Brilliant. Thank you so much for this contribution, I only wish this was required reading for EVERYone but then how many would actually get that it is something that could apply to them personally...

Thanks again, I thoroughly enjoy your threads. I find them much like your signature, very insightful.

i thought it was an interesting post but it tends toward circular thinking. for example

ALWAYS appeal to the lowest common denominator
- It’s O.K. to “dumb it down”.

Generalize as much as possible
- Paint in broad strokes.

Stack the cards with "information"
- Use as much supportive evidence as possible.

the last one nullifies the previous two listed, as much supportive evidence tends to thin out the lowest common denominator and painting with broad brush strokes (although i suppose you could generalize with alot of supportive generalized evidence, the issue then would be, is it a trend indicating at least, superficial evidence, which would suggest further research is necessary).

i notice the arguments about or against the status quo or the opposite fringe, are based on generalized statements, peppered with occasional indepth examples. the question then is, if the superficial trend is obvious and requires more indepth research, what is the deciding element for what is and isn't non-propaganda? at that point, i think it just ends up being a matter of personal experience and THAT can't be argued against unless you intend to usurp the brains of your fellows.

Starred/Flagged.

I just can't help but think that these things would be more obvious to everyone if standard primary and secondary education included a nice sequence of critical thinking courses because that's what the propaganda list is really about: appeal to lack of critical thinking skills and discernment, etc.

But then we don't want the masses in control of their faculties, do we?

SO...

we've worked out what propaganda is.

What word shall we start on next...?

I'll pick first... ... ... ... ...

the word is "advertising"...

To the OP - great definition and research.

Just not quite sure why...

and what the hell's wrong with people that think's this is good???

sorry.



[edit on 27-8-2009 by Stanton Dowd]

Excellent post. I would humbly only add an important condition of proper propaganda: It nearly always contains at least a grain of truth, and builds upon an extropalation it.

cheers!

this was a really good thread kudos to you

You forgot one that happens all the time....


Accuse the opposition of using a negative tactic when you are actually using that tactic. This changes the conversation, and causes misdirection.

Example: When pushing false propaganda to go to war, accuse the opposition of muddying the issue.

absolutely one of the best. spot-on. It's amazing how some can't see through sheer blatant lies and contradictions...the world in which we live

Good thread. There is a lot of propaganda and it seems most effective when it is lumped with half-truths and misdirection. Hopefully more people will start to use their critical thinking skills instead of blindly believing what they are told to be true and real.

3) Regardless of the Propaganda’s intentions—and they can be good—Propaganda is ALWAYS bad:
a) It is designed to do your thinking for you.
b) It is designed to discourage you from digging deeper.

This is the only part I disagree with. I am very weary of using words like "always" because there are bound to be exceptions in all aspects of life where one can find propaganda being used.

For e.g.: a parent tells her child to brush his teeth before he goes to bed. At first he disagrees because he does not feel like doing it, but then she says to him "do you want to go to the dentist and have him use a big set of pliers to rip out your rotten teeth?" The boy is horrified and immediately goes to brush his teeth.

Is this not propaganda used by the parent? Her intentions are good because she realises her child is likely to develop dental problems when he is older if he does not brush his teeth consistently. The child is not old enough to understand the importance so using this propaganda she can ensure her son will listen.

[edit on 27/8/2009 by Dark Ghost]

Good, solid information. Well done.

I would suggest, however, that what you are describing isn't *just* propaganda, but are many of the logical fallacies used by others during any sort of debate or argument. Sometimes the misuse of logic is deliberate, as in propaganda; other times, it is accidental, someone not realizing they're lapsing into a fallacy.

The reason I mention this is because you'll run into exactly the same fallacies when discussing something right here on ATS. Someone will often resort - knowingly or unknowingly - to one or more of those fallacies. Often I see, for example, the "Black or White" fallacy, which usuaully translates into "Believer or Skeptic". Some folks say you must be one or the other, and leave no room for people who are somewhere in the middle - undecided, open-minded, doubtful, etc.

I think many of us would benefit from a study of the points you made, the errors that lead us astray. There used to be a subject in colleges called "rhetoric", in which people did exactly this. They learned the rules of logic and the logical fallacies, then applied them in debates. The whole point of this was to teach people to recognize the tricks others may play when trying to prove their points, and how to avoid those tricks.

Unfortunately, we don't learn this stuff today,so many of us can be misled by people who know how to twist logic around. We may know there's something wrong with the reasoning, but often we can't quite put our finger on it.

But your list does much to help people start figuring out exactly where someone has tried to confuse them. Good work, and thanks.

good post homie spread the word.


S&F

As you said, LiveForever8, these tactics are often used with good intentions. Day in, day out in all of our relationships, important and just passing conversation, we edit and shape the way we release information for the best effect most desirable to us. Though many are unaware of it, we're all using the rules you laid out, constantly selling our own self-image, while at the same time refining and updating it. We do it when we write a post here, trying to sell our ideas to the readers; then we read it back, edit and refine to make it clear - manipulative.

The recognition of this process and employment of it could be seen as manipulative and is most definitely malevolent when used to control people. But at what point between the innocent everyday way we censor what we say - who we are - and the evil that corporations and government bodies perpetrate to control, steer and dominate the masses like livestock does this become 'bad'? Where do you draw the line?

Is it a clear line, or does this everyday pattern creep into our social systems and translate to the mass manipulation all by itself?

Is it a 'mass self-manipulation'...? Is it a human character flaw that we all want to be/need to be manipulated?


[Edited in order to manipulate more efficiently]




[edit on 28-8-2009 by McGinty]