Join the lemmy.ml boycott today and help foster a better Lemmy-verse! No more posts, comments (except to counter their propaganda ofc!) or upvotes on any comms on the Lemmy.ml instance!
And consider donating to individual instances instead.
Check the megathread for more!
Technically correct, though. Definition of propaganda according to merriam webster:
Note that it’s still propaganda if all the information is true, as long as it’s spread deliberately.
Yeah, I agree with cowbee’s point here in abstract, propaganda is just as useful for stoking activism as it is supressing it, but something tells me we’d disagree on whether Russian government propaganda is “good” or “bad”.
That’s exactly how cowbee operates. He makes a point that is a perfectly acceptable in abstract but when you get to the specifics of the real world he will absolutely throw out that point and do whatever suits his world view. He will view propaganda as something negative when it’s “western” propaganda. And then flip it around and view it positively when it’s propaganda he agrees with.
The only internally consistent logic he has is that everything he believes in cannot be wrong and everything he doesn’t believe cannot be right.
authcomms are conservatives who lick a different boot
I might even disagree with them on whether something is anti-fascist propaganda!
Technically correct, but ignorant of history and context.
Since the Nazi’s decided to call it the “ministry of propaganda,” the word became heavily associated with misinformation. To pretend that isn’t the way it’s used today is just dishonest. Like Cowbee.
I think it was the soviets that had more of a prolonged track record of “state propaganda is lies” that worked to distance it from the notion of “propaganda is messaging” sense that’s technically usable.
Basically everyone has propaganda at the same time the Nazis did. It wasn’t until the soviets used it to spin things more in the way we associate with the modern sense that the term fell properly out of favor.
True, if we’re going by a strict definition.
But in practice it means (at best) suppression of negative facts “for the cause” even when they’re true which is problematic in of itself, but it also encourages exaggeration of the pros and tearing down the opposition even if the opposition has good points worth considering
Tankies use a different flavor of propaganda than, say, Greenpeace, but even organisations like Greenpeace exaggerate the pros and downplay the downsides of their actions and beliefs - they aren’t going to put up a big poster that says “sometimes we could use our funds more effectively” or “in hindsight, this action has been counterproductive”.
They probably should. Transparency is a good thing.
Maybe. But the media game doesn’t work like that, currently.
For some of us it does. (Notwithstanding, for most people it does not.)
Cowbee@lemmy.ml said the definition that they are using at the beginning of the comment
There is a knee-jerk reaction surrounding the word propaganda. Etymology of the word is Latin for “what is to be disseminated” and it can be used with or without the malicious connotation. Also telling apart the distinction between wartime propaganda (psychological warfare) and political propaganda might help. The commonplace usage of the term is better illustrated by “manufacturing of consent”.
Is language prescriptive or descriptive? What determines a word’s meaning: Static definitions, or dynamic cultural usage?
If we’re going by cultural usage, “literally” can mean both “literally” and “metaphorically”, and “incel”, which is short for “involuntarily celibate”, can mean both “guy who never had sex” and “guy who has a lot of sex (but is a dick about it)”. I reject culture that’s fucking stupid.