3 ms·

I urge people not to downvote the parent's comment out of political disagreement with the Palestinian cause. There has been an outrageous amount of censorship

I urge people not to downvote the parent's comment out of political disagreement with the Palestinian cause. There has been an outrageous amount of censorship of the Palestinian story in most of the US media, and frankly also a lack of nuanced explanation of the dominant Israeli perspective (which is far more nuanced than the typical American perspective). In general, I recommend the following rules for propaganda hygeine: - If someone uses the word "terrorist" or "terrorism", subtract a point of credibility. The word is an emotionally charged label that removes clarity. - If someone refers to the desire of preserving "stability", subtract a point of credibility. This phrasing is typically used to mislead/misdirect. - If you discover that important information (such as the charges brought before the ICJ) is being suppressed, subtract a point of credibility. Fairly important international law developments that ought to focus the discussion on concrete issues and considerations. - If someone does not accept the label of apartheid as having a common literal meaning and insists that the word only applies to S. Africa, subtract a point of credibility. Things like Apartheid, ethnic cleansing, etc., are part of many nations' histories. It does not do any good to pretend that these things are impossible today. There are very credible arguments in favor of both sides in the conflict, but increasingly people seem to believe that suppressing information is the best way to make the world a better place.

drstewart 3y ago
>In general, I recommend the following rules for propaganda hygeine: Here's another: if someone gives you a list of rules that are carefully crafted to only apply to those that are against their preferred narrative, subtract a point of credibility
- resters 3y ago
  Point taken. It's a difficult issue indeed. A few more: - If both US political parties agree on it, it's probably a bad idea. - Any time we are told that a foreign leader is insane or unstable, it's propaganda intended to dehumanize and discredit democratic forces in that country (even if the country is not a strict democracy). - Logically, asymmetric conflict is going to necessitate different tactics. Don't fall for the idea that smart bombs are civilized but stones thrown are barbaric. - Don't assume the US or its allies are the good guy. Countries make mistakes and rarely course-correct. - The humanitarian justifications for war/conflict/killing are rarely the real story. Often there is a national interest-driven motivation, but but making it about a hard-to-disagree-with moral cause the debate about what is actually the national interest is suppressed. - If someone tells you that it is disrespectful to question your own country or political leaders' competence or motivations, subtract several points. Democracy is a consensus mechanism, not a guarantee of consensus. Dissent is part of the recipe. Please add more!
  - mrguyorama 3y ago
    >If both US political parties agree on it, it's probably a bad idea. This is just such a childish take.
    - resters 3y ago
      > This is just such a childish take. It certainly lacks eloquence compared to a tactic such as name calling...

drstewart 3y ago

>In general, I recommend the following rules for propaganda hygeine: Here's another: if someone gives you a list of rules that are carefully crafted to only apply to those that are against their preferred narrative, subtract a point of credibility

resters 3y ago
Point taken. It's a difficult issue indeed. A few more: - If both US political parties agree on it, it's probably a bad idea. - Any time we are told that a foreign leader is insane or unstable, it's propaganda intended to dehumanize and discredit democratic forces in that country (even if the country is not a strict democracy). - Logically, asymmetric conflict is going to necessitate different tactics. Don't fall for the idea that smart bombs are civilized but stones thrown are barbaric. - Don't assume the US or its allies are the good guy. Countries make mistakes and rarely course-correct. - The humanitarian justifications for war/conflict/killing are rarely the real story. Often there is a national interest-driven motivation, but but making it about a hard-to-disagree-with moral cause the debate about what is actually the national interest is suppressed. - If someone tells you that it is disrespectful to question your own country or political leaders' competence or motivations, subtract several points. Democracy is a consensus mechanism, not a guarantee of consensus. Dissent is part of the recipe. Please add more!
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  >If both US political parties agree on it, it's probably a bad idea. This is just such a childish take.
  - resters 3y ago
    > This is just such a childish take. It certainly lacks eloquence compared to a tactic such as name calling...