Memes @lemmy.ml 🏴 hamid the villain [he/him] 🏴 @vegantheoryclub.org 2 wk. ago

My treats are not propaganda!

216

You're viewing a single thread.

216 comments

What do you define as propaganda? Anything could be if your definition is too broad.
- Edward Bernays wrote the book on it, as well as Walter Lippman[1]. And subsequently so have Michael Parenti[1][2] and Noam Chomsky[1].
  
  Short YouTube intro: Noam Chomsky: The five filters of the mass media machine
  
  Somewhat longer one: You're Not Immune To Propaganda
  
  From the first one
  
  The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.
  
  Sounds like it's referring to any marketing or public communications from any company government or individual. I'd qualify that as overly broad.
  
  In some languages “advertising” and “propaganda” are the same word, and not for nothing. Bernays worked in both advertising and politics. It’s the same set of tools whether its to sell cigarettes or war.
  
  Would all rhetoric (persuading people) be propaganda? I think that makes the word useless.
  
  Rhetorical exchange between two people is one thing, mass persuasion is quite another, though they are not entirely unrelated.
  
  So would any speech to a bunch of people be propaganda? What makes something propaganda?
  
  it's not useless if it describes something.
  
  It's describing all communication, good and bad. This conversation we're having right now would be propaganda.
  
  You're trying to influence someone's understanding of the term propganda, which makes it propganda.
  
  And you're communicating, which makes your comment propaganda. Or is it only propaganda when it's to political ends?
  
  turns out, everything is political, so, yes, it's all propaganda.
  
  So I think that definition is useless, since there's nothing that isn't propaganda.
  
  Hollywood's role is propagate the owner class views upon the wagie population to create obedience with a few exceptions... And they don't make those movies anymore.
  
  Lastime they did it was jocker and elites go to scared that they ensured to ruin the prequel. That vibe changed real quick lol
  
  So no Luigi movie for us is what you’re saying 😞
  
  Hollywood's role is to make money. They do that by making movies that appeal to people so that they'll pay for them, while not alienating their funding. There isn't some top down directive to portray oligarchs well, it's just part of the ballance. Another factor is that directors, at least established ones, tend to be rich, so they have that perspective in their work.
  
  The profit motive certainly is a major aspect, maybe even the largest, but there’s more going on than just that. For instance, the US military-intelligence-industrial complex gets directly & indirectly involved, and this is well documented.
  
  Though money. They don't let people film with their equipment unless they have some say in the outpout. But again, it isn't a conspiracy, it's factors and pressures that sometimes effect the output.
  
  Okay sure, they conspired, but again, it’s not a conspiracy 😂
  
  It seems like you’re jumping through hoops to maintain some kind of Panglossian, high school civics worldview.
  
  Michael Parenti, Dirty Truths:
  
  Those who suffer from conspiracy phobia are fond of saying: “Do you actually think there’s a group of people sitting around in a room plotting things?” For some reason that image is assumed to be so patently absurd as to invite only disclaimers. But where else would people of power get together – on park benches or carousels? Indeed, they meet in rooms: corporate boardrooms, Pentagon command rooms, at the Bohemian Grove, in the choice dining rooms at the best restaurants, resorts, hotels, and estates, in the many conference rooms at the White House, the NSA, the CIA, or wherever. And, yes, they consciously plot – though they call it “planning” and “strategizing” – and they do so in great secrecy, often resisting all efforts at public disclosure. No one confabulates and plans more than political and corporate elites and their hired specialists. To make the world safe for those who own it, politically active elements of the owning class have created a national security state that expends billions of dollars and enlists the efforts of vast numbers of people.
  
  Conspiracy I take as being secretive. I think this strategy is publicized.
  
  To the extent that it has been exposed, yes, it is now publicly known, and to the extent that it hasn’t been, it’s not.
  
  I pointed you to some of the seminal and most often cited works on the theory and practice and history of propaganda. Instead of telling us that you question the very validity of the term “propaganda” out of ignorance, how about engaging with the literature, or the Wikipedia entries about the literature, or the YouTube explainers about the literature?
  
  I'm trying to nail down what propaganda is so we can talk about it. It's not much use taking about it if we mean different things.
  
  I'd define propaganda as misconstruing the truth towards political ends. If it's commercial ends rather than political, it's false advertising. If it's not misconstruing, then it's advertising or public communications. Just to set a baseline.
  
  I can't find what your sources are defining as propaganda from a brief look, so let's compare to my definition.
  
  That's how censorship works in practice... Profit motive and ownership structure is just the American way of doing it.
  
  I'd define propaganda as misconstruing the truth towards political ends. If it's commercial ends rather than political, it's false advertising. If it's not misconstruing, then it's advertising or public communications. Just to set a baseline.
  
  it doesn't need to be misconstrued. the best propaganda imho is totally true and in context. spreading it with some kind of political goal is still propaganda.
  
  Cool, I wouldn't call that propaganda, but we can work with that.
  
  Do the Captain America movies have an irl political goal? What would it be?
  
  I haven't seen them, but I do know they work with the pentagon, so my guess is they aim to legitimize American hegemony and military spending
  
  I have seen them, and the government is the bad guy, with the overreach of public surveillance being major topic. You'll need to be more specific, but that would probably entail watching them.
  
  I have no interest though. do you have a point?
  
  It doesn't seem to fit with the criteria of being for political ends, so it wouldn't be propaganda.
  
  not having seen it, I obviously can't tell you what is messages are.
  
  So I don't think it should be on this list, and I guess you don't disagree.
- In this case, all bullshit Yank media that makes you think America are good guys and cops help you.
  
  So only bad guys solve murder cases?
  
  Good guys let random vicious murders on the loose.
  
  I should trust an obvious propaganda expert , but I don't know....
  
  I mean you ever see The Wire? In the first season the "heroes" beat the shit out of bystanders so much a child loses an eye. They then go on to solve murders.
  
  I'm glad I don't know you in real life
  
  I swear a couple of people are here to libsplain us in their confident ignorance.
  
  I don't think that's a good definition, since Holocaust documentaries would be propaganda since it makes America look like the good guys.
  
  That would definitely be propaganda since it was the Soviets who actually did all the work while the American's ratlined the Nazi's into their country, allowed them to transform their government institutions, consolidated power during the red scare and became a Nazi Empire over the next 80 years.
  
  American’s ratlined the Nazi’s into their country,
  
  FYI, the Soviet Union also recruited Nazis into their ranks - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Osoaviakhim
  
  If you compre both events beyong the absolute surface you might find the difference:
  
  The soviets kept them under lock and key, extracted their knowledge and then got rid of them.
  
  The US gave them high paying jobs, citizenship, honored their work after they passed, and amnesty for their crimes.
  
  Let me get this right, your saying all reporting on the Holocaust is propaganda?
  
  I'm saying everything you know about everything is propaganda. Try reading books, specifically by Bernays then come back to this conversation.
  
  You fucking yank libs with your bullshit exasperations - Let me get this right, lol have you ever read a book?
  
  I think any books I've read you'd call propaganda, I'm not sure what you wouldn't call propaganda.
  
  Well you see, American propaganda is cringe, while my superior vintage Soviet propaganda is based.
  
  Hoped this comment was helpful :)
  
  Every public communication is propaganda, that is the point being made (which you missed). The difference between good or bad propaganda are the goals.
  
  For example: Propaganda for higher wages and polical participation? Good.
  
  Propaganda for wage depression and chauvinism of any kind? Bad.
  
  Which brings us to your post: Most soviet propaganda indeed was of the good kind. While most american propaganda indeed is of the bad one.

You've viewed 216 comments.