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?
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?
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.