Propaganda -- Mephisto's sig

[Crazytree]

Many feel that AIDS awareness education is hurtful propaganda as "encourages immoral behavior".

I say it's propaganda just like telling your kids not to lie, cheat or steal is propaganda.

 

[RandFan]

Many feel that AIDS awareness education is hurtful propaganda as "encourages immoral behavior".

I say it's propaganda just like telling your kids not to lie, cheat or steal is propaganda.

And both instances would be by definition propaganda. Perhaps not what most people think of when they think of propaganda but it is.

What is propaganda?

So there are different kinds of propaganda. They run all the way from selfish, deceitful, and subversive effort to honest and aboveboard promotion of things that are good.

I realize that world view of some people are invested in this. I'm not sure why. It's just a word. Like many words it has different meanings. There is nothing to make a big deal of just try to figure out the meaning of the speaker when he or she uses the word.

 

[Crazytree]

This is probably the worst dictionary definition I have ever read.

 

[Mycroft]

Because I believe that propaganda scripts are run to benefit whoever is writing them. Not to benefit who it is they are meant to manipulate.

Really? So the AIDS poster that promotes condom use isn't to the benefit of its target audience?

Don't know what you mean, but I'll take a stab at it and say "no".

Then please explain how the definition in any way limits the activities of the JREF.

 

[Mycroft]

This is probably the worst dictionary definition I have ever read.

Provide another one?

 

[RandFan]

This is probably the worst dictionary definition I have ever read.

Why? The definition exists because of the etymology of the word. A dictionary simply defines usage. I'm sorry if you don't like the word. The definition is incidental since that is how the word has been and is used in many instances.

No one says that you have to ever use that definition of the word. It's jsut that many people, scholars and academia included do use that definition and for good reason. If you want to be certain that you understand the point of the speaker perhaps it would be a good idea to understand the meaning behind the speakers words.

 

[Crazytree]

My point is that the standard dictionary definition does not accurate reflect the real-world usage of the term.

 

[RandFan]

My point is that the standard dictionary definition does not accurate reflect the real-world usage of the term.

Oh, I got you. Which defnition were you refering to? The information I posted above wasn't a dictionary defnition. It is from a pamplet following WWII to educate people about propaganda since propaganda had taken an ominious and perjorative meaning due to the usage of the word during the war. The attempt to educate the American public failed I think.

FWIW, propaganda is largely seen as perjorative. Here is a good discussion on propaganda that fits PB's view point.

The following is the dictionary.com definition.

prop·a·gan·da ([FONT=verdana, sans-serif] P [/FONT]) Pronunciation Key (pr

p

-g

n

d

)
n.

1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
2. Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda.
3. Propaganda Roman Catholic Church. A division of the Roman Curia that has authority in the matter of preaching the gospel, of establishing the Church in non-Christian countries, and of administering Church missions in territories where there is no properly organized hierarchy.

BTW, if you google propaganda you will see that there is a great deal of debate on the subject. Not that that proves anything, it's just interesting.

 

[President Bush]

Really? So the AIDS poster that promotes condom use isn't to the benefit of its target audience?

I dunno. The poster didn't do a thing for me. Did it help you?

Then please explain how the definition in any way limits the activities of the JREF.

You want me to explain how systematically propagating potentially biased takes on what's happening could limit one's inclination to cite whatever evidence might seem to show uncertainty about that systematically propagated and potentially biased take on what's happening?

 

[Mycroft]

I dunno. The poster didn't do a thing for me. Did it help you?

You're avoiding the question. Who is the condom use supposed to benefit? The people who make the posters or the people that read them?

You want me to explain how systematically propagating potentially biased takes on what's happening could limit one's inclination to cite whatever evidence might seem to show uncertainty about that systematically propagated and potentially biased take on what's happening?

No choice of descriptive term can limit the activities of the JREF. If you disagree, please demonstrate how it happens.

 

[President Bush]

You're avoiding the question. Who is the condom use supposed to benefit?

Here's the poster

Do you see a condom being used? I see a condom flaunted in the back pocket as being cool. Like a tattoo or an earring.

Public health info doesn't have to be shortcut into an image such as this, though the fashion industry might disagree. For me, words and complete sentences function well.

No choice of descriptive term can limit the activities of the JREF.

I prefer a non sequitur to be funny. Hope that you are not suggesting that the words we use make no difference.

 

[RandFan]

I prefer a non sequitur to be funny. Hope that you are not suggesting that the words we use make no difference.

Which doesn't follow from what Mycroft said making your "non sequitur" a non sequitur. Not bad PB.

 

[Mycroft]

Here's the poster

...image snipped...

Do you see a condom being used? I see a condom flaunted in the back pocket as being cool. Like a tattoo or an earring.

I ask you who the propaganda is supposed to benefit and you come back with an argument suggesting the propaganda is of poor quality, not conveying the right message.

Do you care to stay on topic and answer the question?

Public health info doesn't have to be shortcut into an image such as this, though the fashion industry might disagree. For me, words and complete sentences function well.

For you.

Does everyone in the world think like you do? Does everyone in the world respond to the same kind of information as you do? Does everyone in the world learn in the same way that you do?

No.

I prefer a non sequitur to be funny. Hope that you are not suggesting that the words we use make no difference.

You're making the claim that describing the actions of the JREF as propaganda somehow reduces its activities to just promoting doctrine, yet when asked again and again you don't show how it does that. The choice of descriptive term does not limit the activities of the JREF, or any other organization.

Clear now? Or will you still evade that point?

 

[President Bush]

I ask you who the propaganda is supposed to benefit and you come back with an argument suggesting the propaganda is of poor quality, not conveying the right message.

Do you care to stay on topic and answer the question?



For you.

Does everyone in the world think like you do? Does everyone in the world respond to the same kind of information as you do? Does everyone in the world learn in the same way that you do?

No.

Are your bowels in an uproar over my saying...

Because I believe that propaganda scripts are run to benefit whoever is writing them. Not to benefit who it is they are meant to manipulate.

Your poster looks like a fashion statement to me. Having a condom placed just so in tight jeans won't prevent AIDS, Mycroft. But don't tell that to the glamour industry.

That's what the image suggests to me. But like I said above, this is my opinion. If you want to keep dwelling on this, I suggest a RandFandectomy.

You're making the claim that describing the actions of the JREF as propaganda somehow reduces its activities to just promoting doctrine, yet when asked again and again you don't show how it does that. The choice of descriptive term does not limit the activities of the JREF, or any other organization.

"Propaganda" is a word.

A sound or a combination of sounds, or its representation in writing or printing, that symbolizes and communicates a meaning and may consist of a single morpheme or of a combination of morphemes.

A word describing the actions of JREF you agreed.

What's the problem?

 

[RandFan]

What's the problem?

A Ford is a vehicle. A motor-home is a vehicle.

That a motor-home is a vehicle doesn't limit it to only going from point A to point B.

Somethings can meet the definition of one word but be more than that one word. A motor-home can be a vehicle to go from point A to point B and it also can be a home.

Defining a motor-home as a vehicle doesn't restrict the motor-home to mere transportation.

Defining the actions of JREF as propaganda (although loosely for sure) doesn't restrict the actions of JREF anymore than defining a motor-home as a vehicle.

 

[Mycroft]

Your poster looks like a fashion statement to me. Having a condom placed just so in tight jeans won't prevent AIDS, Mycroft. But don't tell that to the glamour industry.

That's what the image suggests to me. But like I said above, this is my opinion. If you want to keep dwelling on this, I suggest a RandFandectomy.

I asked you who the campaign was supposed to benefit and instead you give me an opinion of the quality of the propaganda, making arguments that may suggest it’s poorly designed or ineffective.

Why are you dodging the question? Is it because you realize if you do answer, you would no longer be able to support your previous statement; ”…propaganda scripts are run to benefit whoever is writing them. Not to benefit who it is they are meant to manipulate.”?

It seems to me very clear the purpose of the poster is to promote condom use, which would be an obvious benefit to the targets of the propaganda, and only incidentally beneficial to its writers.

A word describing the actions of JREF you agreed.

What's the problem?

You claimed that it “reduced” the activity of the JREF to “just” promoting a doctrine. I object because that statement is completely unsubstantiated.

 

[President Bush]

I asked you who the campaign was supposed to benefit and instead you give me an opinion of the quality of the propaganda, making arguments that may suggest it’s poorly designed or ineffective.

Why are you dodging the question? Is it because you realize if you do answer, you would no longer be able to support your previous statement; ”…propaganda scripts are run to benefit whoever is writing them. Not to benefit who it is they are meant to manipulate.”?

It seems to me very clear the purpose of the poster is to promote condom use, which would be an obvious benefit to the targets of the propaganda, and only incidentally beneficial to its writers.

Again, please try to remember, Mycroft, that...

Because I believe that propaganda scripts are run to benefit whoever is writing them. Not to benefit who it is they are meant to manipulate.

When I look at your poster I see the words A RUBBER IS A FRIEND IN YOUR POCKET. Is that not the message?

In your pocket. The message is A RUBBER IS A FRIEND IN YOUR POCKET. Why?

Because a rubber in your pocket looks cool. The image is all enhanced and artsy, and it seems as though having a rubber in your pocket will make your ass look better, too.

I think this is an appropriate distinction to make... nowhere is condom use promoted. Condom display is what is promoted. Be honest, Mycroft. That is the message your poster conveys.

Who put that poster out anyhow?

You claimed that it “reduced” the activity of the JREF to “just” promoting a doctrine. I object because that statement is completely unsubstantiated.

I am merely going along with your - current - definition of "propaganda" as being the systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.

You've identified JREF as promoting this "propaganda".

Yet having an attitude of skepticism - which JREF advocates - seems directly opposed to maintaining doctrine. How's that work. I can't explain it.

Guess you can't either.

 

[Mycroft]

Because a rubber in your pocket looks cool. The image is all enhanced and artsy, and it seems as though having a rubber in your pocket will make your ass look better, too.

Again you dodge the issue by criticizing the quality of the propaganda while avoiding the question.

Virtually every type of propaganda mentioned so far can be argued to be a benefit to the target. While certainly there is propaganda that does not, consider the following:

Liberty Bonds? Certainly winning a war is better for the population than losing, plus bonds are a form of savings.

Condom use? Even if you don't like the image used, condoms are an important part of preventing the spread of STDs.

Surgeon Generals warnings? Certainly encouraging smokers to quit is a benefit to the smokers.

Event he boy with AIDS has a clear agenda to make AIDS sufferers more acceptable, yet reducign AIDS hysteria and increasing understanding could also a benefit to the general populace.

I am merely going along with your - current - definition of "propaganda" as being the systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.

You've identified JREF as promoting this "propaganda".

Yet having an attitude of skepticism - which JREF advocates - seems directly opposed to maintaining doctrine. How's that work. I can't explain it.

Guess you can't either.

That seems to be unrelated to your previous assertion, so are you backing away from your previous assertions that the JREF is "reduced" to "just" promoting docterine?

 

[President Bush]

Again you dodge the issue by criticizing the quality of the propaganda while avoiding the question.

Virtually every type of propaganda mentioned so far can be argued to be a benefit to the target. While certainly there is propaganda that does not, consider the following:

Liberty Bonds? Certainly winning a war is better for the population than losing, plus bonds are a form of savings.

Condom use? Even if you don't like the image used, condoms are an important part of preventing the spread of STDs.

Surgeon Generals warnings? Certainly encouraging smokers to quit is a benefit to the smokers.

Event he boy with AIDS has a clear agenda to make AIDS sufferers more acceptable, yet reducign AIDS hysteria and increasing understanding could also a benefit to the general populace.

I disagree some forms of propaganda are good...

Because I believe that propaganda scripts are run to benefit whoever is writing them. Not to benefit who it is they are meant to manipulate.

Please allow me to respond to your most recent post by stating a quick observation.

Concerning your idea that World War One propaganda posters helped persuade the common guy to buy Liberty Bonds, thus benefiiting that common guy... who do you think actually profited from that purchase?

I believe the answer is the du Pont Company, Bethlehem Steel and US Steel, along with various copper and chemical companies.

The common guy pretty much got the shaft. That tends to be true in all wars.

As far as your AIDS poster goes, well, I don't think I've dodged a thing. You say I criticize the quality of this propaganda?

Hardly. It appears to me a nice bit by a glamour-industry mindset promoting a fashionable accoutrement, nicely complementing those designer jeans.

Am not denying that, of course, the use of condoms helps prevent the transmission of STDs. But their use isn't what's promoted in your poster. Their display is what is promoted.

To me, whoever dreamed up your poster pretends to be trying to do something about a serious problem while just yanking their own chain.

That seems to be unrelated to your previous assertion, so are you backing away from your previous assertions that the JREF is "reduced" to "just" promoting docterine?

My question is unchanged. Though I think you misunderstand it, somehow. So I'll just try again...

Skepticism attempts to employ objective, universally valid criteria of rationality and truth - science - in exploring phenomena such as UFOs, faith healing, speaking to the dead, alternative medicines, ghosts and other paranormal goings-on... always continuing to investigate, never sticking to a definite position.

Yet you agreed that the JREF fits your definition of propaganda:

The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.

Can you explain?

 

[RandFan]

Can you explain?

It's been explained over and over again. You don't accept the definition so what's the point?

Randi would be the first to admit that the JREF has a *cause. Not just one in fact. He states his goals explicitly.

The Foundation's goals include:

Creating a new generation of critical thinkers through lively classroom demonstrations and by reaching out to the next generation in the form of scholarships and awards.

Demonstrating to the public and the media, through educational seminars, the consequences of accepting paranormal and supernatural claims without questioning.

Supporting and conducting research into paranormal claims through well-designed experiments utilizing "the scientific method" and by publishing the findings in the JREF official newsletter, Swift, and other periodicals. Also providing reliable information on paranormal and pseudoscientific claims by maintaining a comprehensive library of books, videos, journals, and archival resources open to the public.

Assisting those who are being attacked as a result of their investigations and criticism of people who make paranormal claims, by maintaining a legal defense fund available to assist these individuals.

check it out sometime.

Randi would be the first to admit that he is propagating information reflecting the views and interests of JREF (see above).

So what is your problem? "Doctrine"? That's but one definition. I don't know if Randi would agree that any of the information from JREF is doctrine. I think it can be reasonably argued that it is. You say no, so what? JREF demonstrably meets two of the definitions criteria.

In the end you are just being obstinate. While JREF would not be what most people consider propaganda there is no question that if you understand the etymology, the history and the usage of the word it does in fact meet the definition.

But still you go on.

*A goal or principle served with dedication and zeal: