Truth "Assassins"-- What feeds the propaganda machine.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: zosimov

Why are we doing it for free? There must be other driving forces at work here.

People mostly believe what they want to believe. The facts don’t matter.

There’s money to be made by arbitraging ignorance. The oldest maxim in show business is to give the public what it wants.

I've been noticing precisely that. (Not that I'm above the phenomenon.. but I definitely try to be!)

Lots of uncomfortable truths being brought to light with this latest cycle. Id rather see it than not.. but that doesn't make it any easier.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: zosimov

Human nature, I suppose. We are psychologically equipped for intergroup conflict.

Only those with the most to lose are psychologically equipped for inter group conflict. The rest of us are sent to the slaughter.

"Propaganda" can be 100% true.

Propaganda, the most basic definition is 'a persuasive communication'. That could be a tweet, a book, a news cast, an airplane with a banner streaming behind it, a movie, a billboard, or even an simple act of body language (such as a sexual advance) or a violation of a dress code.

Where thing get messy are when opinion gets involved, and especially when conjecture (or worse yet lies) are spun as facts. (Or even worse coercion get involved.)

Avoiding such is one reason I always try my arse off to stick to my old anti-fallacy directive: Absolutist Terminology (avoiding it unless quite sure).

It's nearly impossible for humans to communicate in ways that lack persuasion. But we can do pretty good too.

The problem in "journalism", or rather the way to measure it is the 'Op-Ed Factor', and this is why the MSM blows it can often be pure Op-Ed presented as if objective non-persuasive reality. Then add in factors such as commissions, distortions, a lack of fair & balance, and so on, and its goes further down into the septic tank.

If only we had actual Journalists doing the "News"...

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Where thing get messy are when opinion gets involved, and especially when conjecture (or worse yet lies) are spun as facts. (Or even worse coercion get involved.)

Good points, and I must say that I have throroughly enjoyed many of your posts.

I'd also mention that, as soon as opinion gets involved, so too does the impulse to ignore/downplay information contrary to that opinion.

I've seen (on both sides of this political farce) downright odious behavior defended, excused, ignored, whitewashed in order that one's chosen side be validated.

As for me, I am going to continue lying to myself by entertaining the belief that we still live in a democracy. So I too am guilty.

a reply to: Cobaltic1978

Only those with the most to lose are psychologically equipped for inter group conflict. The rest of us are sent to the slaughter.

So humanity is divided up into hawks and doves? Into wolves and sheep?

I disagree with you. All normal humans have the same capacities, more or less. We all belong to the same species. Males are more aggressive than females but even this depends on the circumstances.

Human beings are psychologically equipped for both cooperation and conflict. Which set of responses is brought into play depends on the external circumstances far more than on individual predisposition.

Wise people understand that democracy works by balancing both predispositions to deliver a fruitful outcome. Others, who are not so wise, demand to have things all their way. They don’t care for democracy because it does not favour them and blast their enemies — which is what they want out of the politicians they put in office. The idea that democratic politics is about practicability and compromise is beyond the scope of their minds.

a reply to: Astyanax


No doubt. There are also snakes, and they slither!

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

To characterise a person as an animal is to deny them their humanity. Such is the first step on the path that leads to the concentration camp, the torture chamber and the mass grave.

The only person whose humanity -- in a different sense of the word -- then stands in doubt is the one making the comparison.

a reply to: zosimov

Meme warfare: how the power of mass replication has poisoned the US election

We called it “meme warfare”, a term that was originally coined by social change activist Andrew Boyd.

“Social movements cannot live by meme alone. Yet memes are clearly powerful –both analytically and operationally,” Boyd wrote in his essay Truth is a Virus: Meme warfare and the billionaires for Bush (or Gore). “A vital movement requires a hot and happening meme. Truth is a virus whose aim is to subvert the corporate mememachine with a sly guerrilla war of signs.”

What’s novel here is an inversion of control – political memes are no longer rare flashes of uncensored personality or intensely manicured visual messages. They are now born from the swamps of the internet in real time, distributed from the bottom up. They have grown into a form of anarchic folk propaganda, ranging from tolerable epigrams to glittering hate-soaked image macros akin to a million little rogue Pravdas.

The reason why it is now possible for Darryl from Accounting who hates “social justice warriors” to have the same communicative power as a television network is down to the DNA of the medium: speed and lack of gatekeepers. Memes thrive on a lack of information – the faster you can grasp the point, the higher the chance it will spread.