Apparently I’m Spreading Socialist Propaganda, again.

I guess maybe because I played Pete Seeger, and so they keep flooding my algorithm with how I’m a socialist, and ya know, fuck it. Our Military has socialized health care. VA Benefits are basically socialism. And I think they’re a good idea. I guess that’s propaganda, somehow. And because we can’t tell the Tuttle Brothers to go fuck off, let’s talk about what Propaganda even is according to the late Douglas Walton, research fellow for the Centre for Research in Reasoning, Argumentation, and Rhetoric.

Beginning on page 109, we begin with the 10 Characteristics of Propaganda. Here’s what Walton has to say about the first characteristic:

1. Dialogue Structure. Propaganda has the form of a dialogue (communicative discourse) between two participants. The one party, who can also be a group, or a person representing a group, is called the proponent and is the speaker or sender of the message. The other party, called the respondent, and who is generally a mass audience of people, is the receiver of the message. Typically, the proponent is the active participant, while the respondent is a passive receiver of the message sent out by the proponent. But this asymmetrical relationship is not characteristic of all cases of propaganda. In some instances, the respondent group does engage in a bilateral dialogue exchange by responding positively or negatively to the proponent’s message, or even by questioning or criticizing it — information that the proponent can use as feedback to craft her message more persuasively. Also, propaganda has a dialogue structure in that the argumentation of the proponent is based on what she takes to be the commitments of the respondent. The goal of the argumentation is to alter the convictions or actions of the proponent in a particular direction or toward a particular view different from the one the respondent already has.

Let’s say that this is an actual dialogue and not just me responding to the consolidated control over the internet by gaslighting terrorist shitbags who want to spin everything so that they can get away with murder and also claim my actual labor as their own, and in doing so, inhibit public discourse and impeded democracy. But wait that’s right, to state the fucking reality is propaganda, because they say so.

My group affiliation is people who just want to live their lives and listen to their fucking playlist without your intervention. So as the designated spokesperson for the Concerned Citizens of Go Fuck Yourself, my view is that the Constitution is the Constitution, and when you pretend you aren’t violating the Constitution while taking a shit on the Constitution, it’s still you taking a shit on the Constitution. You’re just pretending you aren’t.

2. Message Content. The content of the proponent’s message is an argument, expressed in a verbal discourse and/or in other means of altering convictions that are not verbal in nature. The message can be purely verbal, as in a speech, but it can also be pictorial. Or it could be a mixture of these, as in the case of a news reporter commenting on videotaped clips. Propaganda frequently involves props, such as drums and flags, and it may also use music or drama or be conveyed in a dramatic format, such as a film or a novel. In some cases, propaganda can be conveyed by objects such as coins or statues or even by costumes and settings that express the values of a particular life-style or social class.

I use diagrams to show how Logical Consistency works. I’m not sure that’s the same as Propaganda, even if I use visual aids, it’s just teaching people how think for themselves, and work together towards addressing the Needs of our Democratic Republic and form Bipartisan Resolutions. It’s like teaching people to find a common ground and negotiate on the best possible outcome. Strangely however, it ISN’T me who goes waving the flag or religious symbolism as a kind ontological pretext for some supposed Divine mandate that includes an Ideal Polity and Conflict Framing.

3. Goal-Directed Structure. Propaganda is essentially goal-directed as a type of dialogue exchange. The proponent’s goal is to get the respondent to carry out a particular action or to support a particular policy for action. This purposive aspect of propaganda is so marked that it is frequently described as “manipulative” in nature. As well as there being a goal for the proponent, against which the success or failure of the proponent’s argumentation can be evaluated, there is also a general goal for propaganda as an institutionally recognizable type of dialogue. The general purpose is to support the existence, aims, and interests of a particular regime, organization, viewpoint, or interest group. Frequently, the purpose of propaganda is to support the interests of a country or a political party, government, or regime that directs the affairs of the country. But other groups or individuals, such as religious groups, political action groups, or advertisers, can also engage in propaganda.

My goal-directed policy is that people use logic and address common concerns to find the best possible resolution that will preserve our Democratic Society and Assure the Freedom of the American Citizen regardless of Race, Creed, Gender, Able-Bodiedness, etc. Because I don’t know the best resolutions for everyone, but I think that if we have a Stable Constant of Civic Liberty, as the Protection of Political Liberty, that we can work together to address the Crises that we Collectively Face as a Country and as a Species.

4. Involvement of Social Groups. Propaganda is not just any argumentation meant to persuade or to get action. The respondent is a mass audience. And while the message may be delivered by an individual speaker, she always represents some broader agency or organized group that has interests or views that binds its members together.

Well that’s funny because you gangstalk me, shun me in public, suppress my work through proxy servers and whatever other bullshit you can use to keep me from connecting with human society, and get away with actual torture and attempts at murder while everyone pretends that this shit isn’t happening. So I guess my involvement in a social group is the group of people who recognize that you’re Taking a Shit on the Constitution, and then just spreading lies about me, so that you can Continue to Shit on the Constitution.

5. Indifference to Logical Reasoning. The goal of propaganda is to move a mass audience in a certain direction, and its success or failure as argumentation used in a context of discourse should be judged in relation to how well (or badly) it performs in fulfilling this purpose. If methods of logical reasoning are useful for this purpose, then they should be used in propaganda. Thus propaganda is not, as a structure of discourse, either for or against using logical reasoning and relevant evidence. If appeals to emotion, of a kind that would be judged dubious or even fallacious by logical standards of good reasoning, work better than rational evidence to achieve the goal of argumentation used in propaganda, then such appeals are appropriate and should (normatively speaking) be used by good propagandists.

My mass direction is the Bipartisan Resolution of Issues that we face as a Country and as a Human Species, that is IN KEEPING WITH THE CONSTITUTION. I think that Climate Change is real, and I think we can pretend that it isn’t and go extinct as a species because we have to deal with you telling us that talking about it is Socialist Propaganda or whatever. I also think that people should work together in a Self-Directed Manner that conveys the Realities of their Experiences, that way we can have a More Accurate Accounting of Complex and Intersectional, possibly even Subaltern Realities, which would normally NOT be Represented in Public Discourse and towards the Formation of Sense-Accurate Resolutions that will Assure the Preservation of our Democratic Republic and the Freedom of the American Citizen.

6. One-Sided Argumentation. Propaganda is a kind of advocacy dialogue that uses partisan argumentation to advocate one side of an issue and to present the arguments in favor of that side as strongly as possible. Propaganda is not an attempt to rationally deliberate on the wisdom or prudence of a course of action by looking at all the alternatives and weighing them judiciously or fairly. Neither is it an attempt to critically discuss an issue by openly considering all the arguments on both sides. Instead, it is inherently one-sided as a type of discourse in which argumentation is used.

As someone who has actually read much of Walton’s work, I’ve actually made diagrams on this issue in the past. It’s also partly WHY I tend to disagree with Hafez in his definition of Ideology. That said, I created my own paraphrasing from Walton’s book on One-Sided Arguments, which you can read for yourself HERE.

It just seems to me that getting people to Collaborate towards Sense-Accurate Resolutions by conveying their realities so that we have a better understanding of the actual Issue(s) that we need to address ISN’T actually the same as trying to Impose a Bias as a Form of Argumentation. But whatever, getting people to work together and not just acquiesce to these gaslighting shitbags is Socialism or whatever.

7. Involvement of Persuasion Dialogue. The primary goal of propaganda is to get an audience to support the aims, interests, and policies of a particular group, by securing the compliance of the audience with the actions being contemplated, undertaken, or advocated by the group. The goal of the propagandist then is not just to persuade or “re-educate” the audience to change their beliefs. It is also to gain their commitment to the extent that they will act on the basis of the new viewpoint they have come to accept or to take part in or support actions in line with or justified by this viewpoint. So persuasion is involved, but the speaker’s goal in propaganda is more than just to change the beliefs of the audience. The proponent’s fundamental goal in propaganda is to move the masses to action (to go to war, to buy a product, etc.), to comply with action, or to accept and not oppose a certain line of action. But persuasion is involved in a secondary but essential way, because the means used to get action, or support for action, is that of persuading the audience to become committed to a particular point of view that the audience did not accept (or did not fully embrace) before.

You caught me, and my nefarious plan is to assure the Rights of the American Citizen by Upholding the Protection of Political Liberty. So Re-Education, I guess, means that people actually use Facts and Logic and not just quote Facts and Logic when they try to deprive people of their Constitutional Rights. It’s almost like using Facts and Logic requires ACTUAL THINKING and not just Acquiescing to a bunch of Trolls who Pretend they aren’t Murdering Americans who Disagree with them, and then Talk about Murdering Americans who Disagree with them using Sock-Puppet Accounts. It’s astounding that we can gangstalk but we can’t trace a Sockpuppet account. But whatever, getting into the ACTUAL PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE is Propaganda but somehow defering to the Gaslighting Terrorist Ass Clowns from the Daily Wire isn’t. Because if you say anything they’ll fly Deputy Gang Controlled Helicopters over your home. But yeah, it’s me who is the problem, because they say so.

8. Justified by Results. Because its central purpose is to get action, propaganda as a socially organized activity is justified by the results it is supposed to achieve (both normatively and, in fact, by its defenders, in particular instances). In fact, propaganda is justified by the supposed value of bringing about a particular outcome said to be necessary for a good end, such as public safety or the saving of human lives in war. Propaganda is generally justified by citing a danger to the group, and then stressing that the adoption of a particular point of view is needed to combat or guard against that danger. Such a justification balances the costs of engaging in one-sided or even deceptive argumentation against the danger or loss of life that might result from an open-minded rational discussion that might turn up good arguments for the other side. The justification of propaganda is, in this respect, similar to the justification of lying in ethics, illustrated by case 3.6 below. Propaganda tends to be justified, as a matter of fact, in terms of its consequences, by those who try to justify or excuse its use. But also, from a normative point of view, propaganda ought to be justified by such a use of argumentation from consequences, for its goal is to lead to action.

This is, again, the difference between the Validation of an Ideological Program, and just making sure that our Resolutions are Internally Consistent to the Democratic Freedom of the American Citizen. Technically speaking working to assure that the Responses we Form as a Country are Protective to the Rights of EVERY AMERICAN is a Justification to that Result, but it is Justified in that it is IN KEEPING WITH THE CONSTITUTION, which is very different from saying that anything that someone disagrees with is Socialism, if for any other reason then it requires that we address the concerns that a resolution might lead to Socialism. That said, it might also not be opposed to a short-term Social Program. It just is about us finding what is going to be the best approach to handling an issue that we collectively face as a Country.

9. Emotive Language and Persuasive Definitions. An essential part of all propaganda is the use of emotively charged words and phrases that make the advocated viewpoint take on a highly positive coloration, and any opposed viewpoint take on a highly negative coloration. For example, supporters of an advocated view may be called freedom fighters, while supporters of the opposed viewpoint are designated as terrorists. A whole new vocabulary may be invented, and all kinds of pejorative words and phrases may be used to denote the opposed viewpoint. Another characteristic of propaganda is the use of persuasive definitions, as defined by the theory of emotive meaning of Stevenson (1944). This theory will be outlined, developed, and extended to mass media argumentation in chapter 8. Now it can be seen as applicable to propaganda as a type of argumentation. According to Stevenson’s theory, the purpose of a persuasive definition is to engender a favorable or unfavorable attitude toward something by changing the descriptive meaning of the word for that thing while leaving the evaluative meaning the same. How persuasive definitions are so characteristic of propaganda can be already appreciated by reviewing some illustrative examples given in a popular logic textbook.

I do call these people Gaslighting Shitbags a lot, and I guess that’s emotional. But maybe I should work on deadening my senses through pills and stoicism, so that way I’m not, ya know, being emotional or whatever. I just think that it’s about a FORENSIC CONSISTENCY, and I used Capslock there which I guess is me being emotional, but anyway, FORENSIC CONSISTENCY towards the Protection of Political Liberty. That way the Rights of EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN is ASSURED.

10. Eristic Aspect. Propaganda has a structure of argumentation like that of the quarrel, or eristic type of dialogue. It postulates a dichotomy for the audience: “We are the good guys. If you are not for us, you must be against us. All those opposed to our view are the bad guys.” Often the words “fight” or “struggle” are used in propaganda. The implication is that any means required to fight against the “evil” or danger posed by the “enemy” is justified. Propaganda is most visible and has been most studied as used in war. In time of war, the participants become caught up in an emotional attitude of hate and bitterness that is not conducive to what Thouless (1942) calls “calm thinking” of the kind that dispassionately weighs the evidence on both sides of an issue. Even when used outside war, propaganda often paints the picture of an emergency or danger of a kind that provokes fear and panic. The circumstances are portrayed as like that of a war, where a “fight” is needed to combat the danger facing the group.

Granted I DO want to get at the Deeper Sources of Conflict, per Walton’s own view on this matter. Here’s that diagram again.

But again, I’d argue that getting at the Deeper Basis of Conflict doesn’t actually require that we hit out at our opponents, unless they are inconsistent to the Protection of Political Liberty as a Friend/Enemy Distinction. Rather it’s that the actual Deeper Basis of Conflict will in some way exceed how we might have thought it to be prior to our Principled Engagement on the Reality of that Issue. And ya know, not trying to brag here, but it seems Einstein would have agreed with me.

It’s almost like we should maybe try to approach things from a position of Epistemic Humility because none of our endorsed paradigms are all-encompassing of Reality. Like maybe we should just accept that we are always learning, and that learning is part of the process to dealing with the issues we face.

In conclusion. I am spreading Socialist Propaganda because the people who control my algorithm, and gangstalk me, and troll me with the Tuttle Twins say so. And so because they say so therefore I am, because they said so, even if it’s inconsistent with Academic Research on Propaganda, they say so, and what they say is totally not propaganda, because they say so, and yeah, so fall in line because they’re watching your thoughts.