this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2024
755 points (85.2% liked)

Comics

5940 readers
118 users here now

This is a community for everything comics related! A place for all comics fans.

Rules:

1- Do not violate lemmy.ml site-wide rules

2- Be civil.

3- If you are going to post NSFW content that doesn't violate the lemmy.ml site-wide rules, please mark it as NSFW and add a content warning (CW). This includes content that shows the killing of people and or animals, gore, content that talks about suicide or shows suicide, content that talks about sexual assault, etc. Please use your best judgement. We want to keep this space safe for all our comic lovers.

4- No Zionism or Hasbara apologia of any kind. We stand with Palestine 🇵🇸 . Zionists will be banned on sight.

5- The moderation team reserves the right to remove any post or comments that it deems a necessary for the well-being and safety of the members of this community, and same goes with temporarily or permanently banning any user.

Guidelines:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

All good points. Sorry I'm coming from a non US perspective where climate change denialism is present, but less fervent. I like your definition of "truth from a rarified point of view", though I might also considered non-rarified or pervasive, and factually well substantiated truths can be used as propaganda as well. The 95%+ consensus of scientists on climate change is both factually/meaningfully/importantly true and also used with a propagandistic flavour in many examples of political persuasion for example.

My post was more aiming at acknowledging propaganda as a vehicle of persuasion for any and differing representations of reality (political groups) that exists in parallel with the the establishment of facts of reality. Some representations will adhere more or less with the factual arguments.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago

The 95%+ consensus of scientists on climate change is both factually/meaningfully/importantly true and also used with a propagandistic flavour in many examples of political persuasion for example.

Sure. I'd say the critical distinction of propaganda isn't the factualness but the industrial scale of distribution.

propaganda as a vehicle of persuasion for any and differing representations of reality

In modern Western media, due to a combination of privatized ownership and lingering Cold War hysteria, it's been my experience that the industrial scale persuasive efforts are decidedly pro-capitalist.