I hadn’t heard of anti-abolition propaganda. Was it based on the idea that slaves were better off on the plantation than being free?
Yep. You should read the hilarious (but written seriously) piece of contemporary philosophy “Cannibals All!” by George FitzHugh from 1854. All stupid people should be slaves, regardless of skin color. Hey, at least there is an argument he wasn’t racist.
But that’s not what he’s doing. He’s not saying, “bannable on the grounds of 30 deaths a year”, he’s saying, “30 deaths a year” in an effort to lead the reader into concluding it should be banned. In the first instance, my reaction is, “so he wants it banned. Is 30 deaths really grounds? Is that his sole motivation?” In the second, it’s, “Omigawd! 30 deaths? Ban it!”
Clever propaganda induces the reader/viewer to come to what they think are their own conclusions rather than force-feeding them.
Sorry. Abolitionist propaganda is what I meant to write. D’oh.
Probably the best example i can think of off hand is the battlecruiser HMS Hood. When it was sunk during the engagement with the Bismarck, of its company of over two thousand officers and ratings, only three survived.
Since the Hood was the very essence of the royal navy at the time , the public shock was thought to be huge. It was decided that the news had to be released so as to deny the Germans their propaganda victory.
Probably the worst example of propaganda was bagdad bob saying dont worry be happy, instead of something useful like bagdad is expected to fall, bury your arms and await the call to arms or something like that.
Declan
Being able to recognize propoganda techniques when you hear them is crucial. Sometimes the statements are true but have no real significance:
“His opponent is Barrack Hussein Obama.”
Sometimes they are general statements that use high point count words but have vague meanings:
“Freedom is on the march.”
“The War on Terror”
“Fighting for their country”
The repeated use of “9-11” when talking about the war in Iraq was propoganda. Almost everyone associated the two things.
Propoganda is trickery and pervasive from all sides in politics. It just goes with the territory. Some of it is much more important and more damaging than others.
And of course the term comes from Congregatio de propaganda fide, the Catholic Church’s Congregation for Propagating the Faith, in charge of missionary efforts (and only re-named in the 1980’s).
So obviously the term didn’t start out with its now very negative connotations.
But the creationists were not silenced or dismissed - they were and are allowed to make their nonsensical arguments. Just because those arguments fail to convince anyone with two neurons to rub together, much less boards of education, doesn’t mean they’re ignored.
But they are ignored by the people talking about evolution, is the point. So I think, yo uand I would agree… that is, one can make the case for their own position with all the compelling evidence available, and as long as they don’t silence or dismiss their opponents (I assume as in "dismiss from the possibility of public discourse? ) then it’s kosher even if they don’t provide their opponents’ arguments/claims/quibbles.
I would assume most people talking about evolution have considered creationism before dismissing it as a credible idea. Just because they don’t make a mention of it in every subsequent argument and debate doesn’t mean the claims have been dismissed or handwaved without at least some inquiry.
I don’t think scientists withhold creationist views in an attempt to sweep them under the rug, deny their existence, or in the spirit of intellectual dishonesty outlined in the DoperX example.
To me, the word propaganda implies dishonesty, misdirection or oversimplifications on the part of the speaker. If you’re of the opinion that the word applies to any attempt to sway opinion, then pretty much every statement can be deemed propaganda, innit ?
But how do we determine that outside of scientific inquiry? Most of the time, people make their argument and do not bring up their opponent’s. Would you, then, say that the default understanding is it’s not propaganda unless the person making the argument knows that there are holes in it which have been refuted?
I don’t see the DoperX instance as intellectual dishonesty. And as I pointed out when it was first raised, even giving the percent of deaths it caused is hardly an exhaustive analysis of the problem. I believe it to be perfectly intellectually honest to state that a drug which has lethal side effects should be banned, even if it is exceedingly rare that it has those side effects. I wouldn’t necessarily agree with that position, but that’s neither here nor there.
Well, that was kind of the point of the OP. And that is, indeed, how propaganda is defined. Any time you discuss even the 100% accurate and complete truth, in order to persuade someone, you’re using propaganda.
I’d contend that if people want to talk about misdirection or oversimplification or what have you, then they use those words instead as, at least, they’re more specific. Heck, The Second Stone recently handwaved away factual arguments in a GD thread as “propaganda” and then went on to say that even when it comes to a book which contained dozens of verifiable, objectively provable lies which were all crafted to serve an agenda… that he’d generally believe that book and disbelieve the people arguing against it (presumably because the book echoed his chosen position). In cases like that, it’s clear that “propaganda” doesn’t mean anything untoward or intellectually dishonest at all, but an argument that someone views as inimical to their own narrative.
I’m not sure I disagree with you, but isn’t that a prescriptivist vs. descriptivist issue ? When I talk or think of propaganda, I’m specifically thinking about partial, biased and/or misleading information with an insidious agenda. A specific form of disinformation. I believe it’s also the current perception of the word in general (i.e. what most people take it to mean), no matter its roots or original meaning.
I agree with you that dismissing cogent argument or provable facts as propaganda because reality has a well known liberal bias, then refuse to talk or adress them is asinine and a cop out, which should (and here, bloody well often is) be pointed out as such. But I’m not sure redefining the word as innocuous, or returning to its original acception if you will, accomplishes that, nor would make that type of behaviour disappear.
But Zoe, and Declan too - while distortions, catch-phrases with “high point count words”, and blatant omissions, are all forms of propaganda (and indeed we should all recognize and beware of them) they do not define it. Factual information presented fairly is also a tool of propaganda and often called that if it is coming from “the other side.”
In Declan’s example for instance the British decision to release the information about the ship rather than to try to hide it and have the Germans release it, was a propaganda decision. How do we exert the most control over the narrative and best influence public opinion given these sets of facts?
The dismissive and derisive way the word is used reminds me of that thread about Pit Bulls - because a few dogs identified as Pit Bulls have been vicious all of the breed are dangerous or heck, all dogs are bad.
“We are the change we’ve been waiting for.” “Yes we can.” Propaganda or effective rallying cries? To be accurate they are not only propaganda but the sort that you would have us be on guard against Zoe (that’s some high point count going on there!) yet because both of us agreed with the cause and the POV neither of us would ever call it that. But could you honestly deny it if someone of the far Right called it that?
Kobal2 the fact that the word has been associated with its negative forms does not mean that it means something that it does not mean. It does not mean “a specific form of disinformation” and “insidious” is in the eye of the beholder. As a case in point let us take the Palestinian/Israeli issue. I have a particular POV and, oh for kicks let’s use Sev, has a different POV. I try my best to be fair in the facts I use. I try to verify and I try to bust the myths that I see “my side” using as much as I try to bust the other sides. But I have a POV and I express it. I use these facts, all of them, and try to make a point that convinces people of other POVs to perhaps move a bit to how I see things. By definition that is propaganda and when accused of that (which I have been) I can only honestly plead guilty. From Sev’s POV and maybe others, my agenda is insidious even if I do not see it so. Now of course I see what Sev and others post as having an insidious agenda. Yet to me to call it “propaganda” - even though it is - is just a silly non sequitur. When I engage with those posters it is to point out precisely what is incorrect or out of context or misleading or the use of “high point count words” without meaning. Of course sometimes responding is not needed as it is readily apparent, but that is another issue. 
Finn’s example is cogent. To Second a source whose facts are not in dispute but with a POV and an argument that they are making is “propaganda” because it comes from the other side. A source that he agrees with, that has some definite controversies over its facts, certainly takes other facts out of their context and ignores another important group of facts, all in order to express a clear POV that to others seems insidious, is not to him propaganda, because he agrees with its POV.
So yes, Kobal2 the word has negative connotations in general usage, but all it means is that you disagree with the POV and with the fact that the other side is skillful at presenting that POV. Using dismissively in a debate is laziness at best and more often a type of misinformation itself by use of a high point count word with no real meaning in the context. Ironic aint it?
I think propaganda fully deserves its bad reputation. Propagandists include marketers, politicians, and zealots of various stripes whose purpose is to persuade rather than inform. By contrast we can get information from scientists, scholars, educators and reputable journalists. While the latter groups are not perfect, information we get from them has a fairly good chance of being useful. The propagandists may occasionally present an argument worth addressing, but they will often lie, twist and cherry-pick information, use emotional ploys and form invalid conclusions. Their facts are unreliable and their conclusions are worthless. If we’re interested in figuring out the truth, listening to propaganda is mostly a waste of time. The main reason to examine it is to understand how others are being misled.
Now I would never call “Factual information presented fairly” propaganda as DSeid indicates or everyone with a point of view a propagandist, so perhaps we only differ in the sematics of the word “propaganda”, which is fine. But I do think there is a big difference in reliability between information that is intended to persuade and information that is intended to inform.
I think the core of the problem is that in the majority of cases the debaters are not relying on first hand information only hearsay. The level of investigation is limited to what can be “Googled” or gleaned from some other web site which makes the notion of a “cite” a bit bogus. The sources of the “facts” often times don’t have first hand information, in the case of the current Israeli war the Israeli government is keenly aware of it’s need to “spin” the news and reports of what it’s doing which is why there’s a news blackout in Gaza and a news blackout here.
Naught but the humble servant to reason’d conclusions be I. With one purpose there’s no care of what path I cross, nor what crosses mine.