8 ms·

This is in fact the goal of Russian style propaganda. You have successfully been targeted. The idea is to spread so much confusion that you just throw up your h

This is in fact the goal of Russian style propaganda. You have successfully been targeted. The idea is to spread so much confusion that you just throw up your hands and say, I'm not going to try and figure out what's going on any more. That saps your will to be political, to morally judge actions and support efforts to punish wrongdoers. https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firehose_of_falsehood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firehose_of_falsehood https://jordanrussiacenter.org/blog/propaganda-political-apathy-and-authoritarianism-in-russia https://jordanrussiacenter.org/blog/propaganda-political-apa... https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-communications/inside-putins-propaganda-machine https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-communications/insi...

serial_dev 1y ago
[flagged]
- scrollop 1y ago
  Now, why are you spending misinformation? The russian military doctrine of spreading a "firehouse of falsehood" is well documented. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_disinformation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_disinformation And yet, you switch it around and blame the west - exactly as per russian misinformation doctrine. Odd, eh?
  - zer00eyz 1y ago
    > Now, why are you spending misinformation? Are you going to claim that US politicians don't do the exact same thing? This is my favorite example of it, where one literally tells you what the play is while it's getting made: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnhJWusyj4I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnhJWusyj4I Feelings not facts.
    - wiseowise 1y ago
      He posted a YouTube video! West is in shambles! They’re onto us!
  - Applejinx 1y ago
    The brazenness is part of the point. From a game theory standpoint, it's interesting to watch the tactics out there (in here) in the wild. An earlier comment mentioned how hard it is to get down to objective truth. Sometimes there are cases, like 'accelerate climate change in the belief that it'll help Siberia and hurt the West and Europe and open up the Arctic for shipping' where it's not at all hard to get down to objective truth: objective truth comes for ya like a tiger and will not be avoided.
diggan 1y ago
What you're saying is certainly an established propaganda strategy of Russia (and others), but what parent is saying is also true, "truth" isn't always black and white, and what is the desired behavior in one country can be the opposite in another. For example, it is the truth that the Golf of Mexico is called the Gulf of America in the US, but Golf of Mexico everywhere else. What is the "correct" truth? Well, there is none, both of truthful, but from different perspectives.
- strken 1y ago
  The correct truth is to go to a higher level of abstraction and explain that there's a naming controversy. I get the general point, but I disagree that you have to choose between one of the possibilities instead of explaining what the current state of belief is. This won't eliminate grey areas but it'll sure get us closer than picking a side at random.
  - saubeidl 1y ago
    What about straight up ideological disagreements? Are markets a driver of wealth and innovation or of exploitation and misery? Is abortion an important human right or murder? Etc etc
    - autoexec 1y ago
      I don't see those examples as being either-or. They don't seem like questions about any kind of objective truth, just questions about what aspect of a thing you think is the most important to you.
    - strken 1y ago
      In all those cases, you can explain the existing sides and show the available evidence for each. This isn't perfect, but those cases don't show the imperfections clearly enough. You have to look at the details before you find the grey areas. Consider the case of abortion, and further consider the question of the existence of the human soul. There's no scientific evidence for souls, but the decision to look only at scientific evidence is itself a bias towards a certain way of understanding the world. This is still much better than just deciding to pick one or the other side and ignoring the dispute.
saubeidl 1y ago
[flagged]
- sorcerer-mar 1y ago
  If there's one underlying axiom of western thought it is "question everything." So no, not really.
  - DaSHacka 1y ago
    > If there's one underlying axiom of western thought it is "question everything." I don't believe this, even for a second. How are those that truly do question everything treated? Well, as either looney conspiracy theorists, or vindicated activists, depending on when the official State narrative (or classification status) changes. Not always, or even often unjustified, but I hardly think you can call it an "underlying axiom of western thought" with the extreme negative public sentiment towards it.
    - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
      Gasp! Are you referring to a lively marketplace of ideas and the intrinsic dynamics of competition within that marketplace? Nobody said it's without cost to hold non-consensus views. The point is that those costs are incurred by the marketplace of ideas itself (people being "mean" to you, not the state beheading you) and that, in the long run, correct views become the consensus through winning such competitions over and over again. There are alternative regimes where incorrect views can reign indefinitely because they choose to prevent people from criticizing each others' views.
- wiseowise 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - saubeidl 1y ago
    You're inverting my point. I was saying that the narrative of a single truth was western propaganda and that the world is more nuanced than that. There's many truths. That simple dichotomy "truth vs propaganda" is a staple of the western approach to propaganda.
greenavocado 1y ago
> The firehose of falsehood, also known as firehosing, is a propaganda technique in which a large number of messages are broadcast rapidly, repetitively, and continuously over multiple channels (like news and social media) without regard for truth or consistency. An outgrowth of Soviet propaganda techniques, the firehose of falsehood is a contemporary model for Russian propaganda under Russian President Vladimir Putin. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZggCipbiHwE https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZggCipbiHwE
- Lu2025 1y ago
  Yeah, just check how many alternative versions they provided for MH17 downing.

serial_dev 1y ago

[flagged]

scrollop 1y ago
Now, why are you spending misinformation? The russian military doctrine of spreading a "firehouse of falsehood" is well documented. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_disinformation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_disinformation And yet, you switch it around and blame the west - exactly as per russian misinformation doctrine. Odd, eh?
- zer00eyz 1y ago
  > Now, why are you spending misinformation? Are you going to claim that US politicians don't do the exact same thing? This is my favorite example of it, where one literally tells you what the play is while it's getting made: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnhJWusyj4I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnhJWusyj4I Feelings not facts.
  - wiseowise 1y ago
    He posted a YouTube video! West is in shambles! They’re onto us!
- Applejinx 1y ago
  The brazenness is part of the point. From a game theory standpoint, it's interesting to watch the tactics out there (in here) in the wild. An earlier comment mentioned how hard it is to get down to objective truth. Sometimes there are cases, like 'accelerate climate change in the belief that it'll help Siberia and hurt the West and Europe and open up the Arctic for shipping' where it's not at all hard to get down to objective truth: objective truth comes for ya like a tiger and will not be avoided.

diggan 1y ago

What you're saying is certainly an established propaganda strategy of Russia (and others), but what parent is saying is also true, "truth" isn't always black and white, and what is the desired behavior in one country can be the opposite in another. For example, it is the truth that the Golf of Mexico is called the Gulf of America in the US, but Golf of Mexico everywhere else. What is the "correct" truth? Well, there is none, both of truthful, but from different perspectives.

strken 1y ago
The correct truth is to go to a higher level of abstraction and explain that there's a naming controversy. I get the general point, but I disagree that you have to choose between one of the possibilities instead of explaining what the current state of belief is. This won't eliminate grey areas but it'll sure get us closer than picking a side at random.
- saubeidl 1y ago
  What about straight up ideological disagreements? Are markets a driver of wealth and innovation or of exploitation and misery? Is abortion an important human right or murder? Etc etc
  - autoexec 1y ago
    I don't see those examples as being either-or. They don't seem like questions about any kind of objective truth, just questions about what aspect of a thing you think is the most important to you.
  - strken 1y ago
    In all those cases, you can explain the existing sides and show the available evidence for each. This isn't perfect, but those cases don't show the imperfections clearly enough. You have to look at the details before you find the grey areas. Consider the case of abortion, and further consider the question of the existence of the human soul. There's no scientific evidence for souls, but the decision to look only at scientific evidence is itself a bias towards a certain way of understanding the world. This is still much better than just deciding to pick one or the other side and ignoring the dispute.

saubeidl 1y ago

[flagged]

sorcerer-mar 1y ago
If there's one underlying axiom of western thought it is "question everything." So no, not really.
- DaSHacka 1y ago
  > If there's one underlying axiom of western thought it is "question everything." I don't believe this, even for a second. How are those that truly do question everything treated? Well, as either looney conspiracy theorists, or vindicated activists, depending on when the official State narrative (or classification status) changes. Not always, or even often unjustified, but I hardly think you can call it an "underlying axiom of western thought" with the extreme negative public sentiment towards it.
  - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
    Gasp! Are you referring to a lively marketplace of ideas and the intrinsic dynamics of competition within that marketplace? Nobody said it's without cost to hold non-consensus views. The point is that those costs are incurred by the marketplace of ideas itself (people being "mean" to you, not the state beheading you) and that, in the long run, correct views become the consensus through winning such competitions over and over again. There are alternative regimes where incorrect views can reign indefinitely because they choose to prevent people from criticizing each others' views.
wiseowise 1y ago
[flagged]
- saubeidl 1y ago
  You're inverting my point. I was saying that the narrative of a single truth was western propaganda and that the world is more nuanced than that. There's many truths. That simple dichotomy "truth vs propaganda" is a staple of the western approach to propaganda.

greenavocado 1y ago

> The firehose of falsehood, also known as firehosing, is a propaganda technique in which a large number of messages are broadcast rapidly, repetitively, and continuously over multiple channels (like news and social media) without regard for truth or consistency. An outgrowth of Soviet propaganda techniques, the firehose of falsehood is a contemporary model for Russian propaganda under Russian President Vladimir Putin. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZggCipbiHwE https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZggCipbiHwE

Lu2025 1y ago
Yeah, just check how many alternative versions they provided for MH17 downing.