3 ms·
> It doesn't help that the nature of "democracy" is itself endlessly contested. It's not really; I've never heard someone say that, in fact. The nature of prop
by mmooss 2y ago
> It doesn't help that the nature of "democracy" is itself endlessly contested.
It's not really; I've never heard someone say that, in fact. The nature of propaganda is to make everything uncertain, and then everyone is frozen and nobody has done wrong.
- nonrandomstring 2y agoHopefully I'm not nitpicking, "propaganda" in general form can be to any purpose; rallying/unity, sapping morale, creating a scapegoat... A lovely word for what your describing is "discombobulation" - sowing seeds of fear, uncertainty, doubt (FUD), gaslighting and disorienting.
- mmooss 2y agoNo, I appreciate it. It's a great point. And there is much propaganda - especially now - used to sow hate, violence, and division. We need clear language for each form (how many are there?). And I think we need a more serious word than 'discombobulation' - for one, it describes the effect, not the cause; and for another, people won't take the issue seriously.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 2y ago>It's not really; I've never heard someone say that, in fact. Lots of disputes within democracies consist of both sides implicitly claiming their position is "more democratic". E.g. how much power should the US president have over US bureaucracies? Some say that because bureaucrats are "unelected", the president should have more control. Others say that too much executive control is authoritarian. In both cases, the nature of "democracy" is what's [implicitly] at stake. >propaganda * I speak truth to power. * He is exercising his right to freedom of speech. * They spread propaganda. I don't think the phrase "propaganda" is meaningless, necessary. But this reinforces my point from earlier, about how our social contract could use more simplicity and less ambiguity.
- mmooss 2y agoI don't see that happening. I see lots of propaganda trying to make the same paralyzing arguments, especially the argument that 'it's all the same and you can't tell the difference'. Yes we can, pretty easily.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 2y ago>Yes we can, pretty easily. Indeed, it's quite easy! If I agree, it's brave truth-telling. If I disagree, it's propaganda.
- mmooss 2y agoThat's the propagandist's argument. But the reality is there is a difference between truth and falsehood, it's not just a matter of perception, and we can tell the difference with reasonable accuracy.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 2y ago>there is a difference between truth and falsehood Of course, but that's distinct from propaganda vs non-propaganda. A foreign actor can secretly pay for a marketing campaign that spreads the truth. A scientist can make an honest mistake and spread a falsehood. >we can tell the difference with reasonable accuracy. Depends on the claim. Suppose I tell you that exactly one year from now, at your current location, it will be raining. Is that true or false?
- mmooss 2y agoIt's a game of perfect philosophical definitions, which generally are not needed in practical life.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 2y agoWell sure, how about a "good enough in practice" definition instead? Because in practice, there's a big definition dispute here.