Remember the sitcom where the sisters are not on speaking terms and so they communicate through their mother? Kind of childish don't ya think. Yet here we have PB refusing to communicate directly to me but he will answer if Mycroft quotes me.
As to your post, yes, JREF is
propagating information. Also, JREF is trying to further a cause. So yes, it is propaganda. Not the propaganda that we usually think of but no doubt that it meets a definition of propaganda.
See below:
What is Propaganda?
Propaganda isn’t an easy thing to define, but most students agree that it has to do with any ideas or beliefs that are intentionally propagated.
It uses words and word substitutes in trying to reach a goal—pictures, drawings, graphs, exhibits, parades, songs, and other devices.
Of course propaganda is used in controversial matters, but it is also used to promote things that are generally acceptable and noncontroversial.
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.
The problem is that there are different definitions and my only purpose was to demonstrate that we shouldn't simply assume the intent of the speaker. We should look to context to determine the meaning of a word.
The word "fag" in the U.K. means something different than the US. I suppose we could make fun of someone from England who says, "I'm going to smoke a fag" but the joke would really be on us for failing to understand the difference in word usage.
PB doesn't think that it is appropriate for there to be different definitions and instead chooses to assign a single meaning to every use of the word.
But we have clearly demonstrated why that is just silly.
Also, please see the following discussion on propaganda which illustrates the problem that PB is having and why.
While most persons who give the matter a thought make distinctions between an objectively written news report and propaganda, they encounter difficulty when they try to define propaganda. It is one of the most troublesome words in the English language. To define it clearly and precisely, so that whenever it is used it will mean the same thing to everybody, is like trying to get your hands on an eel. You think you’ve got it-then it slips away.
When you say “policeman” or “house,” everybody has a pretty clear idea of what you mean. There’s nothing vague about these terms. But when you try to mark off the exact boundaries of “propaganda,” you wrinkle the brows even of the men who spend their lives studying the origin and history of words. And the problem of defining propaganda is all the more tangled because in the first World War it acquired certain popular meanings that stick to it like burrs to a cocker spaniel.
To some speakers and writers, propaganda is an instrument of the devil. They look on the propagandist as a person who is deliberately trying to hoodwink us, who uses half-truths, who lies, who suppresses, conceals, and distorts the facts. According to this idea of the word, the propagandist plays us for suckers.
Others think especially of techniques, of slogans, catchwords, and other devices, when they talk about propaganda. Still others define propaganda as a narrowly selfish attempt to get people to accept ideas and beliefs, always in the interest of a particular person or group and with little or no advantage to the public. According to this view, propaganda is promotion that seeks “bad” ends, whereas similar effort on behalf of the public and for “good” ends isn’t propaganda, but is something else. Under this definition, for example, the writings of the patriotic Sam Adams on behalf of the American Revolution could not be regarded by American historians as propaganda.
The difficulty with such a view is that welfare groups and governments themselves secure benefits for a people through propaganda. Moreover, national propaganda in the throes of a war is aimed to bolster the security of the nonaggressor state and to assure the eventual well-being and safety of its citizens. No one would deny that this kind of propaganda, intelligently administered, benefits every man, woman, and child in the land.
The problem is simply arrogance and ignorance. A little more study and a little less condescending attitude and anyone can figure it out on their own.
No, he's not worth it. I have a feeling nothing will change his mind anyway so what's the point?
