Its going to come down to semantics anyways, any example can be met with "ya, but people already wanted to believe in that" as a counter.

i dont think examples of people being made to believe, against there will, in the patently insane, exist.

Better to just profit from their incarceration after they learn from the other agents of socialization?

"You're not oppressed, you're just worth less." Lol

This is a dangerous and narrow understanding of propaganda. What you describe is more aligned with marketing than anything.

For clarity, it is important to understand that for offensive propaganda, i.e. targeting a foreign country, (1) its immediate goal is to disrupt, and (2) its ultimate goal is to help enable the ultimate success of the perpetrator's goals. When you consider those goals, it also helps explain why sometimes the propaganda doesn't make very much immediate sense or why it seems counter to what you'd think the perpetrating country's goals are. For example, likely the most effective KGB campaign vs. the U.S. was the campaign to convince Americans that JFK was assassinated by the CIA. At face value it doesn't really seem overtly valuable for the USSR to perpetuate that belief, but they wanted to sow distrust of the U.S. government, betrayal, conspiratorial thinking, etc. I mean, if the CIA could assassinate JFK, what could they do to you? How much does your vote really count if a democratically-elected president can be assassinated by the government? This obviously just scratches the surface of KGB propaganda activities vs. the U.S., and propaganda in general. It really is fascinating and I highly recommend reading up on it.



I think you have to separate critical pedagogy into critical theory and pedagogy. I think that the critical theory is spot on, but I think the pedagogy part of it is sorely lacking. When Freire developed critical pedagogy, he was recently imprisoned for teaching peasants literacy. Brazil at that time required passing a literacy test to vote, something which, at one point, 90% of its population hadn't passed. The reason for its development was clear, and I think critical theory still has enormous value today. The pedagogy aspect of it, however, I think has aged and has significant conceptual issues.

I think there needs to be a new pedagogy... a pedagogy of critical empathy and argumentation. This forum is one of countless examples where people lack empathy for each other and don't really argue to convince or persuade... it's much more about owning the libs or reaffirming your belief system than actually trying to convince or persuade... i.e. pointless. I'm not aware of anyone on this forum ever changing their opinion on an issue in any thread I've seen or been a part of over the last 11 years. We all have critical thought, and we all just sit back and flex it with no real purpose.

This post was edited by Interesting on Jul 7 2020 12:44pm

Yes, that's an interesting example. But then again, you had stuff like President Eisenhower's farewell address in which he had warned the American public just 3 or 4 years earlier about the existence of a military-industrial complex that is swallowing up the country's institutions and pursuing its own agenda without democratic legitimization. The idea of a "deep state" or a secretive government agency like the CIA acting on its own was already there. As was fatigue over the seemingly endless wars the country was fighting (ww2, korean war, the emerging vietnam war, the public beoming aware of how 'hot' the cold war actually was during the cuban missile crisis, etc). Soviet propaganda that the CIA was behind JFK's assassination is a prime example of what I meant when I wrote about "propaganda falling on fertile ground".





At the end of the day, we're all just slightly smarter apes who like to show off our literal and figurative dicks and flinging our shit at each other.

https://twitter.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/1280654150955565056

The highest rated cable news show in the country is telling it's older audience that masks and social distancing have no basis in science.... apparently implementing safeguards so schools can open is wrong.

It's stuff like this that tells me there won't be, for the foreseeable future, a legitimate right-wing political party. It's not just Trump's influence... the right-wing in this country is rotten to the core with anti-intellectualism and craziness.

Usually the right has to nutpick the left. They focus on far-left Congresswomen, small groups tearing down statues, etc, even though the presidential nominee is a milquetoast center-left white guy. But the most powerful voices on the right(Trump and Tucker being examples) are the most extreme and nutty... reasonable voices on the right are marginalized.

Amazing you got all that out of reposting a 22 second out of context clip from media matters, a far-left hit job organization.

The idea that Trump and Tucker are the most extreme and nutty is a statement detached from reality.

Tucker is an important and often well-reasoned voice and a very significant improvement on the stereotypical fox news host and cable TV news hosts in general.

But hey you didnt like an apparent implication in one statement in a clip so lets pretend the entire rightwing is rotten now and ally ourselves with radical leftists and the Jennifer Rubins of the world. Yikes.

Trump is undisputably leading the anti-mask movement. Its a radical movement.

This post was edited by Skinned on Jul 8 2020 10:20am

simple question: did tucker carlson consistently rail against masks, social distancing, and other measures that helped most developed countries deal with covid-19 much more successfully than the US did, or did he not?

stop playing your stupid and cowardly game of hiding behind hypotheticals - have a concrete position for once that is open to criticism. constantly defending the science-denying right wing, and then resorting to a flimsy 'well i didn't explicitly say i agree, so you can't possibly attack me for defending them' is boring.

This post was edited by fender on Jul 8 2020 10:23am

Loaded question that isn't pertinent to my statements.

I don't watch all of Carlson's shows but i'm pretty sure the answer is no.




I have tons of concrete positions.
The fact that you are completely inept at criticizing them is not a fault of my own.
Nor is choosing to not have the beliefs you desperately want me to have so you can feel better about falsely demonizing people who disagree with you.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Jul 8 2020 10:55am