[Patrickov]

Or, better yet, induce the audience to spread the propaganda themselves - once the audience for the propaganda is invested in the propaganda themselves, once they 'own' that propaganda, then they will no longer perceive it as propaganda but just as "what everyone knows".

The Americans are very good at this sort of propaganda, whereas the Russians and the Chinese tend to be very bad at it.

In other words, argumentum ad populum.

However, as politics is, after all, about the public, argumentum ad populum is probably one of the hardest fallacy to beat, no less because of the sheer price of staying upright in such a rogue wave.

[Potemkin]

In other words, argumentum ad populum.

However, as politics is, after all, about the public, argumentum ad populum is probably one of the hardest fallacy to beat, no less because of the sheer price of staying upright in such a rogue wave.

Precisely. And @late is a clear example of this. He lives in a sea of propaganda, so much so that he no longer perceives it as propaganda, just as a fish does not perceive the water in which it swims. The most successful propaganda is propaganda which is simply perceived as "just the way things are".

[Patrickov]

My theory is that the Chinese and the Russians are pragmatic and old cultures, in which their national histories have included, invasions by foreign armies, masses of dead people either starving to death or being killed outright.... and very old rooted cultures where class consciousness and conflict of classes has brought about compromise and as such?

I am not sure about Russians, but the Chinese can be said as very fantasy-oriented human beings. Because of the very reason stated above, they are very eager to "regain" whatever glory they believe their ancestors had centuries or millennia ago.

This sentiment can be seen from some modern approval of the quote "No matter how far away, whoever dares to violate the mighty Han will be put to death." -- from a Chinese General boasting his victory over a nomadic leader about 2100 years ago.

To say it in a very simplified manner, if the Chinese had been more practical (instead of so clinging to their face), they would have built a System that does not rely on top-down coercion, and by extension, the coronavirus outbreak would not have been as severe as it is now.

==========

Somewhat ironically, Russia is probably one of the worst offenders in whatever Chinese had suffered in the past two or three centuries, and now their leaders seem to share hidden agendas, to detriment of the (mostly Chinese) people.

[late]

Precisely. And @late is a clear example of this. He lives in a sea of propaganda, so much so that he no longer perceives it as propaganda, just as a fish does not perceive the water in which it swims. The most successful propaganda is propaganda which is simply perceived as "just the way things are".

That might be amusing to pursue further.

Shall we dance?

[Potemkin]

That might be amusing to pursue further.

Shall we dance?

Let's dance....

[Patrickov]

You still need to provide a distinction between the normal advocacy that is the lifeblood of democracy; and propaganda pushed with malign intent.

"The intent makes the crime."

Because intent can be a very subjective thing, I start to question whether advocacy and propaganda are really different things.

It might be the case that authoritarian countries or regimes often commit low-level propaganda because they lack democracy.

[Potemkin]

Because intent can be a very subjective thing, I start to question whether advocacy and propaganda are really different things.

Almost everybody would claim to have the best of intentions. Even the CCP would argue that it is simply trying to preserve China's territorial integrity, maintain public order, advance the national economy and project national power abroad. What could be wrong with that? If perceived 'intent' (and precisely who is doing the perceiving?) is the only difference between advocacy and propaganda, then there is no difference between advocacy and propaganda.

It might be the case that authoritarian countries or regimes often commit low-level propaganda because they lack democracy.

Authoritarian regimes tend to think in a very top-down way. This means that they tend to exclusively produce 'vertical propaganda' rather than 'horizontal propaganda'; the latter is almost always much more effective because it is not perceived as propaganda by the audience.

[Tainari88]

I am not sure about Russians, but the Chinese can be said as very fantasy-oriented human beings. Because of the very reason stated above, they are very eager to "regain" whatever glory they believe their ancestors had centuries or millennia ago.

This sentiment can be seen from some modern approval of the quote "No matter how far away, whoever dares to violate the mighty Han will be put to death." -- from a Chinese General boasting his victory over a nomadic leader about 2100 years ago.

To say it in a very simplified manner, if the Chinese had been more practical (instead of so clinging to their face), they would have built a System that does not rely on top-down coercion, and by extension, the coronavirus outbreak would not have been as severe as it is now.

==========

Somewhat ironically, Russia is probably one of the worst offenders in whatever Chinese had suffered in the past two or three centuries, and now their leaders seem to share hidden agendas, to detriment of the (mostly Chinese) people.

The Chinese and the Russians have large territories and had invading armies with fascists in charge. So? The way they view political administration of their countries is not about killing Indians, enslaving Africans and importing immigrants from all over the world to do the work the original ones with status left vacated long ago...

No, China and Russia are nations with deep roots in their own land....and their histories are about dynasties and Tsars, rich and poor, oligarchs and peasants. I think historical context is critical in analyzing propaganda and how it works.

China is a mother culture. There are a few in the world. Not every nation is a mother culture that influences many others in a geographic region.

In terms of the history of propaganda the Americans are masters at that. At advertising and selling techniques too...it gets to th epoint that emotional appeals to buy something or to engage in having a service done is about the way one markets it to audiences. The USA ad agencies had some of the brightest minds in the world working for them.

I took a class on mass communications for an entire year. It was fascinating what happens in mass communications. They should just change the title to 'mass manipulation'. Chomsky's master book Manufacturing Consent is something interesting.

Hillary Clinton was quite concerned about the news outlet RT and other news organizations that were being used to counteract American dominance in propaganda news.

I find it quite engaging. I know @Potemkin loves that topic of propaganda. He should give us more opinions on the nature of propaganda....I implore him to do so!

[Patrickov]

The Chinese and the Russians have large territories and had invading armies with fascists in charge. So? The way they view political administration of their countries is not about killing Indians, enslaving Africans and importing immigrants from all over the world to do the work the original ones with status left vacated long ago...

No, China and Russia are nations with deep roots in their own land....and their histories are about dynasties and Tsars, rich and poor, oligarchs and peasants. I think historical context is critical in analyzing propaganda and how it works.

China is a mother culture. There are a few in the world. Not every nation is a mother culture that influences many others in a geographic region.

The problem is their System is so rotten that they effectively treat their own people almost as bad as how Nazi treated Jews, although not as bad as how the West treated American or Australian natives.

To all fairness, though, the West, at least since Enlightenment, treat their own citizens much better than elsewhere in the world does. Or at least they have been much more practical in dealing with their social problems.

Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia are also mother cultures, but they all succumbed to later but (arguably) better cultures. Even Greece or Roman went down eventually. IMHO ancient cultures didn't decline without a reason. There is a time when they outlive their usefulness.

In terms of the history of propaganda the Americans are masters at that. At advertising and selling techniques too...it gets to the point that emotional appeals to buy something or to engage in having a service done is about the way one markets it to audiences. The USA ad agencies had some of the brightest minds in the world working for them.

I took a class on mass communications for an entire year. It was fascinating what happens in mass communications. They should just change the title to 'mass manipulation'. Chomsky's master book Manufacturing Consent is something interesting.

I am sometimes amazed by how blatant and arrogant these manipulation-mongers can be. But after all emotion is a human nature, and thus it can be said that mastering manipulation is somewhat vital to pass genes down generations.

Hillary Clinton was quite concerned about the news outlet RT and other news organizations that were being used to counteract American dominance in propaganda news.

I find it quite engaging. I know @Potemkin loves that topic of propaganda. He should give us more opinions on the nature of propaganda....I implore him to do so!

I fully agree that. I have learnt a lot from his posts today.

[late]

I start to question whether advocacy and propaganda are really different things.

That looks like gaslighting.

[Patrickov]

That looks like gaslighting.

After looking up the term on Wikipedia, my statement looks more like a sign of being gas-lighted.

[Tainari88]

The problem is their System is so rotten that they effectively treat their own people almost as bad as how Nazi treated Jews, although not as bad as how the West treated American or Australian natives.

To all fairness, though, the West, at least since Enlightenment, treat their own citizens much better than elsewhere in the world does. Or at least they have been much more practical in dealing with their social problems.

Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia are also mother cultures, but they all succumbed to later but (arguably) better cultures. Even Greece or Roman went down eventually. IMHO ancient cultures didn't decline without a reason. There is a time when they outlive their usefulness.




I am sometimes amazed by how blatant and arrogant these manipulation-mongers can be. But after all emotion is a human nature, and thus it can be said that mastering manipulation is somewhat vital to pass genes down generations.




I fully agree that. I have learnt a lot from his posts today.

Well, I will start off with an interesting French anthropologist called Clotaire Rapaille. He specialized in psychological manipulation in messages that appeal to very deeply embedded survival or defense responses in humans emotional parts...such as the reptilian brain. Human evolutionary theory is fascinating....humans have instructions in our DNA where we went through reptilian, amphibian, and so on til we got to primate, and then cycled through. All those previous stages of existence come with an emotional code or a type of genetic çode that is wrapped in certain instinctual responses.

I never was aware of how much of our bodies are ruled by instinct and how much of is a learned behavior due to environment or socially learned patterns. But we do have instinctual patterns and men and women and certain individuals have different responses but in general? All humans respond the most strongly to two emotions. Fear and love.

Those two are strong as hell because they are about both being able to be safe and to feel socially accepted and also to be able to survive threats. So? If you are a good propaganda person you emotionally appeal to either fear or love to sell your message.....you manipulate those two primal instinctive things.

If you are intelligent you shape policy around being able to keep people united either through fear of reprisals, or fear of losing love and acceptance in a group.

The purpose of propaganda.

[late]

After looking up the term on Wikipedia, my statement looks more like a sign of being gas-lighted.

I wonder if there is a correct way to say that. Perhaps gas-lit? That doesn't sound right, does it.

Anyway, it won't always be easy to tell the difference, but it's there.

[Tainari88]

The French anthropologist here he is.....explaining the reptilian brain. He sells his lectures and information to marketing companies, ad people, and at a certain point to Trump organization folks as well.

People think that these people don't know what they are doing. They know exactly what they are doing too.

Listen to this dude:

[skinster]

I was reminded of how propaganda works during and after the last U.K. election.

[Sivad]

PROPAGANDA WORKS

It certainly worked on you.

[late]

It certainly worked on you.

Rubber and glue, the very height of sophistication!!

[Patrickov]

I was reminded of how propaganda works during and after the last U.K. election.

I wouldn't just say "one side's propaganda worked". IMHO "the other side's propaganda not working" is a more important issue.

[blackjack21]

The French anthropologist here he is.....explaining the reptilian brain. He sells his lectures and information to marketing companies, ad people, and at a certain point to Trump organization folks as well.

People think that these people don't know what they are doing. They know exactly what they are doing too.

Yet, you stick to the egalitarian hypothesis? He just gave you a Darwinian theory of sexual selection. That's a big part of the argument I would give you for racism. This guy agrees with me. You submit him as someone to listen to, but if I make a similar argument, you disagree with me. Why is that?

[Hindsite]

Yet, you stick to the egalitarian hypothesis? He just gave you a Darwinian theory of sexual selection. That's a big part of the argument I would give you for racism. This guy agrees with me. You submit him as someone to listen to, but if I make a similar argument, you disagree with me. Why is that?

I believe it is called the hypocrisy of the left.
Praise the Lord.