The Engineering of Consent

I noticed there isn't a lot of discussion about propaganda. Not just here but anywhere, yet it is arguably one of the most important issues of the 20th century. I wanted to make this thread about Edward Bernays work, and just propaganda in general.

Edward Bernays (nephew of Sigmund Freud) was listed as one of the top 100 most influential people in the 20th century by life magazine, credited as "the father of public relations", and yet, not a lot of discussion about him. He argues in his book "propaganda" that being able to manipulate the opinion of the masses is a essential element of democracy:

"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ...We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ...In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind."

He also argues in his book "The Engineering of Consent" that they must do this (control opinions, attitudes, attitudes towards other, etc). Especially to the American public who are described as fundamentally irrational and dangerous people who can't be trusted.

Also any discussion about the "Propaganda Model" theorized by Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman, particularly the five filters that "news" must pass before entering mainstream, is welcome. Here is a link to it for reference: The Propaganda Model Propaganda model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What are your thoughts and opinions on all of this?

And just for anyone who is interested, Here are some links to some talks on Propaganda:
Noam Chomsky - Propaganda and Control of the Public Mind- YouTube - Noam Chomsky - Propaganda and Control of The Public Mind Part 1 of 7
Noam Chomsky - About Propaganda- YouTube - Noam Chomsky about Proaganda (1h Interview) 1/6
Edward Bernays : Propaganda and Public Relations- YouTube - :: Edward Bernays : on Propaganda and Public Relations ::

Noam Chomsky is an idiot.

If there wasn't propaganda in the world, there wouldn't be war. When you look at history and modern times you realize that people do not like war, and they try to avoid it at all cost. However if you look at all the wars we have been in, they are started with propaganda campaigns against the public that drum up support for the war. Eventually people realize they are being manipulated and eventually support for war starts to drop. Almost all wars start because someone in the government has some ambition to start war, and so they use propaganda to build support.

People who use propaganda, especially fear propaganda, make me sick. I really think they are the most vile of people in the world. People like Joseph Goebbels were seen as war criminals, and rightly so. However people forgot that there was people in the US at the time just like him, and there are still people like that today. They would have you believe that the people serve the government, and we should support our government in whatever it deems necessary to do. That is total bullshit though. The government serves us, the people.

Lying to the public should be grounds for immediate dismissal from any public office. And if bad enough should be a criminal action that results in their arrest.

I do not believe for a single second that any of this stuff is for the public's own well being. No one thinks the public is dangerous if left alone. It is all about, how can they make more money, or gain more power. I truly believe that propagandist are as close to real evil as you can get in the world. The are greedy selfish and disgusting people, who seek to control other people. Often harming the people in the process. Only a truly sick person could discover a way to steal from you, and make you enjoy being robbed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpecialInterests

"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ...We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ...In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind."

---

There is a documentary called "the Century of Self" about Edward Bernays and the history of PR and psychoanalysis that covers alot of these topics. Propaganda is inescapable, even if we were to state "propaganda is bad" we are still spreading propaganda. But propaganda isnt necessarily always a bad thing, its a method for spreading information but unfortunately its has been used for nefarious purposes in the past hence all the negative connotations attached to the word "propaganda!" (i dont even want to type it anymore) Do I believe that humans are fundamentally irrational and dangerous requiring us to be led? To a certain extent yes I do but I think this behavior is also a result of civilization. I think we are too dependent on having other people to make decisions for us. Civilization has made us weak and stupid not the other way around as is commonly believed (Ex: Most people dont know how to procure food for themselves in the wild because we have others who do that for us therefore our dependence on civilization has caused us to become disassociated with our most basic natural instincts). I think people are capable of living autonomously without leaders in small communities but we need to first start becoming independent from the government.

And also Noam Chomsky is most certainly not an idiot, he has made significant contributions to philosophy of mind and linguistics. If you are referring to his political views(I lean to the left politically myself but I do have disagreements with his views on anarchism,pacifism,etc) then I kinda agree but I wouldn't say he is unintelligent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

The are greedy selfish and disgusting people, who seek to control other people.

---

I agree, but not all propagandists are like this. Some are just confused people who really believe in what they are supporting, like christian propagandists for example. The idea of controlling people doesn't even come into their mind, they just have to do what is Right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpecialInterests

Edward Bernays (nephew of Sigmund Freud) was listed as one of the top 100 most influential people in the 20th century by life magazine, credited as "the father of public relations", and yet, not a lot of discussion about him. He argues in his book "propaganda" that being able to manipulate the opinion of the masses is a essential element of democracy:

---

Wow. This made my eyes bug out a little. I'll have to look into this guy. I've been meaning to read the Chomsky book by the same title but I've been busy not reading other books lately. [Nevermind, I meant manufacturing of consent.]

I agree propagandists are heinous people. I also think that most propagandists are just so deeply indoctrinated themselves they don't even know what they are doing. I mean, propaganda is everywhere, there is so many people involved and to various degrees. That's what is really scary to me, it's like a viscous circle.

Thanks for the name of that documentary Storm I'm going to check that out.

What exactly constitutes propaganda?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Propaganda is a form of communication aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position. As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense, presents information primarily to influence an audience.

---

I don't see propaganda as a bad thing, as long as it's used for a good cause. Propaganda is simply getting people to feel strongly about some issue. Shit, 90% of the driving force behind the capitalistic economy is corporate propaganda, trying to get everyone to think their products are the best thing since sliced bread. Propaganda is also used in nationalism. I'd rather everyone be proud to be an American than for everyone to be thinking, 'eh, we're alright.. but nowhere near as good as China.' If that were the case, we wouldn't be the world power right now. (Whether or not that's the best thing for the world, well that's a different story) It's best for us to think that we're the top dogs. If the entire country was always divided, we'd never get shit done, and we'd spend most of our time arguing. Just take a look at Congress.

However, I don't think that propaganda should be used in advocating wars or violence, among other things which I'll discuss later. I think that wars should be approached from an entirely objective state of mind, so that as a country we can make the best decision as opposed being falsely led to believe that we're not just fulfilling the government's private agenda concerning war efforts.

I can't disagree with you more. Propaganda by corporations and nationalism are both bad things. Propaganda has no place in capitalism as far as I am concerned. Ideally you buy a product because it actually is a good product, not because you were tricked into thinking it was good product. People should be rewarded for filling the needs of consumers, not selling them crap and calling it great. Nationalism is dangerous, and it is the very thing that leads us to wars and stuff. Nothing good comes from it. You say it stops arguments, but we need people to debate laws and stuff. Stopping debates so you can shove new laws down the throats of America, is a horrible thing.

You have to realize that the majority of our economic growth is caused by 'exaggerated' advertising. If corporations always offered the best things available in terms of current research and development, our economy would be developing at a much slower rate than it is today, which would in turn slow the rate at which research and development takes place. This makes the element of corporate propaganda a necessary component of capitalism. Also, you don't take into account the element of competition. If rivaling businesses sold the exact same thing, how would they be able to convince the consumer that they should buy their product instead? There would be no appeal, which would further stunt our economic diversity and growth.

By the way, I do see your point about nationalism, and I have to agree when I think about it.

First off a slower yet more stable rate of growth is a good thing, as opposed of the boom bust cycles that we artificially make with market manipulation. Because the huge rapid increases always results in sudden periods of contractions, like we are in today, where everyone loses their job and is making a lot less. And everyone losing their house and becoming poor isn't good for the economy. Secondly, all products are never going to be equal. And if they are there are other things to separate companies besides them lying. There is the costs of products, customer service and how much support the give, warranties and stuff like that.

I don't believe at all, that lying to people is needed. That is just an excuse and a lazy approach to sales.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuB

What exactly constitutes propaganda?

---

To be honest I've kind of wondered that myself. That wikipedia definition seems to be lacking something if you ask me, "a form of communication" doesn't really tell you much. I'd call it any information produced with the intent and goal to convince people of something to fulfill someones interests. I guess by its very definition it's not inherently bad, but it's come to carry some negative connotations, and that's what I think people are referring to when they speak of propaganda today - the insidious species of propaganda that is employed by the elites to control masses of people. The type that works to convince you by speaking to your irrational emotions, sell products to your feelings and not your intellect, that sort of stuff. That's what I label propaganda anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpecialInterests

To be honest I've kind of wondered that myself. That wikipedia definition seems to be lacking something if you ask me, "a form of communication" doesn't really tell you much. I'd call it any information produced with the intent and goal to convince people of something to fulfill someones interests. I guess by its very definition it's not inherently bad, but it's come to carry some negative connotations, and that's what I think people are referring to when they speak of propaganda today - the insidious species of propaganda that is employed by the elites to control masses of people. The type that works to convince you by speaking to your irrational emotions, sell products to your feelings and not your intellect, that sort of stuff. That's what I label propaganda anyway.

---

How about the pledge of allegiance? Forcing little kids to swear allegiance to their government. Isn't that a bit worse than McDonalds ads?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmind

How about the pledge of allegiance? Forcing little kids to swear allegiance to their government. Isn't that a bit worse than McDonalds ads?

---

Actually, the pledge of allegiance swears allegiance to our country, not our government. If everyone was forced to swear allegiance to their government, then I'd have a serious problem with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MindGames

Actually, the pledge of allegiance swears allegiance to our country, not our government. If everyone was forced to swear allegiance to their government, then I'd have a serious problem with it.

---

Huh?

Quote:

---

I pledge Allegiance to the flag
of the United States of America
and to the Republic for which it stands,

---

Either way it creates nationalism.

I've always thought that this is propaganda/ a way to indoctrinate children to have nationalist tendencies. What mcDs does is worse on one level because it doesn't cause wars, but on another level it's the same, it's mind control through a constant succession of images. Mcdonalds is fucking everywhere, and there food is total shit. Influencing people's minds like this on a mass scale is fucked up and dystopian, I don't like it one bit.

Granted it isn't brainwashing or real mind control, I'm using the word like a propagandist might to make my point seem more dramatic, but it does have an strong effect on many many people.

It is definitely a hard question. Literally every person who tries to convince others that their position is correct and should be copied is guilty of using propaganda. No matter what the circumstances, every individual has at least a slightly different idea of what is true. Propaganda is one of the ways in which we reach consensus and thus create the reality that we live in. Basically what you are saying when you say "Propaganda is evil" is "the pervading world view in my community is evil". If this is true, how do you combat it? Only with your own propaganda, of course. Propaganda is a tool, and tools cannot be inherently evil or good, only the people who use them can.

That is only true if you take the word to the literal extreme. One could make the case that expressing any opinion in an attempt to change people's mind is propaganda, but that isn't generally how the word is defined. When we use the word propaganda we usually mean trying to convince people with half truths, and lies.

So if you get into a debate and you are not lying, then you are not guilty of anything. If you get in a debate and you are mistaken, then that is just a mistake and hopefully the other person will convince you. If you get into a debate and you know what your saying isn't true and you play on the persons fears, and emotions and lie to their face so they will do what you want, then that is propaganda and it is evil.

Propaganda is a tool like murder is a tool. One that should never be used. If you can't win a debate with facts and the truth, then your position probably wasn't worth holding.

Okay, so on that definition, what is the difference between propaganda and simply lying? Or does the argument really just reduce to "lying is evil"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuB

Okay, so on that definition, what is the difference between propaganda and simply lying? Or does the argument really just reduce to "lying is evil"?

---

It's more than just lying, it's lying done on a mass scale to create a mass effect, like to start a war or make a bunch of people buy some bullshit product they don't need and won't really satisfy them. It's clearly worse than lying, and I think there are obviously situations where lying is of benefit to all involved, whereas propaganda usually is done to benefit a small group and to take advantage of most people.

I'm not sure that I see how lying en masse is qualitatively different from lying singly.

Can propaganda sometimes be used for noble purposes? Or is that contrary to the definition--that is, lying en masse is propaganda if and only if it is to serve ignoble purposes?

It's different because of the effects. Even if you are succesful in getting people to do something positive with propaganda it's not really that good because they are doing it under false pretenses. Eventually they will see through it and stop.

It can be used for noble purposes, but it is not the best way to go about things in my opinion. When your trying to do something good, like getting people to take care of the environment, I think it's best to stick with facts and rather than conning people into doing something.

So propaganda is evil. But propaganda can be used for noble purposes. So evil things can be used for noble purposes? If so, what does it really mean to say that something is evil?

I never said that it was evil, I believe my word choice was "fucked up". I just don't think it's a good way to go about doing things.

It is lying on a large scale to influence other people, and manipulating people into doing things they wouldn't normally want. And no propaganda can not be used for noble purposes. You might start off with good goals in mind, but eventually your good goals will be corrupted. It always results in bad things, and can never be used in a good way.

There is no noble goals involved at all. If you had noble goals, you would just speak the truth and people would listen to you because it is the right thing to do. If your using propaganda to influence people, it is because you know they would never listen to you otherwise. Usually because what you are saying is so horrible or stupid, that people want no part in it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

There is no noble goals involved at all. If you had noble goals, you would just speak the truth and people would listen to you because it is the right thing to do. If your using propaganda to influence people, it is because you know they would never listen to you otherwise. Usually because what you are saying is so horrible or stupid, that people want no part in it.

---

This isn't exactly true. Propaganda is used extensively by the green movement and also by the anti-war movement. What they want to happen is good, but they do it in a stupid way because they don't trust people.

I never seen propaganda used by anti war people. After all, most people are anti war to start with, and they can show the truth and it normally disgusts people. As for the green movement, they use propaganda some times, and it is even bad then. A lot of the stuff done by green movement groups are stuff that are harmful. You get so caught up in trying to save earth you start doing stuff that has no effect on anything at all.

Propaganda doesn't have to be lies. Uncle Sam posters are propaganda. Where is the lie in that? During the Vietnam War, the Viet Cong would broadcast things like "Your country doesn't care about you, G.I.". This isn't exactly a lie either. Propaganda is merely any rhetoric true or false that is meant to elicit a specific response.

I agree with Xaq -- I think that definition of propaganda is closer to what the term is commonly understood to mean. Which is why I'm hesitant to accept the central thesis of this thread. It seems to me that there's nothing intrinsically unethical about propaganda. This thread is propaganda.

Propaganda is an appeal to emotion for something that I don't agree with. If you ever want to know if somethings propaganda, first check that it's an appeal to emotion. If it is, come check with me to see if I agree with its conclusion or not.

The lie from army recruitment, comes from them leaving out all the important information, and never telling you the full story. The uncle sam poster itself isn't that bad, but you have to take the entire campaign they use to recruit people. A poster itself isn't really propaganda, but when it is combined with all the other stuff, it surely is.

Presenting information, isn't propaganda. It is the lying, and concealing important facts, and trying to trick people that makes propaganda so bad.

You take a good car commercial for example. They are trying to get you to buy their product, but they do it by listing the features, and telling you the price. It might be slightly bias but it isn't propaganda. However if you look at say an army ad, there is no information at all. The entire thing is an emotional appeal to try and trick you into joining the army. Not only are they as vague as possible to hide things, but they usually show the job in a way that doesn't reflect reality.

Propaganda becomes pretty obvious when it is used to warp reality to appear as something totally different than what it actually is.

I stand by what I said before. A solid position based on logic and reason, backed with data is always better than propaganda. If you have a solid well thought out position, why would you result to propaganda? Logic and reason is always a better way to influence people. Propaganda is always used by people who think that logic will not work. Otherwise, they would just use a logical argument, would they not?

Leaving out all the important information? What exactly is this hidden important information that people don't already know about joining the army?

More generally, "concealing the facts" seems like a hopeless criterion for identifying propaganda. No piece of communication can ever possibly contain every single fact that might conceivably be relevant to the issue at hand; so every communication is in some sense "concealing" certain facts. What then makes certain communications "propaganda" and others not?

I'm a little confused by your car commercial example. I don't know how long it's been since you've seen a car commercial, but pretty much all the car commercials that I've seen in the recent past basically consist of showing sleek shots of a shiny car zipping around either a beautiful natural landscape or a lively urban night scene, while the narrator spouts some vague lines about "this new car is better than ever!" Car commercials are almost completely emotional appeals and decidedly not objective appeals to the audience's logical faculties.

And finally, I will very strongly disagree that using "logic, reason, and data" to present an argument is usually the most effective way to persuade people. Maybe you haven't noticed, but most people don't respond to rigorous logical appeals! That's why they are not so common in, e.g., ad campaigns; marketers have learned over the decades that that's not the effective way to sell a product. Emotional appeals sell products. Logical arguments don't.

At the most general level, my main objection to all of this is that the concept of "propaganda" seems unclear and just plain biased. It seems mainly to be a blanket term for certain persuasion attempts that you happen not to ideologically identify with, as Phil said.

I did say good car commercials because obviously there are ones like you said. However a great deal of them give a lot of details about the car and the new features. They often explain why it is better than others. You know, this car has more horsepower, it can pull more, it has side air bags to make it safer, it has on star so you don't get lost, its half the price. Stuff like that, they explain the features on why it is better.

It seems like you keep going back that all communication is propaganda but people don't actively try to manipulate each other in normal conversations. Normal people don't speak half truths and lies, play on your feelings, and try to trick you in order to get you to agree with them. When people use that kind of argument, we usually call them an ass. That isn't normal communication.

Logic, reason and data usually is the best way to persuade people, if your goal is a long term change in their thinking. You can trick and fool people with propaganda for a short time, but eventually they realize it. Any long term change in their opinion needs to be the result of logic and reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aldric

I did say good car commercials because obviously there are ones like you said. However a great deal of them give a lot of details about the car and the new features. They often explain why it is better than others. You know, this car has more horsepower, it can pull more, it has side air bags to make it safer, it has on star so you don't get lost, its half the price. Stuff like that, they explain the features on why it is better.

---

This approach is just another form of propaganda. The fact that they only focus on the positive features as opposed to the negative ones gives the viewer a false notion that the car is better than all others in all ways, when it is not. The emotional appeal is still there, except it is masked by biased "logic". Most of those commercials also use sophisticated music and announcers to further implant the idea of the car being the best choice into the viewer's mind.


The idea of propaganda is not to control somebody. It's to associate a product with an emotional appeal to present the product in a good light. Using emotions in advertising is not lying. You can't lie with an emotion, since emotions are obviously not logical. It is the consumer's responsibility to further investigate the product and weigh it with alternative options if they are interested in buying an advertised product.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

It seems like you keep going back that all communication is propaganda but people don't actively try to manipulate each other in normal conversations. Normal people don't speak half truths and lies, play on your feelings, and try to trick you in order to get you to agree with them. When people use that kind of argument, we usually call them an ass. That isn't normal communication.

---

In my experience, that pretty much is normal communication. They don't do it consciously or "on purpose" but the vast majority of communication that I see seems to be constructed to manipulate emotional sympathy rather than logical sympathy. This is why two people can describe the same events from two different "perspectives". Each is using the set of half truths and lies that are favorable to them and which they remember as being the truth. Granted, they're generally misleading themselves along with you but it's still deception.

EDIT:
The whole problem is that when evolving as a social animal, it's much more rewarding to "elevate" oneself above "perceptive reality" (where what matters is approaching accurate and complete perceptions of reality) to live in "social reality" (where what matters is other's perceptions of reality) and to manipulate that than it is to remain in "perceptive reality".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpecialInterests

I noticed there isn't a lot of discussion about propaganda. Not just here but anywhere, yet it is arguably one of the most important issues of the 20th century. I wanted to make this thread about Edward Bernays work, and just propaganda in general.

Edward Bernays (nephew of Sigmund Freud) was listed as one of the top 100 most influential people in the 20th century by life magazine, credited as "the father of public relations", and yet, not a lot of discussion about him. He argues in his book "propaganda" that being able to manipulate the opinion of the masses is a essential element of democracy:

"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ...We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ...In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind."

He also argues in his book "The Engineering of Consent" that they must do this (control opinions, attitudes, attitudes towards other, etc). Especially to the American public who are described as fundamentally irrational and dangerous people who can't be trusted.

Also any discussion about the "Propaganda Model" theorized by Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman, particularly the five filters that "news" must pass before entering mainstream, is welcome. Here is a link to it for reference: The Propaganda Model Propaganda model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What are your thoughts and opinions on all of this?

And just for anyone who is interested, Here are some links to some talks on Propaganda:
Noam Chomsky - Propaganda and Control of the Public Mind- YouTube - Noam Chomsky - Propaganda and Control of The Public Mind Part 1 of 7
Noam Chomsky - About Propaganda- YouTube - Noam Chomsky about Proaganda (1h Interview) 1/6
Edward Bernays : Propaganda and Public Relations- YouTube - :: Edward Bernays : on Propaganda and Public Relations ::

---

If you have an interest as to why society follows the will of a minority then I would suggest reading Etienne de la Boetie's work called The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

The lie from army recruitment, comes from them leaving out all the important information, and never telling you the full story. The uncle sam poster itself isn't that bad, but you have to take the entire campaign they use to recruit people.

---

I digress from my position that propaganda is favorable in capitalistic advertising, to point out its misuse in recruiting. (This is not the same as the propaganda used in army commercials or the like)

I have spoken with army recruiters in the past and compared what they said to the experiences of individuals who have joined the army and other branches of service. I find that it frequently happens that army recruiters will make false promises to get people to enlist. For instance, an army recruiter might promise an interested individual that he/she will get a laptop or a new car when they enlist in the armed forces, but once they enlist they will find that they were duped into thinking so, and have to live with their decision without getting the new car or laptop they were promised. Recruiters make these kinds of false promises all the time, and I have noticed that the recruiters I spoke to made the same type of false promises, yet tried to conceal them by telling stories of their own experiences and using other passive methods.

This wouldn't be considered the same type of propaganda as providing a logically true, but largely emotional appeal; rather, this is the type of propaganda that makes people do things that they didn't intend because someone lied to them, if you could call that propaganda at all as opposed to blatant lying. All in all, however, this is the only type of lying that I have seen occurring in the scene of recruitment into the armed forces.


The commercials you see on TV aim to capture the spirit of nationalism and the pride of individuals who serve in the armed forces to defend their country. If it wasn't for these qualities of the many Americans who decide to join our armed forces, our nation wouldn't have the necessary human resources required for national defense, and would have to resort to using the selective service. It is much more agreeable to emotionally persuade individuals who are already interested in the armed forces to enlist than to select them at random against their will. When such emotions are used, one could say that the individual is being manipulated with their emotions, but one could also argue that the individual is agreeing to experience the emotions the commercial attempts to evoke in the the first place.

It isn't true that we would lack the human resources for national defense, if we didn't use propaganda to recruit people. We would lack the human resources to be constantly at war like we are today, however if we stopped invading other countries and focused on defense, that wouldn't be an issue. So the ideal situation isn't to draft people so we can continue to war, but to stop going to war with so many countries all the time. And if we had to draft people to continue the wars, you would find that support for the wars would very quickly evaporate.

A normal conversation doesn't not involved two people trying to influence each other into any sort of action. People do not try to subconsciously manipulate each other for their own good, I am not sure where you even got that. If you think that is a normal conversation, I would expect that you hang around a lot of shady people.

As for emotions, using emotions isn't by itself lying nor is it propaganda. If you use emotion to support an argument, then that is fine. However propaganda uses emotion in an irresponsible way. Using it while lying, or bringing up false images based on things that are not true, or using loaded words in ways they were never meant to be used. Its about the manipulation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

It isn't true that we would lack the human resources for national defense, if we didn't use propaganda to recruit people. We would lack the human resources to be constantly at war like we are today, however if we stopped invading other countries and focused on defense, that wouldn't be an issue. So the ideal situation isn't to draft people so we can continue to war, but to stop going to war with so many countries all the time. And if we had to draft people to continue the wars, you would find that support for the wars would very quickly evaporate.

A normal conversation doesn't not involved two people trying to influence each other into any sort of action. People do not try to subconsciously manipulate each other for their own good, I am not sure where you even got that. If you think that is a normal conversation, I would expect that you hang around a lot of shady people.

As for emotions, using emotions isn't by itself lying nor is it propaganda. If you use emotion to support an argument, then that is fine. However propaganda uses emotion in an irresponsible way. Using it while lying, or bringing up false images based on things that are not true, or using loaded words in ways they were never meant to be used. Its about the manipulation.

---

Or we could disband the entire American military. That would stop the propaganda, frequent wars, excess debt, bloated national government, an aggressive imperialist foreign policy and the draft. Beers for everyone! Hooray! Concerning your comment on emotions, there is something wrong with using emotions to support your argument. You are actually committing a logical fallacy (appeal to emotion) when you do such.

I would be for getting rid of the military. Though I know a lot of people are against that. However, there is a large degree of cutting we can do, while still having a military. So even if people think we need a military they can be for huge cuts that brings it back to defense.

As for emotions, it isn't a fallacy. If your entire argument is based on emotion, then yes you are correct, it is. However, I specifically said using emotion to support an argument, and not to be the basis of the argument. Which means you have logical, well thought out reasons for believing it. In which case emotion can be used to help explain your side of the argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

It isn't true that we would lack the human resources for national defense, if we didn't use propaganda to recruit people. We would lack the human resources to be constantly at war like we are today, however if we stopped invading other countries and focused on defense, that wouldn't be an issue. So the ideal situation isn't to draft people so we can continue to war, but to stop going to war with so many countries all the time. And if we had to draft people to continue the wars, you would find that support for the wars would very quickly evaporate.

---

Our country requires a considerable amount of human resources for a strong defense. The point of military propaganda is to motivate people to have the courage to join the military. Many people won't take a job that puts their life on the line for the defense of their country unless it gives them some emotional appeal. The emotional appeal certainly inspired me to look into the military. I found that the money and opportunities were actually pretty good, which shows that military propaganda isn't dedicated to fucking you over. I can only assume the reason the military does not highlight these benefits is that the military requires a person to feel strongly about our country's defense in order to be a strong soldier.

I do agree that we need to pull out of the Middle East, but that doesn't mean we have to substantially cut down on our military. As for getting rid of our military altogether, that would leave us completely defenseless. It's just not a feasible option.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

A normal conversation doesn't not involved two people trying to influence each other into any sort of action. People do not try to subconsciously manipulate each other for their own good, I am not sure where you even got that. If you think that is a normal conversation, I would expect that you hang around a lot of shady people.

---

Conversation involves subtle persuasion of each participant's position on a subject. The transmission of information is not inherently selfish or malicious (although one might argue that it is selfish to some degree).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

... [P]ropaganda uses emotion in an irresponsible way. Using it while lying, or bringing up false images based on things that are not true, or using loaded words in ways they were never meant to be used. Its about the manipulation.

---

Propaganda does not entail the irresponsible use of emotion. Take army commercials, for example. These commercials use a responsible emotional appeal, in that they simply advertise the emotional qualities necessary to be an American soldier. That they evoke strong emotions in the viewer provides an effective way of getting a good idea of these emotional qualities. These commercials do not lie or deceive in any way. If you're going to be a soldier, you bet your ass you're going to be proud of your country, which is exactly the message given by the commercial, no bullshit. The viewer already knows that joining the army means risking your life for the protection of your country, but they are willing to take that risk to get the emotional gratification that being a soldier provides. People are often willing to overlook logic (though it's not required in harmless propaganda, as is the case with joining the armed forces) and decide to buy into the emotional appeal instead, which is completely fine since humans are emotional beings who truly value such an appeal. As far as I'm concerned, if the product isn't advertised as something other than what it actually is, then there is no harm in propaganda.