Live data from Hacker News

Types of propaganda, propaganda techniques, and propaganda strategies (2017)

factmyth.com

231–240 of 256 posts

Re: Types of propaganda, propaganda techniques, and propaganda strategies (2017)

#231
post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not defending myself against baseless allegations, if that's what you are seeking. They made a claim, not me. Let's see some evidence or it's just, effectively, propaganda. Anybody can say anything without evidence.

Man, if you're trying to defend teachers, you're doing a sufficiently terrible job that I'd almost think you were deliberately strawmanning. You've effectively responded to a hypothetical "if teachers were converted to propaganda machines, would that be propaganda" with evasion that makes you sound like you have something to hide.

It's interesting that people are taking the approach of attacking me personally, which violates HN's guidelines.

They made a claim of something happening in reality, not hypothetically.

Re: Types of propaganda, propaganda techniques, and propaganda strategies (2017)

#232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no evidence in the parent, just the opinions of a few political actors. > radicals have already successfully overtaken Western universities Ironically, this uses techniques from the OP. It's an emotional appeal - calling people radicals, catastrophizing, etc. - but there's no evidence and really no information. Hyperbole eliminates information; it's like screaming 'we're all going to die!'.

If eyewitness accounts are not evidence, what would pass as evidence to you? Anyone with children in public school has seen this. Do you really need a peer reviewed study on every piece of information to form a worldview?

> If eyewitness accounts are not evidence

What a few people in the whole country say is necessarily credible and is evidence of a widespread trend? Wow. Do you know what you can find people saying, especially on the Internet?

It's surprising that people, especially on HN where evidence is commonplace, and especially in a discussion on propaganda, are so triggered by that. Note that almost nobody in this thread is discussing the facts of the original claim, they all are trying to change the subject to me.

> Anyone with children in public school has seen this.

What I read is, 'I'm so sure that I haven't even looked for or at evidence.' It's not a good sign.

Fact and reason are the difference between burning witches at the stake on one hand, and justice, fairness, truth, law, and science on the other.

Re: Types of propaganda, propaganda techniques, and propaganda strategies (2017)

#233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If eyewitness accounts are not evidence, what would pass as evidence to you? Anyone with children in public school has seen this. Do you really need a peer reviewed study on every piece of information to form a worldview?

> If eyewitness accounts are not evidence What a few people in the whole country say is necessarily credible and is evidence of a widespread trend? Wow. Do you know what you can find people saying, especially on the Internet? It's surprising that people, especially on HN where evidence is commonplace, and especially in a discussion on propaganda, are so triggered by that. Note that almost nobody in this thread is dis…

> What I read is, 'I'm so sure that I haven't even looked for or at evidence.' It's not a good sign.

What you should read is that there is so much obvious evidence, easily available, that asking for more of it can only be interpreted as bad faith. I am certain that there is no evidence that fits your standard, because short of "Study: Schools taken over by radicals" you would not accept it. A scientific study like this would never be funded, even if this were a question for science (it isn't), for many reasons.

A google search of the relevant terms would turn up dozens of egregious instances. Have you looked?

Re: Types of propaganda, propaganda techniques, and propaganda strategies (2017)

#234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Critical Race Theory as I have read about it being applied in schools teaches youth that they are inherently racist (note this is only taught to the white children) and that the minorities get to share their anecdotal, lived experience while the white students stand by and are not permitted to say anything. I find the entire formula to be a groundwork for severe social damage. It certainly does not build bridges. Nor…

Yeah, that's not what Critical Race Theory is or how it could be applied to schools. The irony of you bringing this up in the context of propaganda is amusing. There's a good short interview NPR did today with Gloria Ladson-Billings, who has been working on applying critical race theory for education policy for over a couple of decades: https://www.npr.org/2021/06/22/1009182206/academic-who-broug... Be careful out th…

I get the overall idea of what CRT is and it's basically in the same vein as for example The Culture of Critique. Some of it might be fair points, to some of it I have strong objections, but the bottom line is that children are not mentally and emotionally mature enough to deal with subjects like that. Hell, the same thing can be even said about a lot, if not most, of adults. It's almost impossible to have any reasonable debate around what these actually say, without throwing around words like racist, anti-white, anti-semite, etc. I'm opposed to censoring anything, but just in principle, neither of them should be taught to children, it's a terrible idea. Period.

The NPR interview doesn't really say anything interesting or new to me. All of it applies to The Culture of Critique too. Putting whether these theories are actually true aside for a moment, my point is that if you are opposed to teaching children something like CofC then you should be opposed to CRT as well.

To illustrate my point better, let's take the CNN article on what CRT is: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/01/us/critical-race-theory-e...

Here is how CRT is defined, which isn't exactly the most charitable definition of CRT I've ever read, and it frankly sounds completely terrible, but just to demonstrate a point:

> Critical race theorists believe that racism is an everyday experience for most people of color, and that a large part of society has no interest in doing away with it because it benefits White elites.

Now let's change some races around:

> Critical race theorists believe that racism is an everyday experience for most White people, and that a large part of society has no interest in doing away with it because it benefits Jewish elites.

And this is roughly the conclusion CofC reaches too. So honest question, assuming you can come up with something to substantiate this claim (to keep the discussion simple), would you also be fine with this? Just in principle.

Re: Types of propaganda, propaganda techniques, and propaganda strategies (2017)

#235

There's a lot of good content in this article focused on the media. The media is highly visible and well-documented, so it makes sense. I'd like to see more content about indoctrination and propaganda happening in US education. This to me is much more insidious as it takes an impressionable populace (kids and young adults) and provides an authority figure (teachers and professors) that are largely hidden from public…

Critical Race Theory as I have read about it being applied in schools teaches youth that they are inherently racist (note this is only taught to the white children) and that the minorities get to share their anecdotal, lived experience while the white students stand by and are not permitted to say anything. I find the entire formula to be a groundwork for severe social damage. It certainly does not build bridges. Nor…

> Critical Race Theory as I have read about it being applied in schools

Critical Race Theory isn’t applied in K-12 schools (at least not as a thing that is taught, it can certainly inform education policy and approaches to policymaking), nor has anyone proposed teaching it there, and anything you’ve read about it being taught there is a complete and utter fabrication for propaganda purposes.

> teaches youth that they are inherently racist (note this is only taught to the white children)

CRT doesn't include the idea that people are inherently racist, and is, indeed, an outgrowth of critical legal studies and shares CLS’s focus on institutional rather than personal forces. People being racist is largely outside the focus of CRT, which is centrally about how social institutions can be racist, often independently or even contrary to the values of the people currently comprising the institutions.

The anti-anti-racists have been claiming people advocating against racism are teaching white children that they are inherently racist long before they attributed that to CRT. CRT has just been adopted as the new buzzword to which anti-anti-racists apply their standard arguments, just as “cancel culture” recently became the label to which all the arguments that the Right had been tieing to “political correctness” since the 1980s became attached.

Re: Types of propaganda, propaganda techniques, and propaganda strategies (2017)

#236
post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having seen the media about crt, as well as the way it's applied and the attitudes of its adherents, its pretty close to the truth. And its hard to argue with the result. Whatever is going on, that particular strain of "crt" is virulently spreading.

"The media about crt" s/media/propaganda/ Keep in mind you're being fed a narrative. CRT has been around for decades, and isn't something you can apply in a grade school curriculum (as Gloria Ladson-Billings said, it isn't something you teach in undergrad at college... it's a subject for post graduate study/research). There's a reason you're hearing about this now.

You attacked probably the weakest part of that entire statement.

Your claim that it's a subject for post graduate study/research might have been true at one point, but many of it's principles have been leaking into multiple levels of society, and in my opinion, to the detriment of society.

Firstly, the focus on storytelling over data that is a hallmark of CRT. This has clearly metastasized. Note the prevalence of personal narratives, and the use of personal narrative to explicitly supplant other sources of truth that's common in today's conveyances.

Then look at intersectionality. The US is literally fractured along identity lines, with people literally pulling that separation and interaction of the various subidentitites to war with one another. Look at the slow march towards "male gays are oppressors" that you see on LBGT communities AND the mainstream media [1].

How punctuality and other such professional merits are now just white people's oppression [2] and that any acceptance of such is considered internalized racism?

Reparations and separation (CHAZ, general talk) anyone? Also common themes in academic CRT.

It's pretty clear to me, building from the principles of CRT, and the common themes in their papers have punctured that academic bubble into the mainstream. We're hearing about it now because of this. I certainly don't like it.

[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/white-gay-privilege-ex...

[2] https://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_bias_of_professionalism_...

Re: Types of propaganda, propaganda techniques, and propaganda strategies (2017)

#237
post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, that's not what Critical Race Theory is or how it could be applied to schools. The irony of you bringing this up in the context of propaganda is amusing. There's a good short interview NPR did today with Gloria Ladson-Billings, who has been working on applying critical race theory for education policy for over a couple of decades: https://www.npr.org/2021/06/22/1009182206/academic-who-broug... Be careful out th…

I get the overall idea of what CRT is and it's basically in the same vein as for example The Culture of Critique. Some of it might be fair points, to some of it I have strong objections, but the bottom line is that children are not mentally and emotionally mature enough to deal with subjects like that. Hell, the same thing can be even said about a lot, if not most, of adults. It's almost impossible to have any reason…

> but the bottom line is that children are not mentally and emotionally mature enough to deal with subjects like that

Which is why you can't possibly introduce it in to grade school curriculum. The very idea is laughable.

Re: Types of propaganda, propaganda techniques, and propaganda strategies (2017)

#238
post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, that's not what Critical Race Theory is or how it could be applied to schools. The irony of you bringing this up in the context of propaganda is amusing. There's a good short interview NPR did today with Gloria Ladson-Billings, who has been working on applying critical race theory for education policy for over a couple of decades: https://www.npr.org/2021/06/22/1009182206/academic-who-broug... Be careful out th…

I get the overall idea of what CRT is and it's basically in the same vein as for example The Culture of Critique. Some of it might be fair points, to some of it I have strong objections, but the bottom line is that children are not mentally and emotionally mature enough to deal with subjects like that. Hell, the same thing can be even said about a lot, if not most, of adults. It's almost impossible to have any reason…

...and to your question, I think you're missing the point of CRT. The point is to look at the systemic effects that may otherwise go unobserved because they aren't experienced by the majority. Swapping it around so that it is the experience of the majority takes it out of that context and makes it pretty much a joke.

Re: Types of propaganda, propaganda techniques, and propaganda strategies (2017)

#239
post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The media about crt" s/media/propaganda/ Keep in mind you're being fed a narrative. CRT has been around for decades, and isn't something you can apply in a grade school curriculum (as Gloria Ladson-Billings said, it isn't something you teach in undergrad at college... it's a subject for post graduate study/research). There's a reason you're hearing about this now.

You attacked probably the weakest part of that entire statement. Your claim that it's a subject for post graduate study/research might have been true at one point, but many of it's principles have been leaking into multiple levels of society, and in my opinion, to the detriment of society. Firstly, the focus on storytelling over data that is a hallmark of CRT. This has clearly metastasized. Note the prevalence of per…

> You attacked probably the weakest part of that entire statement.

I wasn't intending to attack.

> Your claim that it's a subject for post graduate study/research might have been true at one point, but many of it's principles have been leaking into multiple levels of society, and in my opinion, to the detriment of society.

It's not my claim, and the "principles" you're talking about aren't CRT principles.

> Firstly, the focus on storytelling over data that is a hallmark of CRT. This has clearly metastasized. Note the prevalence of personal narratives, and the use of personal narrative to explicitly supplant other sources of truth that's common in today's conveyances.

The idea of a narrative being an important aspect of history education goes back... essentially forever. It doesn't trace back to CRT. It's a core principle of CRT because it predates it... and of course there's the whole thing about certain stories being excluded from our narratives.

> How punctuality and other such professional merits are now just white people's oppression [2] and that any acceptance of such is considered internalized racism?

The narrative on punctuality that is currently making the rounds is deliberately misframing the context. There's a reality (that has been studied) about how racism colours the application and enforcement things like punctuality. It's not that punctuality is intrinsically a tool for oppression, but rather how systemic racism plays out through things as trivial as punctuality.

There may indeed be a lot of the thinking here that has percolated out "into the mainstream". That's kind of the point of these things. You would expect that most ideas would get around throughout society. But no one worries about String Theory being taught in grade school, and the idea of actively trying to ensure it doesn't somehow slip in to the curriculum in grade school is laughable. If you can get students to the mental headspace where you can even begin to examine CRT, you're doing an amazing job as an educator, and I kind of don't care what you proceed to expose them to at that point.

Do you remember all the concern about CRT in 2018? All the brawls at boards of education? The 1100 times that it was mentioned on FOX News in just the first half of that year? Yeah, me neither. Yet somehow, I'm supposed to believe a narrative that there's been some massive nationwide covert shift in school boards, school administrations, and teachers that was executed without any turn over, public policy, etc.? I'm sorry. It's a lot easier to believe that the narrative about CRT is propaganda that plays a role in a larger, otherwise unrelated, political landscape.

> I certainly don't like it.

...and that's the crux of it. We're used to the propaganda we've been fed, and the idea of it changing in anyway is just really upsetting.

Re: Types of propaganda, propaganda techniques, and propaganda strategies (2017)

#240
post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get the overall idea of what CRT is and it's basically in the same vein as for example The Culture of Critique. Some of it might be fair points, to some of it I have strong objections, but the bottom line is that children are not mentally and emotionally mature enough to deal with subjects like that. Hell, the same thing can be even said about a lot, if not most, of adults. It's almost impossible to have any reason…

...and to your question, I think you're missing the point of CRT. The point is to look at the systemic effects that may otherwise go unobserved because they aren't experienced by the majority. Swapping it around so that it is the experience of the majority takes it out of that context and makes it pretty much a joke.

It happens to focus on groups that are currently minorities, but it's not so much about the demographic makeup, but about power. And majority does not equate to power. That's just false, and it'd contradict Marxism, or even something like the colonization of Africa, among other historical events. I don't know the history of Africa in depth, so correct me if I'm wrong, but my assumption is that the European colonizers at the time didn't have to reach the majority of the population to take over the power there. What I'm essentially asking is whether you'd be fine with putting the blame (again, just in principle, so we don't have to debate the validity of such theories) on the Jewish elites for the way things are and the Jewish people for upholding such system, because it doesn't impact them negatively, because they believe it benefits them, because they fear the backlash, and so on and so forth.

But I guess your other comment already answers that, so if you're opposed to practices like the one below, then we're in agreement:

> A public school system in New York has introduced a new curriculum to teach that 'all white people play a part in perpetuating systemic racism', and show kindergarten classes videos of black children shot and killed by police, instructing them about the dangers of police brutality.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/buffalo-schools-claim-all-...

Appeal to authority just in case, it was fact-checked by Newsweek and ruled as true: https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-are-buffalo-schools-teac...

Post reply on HN