3 ms·

Nowhere in any of my posts did I make a moral jusgement, much less an equivalence. The original article's premise is to attribute the "true" purpose of propagan

Nowhere in any of my posts did I make a moral jusgement, much less an equivalence. The original article's premise is to attribute the "true" purpose of propaganda given that "propaganda doesn't work". The OP who I responded to, pointed out that this was a falacy of "begging the question". I agreed and supoorted with examples of government propaganda campaigns that have worked, making no moral claims. I am not entirely against propaganda. I think public health is a very good example of the positive power propaganda can have. But I am not one who will call anything the government promotes which I don't like propaganda while claiming the things which it proselatyzes that I do like are not. I have things which I would like the government to propagandize and things I would like it to stop propagandizing. I participate in politics to promote those things I like and try to diminish the things I don't like. I'm comfortable making moral judgements about information but I'm fair enough to know others make their own as well. I endoctrinated my child with the germ theory of disease because I find it useful. I did not indoctrinate him with the baptist faith I was endoctrinated with because I feel differently about that information. As to math and physics also being propaganda, yes to some extent I think so. The state is interested in having more rocket scientists as much as they are in having more grunts. There is a nationalism in our sciences that goes back to WWII and the Cold War. It's not as obvious as the cartoonish history and civics material the public schools promote but it's more there in how it is promoted. The information the state wishes for us to internalize is massive and varied in appearance. Perhaps the most impressive feat of propaganda is our modern languages. Nation states have weaponized common language. Government champaigns for standard language and common literature have spread cooperation across much larger geographic areas than was easy historically. It has the added bonus of erasing difference and replacing it with a national identity. And it even time travels. People now justify their national identity via a common language which the nation in fact invented. It's quite remarkable.

epgui 5y ago
As you correctly pointed out in your first sentence, I did not accuse you of making a moral judgment or equivalence; I merely said that when there are multiple possible definitions of a word, the most common of which holding normative connotation, it is important to be precise about which meaning we give or do not give to the word. In other words, my unintentionally oblique answer was that "it depends on the definition we use". As for the rest, under the definition of propaganda you specified in your earlier comment, I think we're essentially on the same page. (And here I make a very generous interpretation of your usage of "doctrine" and "germ theory of disease", because I don't think "doctrine" was the best word.)

epgui 5y ago

As you correctly pointed out in your first sentence, I did not accuse you of making a moral judgment or equivalence; I merely said that when there are multiple possible definitions of a word, the most common of which holding normative connotation, it is important to be precise about which meaning we give or do not give to the word. In other words, my unintentionally oblique answer was that "it depends on the definition we use". As for the rest, under the definition of propaganda you specified in your earlier comment, I think we're essentially on the same page. (And here I make a very generous interpretation of your usage of "doctrine" and "germ theory of disease", because I don't think "doctrine" was the best word.)