17 ms·

Clear case of "motive justifies the means". I think in a free democracy, no one should block any propaganda, as it the responsibility of the individual to asses

Clear case of "motive justifies the means". I think in a free democracy, no one should block any propaganda, as it the responsibility of the individual to asses what to read and what not. In a democracy, it is more dangerous to censor and justify the means with motive - this opens the door to unjust censorship.

morkalork 1y ago
What if at the end of the day, that propaganda does work and leaving it unopposed is as much a danger to democracy as censorship? It seems like a scenario where you have to pick your poison now, the last 100 years have shown populations can be manipulated.
- rvnx 1y ago
  Democracy is sneaky refined domination, subtle enough that masses do not see through it, but it is elites controlling the masses. At the end, this political system is about supporting current power who settled by force (and to whom you have to pay a tax to not be sent into physical jail, and all your belongings taken). Remember that at the beginning, these nice people are actually people who killed to be in place, and collected a lot of power and money, and that are now defending their position. Kingdoms, then Dictatorship were too unstable, and this gave birth to Democracy, still with the same elites. In some way, it is a softer continuation of conquest-coercion dressed as consent. The newest generations use propaganda to settle; the approach changes, but the goal is ultimately the same.
  - imcritic 1y ago
    That description fits any authority, not just democratic. The state is an apparatus of coercion. Always was, always will be.
    - rvnx 1y ago
      Sadly yes. Even original Greek democracy was completely broken (women couldn't vote for example, like in many countries even recently). There is a saying: if voting would change things, it is long time that it would have been forbidden
  - 6LLvveMx2koXfwn 1y ago
    What would you propose instead of democracy?
mnw21cam 1y ago
The best counter-argument I can provide to your wonderful ideal is that people are stupid, and they are vulnerable to being manipulated into believing dangerous peace-disrupting falsehoods by propaganda.
- moron4hire 1y ago
  If the people are too stupid to discern propaganda from truth, then they are too stupid to vote.
  - jdiff 1y ago
    Nobody is immune to propaganda. Thinking you are paradoxically makes you more susceptible.
- littlecranky67 1y ago
  Spinning your thoughts further, you assume that stupidity is not some kind of freedom that you get to enjoy in a democracy. The opposite is true, people are free to be stupid, and if the majority is stupid, the smart people have to give in to the fact that stupid people make the rules (by voting). The whole idea of supressing stupidity in a democracy leads to some sort of elitist society.
  - Barrin92 1y ago
    >The whole idea of supressing stupidity in a democracy leads to some sort of elitist society. there's nothing wrong with this. Stable democracies tend to be republican and elitist. One of the reasons why the US has been, until recently, an exceptionally stable country was because decision making was largely insulated from the whims of the public. Democracy properly understood is best used as a tool for legitimacy and as a check against the worst abuses of power, not actually as a tool for decision making. Having the inmates run the asylum is generally a bad idea, we've known this since Plato.
DoctorOW 1y ago
> Clear case of "motive justifies the means". Except, in the case of RT, it was not justified in an abstract way at all. Consistently "reporting" on stories counter-indicated by all available evidence. To put it another way, if a judge can imprison a murderer for life as justified by the motive of reducing murders, what's stopping them from imprisoning everyone with no justification at all? Well, in practice the evidence required is quite a hurdle to this. If you're not arguing that RT is innocent of what it has been accused, then you're arguing against the concept of punitive action outright.
- zahlman 1y ago
  > Consistently "reporting" on stories counter-indicated by all available evidence.... If you're not arguing that RT is innocent of what it has been accused Can you give a concrete example? (Somehow I cannot recall ever seeing one proactively volunteered, in years of people denigrating RT on the Internet.)
  - DoctorOW 1y ago
    Sure, they reported that Jewish individuals had to flee Ukraine due to a Nazi takeover and a supposed ongoing genocide. There's no evidence of the fleeing or the genocide happening. This was one of the false narratives cited in the EU court's ruling. > Somehow I cannot recall ever seeing one proactively volunteered I err on the side of brevity, not seeing a claim that RT's removal was unjust in the comment I was responding to, I felt no need to justify it myself.
- vintermann 1y ago
  It used to be common sense among non-authoritarians, that propaganda just becomes more potent from suppression. Plenty of people have never seen moon hoax theorists' propaganda. They imagine if they see it, they'll quickly see through it for its absurdity. But they're often wrong. Moon hoax theorist's propaganda is actually much better than you think. They can point out lots of "inconsistencies", which do have an explanation, but aren't immediately obvious at all. You see they have experience meeting people like you, but you don't have experience meeting people like them. I used moon hoaxers as an example because their sophisticated propaganda actually have been exposed and explained a few times, although it still isn't common knowledge why e.g. it seems the exact same rock is right behind an astronaut in two different photos. But that isn't nearly as true for suppressed ideologies. You haven't heard their arguments.

morkalork 1y ago

What if at the end of the day, that propaganda does work and leaving it unopposed is as much a danger to democracy as censorship? It seems like a scenario where you have to pick your poison now, the last 100 years have shown populations can be manipulated.

rvnx 1y ago
Democracy is sneaky refined domination, subtle enough that masses do not see through it, but it is elites controlling the masses. At the end, this political system is about supporting current power who settled by force (and to whom you have to pay a tax to not be sent into physical jail, and all your belongings taken). Remember that at the beginning, these nice people are actually people who killed to be in place, and collected a lot of power and money, and that are now defending their position. Kingdoms, then Dictatorship were too unstable, and this gave birth to Democracy, still with the same elites. In some way, it is a softer continuation of conquest-coercion dressed as consent. The newest generations use propaganda to settle; the approach changes, but the goal is ultimately the same.
- imcritic 1y ago
  That description fits any authority, not just democratic. The state is an apparatus of coercion. Always was, always will be.
  - rvnx 1y ago
    Sadly yes. Even original Greek democracy was completely broken (women couldn't vote for example, like in many countries even recently). There is a saying: if voting would change things, it is long time that it would have been forbidden
- 6LLvveMx2koXfwn 1y ago
  What would you propose instead of democracy?

mnw21cam 1y ago

The best counter-argument I can provide to your wonderful ideal is that people are stupid, and they are vulnerable to being manipulated into believing dangerous peace-disrupting falsehoods by propaganda.

moron4hire 1y ago
If the people are too stupid to discern propaganda from truth, then they are too stupid to vote.
- jdiff 1y ago
  Nobody is immune to propaganda. Thinking you are paradoxically makes you more susceptible.
littlecranky67 1y ago
Spinning your thoughts further, you assume that stupidity is not some kind of freedom that you get to enjoy in a democracy. The opposite is true, people are free to be stupid, and if the majority is stupid, the smart people have to give in to the fact that stupid people make the rules (by voting). The whole idea of supressing stupidity in a democracy leads to some sort of elitist society.
- Barrin92 1y ago
  >The whole idea of supressing stupidity in a democracy leads to some sort of elitist society. there's nothing wrong with this. Stable democracies tend to be republican and elitist. One of the reasons why the US has been, until recently, an exceptionally stable country was because decision making was largely insulated from the whims of the public. Democracy properly understood is best used as a tool for legitimacy and as a check against the worst abuses of power, not actually as a tool for decision making. Having the inmates run the asylum is generally a bad idea, we've known this since Plato.

DoctorOW 1y ago

> Clear case of "motive justifies the means". Except, in the case of RT, it was not justified in an abstract way at all. Consistently "reporting" on stories counter-indicated by all available evidence. To put it another way, if a judge can imprison a murderer for life as justified by the motive of reducing murders, what's stopping them from imprisoning everyone with no justification at all? Well, in practice the evidence required is quite a hurdle to this. If you're not arguing that RT is innocent of what it has been accused, then you're arguing against the concept of punitive action outright.

zahlman 1y ago
> Consistently "reporting" on stories counter-indicated by all available evidence.... If you're not arguing that RT is innocent of what it has been accused Can you give a concrete example? (Somehow I cannot recall ever seeing one proactively volunteered, in years of people denigrating RT on the Internet.)
- DoctorOW 1y ago
  Sure, they reported that Jewish individuals had to flee Ukraine due to a Nazi takeover and a supposed ongoing genocide. There's no evidence of the fleeing or the genocide happening. This was one of the false narratives cited in the EU court's ruling. > Somehow I cannot recall ever seeing one proactively volunteered I err on the side of brevity, not seeing a claim that RT's removal was unjust in the comment I was responding to, I felt no need to justify it myself.
vintermann 1y ago
It used to be common sense among non-authoritarians, that propaganda just becomes more potent from suppression. Plenty of people have never seen moon hoax theorists' propaganda. They imagine if they see it, they'll quickly see through it for its absurdity. But they're often wrong. Moon hoax theorist's propaganda is actually much better than you think. They can point out lots of "inconsistencies", which do have an explanation, but aren't immediately obvious at all. You see they have experience meeting people like you, but you don't have experience meeting people like them. I used moon hoaxers as an example because their sophisticated propaganda actually have been exposed and explained a few times, although it still isn't common knowledge why e.g. it seems the exact same rock is right behind an astronaut in two different photos. But that isn't nearly as true for suppressed ideologies. You haven't heard their arguments.