Propaganda Antidote

[Skip]

blank

[Skip]

You are asking me to read the minds of dead Philosophers.

I was asking you to show how philosophy serves or ever did serve the same purpose as propaganda.
Or what you think propaganda is.
Your position appears to be that all verbal communication is propaganda; that it is impossible to discern a speaker's intention from the contents of his speech, and yet it is certain always to be self-serving. If all communication is propaganda, and all responses to the content of communication is merely speculative, then there can be no defense or countermeasure to propaganda. Thus, neither word in the OP has a functional meaning.
Which makes any attempts at discussing the topic both frustrating and futile.

[commonsense]

Your [Skepdick’s] position appears to be that all verbal communication is propaganda; that it is impossible to discern a speaker's intention from the contents of his speech, and yet it is certain always to be self-serving. If all communication is propaganda, and all responses to the content of communication is merely speculative, then there can be no defense or countermeasure to propaganda. Thus, neither word in the OP has a functional meaning.
Which makes any attempts at discussing the topic both frustrating and futile.

It is certainly possible that all communication is propaganda.

Communication is purposeful. Its purpose is to convey information and in so doing to search for a response, whether verbal or actual.

To attempt to cause a behavior is to attempt to influence behavior even if the nature of the behavior is not specifically targeted.

When I greet someone, my agenda is to transfer some information, e.g. my presence, and to illicit a response.

My agenda is self-serving in that I desire to influence someone’s behavior. I want the listener to acknowledge me rather than ignore me.



Frustrating, yes. Impractical, yes.

[Skepdick]

I was asking you to show how philosophy serves or ever did serve the same purpose as propaganda.
Or what you think propaganda is.

Any attempt to change another mind is propaganda. This largely coincides with communication.

Philosophy is in the business of persuasion. Persuasion is propaganda by virtue of engaging in mind-changing.

Your position appears to be that all verbal communication is propaganda; that it is impossible to discern a speaker's intention from the contents of his speech

I am discerning precisely that. Irrespective of the content of their speech, the speaker's intention is to change your mind.

Otherwise they have no reason to speak to you. The very reason I am speaking to you right now is to correct your world-view (since I believe yours is wrong).

, and yet it is certain always to be self-serving. If all communication is propaganda, and all responses to the content of communication is merely speculative, then there can be no defense or countermeasure to propaganda.

Indeed. Unless you cease communicating with others.

Thus, neither word in the OP has a functional meaning. Which makes any attempts at discussing the topic both frustrating and futile.

Perhaps a better question is: If you wish to be immune to other people's propaganda, would you wish other people to be immune to yours?

You'll never get anywhere in life if you can't persuade at least some people to do some of your bidding...

[FlashDangerpants]

The one thing clear from the last two pages: propaganda works.

The hard right mutual congratulation society is just in overdrive right now. Every batshit "big if true" conspiracy theory is overflowing on what was once supposed to be a philosophy forum. One of them is banging on about bilderburg, the rest are high on crack(en).

obviously you're in league with the moloch-reptilian wannabe overlords...hell, you might be one...I demand DNA testin'

The conspiracy goes deeper than you could possibly know! Normal human dna with it's tedious 4 letter AGCCCAGTTTGAC arrangements is beneath the neoliberal, my genome just reads IOVERTHROWDEMOCRACYFORSOROSBUCKS over and over again for 90 terabytes.

[Skip]

Well, OK, then.
All communication is propaganda.
There is no such distinct entity as propaganda.
A non-entity doesn't require an antidote.
File empty.

[commonsense]

Well, OK, then.
All communication is propaganda.
There is no such distinct entity as propaganda.
A non-entity doesn't require an antidote.
File empty.

Insightful, but we’re still left with a non-distinct problem.

[Skip]

Insightful, but we’re still left with a non-distinct problem.

I hope you solve it.

[DanDare]

propaganda == communication is a useless tautology that negates the use of the distinct word propaganda. It also does not correspond with actual usage of the word:

information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view.

[Skepdick]

propaganda == communication is a useless tautology that negates the use of the distinct word propaganda. It also does not correspond with actual usage of the word:

information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view.

Ahhhh. The irony.

A useless tautology, you say?

What sort of political agenda do you find the distinction useful for?

[Skepdick]

Insightful, but we’re still left with a non-distinct problem.

Apparently defining the problem is half the solution.

[Belinda]

Instead of propagating lies, the open government informs about the best truth it can lay its hands on.

Government propaganda is not entirely bad, as some lies are sort of happy narratives told to raise morale when that is sorely needed.However the "propaganda" in the title of the thread is not meant to apply to lyrics sung by Vera Lynn, but to narratives that boost power seekers , either a political party or the government, at the expense of the people's safety or welfare.

How to legislate against self serving propaganda is to support democracy wherever and whenever.

[RCSaunders]

Do you think there ought to be no boundaries to what people can say and do? DO you think telling political lies, slander, false accusations and insults towards your political opponants are acceptible?

Not sure what, "acceptable," means. Those the slander and false accusations and insults are about certainly won't, "accept," them, and those who use such tactics are ignorant ignorant and evile. But they are only words. No one has to listen to them. It would be wrong to use force to prevent anyone from saying anything. Who decides which words are, "acceptible?" and which accusation are false, slander, or lies? If those with the power to regulate speech decide yours are lies, slander, false, or insulting, is that OK with you?

Anyway, it is impossible to say anything bad about any politician that overestimates the facts.

I agree and yet I would say that words have power to incite actions, e.g., to gas humans to death without apparent remorse.

Could words incite you to gas humans? Even if you could be incited to gas someone, it would be the words that did it, it would be you reaction to the words. How many horrible things which people do are excused as caused by, "words," when it is always only individual choice, not words that are the cause. How often have you heard outrages excused with words like, "it's company policy," or "it's the law," as if the words written in some policy or law made anyone do anything.

[RCSaunders]

Words are mightier than the sword.

In real life, the guy with the sword just shuts the guy with the words up. Bringing words to a duel is like bringing a knife to a gun fight.

[Sculptor]

Words are mightier than the sword.

In real life, the guy with the sword just shuts the guy with the words up. Bringing words to a duel is like bringing a knife to a gun fight.

Not really.
Smart ones never need to raise their hands.
Their words move the armies of morons willing to kill and die.