How it’s presented in coverage and online discourse is being used as an example for the actual main topic.
This is my point. The topic is the scale of effectiveness of propaganda—I’m sure OP is like, “wtf have I caused” rn.
So all that information you just gave me about further details of an example that could’ve been any topic, kind of shows a scale of the effectiveness of propaganda. You’ve attempted to include Russian use of propaganda in there—kind of almost back on topic—but it’s still got nothing to do with the topic in general. The passion and the assumption, the need to tell me stuff you know about insert example as though I challenged it, when I simply mentioned it, without bias, as an example.
This is why I have confidence some pro-Russian person is seething ready to go as well and tell me all the stuff they’ve read on their side of news and social media, even though I’m not asking for or even indicating to wanting a discussion or opinions about the bloody Ukraine War.
“You are not immune to propaganda.”
Edit: Mate. Seriously. I called this out as a precursor and you quoted it. I thought you were going to give some insight on better discerning it.
Edit Edit: Also, sorry if I sound like an asshole. I’m think I’m really good at that without realising. Reddit trauma, maybe. I’d buy you a beer and have chats I could :)
I get that it’s being used as an example and I’m saying your example is either flawed or biased.
The passion and the assumption, the need to tell me stuff you know about insert example as though I challenged it, when I simply mentioned it, without bias, as an example.
This is extremely naive though. By taking two things that are not equal and implying they are is biased. It would be like taking a local gang and comparing them to the Nazis and saying they both have propaganda. The gang uses spray paint tags and the Nazis have a propaganda machine. It’s a false equivalency. Using your logic I could say “Well WW2 both the US and Germany used propaganda.” Yes they both did, but one used it for recruiting while the other used it in the aid of finding and killing minorities. Saying either side would get mad about the other becomes moot when you realize the context of the propaganda.
This is why I have confidence some pro-Russian person is seething ready to go as well and tell me all the stuff they’ve read on their side of news and social media, even though I’m not asking for or even indicating to wanting a discussion or opinions about the bloody Ukraine War.
Yes, I’m sure they are. But again, you are taking a country that has committed war crimes and comparing its actions to a country trying to defend itself and acting like all things are equal. You’re seemingly purposefully ignoring context and reality. I would go so far as to say that implying they are equal is dangerous.
“You are not immune to propaganda.”
And neither are you, no one is. Which is why we need to discuss them and the context around the propaganda. Look into it, and fact check things said. Not act like all propaganda is equal. I would say by you putting them on a level playing field that one side has done its job by discrediting the other and you’ve fallen victim to that.
Mate. Seriously. I called this out as a precursor and you quoted it. I thought you were going to give some insight on better discerning it.
And I thought you would be insightful enough to not look at propaganda through a pinhole.
Without going into as much depth; I think that we are now actually aligning since we’re back on track. However, with the exception that propaganda comes in many channels and forms, just as any effective marketing campaign breaks down the segmented targets and most effective ways of delivery. But I feel like you’d agree, it’s just a response to what you said about the comparison of gangs to Nazis. Same shit; different methods of influence for different groups of society.
You are again unnecessarily bringing in information about the Ukraine War that I simply don’t care about in this thread of comments, BUT mostly starting to use it as an example utilisation of propagating, and that’s why I thought it was an example everyone would be familiar with.
Historically, we see propaganda active most during war and times of turmoil or human/societal competition. It’s either divide and conquer, or recruit to conquer. The present and future will see the same and I maintain your initial responses is an example of its taint—not big, but there. Else, why would this discourse be where it’s at now? Especially where, in the end and as I said, we seem to actually be aligned. There aren’t differences to put aside, just something in the back of the mind that jumps to assumption…for some reason.
And you may well be right about influence on me, though I’d like to maintain that at no point have I actually raised opinion or a stance on anything, except propaganda…I think. If not, did my best as that’s all I was thinking :)
But I’m not talking about the Ukraine War.
How it’s presented in coverage and online discourse is being used as an example for the actual main topic.
This is my point. The topic is the scale of effectiveness of propaganda—I’m sure OP is like, “wtf have I caused” rn.
So all that information you just gave me about further details of an example that could’ve been any topic, kind of shows a scale of the effectiveness of propaganda. You’ve attempted to include Russian use of propaganda in there—kind of almost back on topic—but it’s still got nothing to do with the topic in general. The passion and the assumption, the need to tell me stuff you know about insert example as though I challenged it, when I simply mentioned it, without bias, as an example.
This is why I have confidence some pro-Russian person is seething ready to go as well and tell me all the stuff they’ve read on their side of news and social media, even though I’m not asking for or even indicating to wanting a discussion or opinions about the bloody Ukraine War.
“You are not immune to propaganda.”
Edit: Mate. Seriously. I called this out as a precursor and you quoted it. I thought you were going to give some insight on better discerning it.
Edit Edit: Also, sorry if I sound like an asshole. I’m think I’m really good at that without realising. Reddit trauma, maybe. I’d buy you a beer and have chats I could :)
I get that it’s being used as an example and I’m saying your example is either flawed or biased.
This is extremely naive though. By taking two things that are not equal and implying they are is biased. It would be like taking a local gang and comparing them to the Nazis and saying they both have propaganda. The gang uses spray paint tags and the Nazis have a propaganda machine. It’s a false equivalency. Using your logic I could say “Well WW2 both the US and Germany used propaganda.” Yes they both did, but one used it for recruiting while the other used it in the aid of finding and killing minorities. Saying either side would get mad about the other becomes moot when you realize the context of the propaganda.
Yes, I’m sure they are. But again, you are taking a country that has committed war crimes and comparing its actions to a country trying to defend itself and acting like all things are equal. You’re seemingly purposefully ignoring context and reality. I would go so far as to say that implying they are equal is dangerous.
And neither are you, no one is. Which is why we need to discuss them and the context around the propaganda. Look into it, and fact check things said. Not act like all propaganda is equal. I would say by you putting them on a level playing field that one side has done its job by discrediting the other and you’ve fallen victim to that.
And I thought you would be insightful enough to not look at propaganda through a pinhole.
Without going into as much depth; I think that we are now actually aligning since we’re back on track. However, with the exception that propaganda comes in many channels and forms, just as any effective marketing campaign breaks down the segmented targets and most effective ways of delivery. But I feel like you’d agree, it’s just a response to what you said about the comparison of gangs to Nazis. Same shit; different methods of influence for different groups of society.
You are again unnecessarily bringing in information about the Ukraine War that I simply don’t care about in this thread of comments, BUT mostly starting to use it as an example utilisation of propagating, and that’s why I thought it was an example everyone would be familiar with.
Historically, we see propaganda active most during war and times of turmoil or human/societal competition. It’s either divide and conquer, or recruit to conquer. The present and future will see the same and I maintain your initial responses is an example of its taint—not big, but there. Else, why would this discourse be where it’s at now? Especially where, in the end and as I said, we seem to actually be aligned. There aren’t differences to put aside, just something in the back of the mind that jumps to assumption…for some reason.
And you may well be right about influence on me, though I’d like to maintain that at no point have I actually raised opinion or a stance on anything, except propaganda…I think. If not, did my best as that’s all I was thinking :)