Propaganda- Why You Think What You Think

yes, something like that

Allen53 wrote:

interesting... wrote:

...and what source is that from????

btw, your "multiplicity of sources and historical documents" are no more guaranteed to be the truth than anything else.

not disagreeing that fundamental questions should always be asked but your delivery is a bit on the arrogant side

BTW do you know what a logical fallacy is? You've just thrown two into the fray. One is the relativist fallacy- arguing that "nothing can be known" is not an argument at all- it's a typically evasive way for somenoe who can't argue their point to avoid the points being made- we may as well say the "sky is green."

The other is basic ad hominem- arguing on perceived tone, on one's "delivery" is not an intelligent counterpoint- it's a logical fallacy. That too is classic avoidance.

My point is that the support for your opinion is nonexistent. You actually are aware of that.

Following your logic then my rebuttal to your comment " a widely held belief in America" is now... no, that is not a widely held belief in America... I know this because I obtain this information from a multiplicity of sources and historical documents.

There is that better?... it's an opinion for goodness sake, not a fact. and you know this.

Good luck . I am done here.

Tom Foolery wrote:

ftyi567ik wrote:

Marketing is not propaganda! Marketing is simply introducing people to produces and services. Most marketing is not done well at all. Still, how many times have you bought something that you saw advertised and found out it was a lie? Not common. Even if it wasn't to your likening most products have a generous return policy. I once bough running shoes that were advertised as "changing the world of running" or something like that but they were awful to me. So I returned them and the company had to pay the price of their "propaganda".

It’s this kind of ignorance that is scary.

Take Brexit. A political and economic movement used data from marketing to influence the vote, by using propaganda.

They are all related.

But the anti-brexit pro-EU campaign marketed their message too, but unfortunately lost the vote. There were 2 opposing positions competing against each other. That's democracy.

I think there is an issue with foreign propaganda influence (Russia), as evidenced by the Brexit campaign and by the 2016 US presidential election, but that is not what the OP is talking about.

The object is to be born from the womb of myth, not to remain in it, and the one who has attained to this "second birth" is truely the "twice born," freed from the pedagogical devices of society, the lures and threats of myth, the local mores, the usual hopes of benefits and rewards.

He is truely free, released while living.

Northest Republican wrote:

Tom Foolery wrote:

It’s this kind of ignorance that is scary.

Take Brexit. A political and economic movement used data from marketing to influence the vote, by using propaganda.

They are all related.

But the anti-brexit pro-EU campaign marketed their message too, but unfortunately lost the vote. There were 2 opposing positions competing against each other. That's democracy.

I think there is an issue with foreign propaganda influence (Russia), as evidenced by the Brexit campaign and by the 2016 US presidential election, but that is not what the OP is talking about.

Perfect example of how propaganda works.

First off here is no other country that intervenes in the political affairs of foreign states so directly, regularly and shamelessly as the United States. American foreign policy is one massive intervention in the politics of other countries, running the gamut from propaganda, destabilization, financing of opposition parties, electoral fraud and coups to military bombardment and occupation.

Professor Dov Levin of Carnegie Mellon University has assembled a database documenting as many as 81 occasions between 1946 and 2000 when Washington interfered in elections in other countries.

There is zero solid evidence that Russia "meddled" in the US elections. It is all speculation and innuendo. Even if one were to blindly assume that the stories were accurate, whatever Russia may or may not have done pales in comparison to the operations of US intelligence agencies all over the world, including within the United States itself, not to mention the billions of dollars spent by the corporate and financial elite to manipulate US elections and determine their outcome.

The claim, moreover, that Russian Twitter and Facebook posts are responsible for social discontent in the United States—one of the most unequal countries in the world—is beyond ludicrous.

Propaganda is not, strictly speaking, the control of information nor the manufacture of disinformation. That is simply the content. Propaganda is the toolbox of emotional manipulation methods that get people to believe the content.

r/iamverysmart

Allen53 wrote:

There is zero solid evidence that Russia "meddled" in the US elections. It is all speculation and innuendo.

Actually the Russian meddling is proven fact. The efforts of the Internet Research Agency is well documented fact. You can argue it's impact/results, but your statement above the the accusations of "meddling" are just innuendo is completely wrong.

Very interesting that such an astute critical thinker like yourself would say such a thing. What propaganda are you affected by? Has your great self professed critical thinking skills ever led you to question if your own anti-US bias affects what you see as true or untrue?

Propaganda is a big factor, but we still need to move forward.

Northest Republican wrote:

Allen53 wrote:

There is zero solid evidence that Russia "meddled" in the US elections. It is all speculation and innuendo.

Actually the Russian meddling is proven fact. The efforts of the Internet Research Agency is well documented fact. You can argue it's impact/results, but your statement above the the accusations of "meddling" are just innuendo is completely wrong.

Very interesting that such an astute critical thinker like yourself would say such a thing. What propaganda are you affected by? Has your great self professed critical thinking skills ever led you to question if your own anti-US bias affects what you see as true or untrue?

So you believe that 3,000 supposed ads for which some $100,000 was spent over two years would somehow effect a U.S. election. In a U.S. presidential election where more than $2 billion is spend on advertising?

Moreover - as it now turns out these 3,000 advertisements which "appeared" to be "associated" with something "Russian" were not anti-Clinton or pro-Trump but were a mix of pro- and contra ads on various social issues.

The Russian conspiracy claim is just the corporate Democrats excuse for losing the election to a blowhard reality TV star and real estate hustler who had to be bailed out from several bankruptcies by the Saudis and the US government. Despite having almost every media outlet and government bureaucrat on her side, Hillary Clinton lost.

Where'd she lose? In the Rust Belt states that have been hit hardest by neo-liberal trade policies that have wrecked the local economies in those states.

The whole Russia thing really doesn't even involve the Republican Party - its mostly internal Democratic Party politics, with Sanders Democrats trying to use Clinton's loss to unseat the corporate Wall Street crowd, and the Clintonites fighting to stay in power by claiming that their loss wasn't due to their crappy policies and incompetence, but rather to a massive Russian conspiracy.

Don't forget, the American oligarchs who control the media were really hoping for a Jeb Bush vs. Hillary Clinton election, and despite pushing hard for that, it almost came up as a Bernie Sanders vs. Donald Trump election. Indicating a loss of control by the plutocracy - that's the take home message. They're still struggling to re-establish control, which is what flogging the Russia hype is all about.

Truth is, America would be better off with someone like Putin in the executive office, someone who wouldn't be afraid to imprison at least a few leading Wall Street financiers for their role in the 2008 economic collapse.

If you substitute "witches" or "the bogeyman" for "Russia" in most US and European news articles, you get a better sense for how ridiculous and unfounded they are. But as we witnessed in Salem, it's not hard to get mass hysteria going with a complete lack of evidence.

I love how the NYT mentions how no public evidence has emerged, to skirt around the fact that if there were internal evidence (from some gov agency or private citizen) it would've leaked by now. There is no such thing as evidence which hasn't been leaked in an alleged scandal of this size.

Northest Republican wrote:

Allen53 wrote:

There is zero solid evidence that Russia "meddled" in the US elections. It is all speculation and innuendo.

Actually the Russian meddling is proven fact. The efforts of the Internet Research Agency is well documented fact. You can argue it's impact/results, but your statement above the the accusations of "meddling" are just innuendo is completely wrong.

Very interesting that such an astute critical thinker like yourself would say such a thing. What propaganda are you affected by? Has your great self professed critical thinking skills ever led you to question if your own anti-US bias affects what you see as true or untrue?

Please read beyond your cartoon mockingbird media sources and educate yourself. Please don't tell me you actually rely on "the papers of record" such as the NY Times and WaPo to claim you are "informed."

Mueller Indictment - The "Russian Influence" Is A Commercial Marketing Scheme

Yesterday the U.S. Justice Department indicted the Russian Internet Research Agency on some dubious legal grounds. It covers thirteen Russian people and three Russian legal entities. The main count of the indictment is an alleged "Conspiracy to Defraud the United States".

The published indictment gives support to our long held believe that there was no "Russian influence" campaign during the U.S. election. What is described and denounced as such was instead a commercial marketing scheme which ran click-bait websites to generate advertisement revenue and created online crowds around virtual persona to promote whatever its commercial customers wanted to promote. The size of the operation was tiny when compared to the hundreds of millions in campaign expenditures. It had no influence on the election outcome.

The indictment is fodder for the public to prove that the Mueller investigation is "doing something". It distracts from further questioning the origin of the Steele dossier. It is full of unproven assertions and assumptions. It is a sham in that none of the Russian persons or companies indicted will ever come in front of a U.S. court. That is bad because the indictment is build on the theory of a new crime which, unless a court throws it out, can be used to incriminate other people in other cases and might even apply to this blog. The later part of this post will refer to that.

...

Of course the most obvious propaganda is “State of Emergency”

So, NYT and Washington Post are not credible sources, but MoonofAlabama blog is?

I could see the meddling occurring during the election even before it was getting wide spread reporting. When Podesta's emails were hacked and it seemed it was the Russians that did it, it all made sense. I was alarmed to see people I know being manipulated by foreign interests.

I actually get my info from a wide variety of sources and I even read up on different/opposing views. I research and deduce to form my opinion. Why do you assume everyone else mindlessly absorbs mainstream media and you alone are truly informed?!!

jesseriley wrote:

Of course the most obvious propaganda is “State of Emergency”

Yeah, why doesn't he just declare martial law while he's at it.

It really bothers me that many in the GOP, the party that I've been a registered member for over 20 years, are not bothered by the prospect of such an abuse of executive power. Congress has the power of the purse. Congress appropriates funds.

I'm actually indifferent on the wall. I don't think it will be effective, but if congress votes to fund it, so be it.

jesseriley wrote:

Of course the most obvious propaganda is “State of Emergency”

Yeah, because nothing says 'everything is fine' like 100,000+ people/month entering the country illegally.

Correct, the NYT and WAPO are very biased. In fact, all major media outlets are.

Ocasio-Cortez's 'morality' propaganda wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZY338eaVycg

Just when you think the Demo-Rats couldn't produce anybody more ignorant than Bernie or more morally bankrupt than Hillary....

Ex-Dem wrote:

Ocasio-Cortez's 'morality' propaganda wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZY338eaVycg

Just when you think the Demo-Rats couldn't produce anybody more ignorant than Bernie or more morally bankrupt than Hillary....

It's stupid that she gets so much attention. She's 29 years old, was in the right place at the right time and received 110,000 votes. Pelosi is still Speaker of the House and what Ocasio thinks is irrelevant. I don't care if she becomes the next Palin or not.