dagblog - Comments for "Biden state media appointee advocated using propaganda against Americans and ‘rethinking’ First Amendment"

Yet these problems were

PeraclesPlease — Fri, 13 Nov 2020 06:57:08 +0000

In reply to Absolutely unfortunately you

Yet these problems were exactly what worried postmodern theorists. Their project was an attempt to understand why people had begun to interpret material facts so differently. And while their answers may not have been the final word, we might still learn from them , if we weren’t so attached to a misunderstanding of what they had to say.

Also, Russian disinfo is often to confuse what is the truth, not to spread a falsehood ["sometimes 2+2 is 3, sometimes 5.. "]

Marketing of course is often out to create a difference where there is none.

Absolutely unfortunately you

artappraiser — Fri, 13 Nov 2020 06:39:22 +0000

In reply to I thought the anti-Woke were

Absolutely unfortunately you clearly have a bias in not wanting to understand that both sides do exactly the same thing, that is the main point, that in this era we are losing traditional ways of evaluating the truth in preference for Post Modern theory. The left did start it, back in the 80's, French lefists, but it is epidemic now. My "wokee" thread has lots of examples of things like Critical Theory leftists explaining why math is a western colonial construct that must be expunged.

I am sure this will not convince you, I am posting it for the benefit of others who might read this thread. Because you do it too, you just totally ignore facts you don't like and build your own narrative from your beliefs. Especially if there is a name attached to some report that you don't like, your mind snaps shut to protect your basic narrative of black people = heroes. You also labor under the misunderstanding that "woke" only refers to race, far from it, again because you have closed your mind and think the movement against Critical theory is all about attacking racial activism, it is not.

When they say Trump is the first postmodern president, they do mean he uses exactly the same kind of thinking and communication that "woke" scholars do. No confusion there, that's what they mean, they are pointing out how incredibly ironic it is.

I thought the anti-Woke were

rmrd0000 — Fri, 13 Nov 2020 02:40:40 +0000

In reply to It's unfortunate that he used

I thought the anti-Woke were postmodern

Trump declared his inauguration crowd bigger than Obama's

Kellyanne talked about "alternative facts"

Trump lawyer Rudy Guiliani said "Truth is not truth"

Postmodern talk

The Emergence and Rise of Postmodern Conservatism appeared in Quillette

https://quillette.com/2018/05/17/emergence-rise-postmodern-conservatism/

Postmodernism explains Trump

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/postmodernism-didnt-cause-trump-it-explains-him/2018/08/30/0939f7c4-9b12-11e8-843b-36e177f3081c_story.html

The postmodern danger is on the Right.

Edit to add:

Not a hijack

Simply pointing out the extent of Postmodernism

It's unfortunate that he used

artappraiser — Fri, 13 Nov 2020 00:18:27 +0000

In reply to I understand both the

It's unfortunate that he used a word that offends and upsets people like you. They used to use the word "talking points", is that better?

You are aware, I hope that the educated "woke" elites have declared Post Modern the only philosophy that makes sense, where there is no truth, just narratives, and that all of social media is evidence where the best democratic narratives "go viral" And that what is on Facebook and Twitter and TicToc etc. is far more powerful that U.S. government messaging these days, that they enable everyone to be a "propagandist", if you can get a lot of followers or make something "go viral". And that those media entities are so powerful that many in western government powers would like to see them more regulated or even broken up? Because few pay any attention to their "talking points" anymore?

I understand both the

A Guy Called LULU — Thu, 12 Nov 2020 23:22:50 +0000

In reply to here's an essay about a

I understand both the connotation and the denotation of the word, "propaganda". But I will include the definition here for clarity.

Propaganda is information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

Propaganda is information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc. the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc. the particular doctrines or principles propagated by an organization or movement.

"Propaganda in the broadest sense is the technique of influencing human action by the manipulation of representations. These representations may take spoken, written, pictorial or musical form." Manipulation can be organized or unorganized, conscious or unconscious, politically or socially motivated.

If you know of a definition for the word that shows it to be more benign in its purpose I would like to hear it. Stengel's background as a writer, editor,and propagandist indicates to me that he knows what he is saying when he uses the word.

here's an essay about a

artappraiser — Thu, 12 Nov 2020 17:26:24 +0000

In reply to Biden state media appointee advocated using propaganda against Americans and ‘rethinking’ First Amendment

here's an essay about a reporter I think you know who practiced anti-war "propaganda," maybe that will help with what the definition of the word is in Stengel's usage.

He promoted "English for All"

PeraclesPlease — Thu, 12 Nov 2020 12:33:00 +0000

In reply to The Gray Zone?

He promoted "English for All"! And supported the Atlantic Council that supports NATO! And pushed the crazed theory that Russians hacked our 2016 election (which the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee concluded as well)!!!

Yes, Lulu, gov diplomacy is part propaganda no doubt. In fact anyone in marketing pushing their products or services over others' is involved in "propaganda". And in part it seems dumb to spend $750 million on gov broadcasting a year and not have it line up with some US favoring outcome, rather than retweeting missives from the Spartacus Youth League or providing a forum for Glen fucking Greenwald to promote his Putin-friendly fact-warping disinfo. That "outcome" can be largely hands-off "unbiased news", but that's still a marketing term, and it is more and more debatable what constitutes "unbiased" in today's internet-enflamed and deep fake world, even if it's a review of "Bambi goes to the Forest". And US gov news has different components - the official voice piece if the US gov (VOA) and the other "more independent" organs (Radio Free Europe (incl Mideast), OCB/Cuban Broadcast, Radio Free Asia. But who assumes we'll have *completely* neutral content to the Mideast with wars going in, or Russia hacking & poisoning dissident, or the Chinese pushing it's own hardcore charm/money offensives on Africa for resources, along with it's "Belt and Road" shambles, cracking down on Hong Kong democracy, imprisoning a millions Uyghurs...

In short, we go to broadcast with the world and governments we have, not the ones we'd like to have.

The Gray Zone?

oldenGoldenDecoy — Thu, 12 Nov 2020 10:53:00 +0000

In reply to Biden state media appointee advocated using propaganda against Americans and ‘rethinking’ First Amendment

The Gray Zone?

“chief propagandist,” urged the government to use propaganda against its “own population”

Oooo... A real conundrum . . .

Shades of the days of COINTELPRO tactics still used to this day.

~OGD~