Labels...
- Thread starter Ardsgaine
- Start date
outside looking in
<b>Registered Member</b>
flavio said:
Maybe I'm being simplistic, but when talking about advertising you're talking about persuading the people to make a certain decision. When talking about socialism you're talking about the government making those decisions for them. That's a very important distinction IMO.
Any form of government or any type of economic system can use propaganda or advertising to persuade people to act or think a certain way. I'm not sure you could attribute that tactic to any one form, such as "socialist."
Ardsgaine
New Member
outside looking in said:
What I originally said was that socialists have a disregard for the individual mind, and part of that disregard is acting like the only way people could disagree with them is if they've been manipulated by someone else's propaganda. How he got from there to 'advertising is socialism' is beyond me...
Actually, it's not beyond me. He used a bogus substitution, an equivocation and a fasle premise.
Bogus substitution: propaganda <=> advertising
Equivocation: control in the sense of using force vs control in the sense of attempting to influence through persuasion
False premise: The purpose of advertising is to prevent people from acting in their own self-interests.
But still, the argument was completely irrelevant to my point.
outside looking in
<b>Registered Member</b>
He has a bad habit of doing that.
j/k
ris
New Member
if we take the premise that i've seen used on commentary about conflict it was said before the war began that public support for it would rise once it began. this is a pattern seen many times before that people who may object to the principle of how the war took place often move to a more pro-war stance for the reasons of getting the conflict over swiftly and achieving desirable aims now that it is begun. there is also somewhat a degree of not wanting to be seen as unpatriotic and providing support for troops involved.
in that regard i see less of an impact of government propoganda and more a pattern of support that seems to be understood already. the information put forward prior to the war didn't move the figures much in the uk for those agreeing unconditional support and those in support with un resolution. once the conflict began i suspect that a good deal of those remain in opposition to the manner in which the war was founded but are in support of the wars stated aims of regime change.
in that regard i see less of an impact of government propoganda and more a pattern of support that seems to be understood already. the information put forward prior to the war didn't move the figures much in the uk for those agreeing unconditional support and those in support with un resolution. once the conflict began i suspect that a good deal of those remain in opposition to the manner in which the war was founded but are in support of the wars stated aims of regime change.
