It's the same kind of self-deceiving smugness that eventually lead so many of Reddit's self-styled New Atheists down a reactionary path, where feeling superior to the masses made them believe they were immune to being manipulated, which made many of them easy to manipulate by right-wing cults of personality.
Such self-deceiving smugness is poison against class solidarity, is hostile toward the people in general because of the bootstrappy attitude built right into it, and leaves the "I'm too smart to be fooled" believer more susceptible to manipulation over time.
I didn't feel it was worth it locking horns with the OP because of prior experience, but I'm glad you put it in your own words better than I would have.
It’s the same kind of self-deceiving smugness that eventually lead so many of Reddit’s self-styled New Atheists down a reactionary path, where feeling superior to the masses made them believe they were immune to being manipulated
It's exactly the opposite. The "brainwashing" model of propaganda places us, who have seen the truth through it, as an enlightened elite above the brainwashed masses, but this is simply not the case and it's not how propaganda actually works. Check out the sources in my other comment. The Red Sails article 'Masses, Elites, and Rebels' deals directly with your critiques of elitism here.
When did I say anything about brainwashing? You're conjuring up what you want me to have said, not what I said.
My point is that propaganda can influence us in subtle ways that don't have to be complete "brainwashing," and the belief that because you are (presumably) not "brainwashed" that you have completely escaped propaganda's influence is dangerously presumptive.
You didn't mention the term, but if your notion of propaganda is something that can just infect you without warning, then it's not really in line with the scientific views of propaganda and it's much closer to the brainwashing theory. If you just scrolled reddit or listened to a Jordan Peterson lecture every day, would you really be in danger of becoming an anti-communist because of it?
The point is to reject completely any "brainwashing" theories, even if in quotes, because they are unscientific and don't really explain anything. It's about recognizing that people buy into propaganda for specific reasons, exploring those reasons, and about formulating effective strategies to get them to "buy out" if possible. It's about actively rejecting said propaganda and getting people to do the same.
For all your pretenses of scientific rigor, you're claiming that a negative (that propaganda has zero effect on people exposed to it) has been proven, and proving a negative is one of the hardest, if not impossible, things to do.
Again, I didn't talk about brainwashing nor do I believe in the brainwashing theory you keep attributing to me. I said that the things we expose ourselves to have some influence over what we think and believe, and by extension our actions, even if it isn't necessarily predictable what that influence is. Even a reaction against the message is still influenced by that message because it wouldn't have happened otherwise.
that propaganda has zero effect on people exposed to it
That is not the claim, no one has ever claimed this. Propaganda definitely has an effect, but the way it works is different and specific, and it's possible to fight against it. Have you read the article I linked?
Again, I didn’t talk about brainwashing nor do I believe in the brainwashing theory you keep attributing to me
But you did explicitly mention, in your second comment, this:
My point is that propaganda can influence us in subtle ways that don’t have to be complete “brainwashing,” and the belief that because you are (presumably) not “brainwashed” that you have completely escaped propaganda’s influence is dangerously presumptive.
implying that "brainwashing" can exist at least in some limited fashion. You framed your critique only in regard to brainwashing and not the actual theory I'm a proponent of (the article explicitly deals with such points and proposes how to fight them). The point is that the way propaganda works is not by some invisible ever-present influence, but by socially licensing us to go along with certain things. In the same manner marketing and advertising work as well (the ads that don't simply reveal to us use-value of a necessary products, but those that attempt to create a specific brand image).
I said that the things we expose ourselves to have some influence over what we think and believe, and by extension our actions
This claim no one disagrees with, but that is not the same claim you made before. The point is that we rationally choose what we interact with and what we believe, and both of those things are underpinned by our material conditions, but it is possible to rationally make a choice against the prevailing default narrative in society.
That is not the claim, no one has ever claimed this.
The claim that a triumphant will is all it takes to overcome it (and by implication blaming people for not having that triumphant will) suggests that complete immunity to propaganda is just a choice of volition away. Even if it truly was, what is to be done about those who don't flip that propaganda rejection light switch, or don't even know it's there?
You in turn keep attributing what I said to "brainwashing theory." I didn't claim this and you keep throwing it at me anyway. It's tiresome and consequently we're talking past each other.
The claim that a triumphant will is all it takes to overcome it
No, the claim is that people have enough knowledge and access to information that they can debunk any piece of propaganda they see, but they make the rational choice not to and instead go along with it. This choice is not some free will idealistic choice, it happens due to the material conditions in which the people live and the social purpose of propaganda which lets them easily justify their dominant global position as a westerner. The point is that they don't have an actual excuse for "believing" propaganda, but that they go along with it mostly because they want to keep their privilege (or see it as a way to get some), even though on some level they know it's a bad thing.
Yeah, it's intimidating and uncomfortable to go against something that your in-group believes. Which, funnily enough, is another reason why propaganda works as well as it does. When a post like this is upvoted heavily, many people are likely to just ignore it or go along with it even if, in a vacuum, they would disagree. Because the threat of being shunned by a community you care about is a powerful deterrent. "You believe propaganda because you want to" is truly such an ignorant statement, it genuinely shocks me that this was upvoted so much.
I think it's more comfortable to buy into because it also covers over even slight hints of discomfort about propaganda that has already been absorbed (especially in entertainment) under pretenses of "this can't possibly have an effect on me, no matter how subtle, because I am too smart for that."
It's the same kind of self-deceiving smugness that eventually lead so many of Reddit's self-styled New Atheists down a reactionary path, where feeling superior to the masses made them believe they were immune to being manipulated, which made many of them easy to manipulate by right-wing cults of personality.
Such self-deceiving smugness is poison against class solidarity, is hostile toward the people in general because of the bootstrappy attitude built right into it, and leaves the "I'm too smart to be fooled" believer more susceptible to manipulation over time.
I didn't feel it was worth it locking horns with the OP because of prior experience, but I'm glad you put it in your own words better than I would have.
It's exactly the opposite. The "brainwashing" model of propaganda places us, who have seen the truth through it, as an enlightened elite above the brainwashed masses, but this is simply not the case and it's not how propaganda actually works. Check out the sources in my other comment. The Red Sails article 'Masses, Elites, and Rebels' deals directly with your critiques of elitism here.
When did I say anything about brainwashing? You're conjuring up what you want me to have said, not what I said.
My point is that propaganda can influence us in subtle ways that don't have to be complete "brainwashing," and the belief that because you are (presumably) not "brainwashed" that you have completely escaped propaganda's influence is dangerously presumptive.
You didn't mention the term, but if your notion of propaganda is something that can just infect you without warning, then it's not really in line with the scientific views of propaganda and it's much closer to the brainwashing theory. If you just scrolled reddit or listened to a Jordan Peterson lecture every day, would you really be in danger of becoming an anti-communist because of it?
The point is to reject completely any "brainwashing" theories, even if in quotes, because they are unscientific and don't really explain anything. It's about recognizing that people buy into propaganda for specific reasons, exploring those reasons, and about formulating effective strategies to get them to "buy out" if possible. It's about actively rejecting said propaganda and getting people to do the same.
For all your pretenses of scientific rigor, you're claiming that a negative (that propaganda has zero effect on people exposed to it) has been proven, and proving a negative is one of the hardest, if not impossible, things to do.
Again, I didn't talk about brainwashing nor do I believe in the brainwashing theory you keep attributing to me. I said that the things we expose ourselves to have some influence over what we think and believe, and by extension our actions, even if it isn't necessarily predictable what that influence is. Even a reaction against the message is still influenced by that message because it wouldn't have happened otherwise.
That is not the claim, no one has ever claimed this. Propaganda definitely has an effect, but the way it works is different and specific, and it's possible to fight against it. Have you read the article I linked?
But you did explicitly mention, in your second comment, this:
implying that "brainwashing" can exist at least in some limited fashion. You framed your critique only in regard to brainwashing and not the actual theory I'm a proponent of (the article explicitly deals with such points and proposes how to fight them). The point is that the way propaganda works is not by some invisible ever-present influence, but by socially licensing us to go along with certain things. In the same manner marketing and advertising work as well (the ads that don't simply reveal to us use-value of a necessary products, but those that attempt to create a specific brand image).
This claim no one disagrees with, but that is not the same claim you made before. The point is that we rationally choose what we interact with and what we believe, and both of those things are underpinned by our material conditions, but it is possible to rationally make a choice against the prevailing default narrative in society.
The claim that a triumphant will is all it takes to overcome it (and by implication blaming people for not having that triumphant will) suggests that complete immunity to propaganda is just a choice of volition away. Even if it truly was, what is to be done about those who don't flip that propaganda rejection light switch, or don't even know it's there?
You in turn keep attributing what I said to "brainwashing theory." I didn't claim this and you keep throwing it at me anyway. It's tiresome and consequently we're talking past each other.
No, the claim is that people have enough knowledge and access to information that they can debunk any piece of propaganda they see, but they make the rational choice not to and instead go along with it. This choice is not some free will idealistic choice, it happens due to the material conditions in which the people live and the social purpose of propaganda which lets them easily justify their dominant global position as a westerner. The point is that they don't have an actual excuse for "believing" propaganda, but that they go along with it mostly because they want to keep their privilege (or see it as a way to get some), even though on some level they know it's a bad thing.
Yeah, it's intimidating and uncomfortable to go against something that your in-group believes. Which, funnily enough, is another reason why propaganda works as well as it does. When a post like this is upvoted heavily, many people are likely to just ignore it or go along with it even if, in a vacuum, they would disagree. Because the threat of being shunned by a community you care about is a powerful deterrent. "You believe propaganda because you want to" is truly such an ignorant statement, it genuinely shocks me that this was upvoted so much.
I think it's more comfortable to buy into because it also covers over even slight hints of discomfort about propaganda that has already been absorbed (especially in entertainment) under pretenses of "this can't possibly have an effect on me, no matter how subtle, because I am too smart for that."