3 ms·

>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 a

>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...