The Other Michael

Hello folks,

Please keep in mind that this thread is now in the MF&P forum.

That means that it needs to take a sharpish turn into the Moral Foundations and Principles direction, as well as maintaining a level of civil discourse appropriate to the current forum.

If that doesn't happen I suspect we'll probably end up locking the thread if we can't figure out a more appropriate place to move it to.

cheers,
Michael
MF&P Moderator, First Class

Sabine Grant

LINDA : thank you for posting a warning and moving the thread to an upper forum.
MICHAEL : thanks for the reminder... your reminder gave me the idea to introduce the question on the morality of any propaganda.
To what extent is propaganda objective and can genuinely present facts without any intent to coherce people's minds?
I would define propaganda to be moral if it is exercised to educate rather than coherce.
I could not think really of any theme at the present time supported by " moral" propaganda.
Anyone can bring up examples of educational propaganda which does not pertain to coherce opinions one way or the other but truly pertains to improve the level of knowledge of the human mind?

HelenM

But isn't the very definition of propaganda that it is coercive in nature?

Otherwise it's information rather than propaganda, imo.

(Btw, did anyone click on the last link on that page about Samuel's surgery - the one entitled "Drudge Tries to Shock the Monkey"? It actually goes to photos of 'Hot Moms'

I'm sure they'll take it away/fix it when they notice it.)

Helen

99Percent

I define propaganda as that which attempts to persuade through emotional tactics and dissonance. Amie's OP is a perfect example. But how can it be moral if its "education" is through emotional manipulation? To me, what is most moral is that which is most rational, because that is what makes us moral beings, our ability to reason. Propaganda, when successful, is not moral at all, because it attempts to persuade at the emotional level, not the rational one.

integral domain

You seriously need to grow up.


Regarding this being propoganda... there's nothing wrong with propoganda so long as it doesn't give misinformation. Our emotions are within our own control... it's not someone's fault if we have an emotional reaction to something. And often, our emotions are a reflection of something in our minds. It's important to examine these emotions carefully. Mainly because if you are truly, 100% convinced of something, no amount of propoganda is going to significantly stir your emitions... however, if you're not sure... then you may become emotional which may cause you to think more on the subject you're not completely sure about... which is good!

pz

It's important to distrust these emotions. They are attempts to short circuit rational thought to obtain an opinion that is not based on reason, truth, or an objective assessment of the known facts.This is not true. Our emotions are largely independent of our reason. An emotional response says nothing about your intellectual convictions.
I prefer to be provoked into thinking more deeply about things by an honest presentation of the facts. Kicking kittens might stir me up more, but it doesn't help me get any closer to the truth.

...

:boohoo:

viscousmemories

Not that arguments like ":boohoo:" and "grow up" aren't well constructed and profoundly thought provoking, but perhaps a little more clarity could be afforded those of us who aren't capable of reading minds? Otherwise, I'm rubber and you're glue, so whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you.

livius drusus

If this is the sum total of your response to what was, whether you agree with it or not, a clearly articulated and entirely reasonable position consistent with the rules and procedures of IIDB, then perhaps the upper fora are not for you. As elliptical as your handle would suggest, I see. Is there a point you'd care to make?
The means of emotional manipulation cannot be justified by any putative educational ends. Perhaps Wilson deluded himself into believing his Committee of Public Information was "educating" people by convincing them to support US intervention in World War I, but given the CPI's explicit use of psychology and advertising tactics to stir the public into a germanophobic frenzy backed up by draconian dissent-stifling legislation like the Espionage and Sedition acts, there was no educational impetus whatsoever. As pz pointed out, propaganda is specifically designed to bypass rational thought and is therefore the antithesis of education.

integral domain

Alright... I'll elaborate on my comment. Young children have a natural curiousity about things... they pock their fingers in poop and eat their boogers... and do various other things without the thought that it's "gross." As they get older they develope some feeling towards what is distrubing, repulsive, and gross. Young girls, in an attempt to sound dainty and dignified, go to extremes to avoid anything that looks or smells unpleasant. Some adults never get past this stage in life... and cannot even stand to look at their own fetal matter.

However... the more intelligent and curious and mature group of us begin to break down this facade of dignity. We stop yelling "grrroooossss" when we see road kill... and we can handle watching graphic movies... or seeing things on the news. We can go with our brother or sister to the doctor and hold their hand as they get their blood drawn without straining our necks to look away. In short, we develope a maturity that lets us see, smell, and hear disturbing things without getting our panties in a knot. You apparently have not developed this maturity yet... hence my advice to "grow up."

However, I could also say "regress! to age 3... when you still had that beautifully couragous curiousity about the world"