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.
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.