You've all seen and/or been involved in non-discussion discussions like what follows, so I won't copy the whole thing here, just the beginning, an edited synopsis of the middle, and at the end Lesson #1 of what may become a recurring feature on this blog, a propaganda primer.
Note: Because I did not ask for permission to share their comments, I have removed the last names and links to the Facebook pages of the other actors in this online tour de force, or should I say tour de farce?
Introduction:
- ...
- ...
The Lesson - with thanks to Darlene, Alan, Kevin, and Emily:
Darlene,
My original comment was intended to be helpful and shed light on a manipulative dynamic (propaganda technique) I believe people should learn to recognize in order to avoid being conned by politicians and others who have a hidden agenda. This technique involves using seemingly innocent posts (I believe you call them "something small," Darlene.) to spread a subtle, but divisive and very real propaganda payload.
The technique is quite common and also effective. Advertisers use it all the time. So do politicians and con artists of all parties, groups, branches, and denominations. Its goal is to get someone (you) to believe something that is not necessarily true, but which will benefit the person sending the message (them).
In the case of the "free speech" post, the payload was the partisan suggestion that there is left-wing conspiracy against Christian, Republican, conservatives. The words were carefully chosen to appeal to the emotional attachment held by members of a specific sector of the American population and to suggest that they were being treated unfairly. Humans are hard-wired to respond to unfair treatment. For this reason they can be victimized by self-serving charlatans who convince them that they have the power to make things right.
In my original comment, I proposed that your "free speech" post was neither factual nor benign. I then offered an equally-biased suggestion containing the same type of emotionally-loaded propaganda but designed to resonate with a politically opposite demographic.
Apparently, neither Alan nor Kevin recognized that I was asking those who saw your post to consider the possibility that they were being manipulated into accepting and believing an unproven claim implied in the content of your post.
Alan's comments questioned only the accuracy of my manipulative, demographically-opposite suggestion. He demanded data for those claims. However he did not ask for facts to back up the ones made in your post. By doing this he confirmed the effectiveness of the propaganda payload in that post or at the very least demonstrated his predisposition toward its unsubstantiated claim of unfairness.
Kevin completely missed the fact that the "children and scalawags" I mentioned in my first comment referred to those who use propaganda, not to those who fall victim to it. He immediately began calling me names, most likely as a defense against what he saw as an attack on his tribe. He also claimed, erroneously, that I had started the name calling.
That, friends, is exactly how the "he hit me back first argument" works. You can decide whether Kevin is a child, a scalawag, or simply someone who missed my point because he fell for a clever bit of propaganda.
Furthermore, Kevin never considered that his belief in the existence of a left-wing conspiracy against the groups to which he claims membership may have been planted in his mind by someone using propaganda to turn him into a pawn in a game he doesn't even know he's playing.
Emily, like Darlene, had the courage to say she was confused by the commentary. I hope this post helps her understand what was going on and why.
As for me, I consider myself fortunate to have had teachers in high school who taught lessons about the techniques and aims of propaganda. These teachers encouraged us to examine the statements made by advertisers, politicians, and anyone else claiming the right to tell us what we were supposed to believe. They also taught us to consider what the true motives of such people might be based on their actions rather than on what they said. This test gave greater weight and credibility to edicts from parents than to those coming from strangers. It also called into question the edicts of those for whom giving advice to others was part of their occupation, for example religious leaders.
Armed with this knowledge, I developed an acute sense of skepticism which helps me to differentiate propaganda I encounter it in everyday life from useful information offered by people with a genuine concern for me. It's a skill I value.
Anyone can learn to recognize propaganda, but, like all knowledge, this skill is gained at a price. Using it eventually leads internal conflict as one recognizes that cherished beliefs which were effective tools in childhood can be used in adulthood to limit people's options and make them susceptible to being herded like cattle. Many people find this so difficult to accept that they refuse to question their beliefs, especially those attached to religion, ethnicity, and the personal story they have constructed and cherish as as being part of their "true self." When that happens, they effectively surrender their right to self determination to others.
Almost everything I post to this blog is an attempt to keep that from happening. If today's offering sounds preachy or overly pedantic, I have but one thing to say.
Tough beans!
* * *
Bonus video on being hard-wired to respond to unfair treatment:
No comments:
Post a Comment