Propaganda and Debating Techniques
#1
"Master these propaganda techniques, and you too will be able to proselytize and promote cult religion and radical politics just like a battle-hardened old-timer." OK, I only included the index and the first couple of techniques here (including, tell the truth, the shortest one Laughing ), you'll have to go to the link for more. Learn these and master the forum: Cool http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-propaganda.html

Excerpt: "...You probably already know a lot about this, whether you realize it or not, because politicians pull many of these standard stunts on you every election year, and you have grown immune to some of them. And modern advertising uses a lot of them, too, and you just tune them out. Nevertheless, let's just do a quick over-view of propaganda techniques.

Bear in mind that "propaganda" is not inherently a dirty word — it just usually is. Any time you are trying to convince anyone of something, you are using some kind of persuasion, debating, or propaganda technique. Just telling the whole truth about something is one simple propaganda technique, and a highly effective one. But lying often works better, at least with some audiences...

Master these propaganda techniques, and you too will be able to proselytize and promote cult religion and radical politics just like a battle-hardened old-timer:

PROPAGANDA TECHNIQUES:

* Tell The Truth
* Lie
* Lie By Omission and Half-Truths
* Lie With Qualifiers
* Lie With Statistics
* Observational Selection
* The Statistics of Small Numbers
* Bury The Lead
* The Big Lie
* Reversal Of Reality
* Projection
* Make a Virtue out of a Fault
* Unsupported Claims
* Imaginary Evidence
* Use Association
* The Glittering Generality
* Exaggerate
* Confusion of Correlation and Causation
* Reverse a Cause-and-Effect Relationship
* Straw Man
* Hypnotic Bait and Switch
* The Either/Or Technique — Bifurcation — the Excluded Middle
* False Dichotomy
* The Enemy Of My Enemy Is My Friend
* "Hobson's Choice"
* Alternative Advance
* "Somebody's got it worse"
* Faulty Syllogism
* Non Sequitur
* Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc — "It happened after 'X', so it was caused by 'X'"
* The Norm of Reciprocity
* Guilt Induction
* Play On Emotions, Appeal To Emotions
* Ad Hominem, Launch Personal Attacks On Opponents
* Engage in Name Calling
* Delegitimize One's Opponent
* Demonize the Enemy
* Apply Labels
* Stroking Ploys
* Blame A Scapegoat
* Blame Somebody Else (Anybody Else)
* Blame A Non-Factor
* Claim That There Is A Panacea
* Claim That There Is A Panmalefic
* Flattery
* Proof by Anecdote
* Double-Talk
* Unprovable Statements
* Undisprovable Statements
* The Language Trap
* Vague, Undefined, Grandiose Language
* Loaded Language, Euphemisms, and Redefined Words
* Use Self-Referential Definitions — Define Something In Terms Of Itself
* Deception Via Mislabeling or Misnaming Things
* Misuse Words
* Moving The Goalposts
* Set Low Expections
* Sliding Adjectives
* Vague Adjectives
* Undefined Terms
* Pseudo-intellectual Bull
* Confuse With Technicalese
* Simplistic Slogans
* Over-simplification
* Wrap Yourself In A Higher Power
* Repeat Old Memes
* Everybody's Doing It, Everybody Knows, and Everybody Says
* Pomp, Ceremony, and Ritual
* Humor and Ridicule
* Assume The Major Premise
* Petitio Principii, Assume Facts Not In Evidence
* Hidden Assumptions
* Assume Futures or Future Results
* Fallacy of Presupposition
* Affirmation of the Consequent
* Irrelevant Conclusion (Ignoratio Elenchi)
* Confusion of Beliefs with Facts
* Substitute Feelings For Facts
* Confusion of Abstractions with Reality
* Circular Reasoning (Circulus in Demonstrando)
* Appeal to Evil
* Appeal to Higher Principles
* Appeal to Authorities (Argumentum ad Verecundiam)
* Appeal to Force (Argumentum ad Baculum)
* Appeal to Popularity — Appeal to the People (Argumentum ad Populum)
* Appeal to Numbers (Argumentum ad Numerum)
* Dismiss by Numbers
* Appeal to Averages
* Appeal to Antiquity (Argumentum ad Antiquitatem)
* Dismiss by Antiquity
* Appeal to Novelty — Newness (Argumentum ad Novitatem)
* Dismiss by Novelty
* Appeal to the Exotic
* Appeal to Tradition
* Appeal to Poverty (Argumentum ad Lazarum)
* Appeal to Wealth (Argumentum ad Crumenam)
* Appeal to Common Folk
* Appeal To Stupidity
* Antirationalism
* Appeal to Desperation
* Appeal to Pity Ad Misericordiam
* Exploit Wishful Thinking, and Tell Them What They Want To Hear
* It Ought To Be True, So It Is.
* It's Too Terrible To Tell
* Argue from Adverse Consequences
* Argue from Beneficial Consequences
* Apply Time Pressure
* The Real Scotsman Fallacy
* Inverse Real Scotsman Fallacy
* Inconsistency
* Compare Apples To Oranges
* Special Pleading
* Self-Sell
* Repetition for Emphasis (Argumentum ad Nauseam)
* Reification
* Take Undeserved Credit
* Create A Granfalloon
* Spin Doctoring
* The Semi-Attached Figure
* Use Exact Numbers
* Avoid Specific Numbers
* Hide Behind Others
* The Preacher's We
* Put Words Into Other People's Mouths
* Tokenism
* Testimonials and Stories
* The Fallacy of One Similarity
* The Fallacy of One Dissimilarity
* If It Looks Like X, Then It Is X.
* A Distinction Without A Difference.
* Sly Suggestions
* Misleading Inference
* Unsubstantiated Inference and Groundless Claims
* Introduce Irrelevant Information as Supporting Evidence
* False Analogy
* False Equality
* Double Bind
* Project Future From Past
* False Analysis Of History
* It's Never Happened Before
* I Didn't See It Happen, So It Never Happened
* Argue Inevitability
* Pollyanna's Ploy — Unbridled Optimism
* Chicken Little's Pessimism
* Generalize, and the Sweeping Generality
* Take Quotes Out Of Context
* Argue from Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam)
* Begging The Question
* Meaningless Question
* Blame The Victim
* Self-Victimization
* Claim to Have Special or Secret Knowledge
* Bad Math
* Use the Passive Voice
* Use Slanted Language
* Use Inflamatory Language

DEBATING TECHNIQUES:

* Refute By Example
* Refute By Exposing Contradiction
* Minimization and Denial
* Instant Denial
* Understatement
* Not As Bad As
* Admit a Small Fault to Cover a Big Denial
* False Comparison
* Give a Non-reason Reason
* Divert Attention — Change the Subject
* The Positive Accomplishments Sidestep
* Declare Victory
* The Story Sourcing Distraction
* The Drama Queen, the Prima Donna Ploy
* Red Herring
* The Personal Loyalty Red Herring
* Deflect Criticism and Blame By Deligitimizing It
* Deligitimize Criticism and Rebuttal in Advance
* Spurious Delegitimization of Evidence or Criticism
* Spurious Rejection of a Question
* Answer A Question That Was Not Asked (To Avoid Answering One That Was Asked)
* Answer a Question With A Question
* Surfeit of Questions (Plurium Interrogationum)
* Monopolizing the Question (Hypophora)
* Obfuscate
* Attack Without Appearing To Attack By Using Paralipsis or Apophasis)
* Passive-Aggressive Attack
* Sarcasm, Condescension, and Patronizing Attitudes
* Damn with Faint Praise
* Reductio Ad Absurdum
* Rationalize
* Exchange A Term
* Frame The Argument
* Argue with Unrealistic Hypothetical Situations
* Misrepresent Your Opponent's Position, or Mischaracterize Your Opponent, or Mischaracterize His Statements or Questions
* Nit-Pick and Split Hairs
* Quibble
* Hit And Run
* Hifalutin' Denunciations
* Make Unreasonable Demands
* Make False Demands
* Shift the Burden of Proof Onto Your Opponent
* Double Standards
* Demand an Uneven Burden of Proof
* Demand Uneven Standards of Acceptance
* Specious Argument
* Spurious Agreement
* Escape via Ignorance
* Escape to the Future
* Escape via Relativism
* Escape via Irrationality
* Pack the House
* Embarrass Your Opponent
* Obtuseness — Refuse to See the Point
* Laugh It Off
* Dominate the Conversation, Talk Non-Stop, and Interrupt Constantly
* Escape via Bullying and Intimidation

PROPAGANDA TECHNIQUES:


* Tell The Truth, The Whole Truth, and Nothing But The Truth.
This can be highly effective, and very convincing, if you know your subject material well, and are a good speaker.

... And IF the truth is really what you want your audience to hear and believe.

The Truth, as a matter of habit, has some disadvantages: You have to learn and remember a whole lot of facts, and keep them straight in your head. The facts might not always be what you wish them to be. And, alas, the truth is sometimes very boring...


* Lie
This one is simple, straight-forward, and obvious. Just lie and say whatever you want to. It has the advantages that you don't need to memorize so many facts, and you can make up new facts when the currently-existing ones don't suit your purposes. The disadvantages are that you might get caught in a lie, and that would destroy your credibility.

"You're never going to make it in politics. You just don't know how to lie."
Richard M. Nixon
Secret Lives of the U.S. Presidents, Cormac O'Brien, page 228.


* Lie By Omission and Half-Truths
This is also known as Suppressed Evidence.

This one is more subtle. It has the advantage that you can't get caught in a lie, because everything that you say is true. You just happily fail to mention all of those bothersome little facts that do not support your point of view. Should a critic point out one of those annoying undesired facts, you can at least feign innocent ignorance, or claim that the fact is really just an unimportant, trivial detail, not worth mentioning.

For example: In 1908, the Lutheran minister Dr. Frank Nathan Daniel Buchman got into a squabble over money with the trustee committee of their hospice for young men in Philadelphia, and in an angry huff, Buchman resigned and got on a boat for Europe. He ended up at a large religious convention in Keswick, England, where he felt that he had a spiritual transformation. He felt moved to write letters of apology to all six of the trustees with whom he had squabbled, humbly asking their forgiveness. Buchman said that none of them even bothered to answer his letters.

That was rather unkind of them, wasn't it? No wonder Buchman had a disagreement with them, if they were really so haughty and so inconsiderate that they would not even acknowledge a man's humble apology and request for forgiveness...

There is just one small detail that Frank Buchman left out in his telling of that story: Buchman didn't put any return address on the envelopes that he mailed back to Philadelphia.

Vice President Dick Cheney told CNN on May 8, 2001, that nuclear energy "doesn't emit any carbon dioxide at all."
That is lying by omission. It is true that nuclear reactors do not create carbon dioxide while burning their nuclear fuel, but the process of mining the uranium is done by machines like bulldozers that create lots of carbon dioxide and air pollution. And so does the process of refining the ore and converting it into usable nuclear fuel, and transporting it to the reactor. And then there is the problem of disposal of the nuclear waste. That's another giant hole to be dug with diesel-powered machines. If the whole fuel cycle is taken into account, then nuclear power creates several times as much CO2 as renewable energy sources. (The Party's Over: Oil, War, and the Fate of Industrial Societies, Richard Heinberg, page 135.)


Bill Wilson gave us lots of good examples of that technique. In chapter 8 of the Big Book, "To Wives", the wives of the recovering alcoholics seem to give advice to the wives of other alcoholics:

As wives of Alcoholics Anonymous, we would like you to feel that we understand as perhaps few can. We want to analyze mistakes we have made.
A.A. Big Book, 3rd Edition, William G. Wilson, Chapter 8, To Wives, page 104.

Sometimes there were other women. How heartbreaking was this discovery; how cruel to be told that they understood our men as we did not!
A.A. Big Book, 3rd Edition, William G. Wilson, Chapter 8, To Wives, page 106.

We wives found that, like everybody else, we were afflicted with pride, self-pity, vanity and all the things which go to make up the self-centered person; and we were not above selfishness or dishonesty. As our husbands began to apply spiritual principles in their lives, we began to see the desirability of doing so too.
At first, some of us thought we did not need this help. We thought, on the whole, we were pretty good women, capable of being nicer if our husbands stopped drinking. But it was a silly idea that we were too good to need God. Now we try to put spiritual principles to work in every department of our lives. ... We urge you to try our program, for nothing will be so helpful to your husband as the radically changed attitude toward him which God will show you how to have. Go along with your husband if you possibly can.
A.A. Big Book, 3rd Edition, William G. Wilson, Chapter 8, To Wives, page 116.

Yes, Bill Wilson really would like you to feel that the wives understand as perhaps few can.

The big problem with those quotes is that the To Wives chapter of the Big Book was not written by Lois Wilson or any of the other wives of the alcoholics — Bill Wilson wrote it all. Lois wanted to write it, but Bill didn't trust his wife to say the right things, or to get the "style" the way he wanted it, he said, so he wrote the whole chapter himself, while pretending to be his own wife.

What a huge difference that one tiny little fact makes. That chapter reads entirely differently, it becomes a sick twisted joke, when you know who the real author was.

Bill Wilson perceptively analyzed his wife's many mistakes for her, and confessed all of Lois' sins for her (in print), and honestly admitted her many failings: her moral shortcomings and dishonesty and selfishness and her silly thinking that she was too good to need God (page 116). (She was "selfish" while she worked in Loesser's department store to support his unemployed thieving philandering drunken ass for years and years.)

Then Bill the housewife even lectured "the other girls" not to nag their husbands about their drinking, or else those guys will get mad and go sleep with their mistresses (page 111)... Like Bill did.


Bill Wilson gave us many more examples of that Lie By Omission technique. Here, he is talking about doing Step Five, where we confess all of our sins and moral shortcomings to someone else:

This is perhaps difficult, especially discussing our defects with another person. We think we have done well enough in admitting these things to ourselves. There is doubt about that. In actual practice, we usually find a solitary self-appraisal insufficient. Many of us thought it necessary to go much further. We will be more reconciled to discussing ourselves with another person when we see good reasons why we should do so. The best reason first: If we skip this vital step, we may not overcome drinking. Time after time newcomers have tried to keep to themselves certain facts about their lives. Trying to avoid this humbling experience, they have turned to easier methods. Almost invariably they got drunk. Having persevered with the rest of the program, they wondered why they fell. We think the reason is that they never completed their housecleaning. They took inventory all right, but hung on to some of the worst items in stock. They only thought they had lost their egoism and fear; they only thought they had humbled themselves. But they had not learned enough of humility, fearlessness and honesty, in the sense we find it necessary, until they told someone else all their life story.
A.A. Big Book, 3rd Edition, William G. Wilson, Chapter 6, Into Action, pages 72-73.

Wow. That's really impressive. I guess we had better get down on our knees right now, and start confessing everything, holding nothing back!

Right?

Wrong.

Notice that the rest of the logic is missing. That is, where do we see the report on the other people, who did confess everything, and then successfully abstained from drinking? There is no such report, because they all relapsed too. The early New York group that Bill Wilson was writing about had a very high relapse rate. Fully fifty percent of the original Big Book authors relapsed and returned to a life of drinking. In Akron, Bill Wilson and Doctor Bob calculated that they had only a 5% success rate in sobering up alcoholics (which is the same as the success rate of people who quit on their own). Bill Wilson couldn't keep 'em sober not for nuthin'. The cult religion routine didn't work at all.

But Bill didn't want to talk about that, because he was a faithful Buchmanite who believed that you must confess your sins to everyone else in your group if you are to be holy. So Bill was doing everything in his power to make everyone holy, even if it didn't make them sober.

And note how Bill also gave us illustrations of a few other propaganda techniques:
o The Straw Man Tactic:
"We think we have done well enough in admitting these things to ourselves."
"They only thought they had lost their egoism and fear; they only thought they had humbled themselves. But they had not learned enough of humility, fearlessness and honesty..."
Those people who think that they don't really need to do all of Bill Wilson's wonderful 12 Steps are really stupid egotistical dishonest cowards, aren't they?

o Hiding Behind Others:
The use of "We" to create the false impression that it was more than just the opinion of Bill Wilson — that many people had done a whole lot of research on the subject, and had gained a lot of valuable experience in what really works to keep people sober: "We think... We usually find..." The truth is, when Bill wrote that paragraph in December of 1938 and January of 1939, there were only 60 or 70 sober A.A. members in the whole world, and they didn't all agree with him. Their major experience was in watching Bill Wilson's religious program fail to keep them sober, with most of the early A.A. members relapsing and leaving. Here, Bill Wilson was really just pushing his own strange Buchmanite religious beliefs, and trying to convince others that his ideas were the only things that work.

o Lying by Omission (some more):
Half of those few sober A.A. members didn't like or do Bill Wilson's Twelve Steps. They were the members who demanded that Bill's 12 religious steps be called "suggestions", not requirements, because they saw clearly that Bill's dogmatic religiosity would drive away many of the alcoholics whom the program was supposed to help. See page 59 of the Big Book — the steps are only "suggested as a program of recovery". But here, Bill wants to fool you into thinking that all of the sober members did Step Five thoroughly, holding nothing back, and that's why they were sober.

o Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc: "It happened after 'X', so it was caused by 'X'."
"Time after time newcomers have tried to keep to themselves certain facts about their lives. ... Almost invariably they got drunk."
Bill Wilson doesn't really give us any evidence that withholding embarrassing personal secrets makes people drink alcohol, just like he doesn't give us any evidence that confessing sins to other A.A. members makes people get sober. He just wants to fool us into thinking it. I can with equal validity argue that they all relapsed because they wore clothes to the meetings:

Time after time, we have seen newcomers make the stupid mistake of wearing clothes to A.A. meetings. Almost all of the newcomers who relapsed wore clothes. (What sins were they trying to hide?) Almost invariably, they got drunk. And almost all of the people who wore clothes to A.A. meetings eventually dropped out.

Conclusion: Obviously, wearing clothes to A.A. meetings causes people to drink alcohol.

o Sly Suggestions and Fear Mongering, Creating Phobias:
"If we skip this vital step, we may not overcome drinking."

Then again, we might. (I did.)
Notice how Wilson lies to you obliquely, by hints and suggestions, to lead you to an erroneous conclusion: "...we may not overcome drinking."

And Wilson does it again, here:
"... they wondered why they fell. We think the reason is that they never completed their housecleaning."
It's hard to prove that Wilson is lying when he plants a suggestion like that. He might actually think that all of that crazy stuff is really true.

And we can again use the clothes clause:
"We think the reason that they relapsed is because they never completed the task of taking off all of their clothes and fully exposing themselves to the whole group."

o And who says that Step Five is a "vital" step? Well, Bill Wilson does. That's assuming facts not in evidence, assuming facts yet to be proven, the trick called petitio principii. We have absolutely no evidence, other than Bill Wilson's deceitful declarations, that Step Five is in any way necessary, or even helpful, for quitting drinking.

o Sarcasm, Condescension, and Patronizing Attitudes:
"Trying to avoid this humbling experience, they have turned to easier methods."
If you won't do what Bill Wilson says, and humbly grovel before your sponsor and confess all of your sins, then you are just a weak, wimpy, unspiritual lazy bum who is guilty of seeking "an easier, softer way."
(You couldn't possibly be seeking a saner way to recover.)
Real men are proud to masochistically grovel on their knees and wallow in guilt.


For another example of lying by omission, look closely at this text:

Despite four decades of AA research, no clear picture has emerged as to which patient characteristics can predict a positive outcome with AA and, therefore, can be used as criteria for matching patients to AA. ...
To date, only three randomized clinical trials have examined the efficacy of AA participation, either with or without additional simultaneous treatment approaches (Ditman et al. 1967; Brandsma et al. 1980; Walsh et al. 1991). The vast majority of AA studies, however, have focused on two narrower questions: Which factors predict whether a person will join AA? And how does involvement in AA predict outcome? In an attempt to answer these two questions, Emrick and colleagues (1993) reviewed 107 previously published AA studies.
Tonigan, J. Scott, Hiller-Sturmhofel, Susanne, Alcohol Health & Research World, 0090838X, 1994, Vol. 18, Issue 4.

1. The authors almost accurately stated that there have only been three good randomized clinical trials of the effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous treatment ever done. (Actually, they ignored the best test of all, the very large test done by Drs. Orford and Edwards in England, and also Dr. George E. Vaillant's clinical trial, which also had merit.)
2. But the authors did not tell us what those clinical trials actually found. They did not say one word about what Doctors Ditman, Brandsma and Walsh reported.
3. Instead, the authors did a quick tap-dance towards "the vast majority of A.A. studies" that were not properly done and are not scientifically or medically valid. Then they cited a survey done by Emrick where he examined 107 of those less-reliable "studies", essays, opinions, and propaganda articles.

So what did those three valid clinical trails find? They found that Alcoholics Anonymous was a disaster:
o Dr. Ditman found that participation in A.A. increased the alcoholics' rate of rearrest for public drunkeness.
o Dr. Brandsma found that A.A. increased the rate of binge drinking. After several months of indoctrination with A.A. 12-Step dogma, the alcoholics in A.A. were doing five times as much binge drinking as a control group that got no treatment at all, and nine times as much binge drinking as another group that got Rational Behavior Therapy.
Teaching people that they are alcoholics who are powerless over alcohol yields very bad results. It becomes a self-fulfilling prediction — they relapse and binge drink as if they really are powerless over alcohol.
o And Dr. Walsh found that the so-called "free" A.A. program was actually very expensive — it messed up patients so that they required longer periods of costly hospitalization later on.

o And the authors could have mentioned that Doctors Edwards and Orford found that A.A. was completely ineffective, and that having a doctor talk to the alcoholic for just one hour, telling him to quit drinking or else he would likely die, worked just as well as a whole year of A.A. meetings.

o And the authors could have mentioned that Dr. George E. Vaillant, member of the Board of Trustees of Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc., found in his 8-year-long test that A.A. was completely ineffective, and just raised the death rate in alcoholics. His A.A.-based treatment program had the highest death rate of all of the treatment programs that he studied.

But the authors mentioned none of that. They just started talking about matching patients to A.A. without ever having established whether A.A. works or helps alcoholics even a little bit, or that we even should try to match alcoholics to Alcoholics Anonymous. What is the point of sending patients to A.A. when it just makes them worse? (So that also makes it an example of Assume The Major Premise.)


* Lie With Qualifiers..." etc. etc. obviously not a short read. Laughing http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-propaganda.html
Reply
#2
(01-15-2012, 10:43 AM)PonderThis Wrote: "Master these propaganda techniques, and you too will be able to proselytize and promote cult religion and radical politics just like a battle-hardened old-timer."

<Snip>

Congratulations! You just used more space than NASA!
(Nope, didn't read it. Didn't read "War & Peace" either.)
Reply
#3
I thought more the point was, there are that many different propaganda and debating techniques they can use on us. Buyer beware. Laughing
Reply
#4
Interesting read Pounder, but a trifle long for the people who want a 14 word summation, in your own words don't you think?

Here is something from the master of propaganda and seemingly admired by the last five administrations, with the present one taking it to new heights. -- Joseph Goebbels in 1934.

Quote:The concept of propaganda has undergone a fundamental transformation, particularly as the result of political practice in Germany. Throughout the world today, people are beginning to see that a modern state, whether democratic or authoritarian, cannot withstand the subterranean forces of anarchy and chaos without propaganda. It is not only a matter of doing the right thing; the people must understand that the right thing is the right thing. Propaganda includes everything that helps the people to realize this.

http://ics.leeds.ac.uk/papers/vp01.cfm?o...paper=2159
Reply
#5
(01-15-2012, 11:12 AM)Leonard Wrote: Interesting read Pounder, but a trifle long for the people who want a 14 word summation, in your own words don't you think?

Here is something from the master of propaganda and seemingly admired by the last five administrations, with the present one taking it to new heights. -- Joseph Goebbels in 1934.

Quote:The concept of propaganda has undergone a fundamental transformation, particularly as the result of political practice in Germany. Throughout the world today, people are beginning to see that a modern state, whether democratic or authoritarian, cannot withstand the subterranean forces of anarchy and chaos without propaganda. It is not only a matter of doing the right thing; the people must understand that the right thing is the right thing. Propaganda includes everything that helps the people to realize this.

http://ics.leeds.ac.uk/papers/vp01.cfm?o...paper=2159

True, I'm told, and reminded by you Len. We so often think of propaganda as evil or against, when as you point out, it can be a good thing.

Ponder: I take your point. Space is free. I just felt the need to be snarky. Like the comment Len directed at me. Laughing
Reply
#6
(01-15-2012, 11:31 AM)Wonky Wrote:
(01-15-2012, 11:12 AM)Leonard Wrote: Interesting read Pounder, but a trifle long for the people who want a 14 word summation, in your own words don't you think?

Here is something from the master of propaganda and seemingly admired by the last five administrations, with the present one taking it to new heights. -- Joseph Goebbels in 1934.

Quote:The concept of propaganda has undergone a fundamental transformation, particularly as the result of political practice in Germany. Throughout the world today, people are beginning to see that a modern state, whether democratic or authoritarian, cannot withstand the subterranean forces of anarchy and chaos without propaganda. It is not only a matter of doing the right thing; the people must understand that the right thing is the right thing. Propaganda includes everything that helps the people to realize this.

http://ics.leeds.ac.uk/papers/vp01.cfm?o...paper=2159

True, I'm told, and reminded by you Len. We so often think of propaganda as evil or against, when as you point out, it can be a good thing.

Ponder: I take your point. Space is free. I just felt the need to be snarky. Like the comment Len directed at me. Laughing

Oh was that you, I had forgotten the person only the post. And there really is no such thing as good ''propaganda*'' because it is the art of using lies to promote an agenda.

Snarky? I had no intention of being critical, cutting or testy just humorous.

Quote:*1. Information, esp. of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
2. The dissemination of such information as a political strategy.
Reply
#7
(01-15-2012, 11:56 AM)Leonard Wrote:
(01-15-2012, 11:31 AM)Wonky Wrote:
(01-15-2012, 11:12 AM)Leonard Wrote: Interesting read Pounder, but a trifle long for the people who want a 14 word summation, in your own words don't you think?

Here is something from the master of propaganda and seemingly admired by the last five administrations, with the present one taking it to new heights. -- Joseph Goebbels in 1934.

Quote:The concept of propaganda has undergone a fundamental transformation, particularly as the result of political practice in Germany. Throughout the world today, people are beginning to see that a modern state, whether democratic or authoritarian, cannot withstand the subterranean forces of anarchy and chaos without propaganda. It is not only a matter of doing the right thing; the people must understand that the right thing is the right thing. Propaganda includes everything that helps the people to realize this.

http://ics.leeds.ac.uk/papers/vp01.cfm?o...paper=2159

True, I'm told, and reminded by you Len. We so often think of propaganda as evil or against, when as you point out, it can be a good thing.

Ponder: I take your point. Space is free. I just felt the need to be snarky. Like the comment Len directed at me. Laughing

Oh was that you, I had forgotten the person only the post. And there really is no such thing as good ''propaganda*'' because it is the art of using lies to promote an agenda.

Snarky? I had no intention of being critical, cutting or testy just humorous.

Quote:*1. Information, esp. of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
2. The dissemination of such information as a political strategy.

Sorry Len...I was trying to be cute and failed again. (Slow learner). You were not being "snarky".

I'd argue (but not for long) about the definition of propaganda. The 2nd listing is closer to what I understand. For instance, if president Obama uses all forms of communication trying to "sell" his health care plan, that is propaganda. (?).
But, to those of us who favor a single payer plan, it's not "bad".
Or, am I simply dead wrong? Again.
Reply
#8
(01-15-2012, 11:56 AM)Leonard Wrote: ...there really is no such thing as good ''propaganda''*


Quote:*1. Information, esp. of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
2. The dissemination of such information as a political strategy.

I respectfully disagree with you completely here, Leonard. Most people do not think things logically, and rather they feel things emotionally. In order to move society for purposes of good, manipulative techniques for purposes of good can dramatically speed things up. I think the real thing here is intent. I say if your intent is pure, propaganda is acceptable, at least under certain circumstances. I'm not even sure I'd be beyond using it myself. Laughing
Reply
#9
(01-15-2012, 12:04 PM)Wonky Wrote:
(01-15-2012, 11:56 AM)Leonard Wrote:
(01-15-2012, 11:31 AM)Wonky Wrote:
(01-15-2012, 11:12 AM)Leonard Wrote: Interesting read Pounder, but a trifle long for the people who want a 14 word summation, in your own words don't you think?

Here is something from the master of propaganda and seemingly admired by the last five administrations, with the present one taking it to new heights. -- Joseph Goebbels in 1934.

Quote:The concept of propaganda has undergone a fundamental transformation, particularly as the result of political practice in Germany. Throughout the world today, people are beginning to see that a modern state, whether democratic or authoritarian, cannot withstand the subterranean forces of anarchy and chaos without propaganda. It is not only a matter of doing the right thing; the people must understand that the right thing is the right thing. Propaganda includes everything that helps the people to realize this.

http://ics.leeds.ac.uk/papers/vp01.cfm?o...paper=2159

True, I'm told, and reminded by you Len. We so often think of propaganda as evil or against, when as you point out, it can be a good thing.

Ponder: I take your point. Space is free. I just felt the need to be snarky. Like the comment Len directed at me. Laughing

Oh was that you, I had forgotten the person only the post. And there really is no such thing as good ''propaganda*'' because it is the art of using lies to promote an agenda.

Snarky? I had no intention of being critical, cutting or testy just humorous.

Quote:*1. Information, esp. of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
2. The dissemination of such information as a political strategy.

Sorry Len...I was trying to be cute and failed again. (Slow learner). You were not being "snarky".

I'd argue (but not for long) about the definition of propaganda. The 2nd listing is closer to what I understand. For instance, if president Obama uses all forms of communication trying to "sell" his health care plan, that is propaganda. (?).
But, to those of us who favor a single payer plan, it's not "bad".
Or, am I simply dead wrong? Again.

For those of us wanting a single payer health care plan, Obama didn't even come close. He used propaganda to make people think this was moving toward a single payer plan, when it actuality it moved closer to the complete control and profits of the US health care system even more into the hands of the insurance company's.

And the republicans used propaganda to call the plan socialism when it is actually a republican plan first introduced by Bob Dole and the only socialist part never made it in the plan, the Medicare option for all Americans.

My dear old Granny use to say, ''A good rule of thumb in determining if it is propaganda; if the politicians mouth is moving it is most assuredly misleading propaganda.''

I would be most interested in hearing some propaganda that did some good for the people instead of the propagandists.

Reply
#10
Suppose there was a national campaign to promote healthy eating, extolling the virtues of such a life and how much sexier, etc. people are with such a healthful diet. That could be an example of propaganda for purposes of good, do you not agree?
Reply
#11
(01-15-2012, 12:23 PM)PonderThis Wrote: Suppose there was a national campaign to promote healthy eating, extolling the virtues of such a life and how much sexier, etc. people are with such a healthful diet. That could be an example of propaganda for purposes of good, do you not agree?

EXCELLENT EXAMPLE!
I have no way of knowing what finally moved the many people away from smoking, but I have to believe it was "positive propaganda" to a major degree.

More, I feel this a great example of what government can do, rather than the "private sector".

And Len, I used the "health care example" not to argue the merits of the plan, but to give it as an example of propaganda. That it may have been derailed is beside the point.



Reply
#12
(01-15-2012, 12:43 PM)Wonky Wrote:
(01-15-2012, 12:23 PM)PonderThis Wrote: Suppose there was a national campaign to promote healthy eating, extolling the virtues of such a life and how much sexier, etc. people are with such a healthful diet. That could be an example of propaganda for purposes of good, do you not agree?

EXCELLENT EXAMPLE!
I have no way of knowing what finally moved the many people away from smoking, but I have to believe it was "positive propaganda" to a major degree.

More, I feel this a great example of what government can do, rather than the "private sector".

And Len, I used the "health care example" not to argue the merits of the plan, but to give it as an example of propaganda. That it may have been derailed is beside the point.

Propaganda was used to get people to smoke in the first place and millions of people died.

And I don't think ''good'' propaganda stopped people smoking. I think what actually stopped people from smoking, like myself was finally learning ''the truth'' about the effects of smoking.

It is not propaganda to say that cigarettes kill, it is simply the truth.

Reply
#13
(01-15-2012, 12:53 PM)Leonard Wrote:
(01-15-2012, 12:43 PM)Wonky Wrote:
(01-15-2012, 12:23 PM)PonderThis Wrote: Suppose there was a national campaign to promote healthy eating, extolling the virtues of such a life and how much sexier, etc. people are with such a healthful diet. That could be an example of propaganda for purposes of good, do you not agree?

EXCELLENT EXAMPLE!
I have no way of knowing what finally moved the many people away from smoking, but I have to believe it was "positive propaganda" to a major degree.

More, I feel this a great example of what government can do, rather than the "private sector".

And Len, I used the "health care example" not to argue the merits of the plan, but to give it as an example of propaganda. That it may have been derailed is beside the point.

Propaganda was used to get people to smoke in the first place and millions of people died.

And I don't think ''good'' propaganda stopped people smoking. I think what actually stopped people from smoking, like myself was finally learning ''the truth'' about the effects of smoking.

It is not propaganda to say that cigarettes kill, it is simply the truth.

Okay Len, we disagree a bit.
Not the first time, and it makes for healthy debate. I do see your point...just see mine too.
By the way Len, you posted something "while back" that made me think you have some health issues. If that is the case, I wish you the very best in whatever you are dealing with. If I misread something, "never mind".

Reply
#14
The "Lying by statistics" is fascinating.

For example...

Public service announcements on TV and radio declare:
"2 out of every 5 fatal automobile accidents was due to drinking. 33% of the drivers involved in fatal accidents had been drinking. 24% of the pedestrians involved in fatal accidents had been drinking. Therefore, alcohol intoxication is a major cause of automobile accidents, and drunk driving must be dealt with harshly."

That logic sounds impressive, but it's completely wrong. Consider the reverse logic:

"3 out of every 5 fatal automobile accidents did not involve drinking. 67% of the drivers involved in fatal accidents had not been drinking. And 76% of the pedestrians involved in accidents had not been drinking. Therefore, sobriety is undoubtedly the major cause of fatal automobile accidents, and sober driving must be outlawed immediately, and punished harshly."
Reply
#15
(01-15-2012, 01:18 PM)Wonky Wrote:
(01-15-2012, 12:53 PM)Leonard Wrote:
(01-15-2012, 12:43 PM)Wonky Wrote:
(01-15-2012, 12:23 PM)PonderThis Wrote: Suppose there was a national campaign to promote healthy eating, extolling the virtues of such a life and how much sexier, etc. people are with such a healthful diet. That could be an example of propaganda for purposes of good, do you not agree?

EXCELLENT EXAMPLE!
I have no way of knowing what finally moved the many people away from smoking, but I have to believe it was "positive propaganda" to a major degree.

More, I feel this a great example of what government can do, rather than the "private sector".

And Len, I used the "health care example" not to argue the merits of the plan, but to give it as an example of propaganda. That it may have been derailed is beside the point.

Propaganda was used to get people to smoke in the first place and millions of people died.

And I don't think ''good'' propaganda stopped people smoking. I think what actually stopped people from smoking, like myself was finally learning ''the truth'' about the effects of smoking.

It is not propaganda to say that cigarettes kill, it is simply the truth.

Okay Len, we disagree a bit.
Not the first time, and it makes for healthy debate. I do see your point...just see mine too.
By the way Len, you posted something "while back" that made me think you have some health issues. If that is the case, I wish you the very best in whatever you are dealing with. If I misread something, "never mind".

It is only a question of semantics. I think most people, especially in Europe think the antithesis of the word propaganda is ''truth.''

Although the article by Josesph Goebbels, Hitler's minister of propaganda did say that their propaganda was for the good of the people. Well, we all know what that unfortunate movement led too.

Thank you for the concern over my health, but I am unfortunately in more than excellent health. I use unfortunately only because it seems I am going to outlive the usefulness of my lower back.

But I don't mind as there has been 70 wonderful years of learning, excitement, fun and much pleasure with no health issues and, given good luck and exercise should still have several more good years left.

Although when I need custodial care in a facility I'll certainly follow my dear old Granny's advice, ''When there is nothing left to say or do, or it is too uncomfortable - its' time to go.''



Reply
#16
Is this propaganda?

[Image: 402310_10150524289639176_842979175_85933...9121_n.jpg]
Reply
#17
Of course it is. I'd say it's good propaganda, but propaganda none the less. Anything designed to get a reaction from the public (that is anything more than a bare proclaiming of facts) is propaganda to one degree or another.
Reply
#18
(01-15-2012, 03:07 PM)Clone Wrote: Is this propaganda?

[Image: 402310_10150524289639176_842979175_85933...9121_n.jpg]

I don't get it?
Reply
#19
No surprise there.
Reply
#20
(01-15-2012, 03:42 PM)PonderThis Wrote: No surprise there.

It's no surprise that you made that remark either. It's so BBQ of you.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)