[HN Gopher] Types of propaganda, propaganda techniques, and prop...
___________________________________________________________________
Types of propaganda, propaganda techniques, and propaganda
strategies (2017)
Author : jhabdas
Score : 210 points
Date : 2021-06-22 18:09 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (factmyth.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (factmyth.com)
| mylons wrote:
| there are so many ads on this blog it is hilarious and counter-
| messaging to the post?
| ergot_vacation wrote:
| This article misses the two most important bits of info in
| understanding propaganda, and how people work.
|
| 1. Most effective communication is "propaganda"
|
| As outlined in "Thinking Fast and Slow" (and in numerous other
| places), there are two ways of thinking: the quick instinctive
| "gut," and the slow, considered, logical mind. People, especially
| the kind of people that read HN, tend to deify the latter and
| villainize the former, but the truth is both have value.
| Furthermore, the "gut" actually has MORE value overall, since
| being able to sit down and carefully consider every aspect of a
| situation or concept is a luxury that is often impractical.
|
| "Propaganda" is simply anything that speaks to this instinctive
| mind. Sales is propaganda. Dating/pursuing someone is propaganda.
| Trying to get a child to calm down when they're afraid or angry
| is propaganda. People sneer at making "emotional appeals" and
| appealing to "base instincts," but the reality is that humans
| spend most of their time living in world of emotion and instinct,
| not fact. Speaking to the instinctive mind is a more effective
| way to persuade someone, because the instinctive mind has more
| power in most people. That doesn't make it inherently bad.
| Talking directly to a person's "gut" is simple effective
| communication, which can be used for good or bad end.
|
| 2. Logic is a luxury, not a silver bullet
|
| Almost every discussion of this topic inevitably frames it the
| same way: there are dark, sinister forces using "propaganda" to
| manipulate the vulnerable, and we must fight back by teaching
| people to think logically! Elevate yourself above base instinct,
| see everything with the cool remove of a Vulcan, and you will
| triumph, in yourself, and in winning arguments with others.
|
| The reality is that the world, and people, don't work like this.
| Logic, reason and facts are not trump cards. Quite the opposite:
| they require a cool, friendly and reserved setting to work, and
| are thus mostly useless in any situation other than one between
| friends that mutually respect and understand each other.
|
| The language of most of humanity, most of the time, is
| "propaganda," ie an appeal to instinct. Victory doesn't lie in
| trying to stomp this out like a Victorian trying to purge their
| sex drive, but rather in accepting it, understanding it, in
| yourself and others, and learning to speak in its language.
| Careful rational thinking is great, we wouldn't have all the
| advancements we do without it. But most people don't spend their
| free time reading research papers. They watch movies or TV, or
| play video games. Some even still read books.
|
| Stop treating "propaganda" as a dark tool of the evil one. Bad
| guys use what works, and speaking to instinct works. If you want
| to fight them (and more importantly, to just lead a richer life)
| learn to do the same.
| jhabdas wrote:
| Critical Race Theory is affecting both our children's education
| as well as the military. And the media is playing games right in
| front of our faces. Here's just one example:
|
| IO 26 - Interview with Lt Col Matthew Lohmeier, USAF on CRT in
| DoD, His Book Irresistible Revolution
|
| https://tv.gab.com/channel/creativedestructionmedia/view/io-...
|
| Lt. Col. Matthew Lohmeier called out the social justice scam and
| paid for it with his job
|
| https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/matthew-lohmeier-...
| systemvoltage wrote:
| Progressive propaganda is insidious not just in schools, but
| big tech, social media, at NASA and the military, virtue
| signaling at every opportunity.
|
| Completely unchecked and uncontested. I'm fine with the motifs,
| but what's not acceptable is inability to criticize aspects of
| it without people calling you names and gaining moral
| superiority over you. It alienates people and is dangerous for
| the society.
|
| I have a deep philosophical opposition to progressive causes
| and it's not stemming from the issues themselves, but the
| simple fact of mob mentality and unable to listen to all sides.
| No, all sides doesn't mean listening to bigoted and
| unsubstantiated nonsense, but ones who have good points to make
| and we silence them. Fuck everything about this.
|
| I have voted for liberal causes my whole life (a couple of
| local exceptions), but it's getting harder to get behind
| liberal party for me. It's a bunch of propaganda in my eyes.
| Convince me otherwise.
| seventytwo wrote:
| You mean, like, science and empathy?
|
| Ffs...
| systemvoltage wrote:
| That's basically the reason I can't get behind conservative
| causes, it's not about classic conservatism, it's what we
| colloquially call "Trumpism".
|
| I would readily rally behind a center left or center right
| candidate that rejects both extremes.
| reedjosh wrote:
| > at NASA
|
| Yup...
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODfOvQ6FGXI
| slg wrote:
| The message displayed at the end of that video:
|
| >At NASA, we're committed to making air, space, science and
| technology available for everyone because we know we're
| stronger and better together.
|
| It will always baffle me that people object to something as
| innocuous as that.
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| >"It will always baffle me that people object to
| something as innocuous as that. "
|
| This is just basic framing. Every movement wants to cast
| itself with broad and unobjectionable ideals. The devil
| is in the details with how you go about making things
| 'better for everyone' and that's where the real
| disagreement is.
| slg wrote:
| Then object to the policy details and not the messaging.
| reedjosh wrote:
| > At NASA, we're on a mission of equity...
|
| You did pick the more innocuous part. The opening is the
| above.
|
| Equity is a word being used to mean equality of outcome.
| This is viewed as something deeply wrong from a
| libertarian perspective. The classic example is weighing
| down a strong person such that his natural strength isn't
| a true advantage.
|
| It's cutting down the tall poppies, and it's asian
| student's needing better scores on entrance exams to get
| into Harvard.
|
| Either way, it's a _very_ left word, and NASA is virtue
| signaling with this campaign.
|
| Another example is here:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpJDnyZqfLw
|
| CIA adverts promoting left values have been popping up
| recently. Many view this as a way the CIA wraps
| themselves in a cloak of protection that is the left
| siding with them.
|
| The left should be the most critical of secret government
| operating bodies that do terrible things at home and
| abroad, but if the CIA can just align itself with them on
| trivial matters like DEI, then nobody bats an eye when
| regime changey things happen in Belarus.
| slg wrote:
| >Equity is a word being used to mean equality of outcome.
|
| You state this as a fact when only an extreme minority of
| people actually want equality of outcome. The key to
| NASA's statement is the word "available". They aren't
| talking about guaranteed outcome. They are specifically
| talking about opportunity. It is an ad advocating for
| equality of opportunity.
| whydoibother wrote:
| CRT is the new 'cultural marxism' of the right. It is
| completely bogus scaremongering and propaganda.
| Fellshard wrote:
| This claim you're repeating is pure gaslighting. There are
| /some/ who will just yell CRT regarding anything, yes, but
| there are more who actually read and see what the formal
| academic theory is, and reject it on that basis. To claim it
| does not exist is an abject lie.
| whydoibother wrote:
| Define what CRT is please.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| > The aim of propaganda is to change minds via the use of
| emotion, misinformation, disinformation, truths, half-truths, and
| cleverly selected facts; not to enlighten (although one can
| technically propagandize true information, using emotion to sell
| truth, this generally isn't what we are talking about when we use
| the term "propaganda").
|
| My understanding is that experts consider the aim of propaganda
| to be confusing and paralyzing the enemy, preventing effective
| communication, debate and decision-making.
|
| For example, after 2016, the widespread, hyper-inflammatory
| trolling and attacks prevented the discussion of politics. Many
| forums I know, including HN to an extent, simply banned it. To
| this day, many issues are very difficult to discuss (e.g., Trump,
| racism, etc.); you can't share information, discuss things,
| because the discussions seem to blow up (and even mentioning that
| those issues exist might provoke something here - please don't).
| That's effective propaganda.
|
| It's not clear to me that the author has real knowledge of
| propaganda beyond their own observations and theories. There is a
| lot of better research and knowledge out there.
| froh wrote:
| interesting! do you have a good entry point into said better
| research and knowledge?
| akomtu wrote:
| It's a 1 hour read. I'd recommend to start a brief intro into
| Herman-Chomsky propaganda model:
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model
| throwaway292893 wrote:
| Nothing Chomsky comes up with is accurate or ever stays
| accurate.
|
| The propaganda model is pro-communism. The corporations benefit
| from China.
|
| The media and hollywood protect China. Russia is still the
| scape goat though.
|
| On topic: this article itself has plenty of propaganda in it.
| I'd say ironically, but I know it's on purpose.
| cdstyh wrote:
| I recommend the preface and first chapter of "Killing hope"
| for a look into communism and anti-communism.
| lupire wrote:
| The article says: "In versions published after the 9/11
| attacks on the United States in 2001, Chomsky and Herman
| updated the fifth prong to instead refer to the "War on
| Terror" and "counter-terrorism", which they state operates in
| much the same manner."
| jhabdas wrote:
| Five filters. One big media theory. Consent is being
| manufactured around you all the time.
|
| Noam Chomsky - The 5 Filters of the Mass Media Machine
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34LGPIXvU5M
| motohagiography wrote:
| Have read some of the source materials on the propaganda they
| talk about, and what I've found it comes down to is criticism of
| the nonsense is basically a tarpit.
|
| The bit about Putin's propaganda guy is super interesting, as
| what he's doing makes complete sense within other frameworks. The
| advantage these propagandists have is they believe one simple
| thing and it's very easy to signal, operationalize, and organize
| around. It's basically nihilism.
|
| The article does get a couple things wrong e.g.:
|
| > Big Lie: Using a complex array of events to justify an action
| or narrative. What you do is take a carefully selected collection
| of truths, lies, and half-truths that all seem to tell a story
| (which is actually revised history) and use them to construct a
| story that eventually supplants the public's accurate perception
| of the underlying events.
|
| The Big Lie tactic is (as I remember reading in Cialdini, maybe?)
| something necessarily absurd like Kim Jong Il hitting 11
| consecutive hole-in-one shots on a golf course, where if you
| can't contain your disgust at how absurd that sounds, and you
| have some sense of self where it is offensive for you to believe
| it, you mark yourself out for isolation and attack. The Big Lie
| is primarily a tactic to get people to react, and the people
| whose identities are still anchored to truth are potential
| resistance leaders, so this lets them paint themselves as
| targets. It's also called a "wedge issue," and is the
| complementary tactic to dogwhistles and watchwords. It is also
| close to a "scissor statement," which is a statement that only
| has polarized and opposing interpretations. (HN thread on scissor
| statements: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21190508)
|
| There are also some standard sales and negotiation tactics thrown
| in there, and oddly, some of their own tactics to create a slant
| are written into it.
|
| However, the goal of a propagandist is to hold your attention and
| it doesn't matter what you actually think, because as long as the
| propagandist has your attention, you are passified by their noise
| and not acting against them or in your own interest. Arguing the
| logic or principles? Engaged. Outraged? Engaged. Have a side?
| Engaged. Ditched family and friends over politics? Engaged. The
| job of a propagandist is to manage your attention and make the
| stories you tell yourself the ones they taught you, they don't
| actually care what you think, only that above all you do nothing,
| and so small squads of less than 10 people at a time can seem to
| control entire cities.
|
| The best filter against propaganda is attitude. The question,
| "how do I benefit if they are wrong?" goes a long way to
| establishing the necessary personal boundaries that keep you from
| spending too much time mesmerized. Having an axiomatic truth as a
| co-ordinate or waypoint for who you are prevents you from being
| completely submerged by narrative. Deflecting arguments helps as
| well because they are mainly bait for a tarpit, and as Dale
| Carnigie said, "nobody wins an argument." If your reaction to
| something is angry or excitable, you are downstream of someone
| trying to get inside your head.
|
| Anyway, it's a good and important article on a pet topic, so my
| advice for dealing with propaganda is: it's _your_ attention they
| want, only ever give it on your own terms.
| runbathtime wrote:
| > Propaganda isn't bad by its nature (after-all, almost any
| content that relays information can be considered a form of
| propaganda).
|
| I have to disagree, propaganda is bad, as its aim isn't to
| inform, but to manipulate through dishonesty.
| pessimizer wrote:
| PR is a PR term for propaganda. I think it was coined by
| Bernays.
| strogonoff wrote:
| One can't simply relay absolutely all of the information. By
| choosing which information to relay, you could say one already
| engages in propaganda, selective spread of information[0]. The
| choice reflects one's opinion on what you should pay attention
| to, which is conceptually not that different from propaganda.
|
| [0] Quoting the article, "The art of propaganda is not telling
| lies, but rather selecting the truth you require and giving it
| mixed up with some truths the audience wants to hear."
| runbathtime wrote:
| There is a difference between not relaying all information
| and selecting info or misrepresenting info used for an
| agenda.
| strogonoff wrote:
| How is not relaying all information different from
| selecting information to relat?
|
| As to misrepresenting information, the same subset of
| information could be seen as fair by one group and
| misrepresentation by another group.
|
| What matters is the purpose of the activity. If one
| consistently spreads selective information from which one
| stands to gain in terms of money or power, I'd say that's a
| problem, whether you call it propaganda or not. On the
| other hand, other types of selective information we could
| call "propaganda" (e.g., anti-drug or pro-savings
| commercials) might actually be beneficial to the society.
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| Propaganda has bad reputation partially because it is
| associated with world war 2. Prior to that, it was freely used
| without negative connotations.
|
| Think about it like this. Parents manipulate their children all
| the time to make them do things they don't want to do. They do
| not do it honestly, but it certainly it not perceived a
| societal harm despite inherent dishonesty.
| runbathtime wrote:
| Manipulating your own children (probably not good if you want
| functional kids) is a private affair without a political
| agenda.
| tines wrote:
| You're using a different definition than the article. It's
| developed a negative connotation, but originally it referred to
| any dissemination of information made to influence public
| opinion. It refers to the motivation, not the content. Even
| citing true, non-misleading statistics in order to accomplish
| something good for society is propaganda, according to the old
| meaning. ("Propaganda" comes from a word that literally just
| means "propagate".)
| jturpin wrote:
| I don't know why people are saying the article uses a morally
| neutral definition of propaganda. It starts with saying
| "Propaganda is information (delivered through any medium)
| designed to persuade, manipulate emotion, and change opinion
| rather than to inform using logical truths and facts. The aim
| of propaganda is to change minds via the use of emotion,
| misinformation, disinformation, truths, half-truths, and
| cleverly selected facts; not to enlighten (although one can
| technically propagandize true information, using emotion to
| sell truth, this generally isn't what we are talking about
| when we use the term "propaganda")".
|
| The article's core purpose is to describe manipulative and
| insincere propaganda strategies so that the reader learns
| defenses against these strategies. This is very much in line
| with the negative definition of propaganda, and not just the
| very general "propagate information" definition.
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| How do we classify messaging campaigns the government puts
| out that aren't particularly manipulative or harmful? For
| instance, are posters telling people to wear mosquito
| repellent and to drain pools of standing water be
| considered propaganda? My understanding is that they would.
| But it fails the manipulative test. I don't know if we have
| a good word in the vernacular for the kinds of messaging
| I'm talking about. Public Service Announcement?
| BugsJustFindMe wrote:
| > _but to manipulate through dishonesty._
|
| That's a narrow view of propaganda. You can manipulate through
| honesty as well.
| lupire wrote:
| I think you are taking a wide view of "honesty".
| zero_deg_kevin wrote:
| Is it dishonest for reporters to report factually-accurate
| on sensational crimes if the reporting leads people to
| believe sensational crimes happen often? Which circle of
| hell do I end up in for posting about Shark Week on social
| media?
| BugsJustFindMe wrote:
| That's still being dishonest by omission about relative
| danger. I meant like the "lead paint is harmful" example
| that klyrs gave. Getting people to check for lead in
| their homes is also manipulation, but it's positive.
| klyrs wrote:
| "Don't eat lead paintchips, they cause brain damage" is an
| example of honest and beneficial propaganda
| ttctciyf wrote:
| It's a topic that's never been so relevant, IMO, because of the
| unprecedented scale at which the propaganda industries (AKA
| PR/"Think Tanks"/"Dark Money"/Outreach programs/"Strategic
| Communications", etc.) now operate.
|
| For insight into how it works, I prefer the more systematic
| approach of "Propaganda Principles"[1] to the linked site,
| however.
|
| https://propagandaprinciples.wordpress.com/propaganda-techni...
| milkytron wrote:
| > Thus, understanding propaganda to guard yourself against it
| requires not only the use of sound and cogent logic and a set of
| facts, it requires being on guard against emotional responses.
|
| This, I believe, is so important to living in the modern era of
| constant information and media consumption at our fingertips.
| Reading (or even participating in) arguments online is one thing
| I see a lot of. Tons of emotional responses with plenty of bias
| and assumptions being made. But those are pretty easy to avoid if
| you just don't get yourself involved and watch from the
| sidelines. Good arguments where both sides are participating in
| open discussion with facts, logic, and open minds are a pleasure.
| It's what drew me to HN years ago.
|
| What isn't easy to avoid (at least for me), is the propaganda
| being regurgitated by those around me. One side of my family is
| very deep into conspiracy thinking. They have zero trust for the
| media, other than a single outlet which they listen and watch
| every day. When I see this side of the family, I listen to what
| they have to say, but they don't seem to have any taste for
| logic, facts, or reasoning. Open discussion is off the table
| unless it caters to what they want to hear or already believe.
| Any evidence to the contrary is dismissed and not believed. It
| seems to me like there is no way to get through to them, no way
| to open their minds, no way to propose viable alternatives to
| their thinking.
|
| How does one go about opening the minds of those already deeply
| influenced by propaganda? I have their trust, they still come to
| me and voice their ideas, however farfetched they may seem. Even
| if they know I don't believe them, they still open discussion
| with me. But I cannot seem to find a way to engage in their
| arguments while involving reasoning.
|
| p.s. This became a rant, but I do want to improve the
| communication between myself and this side of the family. I don't
| want to (and can't really) just cut them off, they are nice
| people that just happen to have some wild beliefs.
| bgroat wrote:
| Honestly, the answer is gaslighting.
|
| They trust you, they trust this source.
|
| State the idea that you want them to believe, and then back it
| up with a manufactured argument from this source they trust.
|
| They won't remember if it was ever said. They just know that
| they trust you, and they trust your source.
|
| Use this power responsible.
| foolinaround wrote:
| > How does one go about opening the minds of those already
| deeply influenced by propaganda? I have their trust, they still
| come to me and voice their ideas, however farfetched they may
| seem. Even if they know I don't believe them, they still open
| discussion with me. But I cannot seem to find a way to engage
| in their arguments while involving reasoning.
|
| Maybe you can checkout their single source of information, and
| make them promise to checkout the other side too...
|
| Both will benefit from checking out alternate sources that
| opine opposite to our current biases.
|
| We will disagree with most of them, but then, one can basically
| find out what is factually true or not from a simple
| comparison, see which facts have been omitted in the reporting,
| and then make up their minds.
| skinkestek wrote:
| Adding to this:
|
| - understand that in the others minds you are the one deeply
| influenced by propaganda.
|
| - try to create a bridge, something you can a agree on.
|
| - if the other person is a logical thinker you might apply to
| that. Even when you don't know who or what to trust you can
| go a step further. Example: The two identical twins in the
| intersection, one always lies, one always tells the truth.
| You need to know the way to Rome but you can only ask one
| question.
|
| - be aware that sometimes it might be you who should cross
| the bridge. I've already done so anf it feels great
| afterwards.
| scandox wrote:
| I am in a somewhat similar situation. I've come to the
| conclusion that the relationship, the human connection, keeping
| that open is the most important thing.
|
| Some part of their brain knows that what they're into is deeply
| flawed but ultimately only they themselves can find their way
| out.
| jb775 wrote:
| Just need to turn on CNN or MSNBC right now for modern examples
| of propaganda.
|
| Don't think they really care about left or right, they use
| politics as a vehicle to keep the masses divided and therefore
| under control. It also shifts focus away from the growing class
| gap and how the upper classes are hoarding wealth.
| [deleted]
| clairity wrote:
| or npr and nytimes, two outlets that especially harp on their
| "fact-based", "independent" reporting, but is as message-
| controlled as every other (e.g., covid fearmongering is _still_
| being peddled as hard as ever).
| proverbialbunny wrote:
| After WW2 propaganda got a bit of a bad name for itself so it
| renamed itself public relations. Anything that talks about
| propaganda and not PR is out of date, but still valid.
| grumblenum wrote:
| * zero-cost abstractions
|
| * move semantics
|
| * guaranteed memory safety
|
| * threads without data races
|
| * trait-based generics
|
| * pattern matching
|
| * type inference
|
| * minimal runtime
|
| * efficient C bindings
| nimbius wrote:
| >All states essentially sell their Civil Religion (ours being one
| of liberty, equality, and capitalism in a two party system). This
| is normal.
|
| pretty painful trying to read the rest of the article after this
| as the author clearly sees certain kinds of propaganda as
| objective good.
| kaycebasques wrote:
| (Tangential) I'm in Brazil [1] for the first time and was
| intrigued to learn that the word for "advertising" is
| "propaganda". Of course anyone who has read Edward Bernays or
| seen Century of the Self will know the connection, but
| interesting nonetheless!
|
| [1] I also learned that they spell it "Brasil" here.
| narrator wrote:
| The most annoying common form of propaganda is the association
| fallacy, which is a more subtle form of the ad hominem fallacy
| [1].
|
| It works like this:
|
| A. You believe X.
|
| B. A crazy person also believes/believed X.
|
| C. You are a crazy person.
|
| D. Optionally: I won't consider your argument unless you tell me
| why being a crazy person is ok. Why do you support doing crazy
| people things like being a serial killer?
|
| Example:
|
| A. You are against cigarette smoking.
|
| B. The Nazis were also against cigarette smoking[2].
|
| C. Therefore you are a Nazi.
|
| D. Optionally: I won't consider your argument unless you tell me
| why being a Nazi is ok. Why do you support anti-semitism?
|
| This is by far the most common bullshit argument I get when
| talking with people about controversial topics.
|
| [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy#Guilt_by_a..
| .
|
| [2]https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/251213.The_Nazi_War_on_C..
| .
| bena wrote:
| I like how their description of "Refuting the central point" is
| "refuting the central point" without explicitly telling us how
| that is different from "Refutation".
|
| Also "Name Calling" is a form of "Ad Hominem".
|
| And why is "using quotes" higher up than "reasoning and
| supporting evidence"?
|
| Also, isn't the entire pyramid about the level of counter
| argument? So, contradiction is inherent in the process. It really
| seems like "Counteragrument", "Refutation", and "Refuting the
| central point" are all about the same thing. And if they are
| different then "Refutation" and "Counterargument" are ordered
| wrong. Because I think using reasoning and supporting evidence
| would be stronger than quotes.
|
| So, really, this pyramid could be like 4 layers. Ad-hominem, Tone
| Policing, Simple Contradiction, Counter Argument
| dragontamer wrote:
| And yet, Ad Hominem is useful, especially since certain
| channels are clearly propaganda.
|
| Is it a shortcut? Yes. But as the blogpost points out,
| misinformation spreads far more quickly than truth. Its easier
| to shortcut and label certain outlets as propaganda channels,
| to help focus the discussion on the few channels which are
| reliable (Associated Press is good and neutral, and mainly
| factual)
| bena wrote:
| Ad hominem is never useful.
|
| It doesn't tell me anything about the other side and tells me
| more about you. You don't like the other side. That's what I
| now know.
|
| And misinformation usually has one of the problems that would
| put it further down the pyramid than actual arguments. It's
| usually ad hominem or tone policing itself. Or sometimes just
| a straight up lie.
|
| And pointing out those elements would fall under Counter
| Argument.
|
| Not everything negative is ad hominem.
| dragontamer wrote:
| > You don't like the other side. That's what I now know.
|
| And that's very useful for establishing which sources we
| should rely upon in a shared discussion.
|
| My sister's husband was quoting Breitbart news to me. I let
| him know that I believed that was a propaganda channel. In
| many discussions, its very important to establish who is,
| or isn't, a trusted source of information.
|
| -------------
|
| There are others who quote Elon Musk's tweets to me. Many
| of those tweets have no basis in reality IMO, so I let them
| know that I don't trust them, and I ask them for another
| source of information.
| nrjames wrote:
| On a similar note, the FBI's Elicitation brochure is a good
| overview of how people may attempt to convince you to reveal
| confidential information:
| https://ucr.fbi.gov/investigate/counterintelligence/elicitat...
| MikeUt wrote:
| > Selective truth: restrictive use of data or facts to sway
| opinion that might not be swayed if all the data or facts were
| given.
|
| This is usually interpreted as presenting only half of a story,
| but the more common and powerful use is in presenting the whole
| story, while simply ignoring unfavorable stories, and promoting
| favorable ones. Is a murder front-page news, or a footnote?
| Depends on the murder.
| torpid wrote:
| Imagine thinking this...
|
| >"Propaganda is information (delivered through any medium)
| designed to persuade, manipulate emotion, and change opinion
| rather than to inform using logical truths and facts. The aim of
| propaganda is to change minds via the use of emotion,
| misinformation, disinformation, truths, half-truths, and cleverly
| selected facts; not to enlighten (although one can technically
| propagandize true information, using emotion to sell truth, this
| generally isn't what we are talking about when we use the term
| "propaganda"
|
| Then saying this...
|
| >Propaganda isn't bad by its nature (after-all, almost any
| content that relays information can be considered a form of
| propaganda).
|
| What the fuck. No, any content that relays information is NOT a
| form of propaganda.
| zinekeller wrote:
| > No, any content that relays information is NOT a form of
| propaganda.
|
| Except... that's the literal meaning of propaganda (it's
| literally Italian for "propagation"). It's only in the Cold War
| era (only relatively recently in the time-span of history) that
| "propaganda" have added that negative connotation.
| [deleted]
| hezag wrote:
| Information is not -- by itself -- a form of propaganda, but
| any "content that relays information" (e.g. an article that
| uses a chosen subset of the available information about
| something to expose a point of view) can be considered a form
| of propaganda.
| WalterBright wrote:
| Once you learn the propaganda techniques, you start seeing it
| _everywhere_ in the mainstream media. I used to think about 10%
| of the mainstream media was propaganda, now it seems like about
| 90%.
| lupire wrote:
| Why the classification "mainstream" media? Is non mainstream
| media qualitatively different?
| WalterBright wrote:
| I called out mainstream media, as people often assume it is
| more reliable than the non-mainstream media.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| > I called out mainstream media, as people often assume it
| is more reliable than the non-mainstream media.
|
| It's pretty ambiguous: Where do you draw the line between
| them, and what evidence do you have about their relative
| reliability. The professional journalism I see, e.g. news
| sections in established newspapers, is far more accurate
| and honest than the non-mainstream stuff I see.
| decremental wrote:
| It's quantitatively different. Propaganda is most effective
| when its reach is maximized because having it appear in all
| mediums gives it the appearance of legitimacy.
| angio wrote:
| I believe non mainstream media is easier to recognize as
| propaganda or at least heavily biased, while mainstream media
| is oftentimes considered "unbiased" and "objective".
| hezag wrote:
| "unbiased"/"objective" = Status quo Propaganda
| wolverine876 wrote:
| That's what the propagandists say: Everything is
| propaganda. It's self-justifying.
|
| But it's not true. There actually is bias and
| subjectivity, and various degrees of them.
| pydry wrote:
| Of course. It's not 90% owned by 6 companies.
| jb775 wrote:
| Most "non mainstream" media companies are actually owned by
| the big mainstream media companies. For example, look at
| everything Disney owns.
| stronglikedan wrote:
| I consider media outlets mainstream when they are all owned
| and controlled by one of the big groups like Sinclair. E.g.,
| if they've ever made it into one of those montages where all
| the anchors from all over the country say the same catch
| phrases. I think they're different, because they anchors
| cannot say what they know to be true, but must stick to the
| script even when they know it's wrong, or they get fired. The
| smaller independent outlets can push propaganda as well, but
| they're not forced to, and their outreach is a small fraction
| of the conglomerates.
| decremental wrote:
| Once you learn to spot it, you can never un-see it. It's damn
| near maddening to try to even describe this to someone who is
| unaware.
| [deleted]
| seertaak wrote:
| It does feel like the propaganda to genuine news ratio has
| increased markedly roughly since the Trump presidency, however.
| That's worrying for many reasons, not the least that increases
| in propaganda are what one might describe as leading indicators
| of quite shitty times.
| cbsmith wrote:
| You see it even more on social media.
| jb775 wrote:
| I majored in Media Studies in college...it's literally all
| bullshit propaganda. Even if the underlying story is true, they
| twist and warp the facts and selectively cover events based on
| the agenda they are pushing.
|
| All media is owned by probably 5 people....but the general
| population eats that shit up and seems to get offended if you
| inform them of that.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| Can you support any of this, or are we just using some of the
| techniques in the OP?
| ab737 wrote:
| Not surprising. You have these nepotistic rags espousing
| hatred for the working class which the upper-middle class
| eats up.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| > Once you learn the propaganda techniques, you start seeing it
| everywhere in the mainstream media.
|
| I think it heavily depends on what media you see. The best
| journalism generally avoids it (i.e., the straight news side).
| Most journalism isn't in the top few percentile, but you don't
| need to read anything less than the best. I stick to the best,
| and when I encounter lesser stuff (e.g., I was visiting
| relatives and CNN was on TV), it's shocking and depressing how
| obviously bad it is. (BTW, one good source I discovered on that
| trip: BBC World News television - actually excellent cable
| news!)
|
| But the opinion pages of even the best news sources (e.g., NY
| Times, Wall St Journal) are 99% exercises in propaganda; it
| almost defines opinion in the news. It's disgusting to me that
| they brazenly deceive their readers, but it's ok because it
| says 'opinion'.
|
| However, where I see propaganda far more is online, not in the
| news media. I see it comments and blog posts, etc., including
| in this forum, sadly. The focus on the professional news media
| is odd to me; and in fact, and ironically, de-legitimizing the
| professional news media is a widespread propaganda campaign
| from a specific political grouping.
| njonesuk wrote:
| The BBC's World Service and non-UK coverage is generally
| pretty fantastic, but unfortunately they can no longer be
| trusted for anything related to the UK, speaking as a Brit.
|
| By nature of their primary funding source (a "tax" levied on
| those who watch TV in the UK through the government, which
| thus controls their purse strings), they tend to be very soft
| on whoever the governing party is, especially at present. For
| one, Laura Kuenssberg, their political editor, has had a lot
| of allegations of bias against the current opposition party,
| some of which have been upheld in enquiries. She's also ended
| up serving as an unofficial mouthpiece for leaks from the
| conservative party on a number of occasions, parroting party
| talking points uncritically.
| dotcommand wrote:
| I'll do you one better. If you learn the history of media, then
| you'll realize why you see propaganda everywhere. Even more
| simply, one only has to ask why would anyone create a media
| company? Why did Trump threaten to create a media company after
| losing the election? To get the "truth" out there? Or get his
| propaganda out there? Every mainstream media company, in the
| US, Europe, China, Russia, etc was created the wealthy or
| politically elite. Once you understand this, everything falls
| into place and you can move on with your life. It's sad so many
| people waste their lives over news/media that exists to
| manipulate and control them. How many relationships,
| friendships, lives have been ruined by media?
| cdstyh wrote:
| I do the same. I look at advertising and marketing completely
| different now. The enemy of propaganda is an educated public
| that is capable of critical thinking.
|
| This is one of my favorite YouTube videos.
| https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KewaCcYF9nY
| ramesh31 wrote:
| >Once you learn the propaganda techniques, you start seeing it
| everywhere in the mainstream media. I used to think about 10%
| of the mainstream media was propaganda, now it seems like about
| 90%.
|
| It was fascinating to watch the most recent interview Putin did
| with NBC during the summit last week, knowing this and being
| able to recognize the tricks. He came out of the gate with
| every tactic imaginable [0]. The first question the reporter
| started out with was a hard hitting question about a specific
| policy regarding Russia's selling of satellite technology to
| Iran, and he pretended not to hear the question at first. Then
| he laughed, mockingly, at the journalist and completely brushed
| it off as a total fabrication.
|
| [0] https://youtu.be/m6pJd6O_NT0?t=21
| slg wrote:
| Doesn't propaganda require intent? You may be seeing bias but
| that isn't the same as propaganda.
| WalterBright wrote:
| The intent is pretty clear. You can distinguish it from
| sloppy journalism fairly easily. Especially when the stories
| from one particular outfit all slant the same way.
| slg wrote:
| I am sorry but I have no idea how one would come to the
| conclusion that 90% of journalists are engaging in
| intentional propaganda. I can understand if you think they
| have unconscious biases that influence their work, but
| believing 90% of the profession ix trying to actively
| manipulate you is just disconnected from reality.
| infamouscow wrote:
| You mean like how every left-leaning media publication
| said the lab-leak hypothesis was debunked, even though
| there was not a shred of evidence to substantiate
| debunking?
| bosswipe wrote:
| If every single left-leaning media said the lab-leak
| hypothesis was debunked it should be easy for you to give
| me one citation.
| whatthesmack wrote:
| It's harder since they've all gone back and stealth-
| edited their articles.
|
| Here's one example from PaulG:
| https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1396769717805780994
| ttt0 wrote:
| I don't want to necessarily pick on the left here, but
| the most in-your-face example is all the so-called
| 'wokeness' in the media. This is a conscious effort to
| promote the 'inclusiveness' or however you want to phrase
| it. It's discussed openly how do you want people to react
| to what you publish. Have you ever considered that it
| might be your own personal biases that you don't see it?
| DangitBobby wrote:
| How does one distinguish between propoganda and
| universally accepted truth? It's not propaganda that
| tomorrow is Wednesday. Basically everyone will tell you
| it is and want you to believe it is. Same with planetary
| roundness. Is that propaganda too? Let's say for the sake
| of argument, all of the ideals driving "wokeness" are
| actually rooted in the truth. Would it still be
| propaganda? How would you know?
| WalterBright wrote:
| > How does one distinguish between propoganda and
| universally accepted truth?
|
| One tell is when they quote anonymous sources =>
| propaganda. Another is using unconfirmed reports. Another
| is when the only source has a heavy incentive to
| misrepresent. Another is when the statistics make no
| sense, or do not support the thrust of the story.
|
| It goes on and on.
| slg wrote:
| >One tell is when they quote anonymous sources =>
| propaganda. Another is using unconfirmed reports.
|
| This just shows a total lack of understanding for how
| journalism works.
| ttt0 wrote:
| Truth and propaganda are not mutually exclusive.
|
| Edit: Finally when we got an actually interesting topic
| to discuss among the ocean of controversies everyone
| forgets in a week and tech equivalents of cute animal
| pictures, mods suddenly decided to limit my account and I
| can no longer respond to anything. I don't want to deal
| with this BS, bye.
|
| Last response, since I can't respond directly to
| shuntress:
|
| Feel free to post examples of right-leaning media doing
| it. Like for example the mask idiocy, because your
| example doesn't make any sense. As I said, it wasn't my
| intention on picking on the left here. It's just that the
| 'mainstream' right don't have the 'activist spirit' like
| the left or the fringes have, so it happens behind the
| closed doors and saying the same about the right would be
| _technically_ a mere speculation on my part. Activism on
| the other hand happens out in the open on the internet
| and you can see all the tactics for yourself. Also I 'd
| love to refute the 'wokeness' meaning 'being polite', but
| that would probably be a somewhat longer discussion and
| given the situation I'm unable to do it. You can thank
| the mods.
| DangitBobby wrote:
| Okay, fair enough. My question is, really, "what makes
| something propaganda?"
| slg wrote:
| What percentage of the media do you think engages in this
| "wokeness" propaganda? It is certainly nowhere even close
| to 90%.
| ttt0 wrote:
| Of course, it _can 't_ be anywhere near close to 90% as
| it's limited to just the left-leaning media, which is
| probably at most half of all media. I don't know the
| exact numbers, but I repeat again, it's only the most in-
| your-face example and the propaganda doesn't end on
| 'wokeness'.
| shuntress wrote:
| _I don 't want to necessarily pick on the right here, but
| the most in-your-face example is all the so-called
| 'rationality' in the media. This is a conscious effort to
| promote the 'reactionary tribalism' or however you want
| to phrase it._
|
| You should try to consider what unnoticed propaganda has
| led you to (apparently) separate "wokeness," as a
| concept, from just "being polite" or "treating people
| with respect".
|
| It is closely related to the similar discussions had over
| "political correctness".
| WalterBright wrote:
| > believing 90% of the profession ix trying to actively
| manipulate you is just disconnected from reality.
|
| As I wrote in the opening post, once one learns about how
| the propaganda is done, what the techniques are, you
| start recognizing it all over the place.
|
| It's like when I took some courses in sales techniques.
| Then, I'd go to buy a car, and sure enough, the
| salesmens' pitches were right out of those courses. I
| never recognized them for what they were before.
|
| Becoming aware of when someone is trying to manipulate
| you, how they are doing it, and why it works is kind of a
| superpower.
| MrsPeaches wrote:
| Just FYI this has name: The frequency illusion aka the
| Baader-Meinhof phenomenon. It's a common cognitive bias.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_illusion
| hungryhobo wrote:
| i don't think that's an example of the frequency
| illusion. it's only a bias if you are actively dismissing
| the counter arguments. in the example of car salesman, i
| don't think it's controversial to say that they do in
| fact employ tactics that makes you more likely to
| purchase a car.
| slg wrote:
| But as I mentioned in my opening post, propaganda
| generally requires intent to manipulate. So you are not
| only recognizing techniques, you are assuming
| intentionality and motive for usage of those techniques.
| That is the part I don't buy.
| cbsmith wrote:
| It requires _someone 's_ intent. People happily regurgitate
| the propaganda they've been indoctrinated with, without
| recognizing it as such.
| ttt0 wrote:
| Or rationalize it as a right thing to do. The end justifies
| the means and such.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| > Doesn't propaganda require intent?
|
| Not at all. In fact, effective propaganda will have its
| targets repeating it explicitly and internalizing it as a
| frame to other things. If nobody did that, propaganda
| wouldn't matter.
| indymike wrote:
| Interesting. The article defines propaganda differently than
| the dictionary.
|
| The article: "Propaganda is information (delivered through
| any medium) designed to persuade, manipulate emotion, and
| change opinion rather than to inform using logical truths and
| facts."
|
| The dictionary: "information, especially of a biased or
| misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular
| political cause or point of view."
| ab737 wrote:
| Bias doesn't exist without intent. Even implicit bias implies
| intent.
| shuntress wrote:
| This is not accurate.
|
| Especially regarding _implicit bias_. Implicit bias is
| specifically distinct from "regular" bias because is not
| deliberate and lacks intent.
| ab737 wrote:
| Of course there's intent, it is just subconscious.
| [deleted]
| ttt0 wrote:
| Intent is there, people talk about it openly.
| shuntress wrote:
| You seem to be conflating "propaganda" with "opinion". And also
| conflating "propaganda techniques" with "communication".
|
| There is obviously some overlap. Propaganda is inherently
| opinionated and basic communication techniques used to convey
| any story of course also work with propaganda.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| No, propaganda is weaponised rhetoric designed to obfuscate
| the truth while promoting compliant beliefs and expedient
| behaviours.
|
| This is _not_ about differences of opinion. It 's about
| whether the population is allowed to have an independent
| opinion at all.
|
| In the US it simply isn't. There's a gigantic shrieking fog-
| horn of pro-corporate anti-democratic extremism on one side,
| and a smaller but more shrill progressive air horn on the
| other.
|
| Between those two it's very hard to debate anything on its
| merits. Most positions are tribally one-vs-the-other, wrapped
| in triggering rhetoric and imagery, and powered by stock cut-
| and-paste memes, opinions, and predigested talking points.
|
| None of that is about communication.
|
| There are reasons for all of this. Some are reasonable, some
| are toxic. But that's a different issues.
|
| It doesn't change the fact that propaganda is the default
| media mode in the US - not just in the mainstream media and
| in advertising, but also in the _form_ of the interactions
| and quality of relationship that are typically promoted on
| social media.
| shuntress wrote:
| I agree with you that _propaganda_ is _weaponized rhetoric
| designed to obfuscate the truth while promoting specific
| beliefs and behaviors_.
|
| My point (in response to the parent comment stating that
| 90% of all "mainstream media" is propaganda) is that the
| assertion "90% of mainstream media is propaganda" seems to
| be stretching the definition of propaganda from the
| reasonable one which you have brought up to something more
| like _" propaganda is rhetoric to promote beliefs"_.
|
| To me, that original comment seems to be more similar to
| weaponized rhetoric (in this case, designed to promote the
| belief that "mainstream" media is untrustworthy) than to
| earnest communication or expression of opinion.
| WalterBright wrote:
| Not at all. It's obvious in the "news" stories.
| cdstyh wrote:
| The War on Sensemaking is a great series of videos on propaganda
| and the information ecology in the modern social media driven
| world. I highly recommend it.
|
| https://youtube.com/watch?v=7LqaotiGWjQ
| [deleted]
| lupire wrote:
| The best comprehensive list of propaganda techniques I've ever
| seen was in the "Academic Games" game of Propaganda:
|
| https://www.agloa.org/prop-docs/ See linked PDFs.
|
| More info:
|
| https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/5647/propaganda-game
| andyxor wrote:
| Outdated, the US Democrats raised the bar with their spectacular
| propaganda campaign leading to the 2020 elections.
| pacerwpg wrote:
| I would say the alternate reality that the Republican Party is
| living in is the gold standard for propaganda.
|
| That's not to say that Democrats don't use propaganda, but
| Democratic Party propaganda at least shares a reality with the
| rest of the country and world and isn't in the process of
| manufacturing an entirely different reality.
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| I think this perception of alternate realities is something
| the Democrats are actually encouraging. It makes perfect
| political sense to cast the opposition party as completely
| out of touch with reality. It also perfectly complements the
| existing sentiment of "reality has a well known liberal
| bias".
| pacerwpg wrote:
| Ask Republicans who won the election, and tell me it's
| something Democrats are doing.
| bsagdiyev wrote:
| That's a stereotype. I tend red sometimes, but have no
| question who won the election. Maybe the issue is you see
| things that way due to what you see in the media and are
| told instead of from actual interactions with people from
| opposing viewpoints?
| pacerwpg wrote:
| I would say I get that impression from the continued
| strong support for the former president, who is arguably
| still the leader of the party, and his insistence that
| the election was stolen.
|
| https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/news_and_polls/over-half-
| republi...
| andyxor wrote:
| The Washington Post, the flagship of Bezos-sponsored
| propaganda, has been manufacturing alternate reality for
| years, 24/7.
|
| There must be a new academic study on the effects of
| prolonged brainwashing on individual psyche, too bad academia
| is prone to even worse brainwashing from within.
| nostromo wrote:
| There's a lot of good content in this article focused on the
| media. The media is highly visible and well-documented, so it
| makes sense.
|
| I'd like to see more content about indoctrination and propaganda
| happening in US education. This to me is much more insidious as
| it takes an impressionable populace (kids and young adults) and
| provides an authority figure (teachers and professors) that are
| largely hidden from public view and gives them a lot of room to
| provide whatever narrative they like about politics, history, or
| just about any subject.
|
| The impact of shouting matches happening on cable news and
| Twitter seem like a rounding error compared to the decades-long
| indoctrination that happens during one's education.
| colordrops wrote:
| The worst kind of propaganda is that which makes certain topics
| taboo, regardless of merit. For instance, if your idea that
| propaganda is pushed in schools gains traction among the
| populace, the idea would then be associated with the "other
| side", either liberals or conservatives in our case, and would
| then mark you as being on the wrong team. Its a pernicious form
| of propaganda that has escalated with the last presidential
| election.
|
| EDIT: curious about the opinions of anyone who down voted this.
| nescioquid wrote:
| Susan Jacoby[1] made the case that the lack of a
| federal/national education system (the constitution makes it a
| state responsibility) historically results from Americans'
| fears of indoctrination by such an education system --
| specifically that their children would _not_ be properly
| indoctrinated into their religion, or worse, be indoctrinated
| into someone else 's religion.
|
| [1] Age of American Unreason
| HWR_14 wrote:
| That's strange. There's no federal system because of 9th
| amendment issues. And there was no federal right in the
| original constitution because universal education is a fairly
| new concept.
| lupire wrote:
| Do private schools not have propaganda?
|
| Student have over a dozen teachers over the course of
| education. If they "provide whatever narrative they like " it
| seems students would get a diverse range of perspectives. Not
| to mention all the perspectives they get from other authorities
| like their churches, clubs, family members, and... every adult
| they encounter, and every book too.
| colordrops wrote:
| The private schools in Los Angeles definitely push political
| agendas.
| [deleted]
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| Most private schools are still required to follow a state
| mandated curriculum in many areas, and are still hiring from
| the same pool of indoctrinated teachers. You could make a
| propaganda light private school, but that would need to be
| your explicit goal.
|
| Sure, children will encounter a diverse range of ideas.
| Schooling dominates in time spent with, and it is the one
| most likely to reward or punish a child for regurgitating an
| ideology.
| benjohnson wrote:
| Yes. Private school do have 'propaganda' - but that's
| perfectly ok if it aligns with the parent's wishes. As the
| parents, we have the right to chose how our children are
| raised.
| Broken_Hippo wrote:
| I don't know. Sure, you are raising your kids, but they are
| going to be adults, some with kids, some without - and that
| is going to require some information.
|
| I think it is a grave injustice to children to, for
| example, not introduce them to a variety of religions so
| that they can better understand folks they might run into.
| Same for not having comprehensive sex education: It matters
| little to me that a parent thinks some sex - or birth
| control - is a sin: The child still needs to learn about it
| so that they can make good decisions _even if it goes
| against the parents ' beliefs_. Some parents want girls to
| just learn to cook and clean, and demand an emphasis on
| such classes.
|
| And so on.
|
| I'm not convinced it is entirely your right to do as you
| please with your children: To me, it is only OK so long it
| is healthy for the child and doesn't infringe on their
| rights... which they should have, and the US refuses to
| give.
| reedjosh wrote:
| > As the parents, we have the right to chose how our
| children are raised.
|
| Downvoted for raising your children as you'd like. Lol,
| that's HN for ya.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| Children aren't property. It's perfectly reasonable for
| society to take children away from parents. We do it for
| various forms of abuse. We obviously want to be careful,
| but I see no reason to allow 14-year-olds to get married
| off by their parents to adult men in their cult. Nor do I
| think it's okay to change that to the parents let their
| 14-year-olds get groomed for 4 years either.
| Fellshard wrote:
| > It's perfectly reasonable for society to take children
| away from parents.
|
| The way you state this makes it sound like this should be
| the /norm/, though, as opposed to only being applied in
| concrete exigent circumstances such as the ones you name.
| Ensorceled wrote:
| While it is not the /norm/, it is quite common: almost
| 150K children are removed from their parents and put into
| foster care a year. Exigent circumstances happen quite a
| lot.
| reedjosh wrote:
| Okay, but if they send their children to christian school
| (I'm actually not religious myself), is that too much
| indoctrination for you, or is it okay for people to raise
| their children with their own views and culture?
| stronglikedan wrote:
| They do, but the parents have more of a say, since they're
| paying for it. And, since they can afford it, they have a
| choice of schools should their complaints fall on deaf ears.
| cbsmith wrote:
| Right, so effectively you are getting more propaganda from
| one point of view. At least when there is conflicting
| propaganda, there's some hope.
| pc86 wrote:
| I don't think the goal with public education should be
| allowing wildly conflicting propaganda.
| akiselev wrote:
| Most private schools - in the US at least - are religious, so
| I'd argue they're peddling propaganda as a matter of course
| (though not all such schools require students to participate
| in the propagandization).
| francisofascii wrote:
| What some educational systems are missing is a class on how to
| identify propaganda, just like this blog post. Sometimes this
| is covered in a logic course that covers logical reasoning,
| logical fallacies, etc. How these techniques are used in
| advertising, news stories, etc.
| bosswipe wrote:
| The bigger concern is that professional educators are being
| overruled by politicians about what is in the curriculum. Such
| as the recent wave of anti-Critical Race Theories laws being
| handed down because of a panic created by right-wing media.
| temp8964 wrote:
| No. The panic is not created by the media. I don't want my
| kids to be taught how White people are racists, or "people of
| color" are oppressed. Even I am not a White.
| pacerwpg wrote:
| Where did you hear that kids are being taught those things?
| temp8964 wrote:
| This kind of training on teachers is everywhere. Which is
| also wrong. Shall I wait on it? Or are you saying it is
| ok for those things to be taught in teacher training, but
| only wrong when it is taught to kids?
| pacerwpg wrote:
| I'm saying that children aren't being taught the things
| you say they're being taught.
| MarkLowenstein wrote:
| You casting doubt on the poster's assertions makes me
| incredibly angry. You clearly don't know anything about
| what's going on in public schools yet you pretend to be
| wiser than the poster about it.
|
| I have a kid in a public high school. He has shared
| pictures, video, links, and schedules. Also I have
| visited local high schools and seen the messaging being
| delivered on the walls. These schools have one mission
| right now, above anything else: crank out social-justice
| warriors; get some reliable street troops on the ground
| for leftist causes.
|
| Do NOT dare to tell me it is not like I describe.
|
| 1. Special presentations carved out from academic class
| time every day for black history month, with
| presentations about white privilege and other fodder to
| cultivate racial grievance.
|
| 2. A week devoted to BLM during that month, with similar
| time carved out each day from many classes for a
| presentation that included justifications for hate
| against white people and exhortations about how you
| should become an "Ally". Including a black poet that read
| that she was justified in calling white people "the
| devil" and lumped all white people who didn't jump to BLM
| action into the category of aggressors that deserve the
| violence of BLM protests.
|
| 3. "Open" class discussions after such presentations
| where everyone is called on to share their thoughts, but
| of course only certain thoughts are permissible and
| discipline is doled out to those who disagree.
|
| 4. A school-wide presentation by the "equity association"
| that re-enacted all the horrible things white people do
| to black people, such as saying they like fried chicken
| and watermelon, to demonstrate just how bad white people
| are all the time.
|
| 5. Gay pride month where they devoted more class time to
| special presentations and discussions, like Bill Nye
| saying that in addition to that little "sex" thing,
| there's also all these other more important dimensions
| like "gender" that need to be dwelled on.
|
| 6. Time off granted if you join a walk-out for preferred
| causes like global warming activism.
|
| 7. Posters around school lauding the actions of "world-
| changing" demonstrators. All leftist demonstrators of
| course.
|
| 8. Lots and lots of "No human is illegal" signs all over.
|
| 9. In my kid's school, at least one classroom decorated
| from top to bottom with Black Panther publicity and
| aggressive black-defiance messages.
|
| 10. In my spouse's teacher training, 100% of the time has
| been spent on "anti-bias" and "equity" training. Where no
| problem existed in the least.
|
| 11. School district hiring 6-figure "diversity
| consultants" by the dozen, all of whom will do nothing
| except arrange presentations such as I cited above. And
| then they claim to need a new tax levy to hire enough
| teachers or pay them decently.
|
| So whatever you've seen in terms of CRT quizzes and
| stereotype pyramids, what you don't understand is that
| it's way worse than that. It's not just obnoxiously
| flooding kids with racial stereotypes. It's not just that
| that is a topic that is 100% unrelated to education. It's
| that they are cultivating racial grievance. And they are
| pitting student against student to get it done as
| completely as possible.
|
| I'm a mild-mannered guy. And I've never been so pissed
| off in my life.
| temp8964 wrote:
| Where did I say they're being taught?
| pacerwpg wrote:
| It was sort of implied as part of the conversation, but I
| see where I misread that.
| temp8964 wrote:
| When teachers are taught those crazy stuff, I think
| concerned parents should be openly against it. And I
| totally agree those things should be banned from public
| education and teacher training. Simply put, I don't want
| any of those crap to get close to my kids.
| bosswipe wrote:
| "Things your parents don't want you to know about" is
| like crack to teenagers. A kind of Streisand effect.
| humaniania wrote:
| Yes, it is.
|
| "As Media Matters has previously noted, Fox News' current
| obsession with "critical race theory" has been a year in
| making. What once was a slow trickle of monthly mentions
| has developed into a full blown assault. Since February,
| month over month mentions of the theory have more than
| doubled on Fox News as the network has begun to spin an
| illusion of what it is and where it's being taught (in
| reality, critical race theory is not generally taught in
| K-12). Coverage of the theory sharply increased in March,
| with 107 mentions on the network according to data from
| Kinetiq media monitoring service. The following month,
| network figures and guests mentioned it 226 times, and by
| May, the number had increased to 537 mentions. Not even
| halfway through June, there's already been 408 mentions on
| the network.
|
| Just last week, Fox mentioned "critical race theory" a
| record 244 times -- an increase from the previous record
| high of 170 mentions the week before."
|
| https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-news/fox-has-mentioned-
| crit...
| temp8964 wrote:
| Your logic is very very strange. Because Fox mentioned
| it, it must be created by Fox?
| jollybean wrote:
| I actually do share the concern that fairly far-right wing
| people are politicizing education.
|
| But - CRT in it's applied form ultimately turns into
| 'propaganda' and there should be some legislative
| parameters around it.
|
| The basic CRT premise of 'Minorities who live in Majority
| Culture are suppressed in systematic ways, and that we
| should be more sensitive to that and it's historical
| impact' ... is definitely fair.
|
| So there's a legit grounding in aspects of CRT.
|
| If that were it, then then this would be a good thing.
|
| But the rhetorical application of CRT gets pretty vicious,
| pretty quickly, and it turns to the language of 'race war'
| almost instantly.
|
| In particular, using terminology such as 'White Supremacy'
| which is normally associated with 'Men in White Pointy
| Hats' as purposefully toxic language, the tactic of
| castigating anyone who doesn't support their cause as
| 'upholding White Supremacy' and therefore racism etc. are
| common.
|
| Controversial foundational elements such as rejecting
| liberal and enlightenment values (literally objective
| truth) in favour of one's own 'realized or expressed truth'
| in addition to issues such as rejecting the foundation of
| the written word etc..
|
| There's been a few debates here on HN, but there is
| documentation from school boards on 'how the teaching of
| Math upholds White Supremacy' because it ostensibly implies
| 'linear thinking', 'predicate knowledge' and other
| artifacts of supposed 'White Supremacy'. The response to
| this particularly bad form of CRT on HN usually comes in
| the form of discounting classical teaching pedagogy as
| being possibly too 'stifled' - but that has absolutely
| nothing to do with race and there is no evidence whatsoever
| to back it up. In reality - certain groups (Hispanics,
| Blacks) do poorly, and other groups - including
| minorities/people of colour (Whites, Asians) do just fine
| under the same pedagogy and what's more likely is that kids
| who show up for class, who have good parents, who want to
| learn etc. (i.e. the obvious things) do just fine. CRT 'in
| practice' in this situation is unsubstantiated, anti-
| scientific, anti-progressive ideological rubbish in making
| excuses for kids who don't do well in math. It's 'good
| intentions run ideologically wild'.
|
| Last week a New Jersey school board opted to remove the
| names of all holidays from their calendar and replace them
| with just 'Holiday'. This one is actually a pretty good
| example of the intersection of CRT and the effete values of
| school administrators: July 4, Easter, Memorial Day are
| just 'too controversial' for our kids to be exposed to,
| therefore, we'll just mark them as 'Holiday'.
|
| That to me represents a kind of ideological 'crossing of
| the line': if our educators are interested in making sure
| kids hear about slavery and segregation, that seems
| reasonable. Important, actually. But erasing civic holidays
| because of concerns of CRT is I think 'radical', and there
| are people in every school board in America who would like
| to follow suit and CRT gives them basically the impetus to
| 'Be on the right side of history' (in their view) despite
| the 'Ugly, angry, overtly traditional parents' (again view
| of the teachers).
|
| There's a little bit of a postmodern aspect to CRT - it's a
| 'turning inside out' kind of ideology, allowing adherents
| to basically refute anything and everything part of he
| 'conventional narrative' and replace it with ... well
| whatever they want. This is what makes it scary.
|
| CRT has some valid intellectual underpinnings, but it ends
| up being like ugly Red Hat Trumpism for the Left. I
| actually support some aspects of it but I have no trust in
| the education system to use it responsibly.
|
| Unfortunately, I think the 'sides' are talking past each
| other I don't see any consensus developing just yet.
| temp8964 wrote:
| I agree with most of what you said, but I don't think CRT
| has anything value intellectually. Reasonable thinking on
| race issues is very difficult, I don't think CRT
| positively contribute to any of that. CRT is in itself
| radical, if you remove radical thoughts from CRT, then it
| is no longer CRT.
| akomtu wrote:
| Educators, i.e. teachers, are being coerced into imposing CRT
| onto students by school boards and since teachers have little
| leverage, they have to comply. The CRT's tenets are identical
| to those in Stalin's USSR and Mao's China. Just read the wiki
| pages about the two regimes and see the striking
| similarities. I think the reason CRT has started getting so
| much flak is that it's reached the phase when it needs to
| impose its key technique known as "self criticism" (in USSR)
| and "struggle sessions" (in China). Americans have noticed
| that something is off and got agitated.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| > indoctrination and propaganda happening in US education
|
| What evidence do you have that it is happening and on what
| scale?
|
| My teachers, all that I recall, never presented any opinion or
| perspective as truth. It was always about thinking critically
| for ourselves. If, for example, they presented a well-
| established view on the sinking of the _Maine_ , it was as
| material for our analysis and evaluation.
| sreque wrote:
| The evidence that radicals have already successfully
| overtaken Western universities is overwhelming, and the
| evidence that these radicals are in the process of taking
| over secondary education is also readily available for anyone
| who is interested.
|
| If you are actually looking for some eyewitness accounts,
| Jordan Peterson has many podcasts where he interviews
| specific people that have experienced the ideological
| takeover themselves, including:
|
| * Yeonmi Park: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yqa-SdJtT4
|
| * Dr. Rima Azar: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIw8mH7ZpFY
|
| * Bret Weinstein: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2O_gW4VWZ5c
|
| He has also interviewed one person who lost his job fighting
| the takeover in high school:
|
| * Paul Rossi: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysQBegyQP8A
|
| He's also interviewed a self-identified liberal and former
| employee of New York Times that witnessed the takeover at the
| Times. Starting at minute 8 the conversation diverges into
| talking about her experience at University.
|
| * Bari Weiss:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFTA9MJZ4KY&t=12s
|
| Bari Weiss says it herself in this podcast, loosely quoted
| since I don't remember it exactly: If you as a liberal can't
| see the danger in what is happening, then you have your
| blinders on.
|
| I would say the same holds true of people who can't see the
| takeover in education, which is already mostly complete.
|
| Edit: I found the Bari Weiss quote at 43:06: "I have to be
| honest. At this point, if one can't see the way that this
| language has been hijacked and used as a kind of trojan horse
| strategy to smuggle in a hardened, zero-sum identity politics
| view of the world, to smuggle in a view of the world in which
| we have collective guilt or collective innocence literally
| based on the circumstances of our birth, that smuggle in a
| deeply anti-capitalist position, to smuggle in essentially a
| leftist illiberalism, then, I'm sorry. You have blinders on!
| The evidence is so overwhelming at this point.... I think
| it's because admitting that's true, is extremely
| psychologically scary, and socially scary, if you are a
| liberal."
| wolverine876 wrote:
| There's no evidence in the parent, just the opinions of a
| few political actors.
|
| > radicals have already successfully overtaken Western
| universities
|
| Ironically, this uses techniques from the OP. It's an
| emotional appeal - calling people radicals,
| catastrophizing, etc. - but there's no evidence and really
| no information. Hyperbole eliminates information; it's like
| screaming 'we're all going to die!'.
| sreque wrote:
| If you don't consider these eyewitness accounts as
| evidence, then I can only assume you have your blinders
| on. It is very important to note that these people you
| dismiss as "political actors" were historically
| apolitical; they weren't active at all in politics, and
| many even identified more as liberals or democrats. They
| only became more active as they bore personal witness to
| the evil ideologies being perpetuated in our society.
|
| Bari Weiss and Jordan Peterson, two historically liberal,
| well-educated people, discuss what they consider far and
| away to be the greatest threat to Western Civilization.
| and guess what? It's not Trump. It's not white
| supremacists. It's not racism. It's not January 6
| rioters. It's not people who refuse to get COVID
| vaccines. It's not global warming. It's not even China or
| Russia or Islamic terrorism. It is the self-destruction
| of our culture at the hands of leftist ideologues that
| seek its destruction in order to replace it with a new,
| far worse culture.
|
| I could send you a ton more links with evidence, but I
| have a feeling you would find a reason to dismiss all of
| them:
|
| * https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-neo-marxist-
| takeover...
|
| "The domination of US universities by the left,
| particularly in the humanities and social sciences, is
| well documented. In 2016 a survey carried out by Econ
| Journal Watch looked at the voter registration of faculty
| members at 40 leading US universities in the fields of
| economics, history, law, psychology and
| journalism/communications. It found that Democrats
| outnumber Republicans by an average of 11.5 to one. In
| psychology, the ratio is 17.4 to one; in history, 33.5 to
| one."
|
| * https://fcpp.org/2020/11/27/how-marxists-take-over-and-
| what-...
|
| * https://www.amazon.com/Professors-Most-Dangerous-
| Academics-A...
| wolverine876 wrote:
| > If you don't consider these eyewitness accounts as
| evidence, then I can only assume you have your blinders
| on.
|
| Not only does that violate HN guidelines, and is
| irrational and ignorant, it's just propaganda against me.
| Have a nice day.
| ttctciyf wrote:
| Jordan Peterson is the worst kind of bloviating bullshitter
| pushing divisive bad faith talking points designed to muddy
| and degrade debate, in my ever so humble opinion.
| sreque wrote:
| I don't agree with everything Jordan says. In fact, as a
| religious person, I find his attempts to redefine
| religion as a form of atheism with psychology-based
| respect for religious instinct to be offensive. But, I
| don't believe a single thing you just said. I believe
| Jordan has and continues to do more good than I ever will
| in 100 of my own lifetimes, despite his flaws.
| akomtu wrote:
| That's a real thing, though. In fact, some legislatures are
| so concerned that they've started passing laws prohibiting
| propaganda. Example is the recent HB3979 bill:
|
| https://legiscan.com/TX/text/HB3979/id/2339637
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > In fact, some legislatures are so concerned that they've
| started passing laws prohibiting propaganda. Example is the
| recent HB3979 bill
|
| But that law:
|
| (1) Nowhere prohibits propaganda, by name or in effect,
|
| (2) _mandates_ teaching propaganda, and specifically
| teaching various propaganda documents, opinion /analysis
| works, and campaign presentations (the Federalist Papers,
| _Democracy in America_ , the first Lincoln-Douglas debate)
| ahistorically as "founding documents of the United States"
| rather than as propaganda, controversial opinion, etc.
|
| It does _explicitly_ prohibit policies mandating teaching
| _current events_ , though. But not propaganda.
| jollybean wrote:
| So I would disagree with both of those points.
|
| For part 2) it says they 'must teach those foundational
| concepts and supporting documents' (i.e. Constitution)
| but it doesn't say how. I'm not sure if that counts as
| 'must teach propaganda'.
|
| For part 1) The Boards are prohibited from requiring
| teachers to teach current events via an ideological
| nature, but it does not prohibit teachers from teaching
| anything - rather they must teach the subject from a
| variety of viewpoints without taking sides.
|
| "(2) teachers who choose to discuss current events or
| widely debated and currently controversial issues of
| public policy or social affairs shall, to the best of
| their ability, strive to explore such issues from diverse
| and contending perspectives without giving deference to
| any one perspective;"
|
| And prohibiting things like giving credit for activist
| projects etc.. If parents want to get their kids involved
| in activism, that's perfectly fine but I don't think
| that's the school's job.
|
| Honestly, I don't like that we feel such a document needs
| to exist, but I think it's pretty fair, neutral and
| civic.
|
| As a parent, I would be happy if this were already the
| 'policy' at my school board.
| seertaak wrote:
| There are slides circulating on Twitter, apparently snapped
| during presentations given to educators in the context of
| diversity training, exhorting viewers to understand, say,
| punctuality as a manifestation of white supremacy.
|
| Set aside for a moment the very fair questions one can ask
| about the trustworthiness of these images. Ignore for now
| whether this was shown to 5 or 5000 eductors, etc.
|
| Let's just assume such instructions were in fact given to
| educators on some non-negligible scale.
|
| Would that be evidence enough for you?
| wolverine876 wrote:
| > Let's just assume such instructions were in fact given to
| educators on some non-negligible scale.
|
| IMHO, and pertinent to the OP: That is out of textbook of
| how mis- and disinformation impacts human thinking: Observe
| something emotionally provocative and follow the urge to
| dive in, regardless of the reality: 'What if it's true???"
| I've trained myself not to do it.
|
| I'm always interested in valuable, credible information.
| (And to be clear, it's not your job to educate me - that's
| my job - but it is your job to backup what you say.)
|
| > slides circulating on Twitter
|
| Is there any place where amount of propaganda is greater,
| in the history of the world, than on social media such as
| Twitter? It must be orders of magnitude beyond anything
| ever. Serious question: Why are you reading it? It's like
| digging through a garbage dump for coins.
| NortySpock wrote:
| So, the American Civil Religion?
|
| Dangerous History Podcast with Prof CJ
| https://profcj.org/ep124/
|
| "Ever get the sense that the government and politics in the
| United States is kinda cult-y? If so, CJ thinks your spidey
| sense is justifiably tingling, and what you're picking up on is
| the phenomenon known as the civil religion.
|
| Join CJ as he discusses:
|
| The concept of civil religion
|
| The origins of the American civil religion, and a brief word on
| the scholarship on the concept
|
| Some of the overtly religious elements that can be found in
| American government and politics, including: dogmas, rituals,
| sacred texts, holy places, sermons, sacrifices, sacred days,
| spells/mantras/incantations/prayers, music, sacred
| histories/narratives, temples, symbols/totems, priests, and
| saints
|
| The ways in which people of different cultural and ideological
| predilections can -- just like with conventional religion --
| interpret the civil religion in order to make it fit their
| preferences
|
| How voting fits into this civil religion, and why CJ thinks a
| reasonable person should reject the civil religion -- whether
| they are theists or not
| josefresco wrote:
| > The media is highly visible and well-documented
|
| Sort of. Social media feeds and ads are ephemeral and
| customized to the specific user. This makes transparency hard,
| unless the network provides access.
| seventytwo wrote:
| You mean like how we've systematically failed to teach children
| about the racism, slavery, and hatred that has been ubiquitous
| in American history?
|
| Or how about teaching American exceptionalism? Or that
| capitalism is better than socialism? Or that being religious is
| better than being non-religious? Or that being unquestionably
| patriotic is better than questioning your country's actions?
|
| There's tons and tons of indoctrination in public schools, but
| it's mostly to maintain existing power structures and the
| status quo.
| cwojno wrote:
| This is fantastic, well done. (emotional appeal)
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-06-22 23:01 UTC)