• FaceDeer@fedia.io
      372·
      2 days ago

      It’s anti-propaganda propaganda, though, so it’s not so bad. It’s like a vaccine.

      Unless perhaps you’re an anti-vaxxer, in which case this picture gives your kids autism.

        • NaibofTabr@infosec.pubEnglish
          8·
          2 days ago

          Oh, disagree. By definition propaganda misrepresents the truth, which makes it at best an untrustworthy tool for achieving a goal. Good and evil are facile concepts that don’t carry enough nuance for this discussion, but generally speaking one who spreads propaganda should not be trusted, even if their goals or intentions apparently align with your own.

          Communication is a means of spreading ideas. Propaganda is a means of spreading a specific idea with an ulterior motive, at the expense of honesty and forthrightness.

          • T0RB1T@piefed.caEnglish
            131·
            2 days ago

            It would certainly be simpler if propaganda was definitionally dishonest, but I don’t believe that’s the case.

            Propaganda can be completely truthful, it just rarely is.

            All definitions I’ve found suggest that dishonesty, loaded language, presenting limited selective facts, and calls to emotion are all tactics available to propagandists, but not required to meet the definition.

      • TigerAce@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        2·
        2 days ago

        Your comment is pro anti propaganda propaganda propaganda.

        Edit: but to avoid being called anti, I just want to point out I’m all for it!