Using propaganda, they can offer simple solutions to complex problems.
I have to quote:
Once again: www.purewatergazette.net/propagandainamerica.htm
by Paul WeberOver the years, I have had the privilege of meeting and having discussions with people who came to America from countries known for their adherence to totalitarianism: China, Russia, and former east European satellites of the Soviet Union. When we discussed how the state managed to control public opinion under totalitarianism, these people would usually produce a weary, knowledgeable, cynical smile and point out that propaganda in those countries was really done quite incompetently. If you really want to know propaganda, they said, you need to study American propaganda technique. According to them, it is, undeniably, the best in the world."How can that be?" I asked, honestly puzzled.Propaganda in those countries was too obvious, they told me. As soon as you read the first sentence you knew it was a bunch of propaganda, so you didn’t even bother to read it. If you heard a speech, you knew in the first few words that it was propaganda, and you tuned it out."But," I then queried, "How do you know when it’s just propaganda?"The expatriates explained that bad propaganda uses obvious terminology that anyone can see through. Anyone hearing the phrase "capitalist running dogs", knows he’s listening to incompetent propaganda and tunes it out. Lousy propaganda, these knowledgeable but jaded individuals would tell me, appeals to an abstract theory, to a rational thesis that can be disproved. Even though communists had total control of the press, the people just tuned it out (except for those who were the most mentally defective). Most people, they assured me, just went about their lives as best they could, paid lip service to the state, and just tried to keep out of the way of the secret police. But hardly anyone really believed the stuff. The result, after many decades of suffering, was the eventual collapse of the old order once The Great Leader expired, whether his name was Brezhnev, Mao, or Tito.American propaganda, however, is much cleverer. American propaganda, they patiently explained, relies entirely on emotional appeals. It doesn’t depend on a rational theory that can be disproved: it appeals to things no one can object to.American propaganda had its birth, so far as I can tell, in the advertising industry. The pioneers of advertising—a truly loathsome bunch—learned early on that people would respond to purely emotional appeals. Abstract theory and logical argument do nothing to spur sales. However, appeals to sexiness, to pride of ownership, to fear of falling behind the neighbors are the stock in trade of advertising executives. A man walking down the street with beautiful women hanging on his arms is not a logical argument, but it sure sells after-shave. A woman in a business suit with a briefcase, strolling along with swaying hips, assuring us she can "bring home the bacon, fry it up in a pan, but never let you forget you’re a man" really sells the perfume.
Kinda like the simple solution of gun control being used to solve complex problems of crime?
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, I know your comeback and intent to this is that we're offering concealed carry or more guns or some such as the cure. The problem is that you're misrepresenting our position. Yes, we think that gun ownership and carry can be a factor (one among many) that can impact crime, but our primary goal is to help the individual defend himself or herself and minimize the effects of crime. When it comes to dealing with the crime itself, we propose a variety of other solutions to be used to reduce it.
This is off topic, but since you guys are always telling us that the Second Amendment is obsolete, just like the Third Amendment:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.courthousenews.com/2013/07/03/59061.htm
As we've told you, the Third isn't obsolete, the Government just isn't usually moronic enough to do something that makes a Third Amendment challenge necessary.
I thought about Mike when I read that story, and you betcha I was going to link it next time he said "the third amendment is anchronistic".
DeleteYou know what that's called? The exception that proves the rule.
DeleteThe only rule that can be proved by this case and the few others before it is that the government isn't usually moronic enough to violate the Third Amendment and that they get slapped back when they do. It does not prove some rule that the Amendment is obsolete, or the Amendment wouldn't stop the Government on the occasions when they violate it.
DeleteThe saying, the exception that proves the rule, is frequently misunderstood. Prove in that case means test. This example tests your claim about the Third Amendment and shows it to be false.
DeleteYou may be right, but I always thought "the exception that proves the rule" refers to events that are so rare that they don't disprove the general truth of the original statement.
DeleteMikeb, that's how ignorant people misuse the saying.
DeleteYour original statement, that the Amendment is obsolete, is an absolute statement. It can't admit any exceptions, or the law becomes rarely used, not unused, and certainly not obsolete--the position we were arguing back at the time.
Delete"Anyone hearing the phrase "capitalist running dogs", knows he’s listening to incompetent propaganda and tunes it out."
ReplyDeleteAlong with terms like "gunloons", "gun nuts",and "gun fetishists"?
Don't forget the constant refrain of "fat old white men."
DeleteLaci, we already dealt with this one a while ago. If you haven't learned to stop believing gun control propaganda by now, I don't know how to help you.
ReplyDelete