I'm implying that I don't understand how his arguments flow - they seem self defeating. For the reasons outlined above. I don't mean it personally, and I don't really care if he is respected or not. I just wanna get to the bottom of why, how and what he is getting at. And from his writing style it seem I am led to doubt he doesn't really believe what he is implying. Of course, I might and probqly an wrong so would appreciate clarification.
The argument of: its not just propaganda, its also a reflection of development - doesn't wash with me.
I still don't think so, but can I ask you a question. Do you think there are some strange posts on these threads, written with an underlying tinge of propaganda (not everyone). This morning I woke up to find my original post no further replied to, but down voted from 8 to 2. I also seem to be having a conversation with someone who registers a new name each time they post (I presume).
And the whole thread is about controlling social media - particularly through controlling perception of public opinion.
Honest question, what do you think? Irony, conspiracy, time zone differences.
> Do you think there are some strange posts on these threads, written with an underlying tinge of propaganda (not everyone).
You mean like yourself here [1] where you are touting government propaganda?
The thing about propaganda is, the more one-sided a conversation becomes, the less interesting it is. There's no single viewpoint that can pretend to take two opposing sides of an argument. Good internet comments are succinct, point out flaws in other comments' arguments, and are on the minds of other readers. If a comment thread doesn't make me think, I lose interest.
Explain one country that I am in any way supporting the propaganda of.
If its because I am drawing attention to Taiwan not being fully recognised, as per our earlier thread. Then that is an assumption based in the fact of it being a non-un member. But I'm drawing attention to the type of corruption that let's countries (such as China and the UK) bully Taiwan.
Sound like a propaganda line?
Explain which country and how?
Please.
Can't believe you are lecturing on succinct arguments and at the same time calling my post propaganda without any reason.
> Explain one country that I am in any way supporting the propaganda of.
You said propaganda is an effective means of helping China gain international influence:
> Public opinion outside of China is very important for business and strategy. Present China as an improving progressive regime, smooth over its human rights problems, and china can gain more influence internationally. [1]
I disagree 100%. It's not effective and it hurts China's relations. Relationships are built on trust.
Come on. You said I was touting government propaganda.
If by that you mean exposing it and its influence. Then yeah.. I hereby tout all government propaganda and always will do.
I wish international relations were built on trust. But that's a bollocks and idealised view.
My example of the UN membership is quite fitting. Small countries with no interest in Taiwan have been directly bribed by china to vote against letting Taiwan join. Call that trust?
Point out why and how this isn't true. Make a succinct argument, support your assertions.
> You said I was touting government propaganda. If by that you mean exposing it and its influence. Then yeah.. I hereby tout all government propaganda and always will do.
Touting does not mean exposing. "Exposing" is used for facts.
It is your opinion that propaganda is an effective means of helping China gain international influence.
You've confused 'identifying propaganda in action' with 'actively engaging in delivering propaganda'.
Over and over again in these threads you have defended Taiwan as a sovereign state. You keep thinking I am attacking Taiwan's status as an independent country. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am however pointing out how Taiwan isn't always recognised as a country.
Thats not my opinion, it is the opinion of many countries.. including the UN. Don't confuse it with my own opinion. These are the facts. It would be deluded to deny these facts. You could at very least provide evidence that says otherwise - you haven't.
Instead you have been deluded to the point of accusing me of touting propaganda for mentioning these things.
> You've confused 'identifying propaganda in action' with 'actively engaging in delivering propaganda'.
I do not think you are paid by the Chinese government to write these comments =)
If someone named Trevor argues that propaganda is an effective means of diplomacy, is Trevor part of the propaganda machine or not?
I would argue Trevor is part of that machine. A person can be part of an idea without being paid or asked to do it.
I believe you would argue that Trevor is not part of the machine. You would say Trevor is an outside observer and that he has no connections with it whatsoever. You might also say that I could be part of some machine of which I'm not aware, and I would accept that. I certainly am influenced by my environment.
> Taiwan isn't always recognised as a country. Thats not my opinion, it is the opinion of many countries.. including the UN
I said it's your opinion that China's propaganda helps its international influence. I did not mention Taiwan
It's fine that we disagree. Many nations do not recognize Taiwan as a country. That's a fact. It's also fact that Taiwan has its own directly elected government and does not pay taxes anywhere outside Taiwan. Both of these facts are educational.
I believe countries and the world benefit when all facts are shared. Chinese propaganda says that only some facts should be shared. Every time people outside China identify Chinese propaganda, it hurts China's stature internationally. Sure, plenty of people do business with China regardless. China could do heaps more business if it could stomach more facts once in awhile.
I don't believe you. I don't believe you can't see the difference between identifying propaganda and being part of it.
Your arguments are putting words in my mouth by using straw men like Trevor in a straw man argument: "propoganda is an effective means of diplomacy".
All I can see is some-one wriggling out of an argument where they begun by calling me out for making propoganda posts.
You can twist that statement and apply your own criteria to it, but it just isn't true: pointing out propaganda has nothing to do with being part of it. Infact its the very process that stops it. You can close your eyes and pretend it doesn't happen - but that wont make it go away.
I hope you have mis-read the entire thread but its looking more clear that you can't admit your wrong. Try starting with my first post.
I have stuck with this thread, because I thought - just perhaps - you genuinely didn't understand. I've simplified my position, now you can believe it or not. Its really not that interesting and has little to say about censorship anymore.
> I don't believe you. I don't believe you can't see the difference between identifying propaganda and being part of it.
For sure I can. You're doing more than identifying propaganda. You're saying it works. I'm saying that this is one of the messages pushed by propaganda/advertising.
I agree that it works until you're caught lying. Then it doesn't and you're discredited for a period. And, in the case of China, they lie so often that their propaganda does not work.
> Your arguments are putting words in my mouth by using straw men like Trevor in a straw man argument: "propoganda is an effective means of diplomacy".
Again, you said,
> Present China as an improving progressive regime, smooth over its human rights problems, and china can gain more influence internationally.
Again, I disagree 100%.
It's not a stretch to rewrite your above statement as "Propaganda is an effective means of diplomacy".
The definition of diplomacy is managing international relations. Those relations can be at any level, either between two citizens, two businesses, or two heads of state.
If English does not work, 你也可以用中文。
> You can close your eyes and pretend it doesn't happen - but that wont make it go away.
I'm not trying to make it go away. I think it's interesting to have a conversation with someone who has such a different point of view.
> I hope you have mis-read the entire thread but its looking more clear that you can't admit your wrong. Try starting with my first post.
One of the ideas perpetuated by advertising is that advertising is effective =). Unfortunately, we do not always know when advertising works because measuring the effectiveness of advertising is expensive.
Last I checked, I did not see any research published on the effectiveness of Chinese propaganda.
So, the question becomes, when people perpetuate ideas from advertising, are those people advertising or just expressing their views?
Who's right or wrong? There isn't a concrete answer.
> I have stuck with this thread, because I thought - just perhaps - you genuinely didn't understand. I've simplified my position, now you can believe it or not. Its really not that interesting and has little to say about censorship anymore.
No worries if you don't want to continue the discussion.
"Propaganda is a form of biased communication, aimed at promoting or demoting certain views, perceptions or agendas. Propaganda is often associated with the psychological mechanisms of influencing and altering the attitude of a population toward a specific cause, position or political agenda in an effort to form a consensus to a standard set of belief patterns. Propaganda is information that is not impartial and is used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, often by presenting facts selectively (perhaps lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or using loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information presented."
'His village had become a ghost town, with fields dug bare of shoots and trees stripped of bark. For all his remorse and grief, he regarded the death as an individual family's tragedy: "I was 18 at the time and I only knew what the Communist party told me. Everyone was fooled," he says. "I was very red. I was on a propaganda team and I believed my father's death was a personal misfortune. I never thought it was the government's problem."'
Perhaps you should check again for research on effectiveness of Chinese propoganda:
try a google scholar search, this one came up quite quickly:
China's Propaganda System: Institutions, Processes and Efficacy
David Shambaugh
The China Journal
No. 57 (Jan., 2007), pp. 25-58
Or perhaps one about international propoganda:
"One option in particular is the use of information to adjust the public opinion of the Taiwanese people regarding unification. In order to achieve this goal, China has turned to its propaganda apparatus to exert its influence
over the Taiwanese media. China believes that by secretly seeping its message directly into Taiwan through its own local media, changes can take place from within giving more strength and credibility to the notion of unification. But is China’s strategy running according to plan? Recent trends in the national identity of the Taiwanese population might suggest otherwise. The purpose of this research paper is to analyze the patterns of the relationship between the pro-Beijing message of unification within the Taiwanese media and the trends of Taiwanese national identity in order to determine the efficacy of the propaganda’s influence as well as illustrate the possible implications of the findings'
From: Pro-Beijing Propaganda in Taiwanese Media Implications for the Future of Taiwan -China- U.S. Relations
To spell it out again: you aren't using the term propaganda as a word in anyway linked to its meaning. You have devised your own meaning with no grounding in its historic or contemporary use. I challenge you to find one other person who has ever use the word to describe what your are - failing that, perhaps put forward your own definition.
If identifying propoganda and the hidden agenda of someone is a form of propoganda. Then surely propoganda would be done openly and be formally introduced as propoganda - because that would help its claim. Propoganda is effective because people believe the lie and because the real agenda is kept hidden and secret - not because people expose it.
Advertising is not propoganda, but I will save that discussion for now.
I appreciate your balanced tone despite the obvious frustration that I am venting and don't mind letting you know I am feeling.
Can I ask you what your first language is?. I know thats personal, so don't answer if you don't want. I just feel like the cause of this misunderstanding might be that you have different core definitions for words than I do. Your definition of diplomacy as a form of management - for example.
>> But is China’s strategy running according to plan? Recent trends in the national identity of the Taiwanese population might suggest otherwise
>That's a great example of international propaganda failing to work in China's favor
I'm still waiting for your definition of propaganda.
You've led me to believe that your interpretation is that every-time the journal article finds propaganda to have some influence then the journal article itself is taking part in propaganda and every time it doesn't find propaganda at work it is not.
> You've led me to believe that your interpretation is that every-time the journal article finds propaganda to have some influence then the journal article itself is taking part in propaganda and every time it doesn't find propaganda at work it is not. Is that what you mean?
Yes that's almost it. I would rewrite to say either (1) "when an article espouses propaganda, it becomes part of the propaganda machine itself", or (2) "when an article touts propaganda, it has an underlying tinge of propaganda".
