A lot of people are in here saying propaganda and manipulation are inherently bad. And while I agree that in the current media landscape it’s used in an overwhelmingly negative way, it doesn’t have to be.
Consider that everyone is a victim of propaganda. Literally. Everyone. You probably don’t realize all of your own biases because that’s how the system works.
Imagine you see two posters / articles / memes or whatever side by side about vaccines. One says “vaccines cause autism, protect your loved ones,” and the other says, “get vaccinated, protect your loved ones.” They’re both propaganda. However, the latter is much more grounded in truth than the other.
If a doctor offers a child a lollipop if they’re brave during their vaccination, that’s manipulation. But it’s still a good thing because the kid gets vaccinated.
Anyhow, manipulation and propaganda (particularly in the modern sense of the word) are typically used as the tools of bad people. And if people become very entrenched in their views, they no longer listen to reason. Sometimes propaganda and manipulation might be the only way to get someone to change their harmful views.
I’d obviously prefer to live in a world where people do the right thing because it’s the right thing, and not because they’ve been tricked into it. But sadly that isn’t the world we live in.
I do think there’s nuance to be had. “Vaccines protect against disease,” is a truthful statement and will stand up to scrutiny. “Vaccines add two inches to your dick,” might be a more effective way to get people to try a vaccine. But when an antivaxxer tries it and discovers that their unit did not, in fact, double in length, then they’ll turn back around to antivaxxing with a new fervour.
Anyway, I prefer that my biases are grounded in truth. Show me the data, teach me the science, reach out and help me. Unfortunately, for many people they prefer their biases to be grounded in social inclusion. Peer pressure is a hell of a drug.
Yes, the difference between “right according to firsthand observation and judgment” and “right according to the consensus and all its organs”. They are worlds apart. That is the nub of my gist here.
“Man is always prey to his truths. Once he has admitted them, he cannot free himself from them.” -Albert Camus
I doubt that final clause. Sure you can free yourself of your truths. You only need to sacrifice a bit of face, ego and maybe certainty.
Yeah, tell that to the racists, fascists, and other forms of assholery in the world.
The world is not an action movie with clear divisions between good and bad. Keep that in mind.
I’m not sure I even understand the question. How does manipulation make you “right”? You might be perceived as being right but that obviously doesn’t mean you ARE right.
I believe they meant “right wing”, not “right” as in “correct”
Goodness gracious, that seems plausible.
OP, if that’s what you’re saying, you need to rephrase everything.
No, I meant right as in correct.
Okay. Then I don’t get it.
Via the mind-manipulating technique called “propaganda” an idea is inserted into your head, and the rightness of the idea too.
Understand?
Yeah, that’s just the perception of being right. Doesn’t say anything about the actual truth of the claim.
That’s generally all we’ve got. Nobody has time for science or whatever.
But if you had evidence that you were manipulated, that would make you feel less certain in your rightness. Right?
Wha? I’m so confused. Am I being manipulated in this scenario into thinking someone else is right or am I manipulating someone else into thinking I am right? Maybe you have a more concrete example?
“If you believe murder is wrong because society told you murder is wrong, is murder really wrong?”
Hitler got many people to believe that murder is right when it’s done to specific people. Did that make it right? Of course not.
I think every nation offers that argument, not just Hitler.
Exactly.
If you had evidence that you are a victim of manipulation, it shakes your certainty.
Shouldn’t it?
It should. Too often though the victims of manipulation are also manipulated into believing other people telling the truth are lying or people trying to help are actually the ones manipulating the victim. Cognitive dissonance is a real thing. It’s like if someone believes the earth is flat because they were manipulated into believing that, along with being told the evil government is hiding the flat earth truth from them. Then, if the government offers irrefutable proof that the earth is round, the victim might categorically dismiss that proof as propaganda. This further drives them into this manipulation. And it can make it even harder to get through to them.
But like
There are Truths, There are lies.
A truth is still the truth even if a majority believes in that.
A lie is still a lie even if a majority believes in that.
When you learn something, you independenly think about it using logics to ascertain its truthfulness.
Of course, humans can only experience reality subjectively, there’s no guarantee you always find the truth.
Like the idea of “Killing people is bad”
Why?
Well I don’t want that happening to me.
If I kill someone, someone else could see me doing that and their relatives could seek revenge.
If I get away with killing without consequences, then others will also think its okay, which would make it normal to kill people, which increase the likelihood me being the victim of a killing.
Therefore. Killing is bad.
Like that. You think using logic to decide for yourself if you should believe in something.
No. The earth doesn’t get flat no matter how much people you get to believe it. As for opinions, they’re still just opinions. There’s no right and wrong opinion.
If you describe an opinion as right or wrong, you are talking about the opinion’s relation to reality. And opinions certainly do have such relation.
No, whether or not you like the colour blue does not matter to reality. Whether you consider it blue is, but that is not an opinion.
opinions aren’t fact. They’re just a subjective bit of meaning you’ve got in your head, and only in your head.
Bob makes a precise observation and thus concludes that the earth is round.
Rob is told that the earth is round, in school, and thus concludes that the earth is round.
Are they both right?
Jerry was home schooled by his uncle, and has been told the earth is flat, and concluded the earth is flat.
Jerry is wrong. When Jerry tells his friends the earth is flat, he is not lying. Just wrong. When Bob says the earth is flat, he is lying. Knowing full well it is round.
Jane was taught that the earth is stretched a little bit because of the centrifugal force of it’s spinning.
Jane is also right.
Bob and Jane had a conversation about the shape, and experienced a thing called nuance. It’s not perfectly round after all.
Ha! You believe in a spherical earth? What a fool! It’s actually an oblate spheroid! Peasants.
Yes. If, back when people believed incorrectly the earth was flat, someone played a joke on Cob and told him the earth was really round and he believed it, he’s correct too. Even though someone manipulated him into believing something they themselves didn’t believe.
No, but you propagate, like a virus.
A virus would. But a man should be certain that he’s propagating truth, surely.
It’s impossible to be certain though, you can only achieve degrees of certainty.
