5 ms·

You speak in propaganda terminology, your assumptions cloud your views imo.

by _8j50 4y ago

082349872349872 4y ago
If you explain which assumptions you find cloudy, I can either justify or reëvaluate them. If you explain which wordings you find propaganda terminology, I might attempt to restate them. ==== Edit: following Linebarger's injunction from Psychological Warfare[0]: > The point will invariably arise: "This tells me how to listen to a foreign radio. Okay, I'll get the news, the lectures, the plays—all the rest of it. But so what? How am I going to know what's the truth and what's propaganda? How can I tell 'em apart? Tell me that!" > The answer is simple: "If you agree with it, it's truth. If you don't agree, it's propaganda. Pretend that it is all propaganda. See what happens on your analysis reports." let's do an analysis of my post: Source: 082349872349872 (ostensible, first-use, and, I claim, also the true source), transmitted on HN Time: Monday morning, no retransmission, non-peculiar time. Audience: HN Subject: query on the relation between fear, dreams, and authoritarian evangelicals Mission: white propaganda soliciting information about content of dreams outside the author's social circles, and informing about the existence of academic studies relating fear and following authoritarian leaders. potential ostensible second-use wrt James "Jimmy" Carter. Exercise: perform your own analysis, according to the STASM model or your own. [0] https://www.gutenberg.org/files/48612/48612-h/48612-h.htm#Page_110 https://www.gutenberg.org/files/48612/48612-h/48612-h.htm#Pa...
- Amezarak 4y ago
  He’s probably talking about the Gilead reference. This is the peril of reading fiction - you get some version of the author’s weird fantasies and dreams rattling around in your head. What you have is Atwood in your head. Indeed I originally just downvoted the beginning of this thread, because it seemed really inflammatory, but it seems like you’re posting in good faith. In real life, approximately zero evangelicals want some kind of Gilead. If you talk to them, the most ideological want some sort of idealized, non-racist high-tech version of the 1950-80s. No doubt there are some cranks out there, but they’re about as common as Westboro Baptist Church members (one family) or the series of weird niche western US cults. The generalization is totally wrong and informed by propaganda. I’ve thought a lot about how strange it is fiction can have such a powerful effect on people’s perceptions, and people often seem unaware of the propagandistic nature of it. Another example is Atlas Shrugged. At any rate, being fascinated by the subject of dreams, I have talked to a lot of evangelicals about their dreams and have not noticed any deviation from the norm.
  - 082349872349872 4y ago
    Thank you. [Edit: and thank you very much for the dreams! that's very reassuring, assuming you've also talked with representatives of the authoritarian subset] Of the approximately 55m conservative evangelicals who don't want some kind of Gilead [edit: is there a proper evangelical term for lone cranks who do wish to immanentise the eschaton, so I can use less loaded vocabulary?], how many would you say: * believe the US is a secular nation * believe in maintenance of the separation of Church and State (yes, just like the Haskell weenies?) If there are substantial numbers who don't (after all, someone is electing the representatives espousing the opposite — but maybe someone else?), what is the difference between their position and my head-canon for Gilead (to be clear: a theocratic state, eg Afghanistan, Israel, Iran, Saudi, the Vatican etc.)? PS. Being partial to disco, and neither Argentinian nor El Salvadoran nor Pakistani, of that range I'd be happiest with an idealised non-racist high-tech late 1970s. As it appears that even Baptists dance in the twenty-first century, who are the evangelicals with whom I could find common ground on this project? PPS. Upon reflection, if I were to roll back time, how about the 1990s but part of the idealisation is we actually get a Peace Dividend? PPPS. ...and neither Canter&Siegel nor Eternal September nor the Yugoslav wars ever happened. maybe idealisation is not as easy as it appears... P4S. was it at least clear that "authoritarian" was meant to constrain, ie pick out a subset, not generically describe, "evangelicals"?
    - scythe 4y ago
      The US currently implements (and I support) one of the most thorough versions of religious egalitarianism anywhere in the world, which dates to the work of James Madison (whose writing on the topic is instructive). The UK, on the other hand, has a state religion (Anglicanism), and many countries in Europe (including Germany and Sweden) retain a "church tax". Does that qualify as "Gilead"?
      - 082349872349872 4y ago
        No. > my head-canon for Gilead (to be clear: a theocratic state, eg Afghanistan, Israel, Iran, Saudi, the Vatican etc.)
- _8j50 4y ago
  I tried to reply but hn stopped me because 3 comments in 15min is too much so had to wait hours. Consider the term "evangelical authoritarian" and the conclusion you cane up with about fear and paranoia in their dreams. The propaganda interpretation is a reductive "basically white americans who support trump" but in reality if you took time to understand what that phrase means perhaps you will see how your conclusion or the phrase itself make no sense at all. My intention was to nudge to the direction of critically examining your assumptions not to say you had bad intentions or that I was free from incorrect assumptions myself.
  - 082349872349872 4y ago
    No worries, unfortunately I've passed the time limit when I can edit the original post to clarify. [e for e in evangelicals where authoritarian(e)] Assuming ~100m US evangelicals, only ~55m are conservative, and presumably only some fraction of those are authoritarian, in the sense that they could willingly support the kind of authoritarianism under which dreams change. Trump support was, at 74m, substantially higher than the number of people I had been intending to discuss. (Also feel free to directly point out my errors next time; I married into a culture which is far more direct than the anglophone and may have gone native in areas) Cheers!
  - watwut 4y ago
    Why would the term "evangelical authoritarian" be nonsensical? There are some very hierarchical evangelical subcultures, that frown on criticizing higher ups have very strict rules and do nurture "us vs them" way of looking at the world. The "evangelical authoritarian" does describe them well. And I am saying that as someone who grew in evangelical church. Mine was significantly less authoritarian then it gets to be, but I still read enough texts produced by authoritarian ones and had enough contact to know it is not made up construct.
bheadmaster 4y ago
Useless comment. Brings absolutely no new information to the table. Anyone can accuse anyone of speaking in propaganda terminology, it doesn't mean anything in itself, as there's no clear distinction between "propaganda terminology" and "non-propaganda terminology" - propaganda often uses terminology that is also used in non-propaganda conversations. And our assumptions are always influencing our views, that's kind of a given - you can't have views without assumptions. Are you implying that you, yourself, don't have any assumptions, but instead rely on some kind of divine truth?
- _8j50 4y ago
  > ... don't have any assumptions, but instead rely on some kind of divine truth? No. But I would appreciate it when others point it out when my conclusions are incorrect because of my assumptions. It helps me self-reflect, that was my intent when commenting.
  - bheadmaster 4y ago
    Pointing out someone's conclusions are incorrect is useless unless you also point out why they're incorrect. Everyone has an opinion, it's the reasoning that matters. In some fields, like mathematics, pointing out "this result is incorrect" can be useful in itself, but that's because of the deeply technical nature of mathematics itself - mechanical verification of correctness is feasible. In ordinary conversation, things aren't that black-and-white, and pointing out that something is wrong doesn't in itself provide valuable input for self-reflection. Providing some more information why is always more helpful than just saying "you're wrong, figure it out".
  - maxbond 4y ago
    You didn't point anything out though. I'm sure in your mind there was a meaning to "propoganda terminology" but that set of associations doesn't exist outside your head. So from our perspective, all that you expressed was, "I don't like your ideas, I think you should rethink them, but I'm not going to offer you any criticism or point you in what I think is the right direction." If your statement hinges on understanding the working of someone's mind, it should be rephrased to rely on the ideas expressed in their comment; your opinion on whether someone's thinking is "clouded by assumptions" isn't worth discussing because it's not something you could possibly know. If you're right about it, you're right like a stopped clock. If you nebulously posit someone is wrong without highlighting specific views and indicating why you believe they're wrong, you haven't made a criticism, you've made a swipe. This is a more wordy was to say, "you're dumb."
trelane 4y ago
"propaganda" is overstating it, but it's hardly a respectful engagement (e.g. "godbotherers"). They appear to have no deep engagement with real evangelical Christians, preferring to argue from stereotypes and pure conjecture arising therefrom. Anyway, you're not entirely correct, but they're pretty clearly bordering on trolling.
- 082349872349872 4y ago
  Sorry. To me, a "godbotherer" is someone who is more Churchy than (in this case) Christian. Would pharisee be better? (I had avoided this choice originally due to the slur on actual Pharisees) Or something else? (see also the note in sibling thread about the importance of the adjective "authoritarian": the godbotherer reference was not meant to be respectful, but neither was it meant to refer to real evangelical Christians.)
  - trelane 4y ago
    In my experience, "godbotherer" is a pejorative description of religious people generally, usually Christians. If "authoritarian" is referring to the "subsetting" p4s, no, it was not at all clear that it was intended to subset rather than describe. I definitely see it as describing rather than subsetting. This read mostly as a "those damn Evangelicals, am I right?" which is a common enough sentiment, especially in tech circles.
    - 082349872349872 4y ago
      Sorry, I had thought the footnote highlighting the importance of the adjective, the mention of Carter (for those unaware of last century's US politics: an evangelical who became President) as being in a different camp from the authoritarian camp, and the image of real evangelicals as having been hijacked, would all have sufficed to convey the subsetting usage, but I erred. peccavi
      - trelane 4y ago
        No worries. In the interactions, you're much less trollish than I first took you as. Perhaps we can all get along after all. :) Cheers!

You speak in propaganda terminology, your assumptions cloud your views imo.

by _8j50 4y ago

You speak in propaganda terminology, your assumptions cloud your views imo.

If you explain which assumptions you find cloudy, I can either justify or reëvaluate them. If you explain which wordings you find propaganda terminology, I might attempt to restate them. ==== Edit: following Linebarger's injunction from Psychological Warfare[0]: > The point will invariably arise: "This tells me how to listen to a foreign radio. Okay, I'll get the news, the lectures, the plays—all the rest of it. But so what? How am I going to know what's the truth and what's propaganda? How can I tell 'em apart? Tell me that!" > The answer is simple: "If you agree with it, it's truth. If you don't agree, it's propaganda. Pretend that it is all propaganda. See what happens on your analysis reports." let's do an analysis of my post: Source: 082349872349872 (ostensible, first-use, and, I claim, also the true source), transmitted on HN Time: Monday morning, no retransmission, non-peculiar time. Audience: HN Subject: query on the relation between fear, dreams, and authoritarian evangelicals Mission: white propaganda soliciting information about content of dreams outside the author's social circles, and informing about the existence of academic studies relating fear and following authoritarian leaders. potential ostensible second-use wrt James "Jimmy" Carter. Exercise: perform your own analysis, according to the STASM model or your own. [0] https://www.gutenberg.org/files/48612/48612-h/48612-h.htm#Page_110 https://www.gutenberg.org/files/48612/48612-h/48612-h.htm#Pa...

Amezarak 4y ago
He’s probably talking about the Gilead reference. This is the peril of reading fiction - you get some version of the author’s weird fantasies and dreams rattling around in your head. What you have is Atwood in your head. Indeed I originally just downvoted the beginning of this thread, because it seemed really inflammatory, but it seems like you’re posting in good faith. In real life, approximately zero evangelicals want some kind of Gilead. If you talk to them, the most ideological want some sort of idealized, non-racist high-tech version of the 1950-80s. No doubt there are some cranks out there, but they’re about as common as Westboro Baptist Church members (one family) or the series of weird niche western US cults. The generalization is totally wrong and informed by propaganda. I’ve thought a lot about how strange it is fiction can have such a powerful effect on people’s perceptions, and people often seem unaware of the propagandistic nature of it. Another example is Atlas Shrugged. At any rate, being fascinated by the subject of dreams, I have talked to a lot of evangelicals about their dreams and have not noticed any deviation from the norm.
- 082349872349872 4y ago
  Thank you. [Edit: and thank you very much for the dreams! that's very reassuring, assuming you've also talked with representatives of the authoritarian subset] Of the approximately 55m conservative evangelicals who don't want some kind of Gilead [edit: is there a proper evangelical term for lone cranks who do wish to immanentise the eschaton, so I can use less loaded vocabulary?], how many would you say: * believe the US is a secular nation * believe in maintenance of the separation of Church and State (yes, just like the Haskell weenies?) If there are substantial numbers who don't (after all, someone is electing the representatives espousing the opposite — but maybe someone else?), what is the difference between their position and my head-canon for Gilead (to be clear: a theocratic state, eg Afghanistan, Israel, Iran, Saudi, the Vatican etc.)? PS. Being partial to disco, and neither Argentinian nor El Salvadoran nor Pakistani, of that range I'd be happiest with an idealised non-racist high-tech late 1970s. As it appears that even Baptists dance in the twenty-first century, who are the evangelicals with whom I could find common ground on this project? PPS. Upon reflection, if I were to roll back time, how about the 1990s but part of the idealisation is we actually get a Peace Dividend? PPPS. ...and neither Canter&Siegel nor Eternal September nor the Yugoslav wars ever happened. maybe idealisation is not as easy as it appears... P4S. was it at least clear that "authoritarian" was meant to constrain, ie pick out a subset, not generically describe, "evangelicals"?
  - scythe 4y ago
    The US currently implements (and I support) one of the most thorough versions of religious egalitarianism anywhere in the world, which dates to the work of James Madison (whose writing on the topic is instructive). The UK, on the other hand, has a state religion (Anglicanism), and many countries in Europe (including Germany and Sweden) retain a "church tax". Does that qualify as "Gilead"?
    - 082349872349872 4y ago
      No. > my head-canon for Gilead (to be clear: a theocratic state, eg Afghanistan, Israel, Iran, Saudi, the Vatican etc.)
_8j50 4y ago
I tried to reply but hn stopped me because 3 comments in 15min is too much so had to wait hours. Consider the term "evangelical authoritarian" and the conclusion you cane up with about fear and paranoia in their dreams. The propaganda interpretation is a reductive "basically white americans who support trump" but in reality if you took time to understand what that phrase means perhaps you will see how your conclusion or the phrase itself make no sense at all. My intention was to nudge to the direction of critically examining your assumptions not to say you had bad intentions or that I was free from incorrect assumptions myself.
- 082349872349872 4y ago
  No worries, unfortunately I've passed the time limit when I can edit the original post to clarify. [e for e in evangelicals where authoritarian(e)] Assuming ~100m US evangelicals, only ~55m are conservative, and presumably only some fraction of those are authoritarian, in the sense that they could willingly support the kind of authoritarianism under which dreams change. Trump support was, at 74m, substantially higher than the number of people I had been intending to discuss. (Also feel free to directly point out my errors next time; I married into a culture which is far more direct than the anglophone and may have gone native in areas) Cheers!
- watwut 4y ago
  Why would the term "evangelical authoritarian" be nonsensical? There are some very hierarchical evangelical subcultures, that frown on criticizing higher ups have very strict rules and do nurture "us vs them" way of looking at the world. The "evangelical authoritarian" does describe them well. And I am saying that as someone who grew in evangelical church. Mine was significantly less authoritarian then it gets to be, but I still read enough texts produced by authoritarian ones and had enough contact to know it is not made up construct.

bheadmaster 4y ago

Useless comment. Brings absolutely no new information to the table. Anyone can accuse anyone of speaking in propaganda terminology, it doesn't mean anything in itself, as there's no clear distinction between "propaganda terminology" and "non-propaganda terminology" - propaganda often uses terminology that is also used in non-propaganda conversations. And our assumptions are always influencing our views, that's kind of a given - you can't have views without assumptions. Are you implying that you, yourself, don't have any assumptions, but instead rely on some kind of divine truth?

_8j50 4y ago
> ... don't have any assumptions, but instead rely on some kind of divine truth? No. But I would appreciate it when others point it out when my conclusions are incorrect because of my assumptions. It helps me self-reflect, that was my intent when commenting.
- bheadmaster 4y ago
  Pointing out someone's conclusions are incorrect is useless unless you also point out why they're incorrect. Everyone has an opinion, it's the reasoning that matters. In some fields, like mathematics, pointing out "this result is incorrect" can be useful in itself, but that's because of the deeply technical nature of mathematics itself - mechanical verification of correctness is feasible. In ordinary conversation, things aren't that black-and-white, and pointing out that something is wrong doesn't in itself provide valuable input for self-reflection. Providing some more information why is always more helpful than just saying "you're wrong, figure it out".
- maxbond 4y ago
  You didn't point anything out though. I'm sure in your mind there was a meaning to "propoganda terminology" but that set of associations doesn't exist outside your head. So from our perspective, all that you expressed was, "I don't like your ideas, I think you should rethink them, but I'm not going to offer you any criticism or point you in what I think is the right direction." If your statement hinges on understanding the working of someone's mind, it should be rephrased to rely on the ideas expressed in their comment; your opinion on whether someone's thinking is "clouded by assumptions" isn't worth discussing because it's not something you could possibly know. If you're right about it, you're right like a stopped clock. If you nebulously posit someone is wrong without highlighting specific views and indicating why you believe they're wrong, you haven't made a criticism, you've made a swipe. This is a more wordy was to say, "you're dumb."

trelane 4y ago

"propaganda" is overstating it, but it's hardly a respectful engagement (e.g. "godbotherers"). They appear to have no deep engagement with real evangelical Christians, preferring to argue from stereotypes and pure conjecture arising therefrom. Anyway, you're not entirely correct, but they're pretty clearly bordering on trolling.

082349872349872 4y ago
Sorry. To me, a "godbotherer" is someone who is more Churchy than (in this case) Christian. Would pharisee be better? (I had avoided this choice originally due to the slur on actual Pharisees) Or something else? (see also the note in sibling thread about the importance of the adjective "authoritarian": the godbotherer reference was not meant to be respectful, but neither was it meant to refer to real evangelical Christians.)
- trelane 4y ago
  In my experience, "godbotherer" is a pejorative description of religious people generally, usually Christians. If "authoritarian" is referring to the "subsetting" p4s, no, it was not at all clear that it was intended to subset rather than describe. I definitely see it as describing rather than subsetting. This read mostly as a "those damn Evangelicals, am I right?" which is a common enough sentiment, especially in tech circles.
  - 082349872349872 4y ago
    Sorry, I had thought the footnote highlighting the importance of the adjective, the mention of Carter (for those unaware of last century's US politics: an evangelical who became President) as being in a different camp from the authoritarian camp, and the image of real evangelicals as having been hijacked, would all have sufficed to convey the subsetting usage, but I erred. peccavi
    - trelane 4y ago
      No worries. In the interactions, you're much less trollish than I first took you as. Perhaps we can all get along after all. :) Cheers!