Is the USA uncivilised?

[JimC]

"Propaganda" is a term used by insular or desperate people. Any fool can point to information he doesn't want to hear and call it propaganda. But the US government does not control the media, and propaganda is thus an incorrect term as it cannot apply here.

If you know you can't control the information but only try to influence it, it shouldn't be called propaganda.

• Propaganda is a form of communication aimed towards influencing the attitude of the community toward some cause or position by presenting only one side of an argument. Propaganda statements may be partly false and partly true. Propaganda is usually repeated and dispersed over a wide variety of media in order to create the chosen result in audience attitudes.
  
  As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda, in its most basic sense, presents information primarily to influence an audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus possibly lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or uses loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the attitude toward the subject in the target audience to further a political, religious or commercial agenda. Propaganda can be used as a form of ideological or commercial warfare.
  
  While the term propaganda has acquired a strongly negative connotation by association with its most manipulative and jingoistic examples (e.g. Nazi propaganda used to justify the Holocaust), propaganda in its original sense was neutral, and could refer to uses that were generally benign or innocuous, such as public health recommendations, signs encouraging citizens to participate in a census or election, or messages encouraging persons to report crimes to law enforcement, among others.

Read on here, if you please. Hopefully, it will help you rid yourself of your misconceptions about what propaganda is.

Words change meaning, and assume, quite often, the meaning of a sub-set of the original.

Most uses of the word "propaganda" are used in the sense of the deliberate and politically motivated communications by government agencies for self-interested reasons, even if the word can be technically granted a wider meaning...

[Clinton Huxley]

Hurrah for the (40% owned by NewsCorp) free press in Blighty! Huzzah for the Sun and its completely made up claim about there being 600,000 "benefits tourists" in the UK. Largest daily circulation of any daily paper in the UK, chock full of lies

How do you know it's "made up?" Do you work for the government visa office or something?

because they were found out and had to print an apology.

[Seabass]

"Propaganda" is a term used by insular or desperate people. Any fool can point to information he doesn't want to hear and call it propaganda. But the US government does not control the media, and propaganda is thus an incorrect term as it cannot apply here.

If you know you can't control the information but only try to influence it, it shouldn't be called propaganda.

• Propaganda is a form of communication aimed towards influencing the attitude of the community toward some cause or position by presenting only one side of an argument. Propaganda statements may be partly false and partly true. Propaganda is usually repeated and dispersed over a wide variety of media in order to create the chosen result in audience attitudes.
  
  As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda, in its most basic sense, presents information primarily to influence an audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus possibly lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or uses loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the attitude toward the subject in the target audience to further a political, religious or commercial agenda. Propaganda can be used as a form of ideological or commercial warfare.
  
  While the term propaganda has acquired a strongly negative connotation by association with its most manipulative and jingoistic examples (e.g. Nazi propaganda used to justify the Holocaust), propaganda in its original sense was neutral, and could refer to uses that were generally benign or innocuous, such as public health recommendations, signs encouraging citizens to participate in a census or election, or messages encouraging persons to report crimes to law enforcement, among others.

Read on here, if you please. Hopefully, it will help you rid yourself of your misconceptions about what propaganda is.

Words change meaning, and assume, quite often, the meaning of a sub-set of the original.

Most uses of the word "propaganda" are used in the sense of the deliberate and politically motivated communications by government agencies for self-interested reasons, even if the word can be technically granted a wider meaning...

Yes.

Moreover, Groper originally used the phrase "US government propaganda", which is rather specific...

[Hermit]

"Propaganda" is a term used by insular or desperate people. Any fool can point to information he doesn't want to hear and call it propaganda. But the US government does not control the media, and propaganda is thus an incorrect term as it cannot apply here.

If you know you can't control the information but only try to influence it, it shouldn't be called propaganda.

• Propaganda is a form of communication aimed towards influencing the attitude of the community toward some cause or position by presenting only one side of an argument. Propaganda statements may be partly false and partly true. Propaganda is usually repeated and dispersed over a wide variety of media in order to create the chosen result in audience attitudes.
  
  As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda, in its most basic sense, presents information primarily to influence an audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus possibly lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or uses loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the attitude toward the subject in the target audience to further a political, religious or commercial agenda. Propaganda can be used as a form of ideological or commercial warfare.
  
  While the term propaganda has acquired a strongly negative connotation by association with its most manipulative and jingoistic examples (e.g. Nazi propaganda used to justify the Holocaust), propaganda in its original sense was neutral, and could refer to uses that were generally benign or innocuous, such as public health recommendations, signs encouraging citizens to participate in a census or election, or messages encouraging persons to report crimes to law enforcement, among others.

Read on here, if you please. Hopefully, it will help you rid yourself of your misconceptions about what propaganda is.

Words change meaning, and assume, quite often, the meaning of a sub-set of the original.

Most uses of the word "propaganda" are used in the sense of the deliberate and politically motivated communications by government agencies for self-interested reasons, even if the word can be technically granted a wider meaning...

Agreed on both counts, JimC. Just the same, advertisements claiming that you are a social outcast unless you remove your pimples with x brand lotion, or articles in Murdoch's press bemoaning evil socialism for not letting Newscorp buy Channel TEN are nothing but propaganda at their core, even though we know the former as advertising and the latter as opinion piece. If one restricts the meaning of the word propaganda to what dictatorial governments do, one misses out on realising that propaganda is produced in many other places, and that it is neither restricted to what dictatorial governments do, nor necessarily a bad thing.

[pErvinalia]

civilisation central - http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/05/dont- ... ur-buttock

[Blind groper]

Yes.

Moreover, Groper originally used the phrase "US government propaganda", which is rather specific...

Would you suggest, Seabass, that the US government does not use propaganda?

[Seabass]

Yes.

Moreover, Groper originally used the phrase "US government propaganda", which is rather specific...

Would you suggest, Seabass, that the US government does not use propaganda?

I am suggesting, Blind Groper, that your initial comment was specifically about government propaganda, so all this discussion of corporate propaganda is a bit of a red herring.

[Ian]

I would suggest that it depends on your definition of the word. If the US government does, then so does New Zealand. So does Sweden. So does Luxembourg.

[Clinton Huxley]

I would suggest that it depends on your definition of the word. If the US government does, then so does New Zealand. So does Sweden. So does Luxembourg.

you would say that, you propagandist, you.

[JimC]

Hermit wrote:

Agreed on both counts, JimC. Just the same, advertisements claiming that you are a social outcast unless you remove your pimples with x brand lotion, or articles in Murdoch's press bemoaning evil socialism for not letting Newscorp buy Channel TEN are nothing but propaganda at their core, even though we know the former as advertising and the latter as opinion piece. If one restricts the meaning of the word propaganda to what dictatorial governments do, one misses out on realising that propaganda is produced in many other places, and that it is neither restricted to what dictatorial governments do, nor necessarily a bad thing.

I agree that we must not ignore the insidious effect of advertising, and the more overt spin attempts of the yellow press and others; their influence is pervasive and, in my opinion, often harmful. But if we allow words to become too general, we lack the ability to have a precise word for a particular category, which for me is propaganda, as deliberate government spin.

[Blind groper]

I think every government uses propaganda. Getting into a semantics argument about the meaning of the word will not change that. The message the US government sends out about Cuba is propaganda. Some of it is true, of course, and some is lies, but it is all misleading. None of it excuses the 55 year embargo, wich achieves nothing except to harm the ordinary people of Cuba. It certainly does not seem to harm the Castro brothers.

I am also a bit unhappy about the US possession of Guantanamo Bay. Not just the dubious use of it, but the actual possession. There is no doubt that it is part of Cuba, and the Cubans want it back. The USA holds it under a debatable and somewhat insulting lease arrangement, but the moneys paid are insufficient for what is held, and there is no doubt that the only reason America holds the bay is that they have a hell of a lot of military force there.

Guantanamo Bay originally became American territory in 1898 during the Spanish American war, at gun point. Despite the "lease" it is conquered territory, and gaining territory by military conquest is one of the marks of barbarism.

The lease payment is a little over $4,000 per year, and the US government sends a check each year for that amount. Not one of those checks has ever been cashed.

[Seth]

I think every government uses propaganda. Getting into a semantics argument about the meaning of the word will not change that. The message the US government sends out about Cuba is propaganda. Some of it is true, of course, and some is lies, but it is all misleading.

Care to be specific? Like quoting some "propaganda" sent out to Cuba by the United States that is either a lie or misleading?

None of it excuses the 55 year embargo, wich achieves nothing except to harm the ordinary people of Cuba. It certainly does not seem to harm the Castro brothers.

It keeps the Castro regime in check, which is it's purpose.

I am also a bit unhappy about the US possession of Guantanamo Bay. Not just the dubious use of it, but the actual possession. There is no doubt that it is part of Cuba, and the Cubans want it back. The USA holds it under a debatable and somewhat insulting lease arrangement, but the moneys paid are insufficient for what is held, and there is no doubt that the only reason America holds the bay is that they have a hell of a lot of military force there.

Insufficient by whose measure? And you're damned right we have a lot of military force there, and it's there to also keep the Castro regime under control. You don't get to threaten the US with nuclear missiles 90 miles away and expect us not to make damned sure you never do so again.

Guantanamo Bay originally became American territory in 1898 during the Spanish American war, at gun point. Despite the "lease" it is conquered territory, and gaining territory by military conquest is one of the marks of barbarism.

Nah, it's how it's been done for hundreds of thousands of years, particularly after your neighbor becomes belligerent and threatens the very existence and survival of your country. When some fuckwit Marxist does that, the best thing to do is to kill him and everybody like him and take over the country and liberate the people, and then make sure that Marxism never, ever rears it's ugly head again by doing whatever it takes to prevent it.

The lease payment is a little over $4,000 per year, and the US government sends a check each year for that amount. Not one of those checks has ever been cashed.

Damn, Castro could double the gross national product by cashing just one of those checks...what an idiot.

[Blind groper]

Seth

A few corrections required to your post.

1. Propaganda. I did not say the USA delivers propaganda to Cuba, though I would not be surprised. The propaganda is delivered towards Americans, and your attitudes are proof that it works.

2. You said the embargo keeps Castro in check. Not very likely since Cuba has perhaps the last unreformed communist government on the planet.

3. The military force at Guantanomo Bay was not sent there to keep Castro controlled, since that force has been there since long before Castro came to power.

4. The fact that military conquest has been used for hundreds or thousands of years does not make it OK. By definition, gaining civilised behaviour means not doing what was done hundreds of thousands of years before. Other nations have given up military conquest as a means of gaining territory. Those who have not are, by definition, less civilised.

[Seth]

Seth

A few corrections required to your post.

1. Propaganda. I did not say the USA delivers propaganda to Cuba, though I would not be surprised. The propaganda is delivered towards Americans, and your attitudes are proof that it works.

You wrote: "The message the US government sends out about Cuba is propaganda. Some of it is true, of course, and some is lies, but it is all misleading.."

I challenged you to cite specific instances of propaganda, lies or misleading statements sent out by the US government. You refuse to do so and try to evade the issue. Can you provide critically robust evidence of your claim or is it all ex-recto assertion, as I suspect.

2. You said the embargo keeps Castro in check. Not very likely since Cuba has perhaps the last unreformed communist government on the planet.

The embargo works quite well at keeping the Castro regime from obtaining or exporting weapons and technology with which it can pose a threat to the US. Just a month or so ago a shipment of missile launchers and radar systems hidden beneath a cargo of grain bound for North Korea from Cuba was seized in Panama. The systems were antiquated by US standards, and even by Cuban standards, but they were far more advanced than anything North Korea has now. Without the embargo that ship would not have been searched and the arms would have likely reached North Korea.

The US intercepts arms shipments to Cuba on a pretty regular basis as well.

The objective of the embargo is to keep the regime in check until it dies out, not reform the thinking of the Castro bros.

3. The military force at Guantanomo Bay was not sent there to keep Castro controlled, since that force has been there since long before Castro came to power.

And why, exactly, do you suppose it remains there? Derp

4. The fact that military conquest has been used for hundreds or thousands of years does not make it OK.

Doesn't make it not okay either.

By definition, gaining civilised behaviour means not doing what was done hundreds of thousands of years before. Other nations have given up military conquest as a means of gaining territory. Those who have not are, by definition, less civilised.

Which puts the US at the very top of the list of nations that are more civilized, since the last time we gained territory by any form of military conquest was when we annexed Hawaii. Can't say the same for the UK though. Can you say "Falkland Islands?"

[piscator]

Unlike other, perhaps more civilized, places, the American press is largely not owned or operated by the State. So most of the propaganda us rustic and culturally illiterate Americans are spoonfed is undertaken by American private enterprise at its own risk.