Good propaganda is. The recipe is to use some facts and add a cause, derive a conclusion, exaggerate the fact, mention other facts irrelevant in the context but implying something in combination…
Just lying gets you the people already in you camp. The others don’t have a reason to believe you. But if you add some facts, the lies become easier to believe if the person doesn’t already know better.
You’re right! Should’ve put “necessarily” based on facts. At the very least that propaganda distorts facts. Basically propaganda doesn’t really care about being factual and will go out of its way to ignore inconvenient facts.
It wasn’t always a meaningless pejorative. McCarthyism did that, which is still going on.
Did you fail history class like super bad or something? There’s been propaganda from literally every country for basically all written history, and people have been calling it for just as long.
I am not only versed in history, but capable of the most cursory internet searches.
Per wikipedia “The meaning of propaganda changed from a neutral term for spreading ideas to a heavily negative label for manipulation and deception during World War I and World War II.”
Wear your dunce cap with shame, Professor Numbnuts.
You have to link sources ya screwball. It’s funny you didn’t and I think you know why you didn’t link it. It may have something to do with the propaganda you’re spewing:
The term is essentially contested and some have argued for a neutral definition,[54][55]: 9 arguing that ethics depend on intent and context,[55] while others define it as necessarily unethical and negative.[56] Emma Briant defines it as “the deliberate manipulation of representations (including text, pictures, video, speech etc.) with the intention of producing any effect in the audience (e.g. action or inaction; reinforcement or transformation of feelings, ideas, attitudes, or behaviours) that is desired by the propagandist.”
Propaganda has existed since the beginning of recorded history. In the New Kingdom of Egypt, the state utilized a “Clean Victory”[failed verification] ideology to prioritize the preservation of Maat (cosmic order) over factual military reporting.[21] Temple reliefs sanitized warfare by omitting violence against non-combatants,[22] portraying the Pharaoh as a disciplined protector rather than a chaotic aggressor.[23][unreliable source?] This was exemplified by Ramesses II, who reframed the Battle of Kadesh, a stalemate, as a divine personal victory.[24] To visually reinforce this authority, artists used hierarchical scaling to depict the king as a giant among men,[25] utilizing motifs like the “smiting of the enemy” to symbolize the Pharaoh’s triumph over chaos.
According to Harold Lasswell, the term began to fall out of favor due to growing public suspicion of propaganda in the wake of its use during World War I by the Creel Committee in the United States and the Ministry of Information in Britain: Writing in 1928, Lasswell observed, "In democratic countries the official propaganda bureau was looked upon with genuine alarm, for fear that it might be suborned to party and personal ends. The outcry in the United States against Mr. Creel’s famous Bureau of Public Information (or ‘Inflammation’) helped to din into the public mind the fact that propaganda existed.
McCarthyism is a political practice defined by the accusation and investigation of left-wing individuals of communist and Soviet influence on American institutions and of Soviet espionage in the United States during the late 1940s through the 1950s, heavily associated with the McCarthy era.[1] After the mid-1950s, U.S. senator Joseph McCarthy, who had spearheaded the campaign, gradually lost his public popularity after several of his accusations were found to be false.
McCarthy was a huge asshole, and caused immense harm. However, claiming he’s the reason there was a negative connotations with the word, then saying it happened during WWI and WWII, and then only viewing it from the incredibly modern western centric view is incredibly dishonest.
Um, actually, propaganda can technically be in the presentation of true facts. It can also be a promotion of a certain philosophy that interprets those facts in different ways.
You can’t judge the effectiveness of any action only by its immediate measurable effects. The working class of the US is in a long period of finding their courage and strength and solidarity after decades of propaganda hid it from them. Every peaceful protest encourages bigger peaceful protests and they encourage more disruptive protests. Every protest that gets tear gassed all to hell by the police pisses people off more and encourages more and bigger and even more disruptive protests.
I hate how slow this is all going too and I have been ready for and advocating for direct action for a long fucking time now. I have taken direct action when the scale is small enough that I can do it alone. It takes time to rouse a population and it is embarrassing to our country that it’s taking so long but it is absolute bullshit to say that what we’ve done has been ‘nothing effective’. Class consciousness is higher than I’ve ever seen it in my lifetime and it’s only growing. The amount of people ready for direct action and the amount of groups organizing is greater than I have ever seen it. That’s all progress. It’s happening. Instead of being a doomer go out and organize and you’ll see what is growing.
And the riots in France are effective? All it has done is create campaign material for Le Pen’s political ads for the presidential election next April. These Nazi are already spinning it as a migrant problem. Le Pen will certainly win now as she surges in popularity.
i mean that kinda ignores what la, minnesota, new york, etc did earlier this year… especially considering people were murdered by ice because of it.
I don’t think propaganda is based in facts.
Good propaganda is. The recipe is to use some facts and add a cause, derive a conclusion, exaggerate the fact, mention other facts irrelevant in the context but implying something in combination…
Just lying gets you the people already in you camp. The others don’t have a reason to believe you. But if you add some facts, the lies become easier to believe if the person doesn’t already know better.
You’re right! Should’ve put “necessarily” based on facts. At the very least that propaganda distorts facts. Basically propaganda doesn’t really care about being factual and will go out of its way to ignore inconvenient facts.
It wasn’t always a meaningless pejorative. McCarthyism did that, which is still going on.
Putin has become our “Emanuel Goldstein” foreign boogieman for everything the Epstein Class has done to us.
Did you fail history class like super bad or something? There’s been propaganda from literally every country for basically all written history, and people have been calling it for just as long.
I am not only versed in history, but capable of the most cursory internet searches.
Per wikipedia “The meaning of propaganda changed from a neutral term for spreading ideas to a heavily negative label for manipulation and deception during World War I and World War II.”
Wear your dunce cap with shame, Professor Numbnuts.
You have to link sources ya screwball. It’s funny you didn’t and I think you know why you didn’t link it. It may have something to do with the propaganda you’re spewing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism
McCarthy was a huge asshole, and caused immense harm. However, claiming he’s the reason there was a negative connotations with the word, then saying it happened during WWI and WWII, and then only viewing it from the incredibly modern western centric view is incredibly dishonest.
“all written history”
All this TL;DR doesn’t save face.
Stew in your shame.
Um, actually, propaganda can technically be in the presentation of true facts. It can also be a promotion of a certain philosophy that interprets those facts in different ways.
It also ignores our lack of healthcare and our militarized police force.
Those cities did nothing effective.
You can’t judge the effectiveness of any action only by its immediate measurable effects. The working class of the US is in a long period of finding their courage and strength and solidarity after decades of propaganda hid it from them. Every peaceful protest encourages bigger peaceful protests and they encourage more disruptive protests. Every protest that gets tear gassed all to hell by the police pisses people off more and encourages more and bigger and even more disruptive protests.
I hate how slow this is all going too and I have been ready for and advocating for direct action for a long fucking time now. I have taken direct action when the scale is small enough that I can do it alone. It takes time to rouse a population and it is embarrassing to our country that it’s taking so long but it is absolute bullshit to say that what we’ve done has been ‘nothing effective’. Class consciousness is higher than I’ve ever seen it in my lifetime and it’s only growing. The amount of people ready for direct action and the amount of groups organizing is greater than I have ever seen it. That’s all progress. It’s happening. Instead of being a doomer go out and organize and you’ll see what is growing.
And the riots in France are effective? All it has done is create campaign material for Le Pen’s political ads for the presidential election next April. These Nazi are already spinning it as a migrant problem. Le Pen will certainly win now as she surges in popularity.
As if they wouldn’t be ranting about immigrants anyway
Same thing happened in Germany when they let bankers run the country, same thing happening in ALL of Europe now.
When you make grassroots socialist populism impossible you make faux-populist fascism inevitable.
Removed by mod
Division is irrelevant to the point in hand. Especially when there’s nothing there.