and I can tell it’s to the annoyance of some of my conversation partners. People have gotten loose with their sentence structure, and, especially in conversation, use pronouns in ambiguous context.

If I’m trying to do the right thing, following what someone is trying to tell me, and they hand me an ambiguous pronoun, I’m not afraid to cut in and ask them for clarification on who the pronoun specifically refers to.

That drives some people nuts, and I don’t get it. If I’m taking the time to tell someone something, and they need me to clarify who or what I’m talking about, I’d much rather they ask me for that clarification right away than to let me get to the end of my statement, having no idea what I was talking about.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,787 Posts
I think in this context, “they” is left ambiguous because anonymity is critical to the goal of someone, or group of someones, trying to covertly steal control on a macro scale.

It’s like trying to trace back the chain of control to get to who is really making the decisions. That’s difficult to do. I see people, all the time, say something like “President XX is the real puppet-master”, but it’s obvious that President XX is just delivering talking points from someone higher.

Today, I think we’ve traced the seat of power as far down as the WEF, but they’re even a “they” in that the WEF isn’t just Klaus Schwab. The WEF is also Bill Gates and Queen Charles II, and a bunch of other uberrich knobs. Also, I’m not comfortable saying, with confidence that it’s not some other, lower-profile group of knobs telling the WEF’ers what to tell us all to do.

..hence “they”.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,299 Posts
"They" are The UN/Agenda 21, The Club of Rome, Soros, Gates, Zuckerberg, Imelt et al., the CCP, for starters---
Our govt has been infiltrated by the paid subversives and useful fools of these men & groups. Our universities & colleges are the liberal camps where campers pay to be indoctrinated by the tools of these men & groups.

"Once you've eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be The Truth."--Sherlock Holmes, on deductive reasoning
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
21,526 Posts
had an acquaintance who if you used they or them in a conversation he would stop the conversation and ask you to define who they or them were specifically before continuing.

it did make you stop an think a bit and it better convey to the listeners who exaclty you were talking about


much hate type indoctrination uses They , them , those people , and lets your mind define who your hating the reality is 50 people may hate 50 different things but they play into the one indoctrination if they all use the same they them those people , the ones out to get us

it also dehumanizes the the them in the peoples minds
You've met my father. If we ever cited 'they' or 'them,' we would spend the rest of our evening discussion defending our use of the mysterious sources.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
11,134 Posts
I actually do that a lot, and I can tell it’s to the annoyance of some of my conversation partners. People have gotten loose with their sentence structure, and, especially in conversation, use pronouns in ambiguous context.

If I’m trying to do the right thing, following what someone is trying to tell me, and they hand me an ambiguous pronoun, I’m not afraid to cut in and ask them for clarification on who the pronoun specifically refers to.

That drives some people nuts, and I don’t get it. If I’m taking the time to tell someone something, and they need me to clarify who or what I’m talking about, I’d much rather they ask me for that clarification right away than to let me get to the end of my statement, having no idea what I was talking about.
They (the person you asked for clarification) don't like it because then , They is defined and it is harder to embellish , easier for you to call them out on an inaccuracies and it forces them to define a specific which is much more work than a generalization.

you are also thinking faster than the person in your conversation is talking and that person in your conversation doesn't intend for you to do that.

defining everyone properly in a conversation is more work and people are often quite lazy in their speech or we wouldn't have such a massive vocabulary of shortened words , contextual words and slang if they weren't.
it seems like some times, just like some people work harder at not working ,some work harder at not having enough vocabulary to define a problem than if they just learned a few more words.


I get some customers employees who lack the vocabulary to define the problem and that isn't good when your calling the guy who needs to know what the problem is to fix the problem I literally had one woman repeat "it broke!" I tried to find different ways to ask what the issue was and "it Broke " was the answer I kept getting. It always turns into me asking 20+ questions to try and narrow down what is broken.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,495 Posts
What if there are several "theys" trying to achieve the same goals, and what if they really are trying to pull the ladder up behind them, the same way all the competing decrepit elites of every other failed civilization did before their civilizations fell?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,787 Posts
They (the person you asked for clarification) don't like it because then , They is defined and it is harder to embellish , easier for you to call them out on an inaccuracies and it forces them to define a specific which is much more work than a generalization.

you are also thinking faster than the person in your conversation is talking and that person in your conversation doesn't intend for you to do that.

defining everyone properly in a conversation is more work and people are often quite lazy in their speech or we wouldn't have such a massive vocabulary of shortened words , contextual words and slang if they weren't.
it seems like some times, just like some people work harder at not working ,some work harder at not having enough vocabulary to define a problem than if they just learned a few more words.


I get some customers employees who lack the vocabulary to define the problem and that isn't good when your calling the guy who needs to know what the problem is to fix the problem I literally had one woman repeat "it broke!" I tried to find different ways to ask what the issue was and "it Broke " was the answer I kept getting. It always turns into me asking 20+ questions to try and narrow down what is broken.
I think that’s pretty accurate in some of the cases I’m talking about.For example, if I ask an employee to brief me up on the status of a situation, I’ll get a response like:

So, Lt. Soandso sent me pics of the muzzle breaks, I looked at them, and then they said it wasn’t a problem because blahblahblah…

Immediately, that ceased making sense to me at “…they looked at them”, so I’d stop them to clarify the pronouns. If “they” is Lt. Soandso, then why is he sending me photos? What is “them”, the muzzle breaks or the photos of the muzzle breaks? As it turns out, “they” was an engineer at our company, and “them” was the photos.

If I hadn’t asked for clarification, I might have misunderstood and thought there was no problem, or not known to follow up with a question of whether or not the photos were really sufficient to make a confident determination. I wouldn’t know if I needed to be making arrangements to put the engineers eyeballs catching light reflecting off the actual muzzle breaks, or if the problem was put to bed.

I think, in this case, the employee got lazy with his words to try to say what he wanted to say with the fewest words possible, hoping that I’d accept his bottom-line and not stick my nose in it further.

When my wife does it, it’s because she’s wired like a ADHD rabbit, and expects that I can hear her internal comm channels.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,009 Posts
My sister in law does it. My mother in law does it.
I am also "that guy" that stops the conversation for clarification.
Yes, it irritates them, but I do it so I can clearly understand what it is they are talking about without having to go back again and again asking questions after the story is told. In my view, that is expressing that I care about their story. understand.
They will sometimes retell the story as if the listener is inside their head viewing an image of their thoughts.

"So I saw Judy and Beth and her sister at church this morning. She said she tried to call you last week.
Tom's mom brought their neighbor with them. She looks so much better since she switched doctors. And he will not stop talking about his exwife. Remember her? Oh, so anyway, they just got back from Florida. Beth said the four of them stayed at a place right on the beach. Didn't the neighbor used to work for that ex wife?"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,299 Posts
Those who object to a speaker using a vague, undefined "they" are simply being obtuse and have no way to argue against the points the speaker is making. It's the equivalent to attacking the messenger when the message cannot be refuted.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,787 Posts
Those who object to a speaker using a vague, undefined "they" are simply being obtuse and have no way to argue against the points the speaker is making. It's the equivalent to attacking the messenger when the message cannot be refuted.
What? How is the speaker even making a point if they can’t articulate who they’re talking about? Any solid point about something that is occurring in human-events requires 5Ws, with “they” being the “who”.

In any given point, one or more Ws can be “I don’t know”s, but the point is diminished by the number of them.

It’s possible that a “they” can be something equally vague but requiring more words, like “the powers that be”, but asking someone to clarify is not a capitulation to their point. It’s inviting them to actually make their point, completely.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42,451 Posts
What? How is the speaker even making a point if they can’t articulate who they’re talking about? Any solid point about something that is occurring in human-events requires 5Ws, with “they” being the “who”.

In any given point, one or more Ws can be “I don’t know”s, but the point is diminished by the number of them.

It’s possible that a “they” can be something equally vague but requiring more words, like “the powers that be”, but asking someone to clarify is not a capitulation to their point. It’s inviting them to actually make their point, completely.
It should be clear in the conversation as to who "they" are.

I agree with Doc, there are times when the listener is trying to impugn the speaker by asking who "they" are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: doc-
1 - 20 of 39 Posts
Top