What Is Propaganda?

[Etagloc]

What is propaganda?

 

[mecca]

Manipulation.

 

[DesertRose]

fake news

 

[Etagloc]

ahhh..... so fake news and lies.

 

[Ace of Spades]

Dissemination of information that is misleading, mostly distorted and exaggerates things. The purpose of the information perpetuation is to persuade the audience to think in favor of some idea, belief or ideology. Propaganda channels can be newspapers, news channels, radios, books, magazines etc. --- Propaganda mostly appeals to the emotions and not facts.

 

[Zoidberg]

Propaganda is the spreading of false information that is not accurate. Propaganda is used to influence an audience to support their bias decision or opinion. Governments are often people who use propaganda to spread their agenda and malicious lies. Propaganda is used to turn emotions and to trick people into believing something; somebody put for them on a silver platter.

For example this propaganda poster in a North Korean school.

Also, I got to give probs to Ace of Spades; he summarized it up in a heartbeat.

 

[Illuminized]

Propaganda attempts to influence, convince, and win over people, particularly the masses, to an idea. It's essentially proselytizing. Demagogues and intellectuals are crucial to this. Who read Karl Marx? Most people join movements for their promises and guarantees. What would Christianity be without it's promise of resurrection (1 Cor. 15:14-15, 19)?

Propaganda is also constructing a myth out of truths and lies. Through propaganda, anyone can be represented as just about anything. He is turned into a myth itself. Observe how Vlad the Impaler became Dracula.

Jesus the miracle worker, the sacrificial lamb, the son of god, god in the flesh, who wept over the death of someone who he knew would be resurrected, who caused a major disturbance in the Temple (which the Romans would have noticed) and got away with it without a scratch, who multiplied fish in the sea and on land, as well as wine.

This is all making a myth out of a possible historical figure. The Nazis tried to turn him into an "Aryan" fighter and built upon that Temple account, which is untenable.

I will not deny that Hitler did some undesirable things, but the mainstream narrative of him is so obviously a caricature. He has become the ultimate evil of society. Everyone compares somebody to him as a measure and standard of badness. He has been relegated into the same category as classic cartoon villains (before they began delving into their motives, psyche, personality, etc.). That too is making a myth out of him.

 

[Etagloc]

I will say what I think.

Propaganda is what the other side uses.

If I am an atheist, then a Christian video is propaganda. If I am a Christian, a Richard Dawkins video is propaganda.

If we give propaganda this meaning, it's too subjective to really be useful as a concept.

Propaganda is derived from the word propogate. Therefore, I think propaganda is, really, simply that which is propagated.

If you look at the Christian video, the Richard Dawkins video, the Save the Whales video, you're bound to see the same techniques. The more closely you look, the look the more will see patterns. Therefore they are all of the same substance.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

I will say what I think.

Propaganda is what the other side uses.

If I am an atheist, then a Christian video is propaganda. If I am a Christian, a Richard Dawkins video is propaganda.

If we give propaganda this meaning, it's too subjective to really be useful as a concept.

Propaganda is derived from the word propogate. Therefore, I think propaganda is, really, simply that which is propagated.

If you look at the Christian video, the Richard Dawkins video, the Save the Whales video, you're bound to see the same techniques. The more closely you look, the look the more will see patterns. Therefore they are all of the same substance.

How would you differentiate truth from propaganda? Does something true become propaganda if the person advocating it believes the information being promoted? Is it that simple?

 

[Etagloc]

How would you differentiate truth from propaganda? Does something true become propaganda if the person advocating it believes the information being promoted? Is it that simple?

I would not distinguish truth from propaganda. I honestly think propaganda is neutral of itself. But I am thinking propaganda in a different sense. To me, propaganda is neutral of itself.

An advertisement for Save the Whales or Feed the Starving Children or an advertisement for whatever cause..... if you look at different advertisements, you'll see the same techniques.

Since they all use the same techniques, for practical purposes it should be treated as a single phenomena.....

for example

Allies and Germany in WW2

which side used propaganda? both. propaganda is propaganda. but again I think propaganda in itself is actually neutral. If the techniques of propaganda were actually used to make people religious, moral, educated- if you took the same basic techniques and applied it in a positive direction, it would be good.....

but my point is that actually even if you simply look at educational stuff.....

when the Allies used propaganda it was education

when Germany used propaganda it was propaganda

but in both cases they were both operating by the same basic techniques and therefore what they were doing was of the same basic essence

 

[Etagloc]

Okay, like, for example-

an advertisement for the pets in shelters where they play music that makes people want to cry and show you pictures of abused animals....

this is a clear use of propaganda technique but I'm not exactly sure it is bad...... people have said all art is propaganda....

someone might actually be able to say that "Let's Stay Together" by Al Green is anti-divorce propaganda but I don't know that that's bad.....

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

Okay, like, for example-

an advertisement for the pets in shelters where they play music that makes people want to cry and show you pictures of abused animals....

this is a clear use of propaganda technique but I'm not exactly sure it is bad...... people have said all art is propaganda....

someone might actually be able to say that "Let's Stay Together" by Al Green is anti-divorce propaganda but I don't know that that's bad.....

Very well said! Would you make a distinction between propaganda and advocacy? I think I would but I'm interested in your view...

 

[Etagloc]

Very well said! Would you make a distinction between propaganda and advocacy? I think I would but I'm interested in your view...

Well you can advocate for something in person.... I don't think advocating for a cause in person is propaganda because I think propaganda is through a medium.

 

[Etagloc]

But of course, if you're an advocate for the cause of something and you print 1,000 books supporting the ideology of your cause.... I think that is propaganda. I think even kids books can be propaganda. For example, I saw this

and then I also saw this

the seeming-neutral can be used for propaganda purposes and the seeming-neutral is most effective for propaganda purposes

look at this book

or

I don't think there is any real clear distinction between what is propaganda and what isn't

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

But of course, if you're an advocate for the cause of something and you print 1,000 books supporting the ideology of your cause.... I think that is propaganda. I think even kids books can be propaganda. For example, I saw this

and then I also saw this

the seeming-neutral can be used for propaganda purposes and the seeming-neutral is most effective for propaganda purposes

look at this book

or

I don't think there is any real clear distinction between what is propaganda and what isn't

Maybe you are right? The word "propaganda" is laced with undertones of Nazi promotional movies and half truths, but the correct dictionary definition is more neutral in nature. Perhaps it is rather like "bias" or "world view" - everyone has both but are more acutely aware of them in others, rather like a pair of glasses!

Perhaps a question to ask of all "advocacy" is whether it is delivered by an honest heart or a cynical marketer. Both people may present a selection of the truth but the second does so whilst being aware that PR is being applied to the case they are making, and the whole truth is rather less compelling than the selection.

 

[Illuminized]

I will say what I think.

Propaganda is what the other side uses.

If I am an atheist, then a Christian video is propaganda. If I am a Christian, a Richard Dawkins video is propaganda.

If we give propaganda this meaning, it's too subjective to really be useful as a concept.

Propaganda is derived from the word propogate. Therefore, I think propaganda is, really, simply that which is propagated.

If you look at the Christian video, the Richard Dawkins video, the Save the Whales video, you're bound to see the same techniques. The more closely you look, the look the more will see patterns. Therefore they are all of the same substance.

Atheistic identitarians merely appropriate the theory of evolution for their own dogmatic ends. It has nothing to do with an atheistic outlook.

Why is it such a big deal that human beings may not have been emerged in their current form but may have gradually developed into it, possibly from apes? It's not like human beings lose all of their "glory" from this little fact. A write-up I prepared a while ago for this subject, in response to this article:

If intelligence is to be taken as a criterion for value as Kahane suggests, then no, we are not better off than the animals. Far from it actually. There are manifold examples of very intelligent animals, which often catches us by surprise. Instinct also isn't our forte, generally speaking. Once again the animal triumphs over man in this regard.

Three distinctions:

1) Our inquiry into the universe. The animals do not pose questions on the mysteries of the universe nor do they concern themselves with the world's operation, they are completely content with their allotment.

2) Our obsession with a continued existence after death. This is not exclusively a religious sentiment. If there's one thing which has united mankind, it is a fear of death. The animals do not make a fuss about their deaths, especially when it is expedient for their community, so why do we? Why do we care so much about leaving behind a legacy? Why do we want to be remembered for anything? Why do even the most atheistic or scientific people concern themselves with religious issues in their last days? Which leads to the next distinction.

3) Our attitude towards work. Here man understands this to have arisen as a development of absolute necessity and he is constantly driven to apply this understanding to a fundamental task, for the resolution of some problem afflicting mankind. We must learn to understand that no kind of work is insignificant if it is directed towards a higher aspiration and done with the right attitude.

These three signify a type of quality thinking, as opposed to Kahane's view "that intelligent life is the primary source of value" and "whether or not we matter depends on the quantity of intelligent life in the Universe". It's no secret that the greater mass of people are either unable or unwilling to pick up philosophy and would rather content themselves with the facts of science or dogma of religion.

"Man's status in the natural world is determined, therefore, by the quality of his thinking." - Manly P. Hall (Freemason)

The "image of god" is a symbol. God is not a man-like being. If the animals had hands with opposable thumbs and the capacity to design and build as we do, they would naturally conceive of their god in their own likeness (Xenophanes). As a matter of fact, several of them have been demonstrated to be self-conscious, or at least have reacted to their reflections. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test

 

[mecca]

Atheistic identitarians merely appropriate the theory of evolution for their own dogmatic ends. It has nothing to do with an atheistic outlook.
Why is it such a big deal that human beings may not have been emerged in their current form but may have gradually developed into it

Yeah I agree.

possibly from apes

Humans didn't come from monkeys or apes, we have a common ancestor with them. It's not the same though.

 

[mecca]

The "image of god" is a symbol. God is not a man-like being. If the animals had hands with opposable thumbs and the capacity to design and build as we do, they would naturally conceive of their god in their own likeness

True.

As a matter of fact, several of them have been demonstrated to be self-conscious, or at least have reacted to their reflections.

My cat recognizes herself in the mirror too, at first, she didn't know it was herself and she was really defensive when looking into the mirror, but after a few minutes, she realized that it wasn't another cat and she stopped caring. Now, whenever she looks into a mirror, she doesn't react like there's another cat in there, she doesn't even care and I think she knows it's herself.

 

[Illuminized]

Yeah I agree.

Humans didn't come from monkeys or apes, we have a common ancestor with them. It's not the same though.

True.

My cat recognizes herself in the mirror too, at first, she didn't know it was herself and she was really defensive when looking into the mirror, but after a few minutes, she realized that it wasn't another cat and she stopped caring. Now, whenever she looks into a mirror, she doesn't react like there's another cat in there, she doesn't even care and I think she knows it's herself.

Ah, thanks for the correction.

That's interesting, thanks for sharing! What do you think when you see the axiom "Know thyself"?

 

[mecca]

What do you think when you see the axiom "Know thyself"?

I think it's important.