Those ideas you listed are indeed often spread by means of propaganda, but the word propaganda has gained a negative connotation that is itself lacking nuance and is thus undeserved.
Any information disseminated that reflects the views or interests of any particular doctrine or cause - even just your own - is propaganda. If you have publicly expressed any sort of political opinion at all, you have engaged in propaganda.
The word was more useful when widely disseminating information required lots of resources or coordinated effort. Now that anyone can easily do so in a second, the word casts too wide a net to be useful in determining what information is expressed in earnest, and what information is deceptive.
When I see propaganda I first consider where it’s coming from. Does it have the backing of mainstream media? Is it publicly/privately funded? Is it facing opposition, and if so from who? Is it grassroots or is it astroturfing?
Edit: Using the comic we’re commenting under as an example, it is indeed propaganda. That of course is not a useful categorization, so we’ll consider its’ source. The creator of this comic Alzward is independent and their funding seems to come both from crowdsourcing and from selling access to their comics on Webtoons. The scale suggests this is just an independent artist supporting themselves, and that their art - and by extension this comic - is not influenced by money to a great extent. From this we can infer that the views expressed in this comic are expressed in earnest by the artist. The artist’s views may themselves be influenced, but that’s beyond the scope of this discussion. In other words, this is grassroots propaganda.
Propaganda derives from the foreign missions of the catholic church to propagate their faith. This was later generalized to include any messaging with the intention of propagating a belief system, and, after WWI began to also be inflected by a sense that it is deliberately misleading.
I’m not trying to “save” the word propaganda. In highlighting its over-broad definition in combination with its negative connotation, I am actually advocating against its use.
“saving”
Also, don’t use quotes around something the person you’re responding to didn’t say. You are now the second person I’ve responded to in this thread to have done so.
![[Alzwards Corner] Never could happen here](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/f554a50e-b397-4ea1-9cab-40fd25d3dcb5.png){kind=link}
Those ideas you listed are indeed often spread by means of propaganda, but the word propaganda has gained a negative connotation that is itself lacking nuance and is thus undeserved.
Any information disseminated that reflects the views or interests of any particular doctrine or cause - even just your own - is propaganda. If you have publicly expressed any sort of political opinion at all, you have engaged in propaganda.
The word was more useful when widely disseminating information required lots of resources or coordinated effort. Now that anyone can easily do so in a second, the word casts too wide a net to be useful in determining what information is expressed in earnest, and what information is deceptive.
When I see propaganda I first consider where it’s coming from. Does it have the backing of mainstream media? Is it publicly/privately funded? Is it facing opposition, and if so from who? Is it grassroots or is it astroturfing?
Edit: Using the comic we’re commenting under as an example, it is indeed propaganda. That of course is not a useful categorization, so we’ll consider its’ source. The creator of this comic Alzward is independent and their funding seems to come both from crowdsourcing and from selling access to their comics on Webtoons. The scale suggests this is just an independent artist supporting themselves, and that their art - and by extension this comic - is not influenced by money to a great extent. From this we can infer that the views expressed in this comic are expressed in earnest by the artist. The artist’s views may themselves be influenced, but that’s beyond the scope of this discussion. In other words, this is grassroots propaganda.
Propaganda derives from the foreign missions of the catholic church to propagate their faith. This was later generalized to include any messaging with the intention of propagating a belief system, and, after WWI began to also be inflected by a sense that it is deliberately misleading.
The word “propaganda” isn’t what needs “saving.”
I’m not trying to “save” the word propaganda. In highlighting its over-broad definition in combination with its negative connotation, I am actually advocating against its use.
Also, don’t use quotes around something the person you’re responding to didn’t say. You are now the second person I’ve responded to in this thread to have done so.
I’ll “definitely” stop doing that for you.