Propaganda -- Mephisto's sig

[RandFan]

Skeptical and rational people acknowledge doubt - we might be wrong. There must always be some measure of hope for compromise, or some give and take in our positions.

Propaganda is a position or argument delivered from a position already cemented in place. Propaganda will not, CAN NOT admit the possibility of being wrong, or there being alternate views.

Whether the propaganda is true or false, it undermines our ability to communicate with each other with reasonableness.

Assuming this is all true then what? What system of government do you propose? Democracy isn't going to work by outlawing propaganda any more than the legal system is going to work by prohibiting an attorney from zealously defending his client.

The problem isn't that people in power use propaganda. The problem is the failure of citizens to employ critical thinking and skepticism. It's not up to the politicians to be impartial any more than it is up to the attorney to be impartial. It's up to us to be objective because in the end we are the jury. We decide what is right. Appeal to emotion, empty rhetoric, demagoguery, spin, obfuscation, etc., these things will be used less and less as we become more and more immune.

 

[UserGoogol]

The word propaganda is like the word cult. "Technically," it's not a derogatory term, it's just a factual description of when you try to convince someone of your opinions, but not really. Nobody uses it that way, and because languages are defined by the way people use them, the bad connotation of the word propaganda is for most situations a part of the definition.

 

[Mycroft]

If you find what I post to be coercive I would urge you to resist.

Woo! Challenge a preconception and all sorts of strange ideas come out. First you claim propaganda is coercive, then you claim it must come from a position of power.

Nonsense.

Propaganda is a message designed to influence people to form an opinion rather than impartially providing information. It does not need to be coercive, it does not need to come from a position of power.

Your President Bush parodies are great propaganda. When you go in character, you're not providing impartial information, you're not interested in any kind of debate, you're just getting your message out in a way that's funny and that will get people's attention.

Is that a bad thing? Well, I suppose that depends on your point of view. Someone who likes Bush probably wouldn't like it, but I don't see how that would be your problem.

Someone who prefers the exchange of ideas a debate brings about probably wouldn’t like it either, but in a place such as JREF that person could just move along to the next person.

On the other hand, someone who dislikes Bush probably likes it a great deal. That person is emboldened and he gets an affirmation of his belief.

 

[RandFan]

Frankly, I'm shocked. But why should I be? It's just another case where the most expansive definition of a word possible is used to defend the indefensible. If St George said it, it can't be wrong, and such imperatives overrule logic and democratic ideals. Kind of catapults the ... well, you know.

Strawman BTW. I never said anything to imply that the things Bush has said can't be wrong. Nor do I imply or state that logic or democratic ideals be overruled. Stop putting words in my mouth and start paying attention to what I'm saying. Deal with my argument and not the straw man you would like to tear down.

Propaganda is NOT antithetical to logic or democratic ideals. To assume so is to simply be cynical and not objective.

George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Thomas Paine, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, to name a few, were all people who zealously advocated their causes through the use of propaganda. But then time has a way of making politicians and prostitutes respectable.

But fine, be obtuse and not respond directly to me. It speaks volumes.

 

[RandFan]

The word propaganda is like the word cult. "Technically," it's not a derogatory term, it's just a factual description of when you try to convince someone of your opinions, but not really. Nobody uses it that way, and because languages are defined by the way people use them, the bad connotation of the word propaganda is for most situations a part of the definition.

I don't buy that this is true. To what extent do you propose the word is used in a negative way? To what extent do people use it negatively? How do you know? I think the word propaganda is one that is simply assumed to be negative when often it is meant to be neutral or simply to mean a lack of impartiality which isn't necessarily bad.

 

[President Bush]

Woo! Challenge a preconception and all sorts of strange ideas come out. First you claim propaganda is coercive, then you claim it must come from a position of power.

Nonsense.

Propaganda is a message designed to influence people to form an opinion rather than impartially providing information. It does not need to be coercive, it does not need to come from a position of power.

Your President Bush parodies are great propaganda. When you go in character, you're not providing impartial information, you're not interested in any kind of debate, you're just getting your message out in a way that's funny and that will get people's attention.

Is that a bad thing? Well, I suppose that depends on your point of view. Someone who likes Bush probably wouldn't like it, but I don't see how that would be your problem.

Someone who prefers the exchange of ideas a debate brings about probably wouldn’t like it either, but in a place such as JREF that person could just move along to the next person.

On the other hand, someone who dislikes Bush probably likes it a great deal. That person is emboldened and he gets an affirmation of his belief.

You seem interested in evading a rather simple point. Nobody really cares what I post here. Rather unlike the position, say, the President is in as he provides mental shortcuts designed to help us avoid thinking about difficult questions. Like how to best design an intelligent Social Security system for the future.

If you think my making some kind of obvious joke or visual pun rises to this level of significance, well, I think that you ought to maybe start paying me for the service.

I do not, for example, claim that Randfan's characterization of me as a sock puppet to be propaganda. Though, perhaps, more people here believe that RandFan knows who I really am rather than my denial of this woo.

That is, however, not an example of propaganda. It is an example of witlessness.

What isn't propaganda in your definition of the word?

 

[Mephisto]

All those funny threads where you post pictures of Bush saying goofy things? That's propaganda. That's speech designed by you to have an impact on how people think, which is what propaganda is.



And we do. Not just political propaganda, but propaganda designed for marketing too.

At the same time it's worth noting that propaganda isn't always bad, and it's not always wrong. It's merely a descriptive term for methods used to get an idea across to lots of people. Bad or wrong depends on what the idea is.

Actually, I think President Bush's posts are more in tune with irony as he frequently uses the President's words (and pictures) to convey a subtle humor. I sincerely appreciate President Bush's post (and pictures) as they often lighten a tense mood in a particular thread.

Propaganda DOES have negative connotations otherwise the internet would simply be "The Propaganda Highway," or CNN would simply be the "24 Hour Propaganda Network" and advertising would be simply "Sales Propaganda." The words (to me) aren't interchangable for obvious reasons - people don't respond well when they KNOW they are being steered (like me at a Steven Spielberg movie) either mentally or emotionally.

An important element of propaganda is the mixing of truth and fiction in a manner that might confuse the viewer or listener. When the "Truthiness" (thank you, Stephen Colbert) is shown to be an outright MISTRUTH the propaganda laughingly falls apart (as RandFan aptly demonstrated in the OP). To excuse the head of one of the most powerful countries in the world for his misuse of the term makes you one of three things:

A. an apologist

B. someone who can categorize Goebbels as merely, "An Information Expert" or

C. someone who has drunk more than his share of the Kool-Aid or

someone who (like me) has been a little too fast with the mouse button and tried to make a point without reading a little more and being a little more skeptical. I feel RF has fallen into this category and it's one that should be familiar to everyone here. Public humility and shame can make you go a long way towards gaining a little more empathy with others. RandFan, Ziggy, Rik, Elind, Zenith, Mycroft and several others (on the other side of an imaginary line) once extended me some needed sympathy and understanding when I committed my rhetorical faux pax, so I understand how RF feels.

However, I still assert that propaganda and information are NOT interchangable when the purpose and the target audience are taken into consideration. Bush DID misuse the word unintentionally and although I believe Bush uses propaganda very effectively, I don't think he's used it to push his Social Security "reform."

 

[Kopji]

Assuming this is all true then what? What system of government do you propose? Democracy isn't going to work by outlawing propaganda any more than the legal system is going to work by prohibiting an attorney from zealously defending his client.

The problem isn't that people in power use propaganda. The problem is the failure of citizens to employ critical thinking and skepticism. It's not up to the politicians to be impartial any more than it is up to the attorney to be impartial. It's up to us to be objective because in the end we are the jury. We decide what is right. Appeal to emotion, empty rhetoric, demagoguery, spin, obfuscation, etc., these things will be used less and less as we become more and more immune.

I don't recall proposing outlawing propaganda. And I agree with your second paragraph, except perhaps the first sentence. I would say that people in power who find propaganda effective are symptoms of a problem rather than the problem itself. Propaganda is a very effective way of herding the followers. A more informed, skeptical, and involved population is less likely to produce leaders who attempt to lead them (us, me) around by the nose.

 

[President Bush]

Ok, we are not dealing from a position of power.

1.) Much of what is posted on this forum is still, by definition, propaganda.
2.) The use of propaganda by people in authority doesn't by default make the message bad or wrong.

I concede your points that politicians seek to manipulate symbols and human emotion. Therefore what? Does that invalidate the message? Of course not. Such an argument is fallacy. By such logic all messages become wrong or bad by virtue of being conveyed by people in authority. By such logic all political leaders are bad simply by virtue of being in authority. Again, such logic is fallacious.

People should be wary of propaganda for good reason. However people should not dismiss propaganda out of hand. Yes, it is arguably in the best interest of citizens to avoid emotional pleading and manipulation through the use of critical thinking to analyze the messages. Sadly to few of us do that. However Democracy is an adversarial system. There are competing ideologies with competing propaganda. It seems to work reasonably well for us. Though I concede it would work better if we were more skeptical and critical of our political leaders.

Bottom line, that a politician uses propaganda to further his or her message does not in and of itself make the message wrong or bad.

Do politicians often attempt to persuade us through the give and take of argument and debate? Maybe I should be watching more carefully because I think I missed that part.

Is your claim that "much of what is posted on this forum is... propaganda" an example of that propaganda?

When words are defined in a sufficiently nebulous way they lose meaning. Getting the word "propaganda" to lose some its authority, so that it becomes synonomous with, say, "opinion" or "hypothesis", expressed by anyone... I might call that "propaganda" were there a larger number of people systematically advocating it. From what I can see there are only a very few of you all peddling this irrationality.

I call it that because it seems obvious you want to somehow redeem the word. Because the President used it the way he did.

 

[RandFan]

You seem interested in evading a rather simple point. Nobody really cares what I post here.

But again, you fail to grasp the salient points:

1.) Is propaganda by virtue of being propaganda bad? In other words can the message be separate and distinct from the medium?

2.) Is propaganda by virtue of being used by people in authority by default bad or wrong?

I understand that you don't want to deal with these questions. That you don't is quite telling.

Rather unlike the position, say, the President is in as he provides mental shortcuts designed to help us avoid thinking about difficult questions. Like how to best design an intelligent Social Security system for the future.

Leaders are not educators nor are they reporters. They exist to lead. In a Democracy a candidate must influence public opinion to get elected. Once elected he or or she must influence to achieve their goals. Propaganda is an effective tool for leading. Yes, I concede that it is rife with potential problems. Power corrupts. We should expect our leaders to try and influence through the use of propaganda for their own ends and not ours. We should be wary of the message and not fall for the manipulations. However, dismissing every message from every politician is simply cynicism and is a non-starter. Messages don't become bad by virtue of the medium.

If you think my making some kind of obvious joke or visual pun rises to this level of significance, well, I think that you ought to maybe start paying me for the service.

But "significance" doesn't alter the important point that propaganda is not axiomatically bad or wrong. You serve a purpose. You seek to influence. So, if we follow your logic, propaganda only becomes bad when it is practiced by people of authority, right?

 

[RandFan]

Do politicians often attempt to persuade us through the give and take of argument and debate?

"Often attenot to persuade us"? I'm not sure of the relevance. Does argument and debate elevate the message? Does propaganda diminish the message?

Is your claim that "much of what is posted on this forum is... propaganda" an example of that propaganda?

Depends on the context. It could certainly be used as such. There are two basic kinds of messages on the forum. Logical argument and rhetoric. That which is rhetorical and lacking in impartiality is propaganda. Those who dishonestly engage in debate and obtusely refuse to see the validity of their opponents argument in an attempt to influence are engaging in propaganda.

My statement is a logically valid one. I honestly try to be impartial but I of course engage in propaganda from time to time. It depends on the discussion. In this case I honestly want a philosophical discussion and I am willing to change my mind if the evidence shows me wrong. Therefore I don't see my statement simply as propaganda.

When words are defined in a sufficiently nebulous way they lose meaning.

Words are often misused for the purposes of the messenger. Propaganda is one such word.

Getting the word "propaganda" to lose some its authority, so that it becomes synonomous with, say, "opinion" or "hypothesis", expressed by anyone... I might call that "propaganda" were there a larger number of people systematically advocating it.

I don't accept that "propaganda" has authority or should have authority. Words are simply meant to convey information from the speaker to the listener. You want to elevate propaganda to one of rhetorical effect and to narrowly define it for your own purposes in order to influence making the word itself propaganda. I find that interesting. The word "propaganda" is what it is. We don't lose anything by understanding the definition.

I do not hold nor do I suggest that the word "propaganda" is synonymous with "opinion" or "hypothesis". On the contrary. One can hold an "opinion" or "hypothesis" and be impartial. One can also hold an "opinion" or "hypothesis" and not seek to influence.

Your argument is fundamentally flawed.

From what I can see there are only a very few of you all peddling this irrationality.

There is no inference to draw this conclusion. You simply insert it at the end of your last statement. It is a non-sequitur.

I call it that because it seems obvious you want to somehow redeem the word. Because the President used it the way he did.

Then you are quite simply wrong. I'm not above criticizing the President or the words he uses. On the contrary I have criticized the President and have done so quite harshly.

RandFan
Bottom line, that a politician uses propaganda to further his or her message does not in and of itself make the message wrong or bad.

 

[RandFan]

I don't recall proposing outlawing propaganda. And I agree with your second paragraph, except perhaps the first sentence. I would say that people in power who find propaganda effective are symptoms of a problem rather than the problem itself. Propaganda is a very effective way of herding the followers. A more informed, skeptical, and involved population is less likely to produce leaders who attempt to lead them (us, me) around by the nose.

Agreed.

 

[President Bush]

But again, you fail to grasp the salient points:

1.) Is propaganda by virtue of being propaganda bad? In other words can the message be seperate and distinct from the medium?

2.) Is prpaganda by virture of being used by people in authority by default bad or wrong?

I understand that you don't want to deal with these questions. That you don't is quite telling. You talk about

Leaders are not educators nor are they reporters. The exist to lead. In a Democracy a candiated must influence public opinion to get elected. Once elected he or or she must influence to acheive their goals. Propaganda is an effective tool for leading. Yes, I concede that it is rife with potential problems. Power corrupts. We should expect our leaders to try and influence through the use of propaganda for their own ends and not ours. We should be wary of the message and not fall for the manipulations. However, dismissing every message from every politician is simply cynicism and is a non-starter. Messages don't become bad by virtue of the medium.

But "significance" doesn't alter the important point that propaganda is not axiomaticaly bad or wrong. You serve a purpose. You seek to influence. So, if we follow your logic, propaganda only becomes bad when it is practiced by people of authority, right?

Had to bold that line in your quote. Looks like a sig line to me.

Propaganda good or bad? What a grotesque question. When does a mental shortcut designed to help one avoid thinking about difficult questions have an upside?

In asking this I work from the assumption that whatever audience we address is one of self-determining people. One not likely to go for being manipulated, no matter what's being said.

If, instead, one is trying to help (perhaps more compliant) people to process their complicated world in a way that's best for them, well... sounds like you got the answer.

 

[RandFan]

Had to bold that line in your quote. Looks like a sig line to me.

Please use it.

Propaganda good or bad? What a grotesque question. When does a mental shortcut designed to help one avoid thinking about difficult questions have an upside?

(emphasis mine) I can't find this definition in any dictionary. Could you justify your use of it by citation of any definition?

{snipped for lack of foundation}

1.) Would you address my questions?
2.) Would you stick to logical argument and skip the rhetoric?

So, as I understand from your statement above, propaganda when used by people in authority is always bad, correct? Is that your proposition?

 

[RandFan]

Actually, I think President Bush's posts are more in tune with irony as he frequently uses the President's words (and pictures) to convey a subtle humor. I sincerely appreciate President Bush's post (and pictures) as they often lighten a tense mood in a particular thread.

All well and good but his remarks typically, are by definition, propaganda. ETA: I don't think his remarks here are propaganda per se.

Propaganda DOES have negative connotations otherwise the internet would simply be "The Propaganda Highway," or CNN would simply be the "24 Hour Propaganda Network" and advertising would be simply "Sales Propaganda." The words (to me) aren't interchangable for obvious reasons - people don't respond well when they KNOW they are being steered (like me at a Steven Spielberg movie) either mentally or emotionally.

1.) The internet is diverse with both partial and impartial sources of information. Your first statement is a non-sequitur.

2.) CNN is a news organization whose express goal is to objectively and impartially desseminate information. Do you think that CNN lacks impartiality?

3.) Advertising IS "Sales Propaganda".

4.) What "words aren't interchangable"?

An important element of propaganda is the mixing of truth and fiction in a manner that might confuse the viewer or listener. When the "Truthiness" (thank you, Stephen Colbert) is shown to be an outright MISTRUTH the propaganda laughingly falls apart (as RandFan aptly demonstrated in the OP). To excuse the head of one of the most powerful countries in the world for his misuse of the term makes you one of three things:

There are two issues at hand. The meaning of "propaganda" and the use of the word by the President. I of course could be wrong about both. Please to explain why I'm wrong about the latter irrespective of the former?

However, I still assert that propaganda and information are NOT interchangable when the purpose and the target audience are taken into consideration. Bush DID misuse the word unintentionally and although I believe Bush uses propaganda very effectively, I don't think he's used it to push his Social Security "reform."

Propaganda IS by definition, "information."

prop·a·gan·da
n.

1. The systematic propagation of ...information.

You are not making sense here. Please to clarify?

 

[President Bush]

"Often attenot to persuade us"? I'm not sure of the relevance. Does argument and debate elevate the message? Does propaganda diminish the message?

Depends on the context. It could certainly be used as such. There are two basic kinds of messages on the forum. Logical argument and rhetoric. That which is rhetorical and lacking in impartiality is propaganda. Those who dishonestly engage in debate and obtusely refuse to see the validity of their opponents argument in an attempt to influence are engaging in propaganda.

My statement is a logically valid one. I honestly try to be impartial but I of course engage in propaganda from time to time. It depends on the discussion. In this case I honestly want a philosophical discussion and I am willing to change my mind if the evidence shows me wrong. Therefore I don't see my statement simply as propaganda.

Words are often misused for the purposes of the messenger. Propaganda is one such word.

I don't accept that "propaganda" has authority or should have authority. Words are simply meant to convey information from the speaker to the listener. You want to elevate propaganda to one of rhetorical effect and to narrowly define it for your own purposes in order to influence making the word itself propaganda. I find that interesting. The word "propaganda" is what it is. We don't lose anything by understanding the definition.

I do not hold nor do I suggest that the word "propaganda" is synonymous with "opinion" or "hypothesis". On the contrary. One can hold an "opinion" or "hypothesis" and be impartial. One can also hold an "opinion" or "hypothesis" and not seek to influence.

Your argument is fundamentally flawed.

There is no inference to draw this conclusion. You simply insert it at the end of your last statement. It is a non-sequitur.

Then you are quite simply wrong. I'm not above criticizing the President or the words he uses. On the contrary I have criticized the President and have done so quite harshly.

You don't see a qualitative difference between the value of argument and debate vs the dynamics of propaganda?

I recommend you look up the work "rhetoric".

 

[RandFan]

You don't see a qualitative difference between the value of argument and debate vs the dynamics of propaganda?

I recommend you look up the work "rhetoric".

Of course I see a difference. That there is a substantive difference does not justify your proposition which is as I understand it that propaganda when used by people in authority is always bad.

Yes, no? Help me out here. An argument of one is rather pointless. You are going to have to delineate your proposition and justify it with premise and inference. Otherwise you are simply engaging in propaganda.

It would help if you would answer my questions.

 

[President Bush]

Of course I see a difference. That there is a substantive difference does not justify your proposition which is as I understand it that propaganda when used by people in authority is always bad.

Yes, no? Help me out here. An argument of one is rather pointless. You are going to have to delineate your proposition and justify it with premise and inference. Otherwise you are simply engaging in propaganda.

It would help if you would answer my questions.

What do you want to know?

 

[RandFan]

What do you want to know?

For starters, what is your proposition? Then you could address the questions asked earlier.

1.) Is propaganda by virtue of being propaganda bad? In other words can the message be separate and distinct from the medium?

2.) Is propaganda by virtue of being used by people in authority by default bad or wrong? In other words is the message bad or wrong simply because it was disseminated by a person in authority?

 

[President Bush]

For starters, what is your proposition? Then you could address the questions asked earlier.


1.) Is propaganda by virtue of being propaganda bad? In other words can the message be separate and distinct from the medium?

2.) Is propaganda by virtue of being used by people in authority by default bad or wrong? In other words is the message bad or wrong simply because it was disseminated by a person in authority?

As far as I'm concerned, propaganda is about technique. Appeals that come at us not through the give and take of argument and debate, but rather through clever wording or images specifically designed to get us to accept or reject some idea or person on the basis of the symbol supplied instead of actually checking available evidence are dishonest.

I don't care to have this technique applied against myself (by people in authority). I make the assumption that people who would wish to be self determining necessarily feel the same (if the people playing these games hold no legitimate authority a variety of options are available).

Compare this to the situation of the technique applied by myself (necessarily in authority if my actions are to be meaningful) to help people process their complicated world in a way that's best for them. I assume this is what you are defending...

Good luck.