Top Leaderboard, Site wide
August 29, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates


Europe’s Warming Raises Tropical Disease Risk






Truthdig Bazaar

The Fall: A Novel

By Ryan Quinn
$14.99

more items

 
Report

‘Electronic Brownshirts’

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on May 18, 2011
Davide Restivo (CC-BY-SA)

By Amy Goodman

Judy Ancel, a Kansas City, Mo., professor, and her St. Louis colleague were teaching a labor history class together this spring semester. Little did they know, video recordings of the class were making their way into the thriving sub rosa world of right-wing attack video editing, twisting their words in a way that resulted in the loss of one of the professors’ jobs amidst a wave of intimidation and death threats. Fortunately, reason and solid facts prevailed, and the videos ultimately were exposed for what they were: fraudulent, deceptive, sloppily edited hit pieces.

Right-wing media personality Andrew Breitbart is the forceful advocate of the slew of deceptively edited videos that target and smear progressive individuals and institutions. He promoted the videos that purported to catch employees of the community organization ACORN assisting a couple in setting up a prostitution ring. He showcased the edited video of Shirley Sherrod, an African-American employee of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which completely convoluted her speech, making her appear to admit to discriminating against a white farmer. She was fired as a result of the cooked-up controversy. Similar video attacks have been waged against Planned Parenthood.

Ancel has been the director of the University of Missouri-Kansas City’s Institute for Labor Studies since 1988. Using a live video link, she co-teaches a course on the history of the labor movement with professor Don Giljum, who teaches at University of Missouri-St. Louis. The course comprises seven daylong, interactive sessions throughout the semester. They are video-recorded and made available through a password-protected system to students registered in the class. One of those students, Philip Christofanelli, copied the videos, and he admits on one of Breitbart’s sites that he did “give them out in their entirety to a number of my friends.” At some point, a series of highly and very deceptively edited renditions of the classes appeared on Breitbart’s website. It was then that Ancel’s and Giljum’s lives were disrupted, and the death threats started.

A post on Breitbart’s BigGovernment.com summarized the video: “The professors not only advocate the occasional need for violence and industrial sabotage, they outline specific tactics that can be used.” Ancel told me, “I was just appalled, because I knew it was me speaking, but it wasn’t saying what I had said in class.” She related the attack against her and Giljum to the broader attack on progressive institutions currently:

“These kinds of attacks are the equivalent of electronic brownshirts. They create so much fear, and they are so directed against anything that is progressive—the right to an education, the rights of unions, the rights of working people—I see, are all part of an overall attack to silence the majority of people and create the kind of climate of fear that allows for us to move very, very sharply to the right. And it’s very frightening.”

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
Ancel’s contact information was included in the attack video, as was Giljum’s. She received a flurry of threatening emails. Giljum received at least two death threats over the phone. The University of Missouri conducted an investigation into the charges prompted by the videos, during which time they posted uniformed and plainclothes police in the classrooms. Giljum is an adjunct professor, with a full-time job working as the business manager for Operating Engineers Local 148, a union in St. Louis. Meanwhile, the union acceded to pressure from the Missouri AFL-CIO, and asked Giljum to resign, just days before his May 1 retirement after working there for 27 years.

Gail Hackett, provost of the University of Missouri-Kansas City, released a statement after the investigation, clearing the two professors of any wrongdoing:

“It is clear that edited videos posted on the Internet depict statements from the instructors in an inaccurate and distorted manner by taking their statements out of context and reordering the sequence in which those statements were actually made so as to change their meaning.”

The University of Missouri-St. Louis also weighed in with similar findings and stated that Giljum was still eligible to teach there.

On April 18, Andrew Breitbart appeared on Sean Hannity’s Fox News program, declaring, “We are going to take on education next, go after the teachers and the union organizers.” It looks as if Ancel and Giljum were the first targets of that attack.

In this case, the attack failed. While ACORN was ultimately vindicated by a congressional investigation, the attack took its toll, and the organization lost its funding and collapsed. President Barack Obama and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack apologized to Shirley Sherrod, and Vilsack begged her to return to work. Sherrod has a book coming out and a lawsuit pending against Breitbart.

Let’s hope this is a sign that deception, intimidation and the influence of the right-wing echo chamber are on the decline.
 
Denis Moynihan contributed research to this column.

Amy Goodman is the host of “Democracy Now!,” a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on more than 900 stations in North America. She is the author of “Breaking the Sound Barrier,” recently released in paperback and now a New York Times best-seller.

© 2011 Amy Goodman

Distributed by King Features Syndicate


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, June 20, 2011 at 12:35 pm Link to this comment

“How do we; as John said, counter the new attitudes of “Its cool to lie to friends and family and torture your enemies and those you want something from.” ”  Uh, did I say that?

But how?  Well, one way would be to turn so called ‘traditional values’ back in on themselves to show the drift and hypocrisy.  Don’t get me wrong in this example, I’m not religious, but if we were to promote actual stuff jesus said, and other ‘old fashioned’ tales, it would show that at one time, the so-called gold old days, the values were not to lie, steal be greedy and torture.  In other words, turn the good-old days mythos, (you know, the “we’re gonna take this country back”) inside out.  For instance, go to a tea party rally, and pass out signs that say “Greed is BAD”, then quote the appropriate bible verse.  Or put it on a bus or bilboard.  The whole ‘return to traditional values’ phrase itself has been hijacked.  WTF values are they talking about?  Some right wing neo-con values, free marketeer propaganda.  Well, I say we run with the damn phrase ‘return to traditional values’, and explain we mean exactly ‘don’t lie’, ‘don’t deceive’, ‘treat people with respect’, whatever, the list goes on.  But do you get my point?  Take the ‘traditional values’ phrase back. 

It does not mean ‘pro life’, instead it means we take care of the weak, the sick, the young and the old.  There’s probably even a damn bible verse for that. 

Can we be clever enough to put ideas into the right-wing echo machine and let them do the work of amplifying them?  “public servant”, spoken with disdain has the Regan-esque ring of anti-gumint rhetoric.
” .......the format for politician precludes honesty and…... ”  Again, redefining ‘Public Servant’ by backing candidates who sign the “legally binding pledge of non-impropriety” (to be written) would change the format considerably. 

The problem is that the parties do not enforce any quality control over their candidates.  What may work is a party which has better internal checks and balances to resist corruption, but, also supports candidates, with power of contract to sue if said candidate takes money outside their salary or the parties campaign contribution.  The arrangement would preclude independent campaigns.

A wonderful nationwide boycott would be against the cable companies.  We need to break that monopoly.  We might also penetrate commercial AM and FM radio.  There are many small owners who are subject to reasonable pressures a decently organized group might bring to bear.  Combine this with some pamphleteering and graffiti, and we might get somewhere.  But, mechanisms to avoid selling out a party are needed badly.

Well, Gary, it gives me hope to think ideas are like seeds, and we have some damn smart people here who can optimize the DNA of those idea seeds to make them grow under adverse conditions.  Robust idea stock and proliferation are the two key ingredients to changing how people see and think about the world.  AS times get tough, people will actually go looking for answers, so now is the time to get those genetically adapted ideas into PCR.  It aint over till it’s over.  Screw ‘em.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 20, 2011 at 12:25 pm Link to this comment

Gary Mont - It looks like your FlashPlayer needs updated. 
FlashPlayer is a cross-platform, browser-based application
runtime that provides expressive (whatever that means I do
not know) applications, content, and videos across browsers
and operating systems. Ignore the widget message for the
moment, and download the latest version from Adobe. If you
still have trouble contact Adobe Customer Service and copy part
of the widget message in your inquiry to show them what is
happening.
http://www.adobe.com/support/flashplayer/

As for the rest, I would not lie to friends and family and torture your
enemies and those you want something from.  Do you have enemies or
those from which you want something?  There is a better way, beyond
reciprocity.  It is called compromise.  Aw, but that is what the
Democrats in Congress do.  Way…ell, no they don’t.  They capitulate. 
So try compromise.  If that doesn’t work, try something occult.  It might
not work, probably won’t, but it could make you feel better, not so
overwhelmed.

Report this
Gary Mont's avatar

By Gary Mont, June 20, 2011 at 11:46 am Link to this comment

Yo web people. Any idea what this means??
I keep getting this error on page message today.

Is it my browser or TruthDig??


Webpage error details

Message: Object expected
Line: 420
Char: 13
Code: 0
URI: http://e.change.org/flash_petitions_widget.js?width=160&causes=all&color=6d4a40&partner=137-23

Report this
Gary Mont's avatar

By Gary Mont, June 20, 2011 at 11:42 am Link to this comment

Apologies all. smile

Leefeller: ...whatever drug of choice you happen to be on Gary…

Actually, its a lack of drugs. Aint had a toke in over 9 months. Moved. Lousy climate here. Thought I’d let the cat out… I quit drinking booze decades ago and wouldn’t go back there for anything short of world peace.

Anyhoo, the “packages” was a dramatization - that’s how I would do it if I were in the shoes of the parasites. 9/11 was as much a demonstration of power and control as it was a public war-suppport generating false flag operation.

My point was simple though. Language and Media have become controlled by a group of people who have absolutely no compassion for the American people and who will, with grinning faces, eat America alive.

It is imperative that the American People create a real political party to fight the corporate critters that now masquerade as politicians, I agree.

Yet I cannot help but see this as a failing effort as well since the format for politician precludes honesty and will inevitably leave everyone in exactly the same situation, as the new politicians vie for position at the corporate graft trough.

The most important thing is to take back the law of the land and rid it of the money-changers add-ons. But how can this be done when the fed itself is complicit in the liquidation of America and the protection of the conquerors??

What got my goat all wound up was the utter lack of any ideas resembling solutions. How does one speak to a nation that is busy watching the Talk, or Lets Make A Deal? How does one even get the attention of the American People, let alone “keep” that attention long enough to explain to them what must be done.

How do we decide what must be done in fact.

Hell, even those of us who know something is wrong cannot agree on what is wrong.

How do we; as John said, counter the new attitudes of “Its cool to lie to friends and family and torture your enemies and those you want something from.”

No matter how you slice it, America has been invaded and conquered. That the invaders are America’s own wealthiest citizens matters little - the result is the same. In fact, they make a much nastier enemy than a foreign gang might, as they really know how to pull the American chain.

While we debate the possibilities and probabilities, the fascists are literally following a well laid plan of operation that is dismantling every progressive aspect of the American way of life, in order to return America to a Fuedal fascist’s dream, without anything more than silent opposition from the voiceless Americans who are directly affected.

My futility meter simply got overwhelmed…

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 20, 2011 at 8:18 am Link to this comment

Interesting approach pinning the tail on the donkey and the elephant while spinning out of control in circles,... whatever drug of choice you happen to be on Gary, the results sounds similar to whatever Hedges is taking, ... resulting in copious generalizations with no lime to bite into. (I actually find myself there occasionally) It all seems a main part of the grand plan, consistent, continuous and semi-contained manipulations to make sure the huddled masses have no plan.

Never Focusing does seem to be a major handicap for just about everyone,... remember the forest for the trees?

Division is not just math, (binary two parties?) ...  Division appears to the major tool used by the manipulators.

Report this
John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, June 20, 2011 at 8:08 am Link to this comment

Good Morning Shenonymous,
“Social Capitalism” it has a very nice ring to it.  Perhaps it might be marketable, with better means to detect and purge corruption of course.

Do you have an opinion on Ian Morris, and his book “Why the West Rules—for Now”?  I just traded for a copy and am about 20 pages in.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 20, 2011 at 7:27 am Link to this comment

Oh my god, Gary Mont.  You were doing so well!  It seemed you
were onto reality and apparently residing in coherentville.  I was
encouraged for there are only a few on these forums who are on
solid emotional ground.  Sounds like frustration has grabbed you
by the shorthairs.  And it’s tequila that Leefeller drinks not a beer.
Though I’d settle for a near beer.

Feeling defeat so much that sailing off into the kind of paranoia land
in which MarthaA, et al roams around sadly is PITW.  It takes a lot these
days to stay sane and work to fix a world that has an excessive number
of power mongers.

But take heart, the situation is really is not as bad here as you
have described.  While there are approximately 13.9 million
Americans unemployed right now, if 9.1% represents the unemployed,
then 90.9% represents the number who are employed, or about 136
million.  We always hear the dismal unemployed rate and it really is
dismal, getting closer to the 25% Depression numbers.  When there is
high unemployment rate the country as a whole loses.  The effects
cascade.  People lose wages, the country loses goods or services that
might have been produced, that thereby would keep workers employed,
and sustain the purchasing power of the working public is lost, which
could mean more unemployment.  So no one is arguing that a high
unemployment rate is not terrible thing. But we must keep our
collective heads.

The anarchist or Marxist idea of abolishing capitalism is not going to
happen in this country, and socialism/communism is disappearing in
other countries who are quitting their socialistic or communistic
systems in favor of capitalism.  Russia, Cuba, China are the big honchos
on this path.  However, some have figured out what goes wrong in both
systems.  There are people-caring principles in socialism, but like
capitalism, socialism can be corrupted by the power hungry.  It has
been known for about five decades that a synthesis socialized
capitalism could work and local cooperatives is one way to get it
started.  In the financial world, credit unions are as successful as
Mondragon.  It is time we the people look for a rational solution.  We
need conversation for a third way economics. 

There are plenty who will work their butts off to make a better world
and fight against the corporatocracy.  If you are a conservative, the
wind could be in your sail right now, but the wind can change on a
dime.  Democrats, not capitulating Democrat politicians who now hold
office, but the Democratic people, are the ones who can do something. 
They can replace the spineless Democrat politicians with those who will
represent them and their liberal programs.  We must engross ourselves
in dialogue about what can work instead of continue to moan and groan
about what is not working.

Report this
John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, June 20, 2011 at 5:52 am Link to this comment

Apologies, this is a bit off the topic of ‘electronic brownshirts’, I think.

Gary your comments about the ‘normalization of deception’ have been bugging me.  It’s far more than this, but, if it’s OK for the people to lie to each other, then it’s OK for US (advertisers? big business?, Government?) to lie to You (McPopulation). 

What is the counter-strategy?  What media and message can be harnessed to plant the ideas that this ‘OK to lie’ BS is not acceptable?  How can people be made to see it is in their self interest?  Hypocrisy must also be de-normalized.

Somehow the lying ties in to deception, which ties into ‘buyer beware’, which gives sellers the freedom to say and do whatever they want without responsibility/accountability.  They are supposedly big on ‘personal responsibility’, but ‘corporate responsibility’?  No.

But hell, I just made a comment in another forum indicating people are so loyal to their political team or perceived tribe that reason wouldn’t work on them….they manipulation would be required.  Manipulation implies deception.  Deception for good?  Perhaps we shouldn’t look at deception as being good or bad, but the goal of the deception.  Humans are deceptive, let’s just accept it and say deception for a clearly demonstrable goal is fair game?

Report this
John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, June 20, 2011 at 4:10 am Link to this comment

These $10K letters…...c’mon.  Source?
Gary, this is fantastic stuff.  How do you know this stuff?  It’s unbelievable, literally, or at least I do not want to believe it.  Names please?  Organizations?  Anything?
“Guess who their enemy is.”  Who?

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 20, 2011 at 3:22 am Link to this comment

What’s the matter, Gary?
MarthaA gave up on this thread so you figured we needed a replacement loony?

Report this
Gary Mont's avatar

By Gary Mont, June 20, 2011 at 12:13 am Link to this comment

Yeah, its still raining and cold and I’m not in a very good mood… and now Jethro Tull’s Thick as a Brick is humming away in the back of my mind.

Report this
Gary Mont's avatar

By Gary Mont, June 20, 2011 at 12:08 am Link to this comment

More than just the American language has been bastardized. The NeoNazis own the Fear Press, the Television and Radio Networks and every form of information dissemination with the exception of a few web based news outlets and some citizen pamphleteers.

They literally control precisely the content of “Current Events” available to the public. The poverty and dispair that is so common on the streets of every major city nationwide, is completely absent from the broadcast material that Americans see and hear every day. Thus most have no idea that anything is amiss.

The News is mostly manufactured and deftly manipulated to present the picture of reality the NeoNazis want them to percveive.

Read what the Nazis felt was necessary for the public to be told in ordere to keep them under control and fully supportive of everything the government did, and you have exactly the situation today in the USA.

In a Mad Max world, you have a Price Is Right Media.

Pay even scant attention to the contents of commercials on TV and you will notice that deception is a common thread among many of them. Mom lies to dad about his laundry. Grandma lies to mother about her dentures. Junior lies to his girl friend about his car. Dad lies to his kids about his cereal.

Deception is cool now. Its ok to lie.

Redbull gives you wings!!

Notice the movies. Torture is now a common thread; not by the bad guys, but by the good guys, and torture always gets the bad guys to spill the beans in the nick of time. Torture is cool now too.

The American public has long been defined by its media from which they get their fads and fashions and their “lingo”. Media is the first thing an invader takes over and propaganda is the first thing the invader pumps out of the captured media.

I truly doubt there is a hope in hell for America now. While the invader liquidates the nation in broad daylight, Americans believe that everything is just peachy - as their media shows them - and that God will save them no matter what else happens.

So have another beer and change the channel Marge….

Report this
Gary Mont's avatar

By Gary Mont, June 19, 2011 at 11:41 pm Link to this comment

Leefeller:Why does it appear the constant over reaching by the Republicans seems to be followed by subservience or compromising positions by the Democrats and now AARP, specifically right now on the subject of Social Security.

Actually, it only appears that way, because, in truth, there really is no Democratic Party. But then, there really is no Republican Party either. Both parties were purchased outright and now belong to the NeoNazi Cartel.

During the 9/11 crisis, all Democratic Politicians received a package containing a set of pictures of their children in their beds, with a masked man holding a knife above their faces as they slept, getting on and off school buses, playing in the street, etc., and an envelope containing $10,000. 

Those without children were sent a set of well photoshopped pictures of themselves in obviously compromising situations with naked children, animals, raw meat and fruit, instead and an envelope with $10,000 in it.

Accompanying each package was a simple letter stating, “Smell the Coffee, or else. Instructions to follow.”

Suicides, shootings and Anthrax postings were simply examples of how easy it would be to wipe each and every one of them out should they consider any sort of legal action or investigation.

Since then, all Democratic Politicians have become NeoNazi Minions, doing precisely what they’re told to do by the invading NeoNazis and getting filthy rich in the process.

Very few took the “or else” approach and they’re all dead or massively discredited now.

Every man has his price and when you have the proceeds from the theft of three national treasuries, you can afford to buy a lot of men.

Unless Americans realize they have been invaded and conquered, they have not the slightest chance of getting back what they have lost since 9/11 and the thieves will continue thier vampiric assault on the nation until it is nothing but a dry dead husk.

You see, all the crooks that are legally destroying the USA from within, already have chalets, palaces and castles in foreign countries waiting for that inevitable day, and private jets to get them there.

Where-ever they settle after the USA has fallen, they will be kings.

How many of you know that a number of your largest corporations attempted to overthrow the USA for Hitler around the beginning of WW2?? Or that these same American coporations received recompense after the war, for their factories in Germany that were destroyed by Allied bombs. They were selling to both sides.

These corporations still exist in America today.

Guess who their enemy is.

Report this
John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, June 19, 2011 at 9:41 am Link to this comment

“Their initial statement that the language has been bastardized to prevent the American poor - called the Majority Common Population by the Millers and shortened to the MCPopulation by me - from successfully debating against the aristocracy was dead on, and captured my interest immediately.”

This also piqued my interest.  I think the ‘language bastardization’ goes well beyond the poor, or even the McPopulation, but that depends how far up you call the McPopulation.  Would you expand on this a tad?

On a ralated topic, and repeating myself: “the ‘gray persuasion’ is no longer classified propaganda”  All the BP and Exxon and financial advisers and banks and gas/energy companies, and ‘clean’ coal, running commercials…...when do we start giving that a name with some stigma attached, like ‘propaganda’?  As is, it;s a perfectly legal means of buying off the free press.  Yes, there is the occasional token exposé, but when do we frogs realize the temperature in this very pot shaped pond is getting a bit uncomfortable?

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 19, 2011 at 8:56 am Link to this comment

Why does it appear the constant over reaching by the Republicans seems to be followed by subservience or compromising positions by the Democrats and now AARP, specifically right now on the subject of Social Security.

So it seems Social Security is the next Medicare, broadside offensive by the Republicans, the relentless absolutist ass holes! 

To me the Democrats seem to always be placing themselves in some sort of passive defensive fox hole, setting themselves up and their supporters for the usual fall.

How about placing the Republicans in compromising positions for a change a nice starting point would seem in calling on the Grover Norquist No raising Taxes ever contract   which most of the moron Republicans signed about the same time they happened to be slobbering and fornicating over the Ann Rand book “Hercules Hugs” or was it “Atlas buggers”?

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 19, 2011 at 6:30 am Link to this comment

From that first post on, aside from the enlightening web-investigations into Hegelian Mathmatica, Dialectic and Sophistry, Propaganda and Rhetoric, every moment thereafter was a complete waste of time and effort.

Worse still, after refusing repeatedly to explain anything except via their private language and instead claiming that the stupidity of all who dared ask for clarity was the reason for the lack of comprehension, the Millers proceeded to flood the forum with near identical and identically pointless post after post, in what could only be seen as an attempt to disrupt the flow of thought of other posters discussing any topic other than their Miracle Hegelian Dialectic Panacea - their wannabe claim to fame.
***********

Gary, what you’ve seen is something that started when I actually AGREED with MarthaA about something Anarcissie posted about slavery, that Southern slave owners were “Liberals” and therefore different than feudal lords.  Weirdly, because, according to MarthaA, I used the term “sophistry” wrong and got a bunch of jabberwocky gobbledegook on “dialectic”. When I challenged this, I got from her “You should be ashamed of yourself!” repeatedly.

I did not take this kindly: I cede the high moral ground to no one, and certainly not someone who is defining the game’s rules but in a language nobody but herself understands.  So the challenge to explain herself and her judgement of me began.

Naturally, she couldn’t do it, except in double-talk references to “Hegelian logic” and “negative dialectic” and other bullshit jargon.  As I’ve posted before: If you can’t explain what you are doing to a layman, you probably don’t understand it yourself. 

And if you REFUSE to define your terms in common language, I assert that you are deliberately obfuscating. (not you, Gary).

MarthaA combined this arrogant obfuscation with incredibly inaccurate, in fact down-right WRONG history, translating “Il Duce” (Italian for “The Leader”) as “The Second” since Hitler’s “Der Fuhrer” also translates as “The Leader”.  This was so blatantly WRONG as a) NOT the correct translation and b) Mussolini was called “Il Duce” while Hitler was a nobody staging his beer hall putsch.

Even when caught in such an incompetent mangling of history, MarthaA refused to graciously say “oops. I got my facts wrong” but instead launched a serious of attacks on me and my character, showing her humorlessness at my use of Richard Armour’s comic pun of “The Furor” (from his books, “It All Started with Columbus” and “It All Started With Europa”, delightful mangling of history through the use of atrocious puns.)

You have jumped in and seen Vonnegut’s “Granfalloon” at a more intellectual level than I have, but a “Grandfalloon” it remains:

If you wish to study a granfalloon, just remove the skin of a toy balloon.— Bokonon

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 19, 2011 at 4:47 am Link to this comment

Sorry, but this got posted to the This is What Resistance Looks
Like forum by mistake.  So if you post there you will see it twice.

Good Morning! 
Gary Mont – shitty weather can be hot as well as cold.  Rain and
heat is stifling, muggy is thick.  But I like the heat, not the cold. 
I’m sorry you felt thick.  Just to get my reply comments off to a
good start, and maybe “thin” you up a bit, recalling Jethro Tull’s
Thick as a Brick, I’m assuming you mean dense. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BV-ASc0qkrM
and if you don’t know the lyrics:
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/jethrotull/thickasabrickpart1.html

Your posts about the Millers did motivate my comment.  Herostratus
and his vainglorious act of burning the Temple of Artemis might fulfill
your question of seeking fame at any cost.  Herostratus sought nobility,
and proudly took the blame in order to immortalize himself.  I suppose
the essence of the story could be a term for someone who wants to
bask in some notoriety as a result of some infraction against others.  In
the case of the Greek, it was a criminal act for which he was executed,
but in our culture Herostratic fame means fame at any cost.

It is hardly doubtful that the perpetrator of binary emotional rhetoric is
anxious to be the author of a Wikipedia page and hence go down in
encyclopedic history.  Teaching the ordinary citizenry the art of
propaganda (uh…pardon my euphemism, but I find it more efficient),
does seem to be her game.  Should we require that in her teaching she
inform students that it is sophistry that is being taught and that there
is a stigma, and ancient one, to being a sophist.

Your expressed observation about unrequited vainglory (condescension,
arrogance) does seem to have some traction (forgive my perhaps biased
translation).  You are admirably so kind, to give them some history! 
The rest of us who are fatigued with the sales pitch for BER and a ffew
other pet topics have so far not been so intuitive.

No, I did not use the term reciprocity to mean you should give and take
with the Millers.  I was referring to your statement: ”Too bad they
didn’t choose to use their intellect for a more viable solution, or to
analyze their own claims.”

It’s not that there are not kernels of good ideas in what they propose. 
But indeed “it is too bad they could not bring themselves to listen to
the arguments posed against their ideas by all those they encountered
over the years” and have been able to integrate them.  Aristotle said
“every man has a little bit of the truth.”  The trick is to ferret out
whatever is the truth, maybe even hammer it out at times.

I meant that their plan of indoctrinating the public (MCPopulation) on
the finesses of propaganda (there I go again!), might have proven the
case of reciprocity were they conscious enough to see it.  Problem is, I
do not have much optimism.  You have given them a month, whereas a
few of us over the years have made the case you so aptly sketched,
more than often in much more declarative terms!  To no avail.  Let
alone the three pages of this forum, I mean it has been years!  So what
does that imply?  That we are complicit?

I am familiar with the other forum you posted.  MarthaA’s usual litany
only delineates their handicap.  I hope my affirmation has elevated your
mood.  But, ah…it’s morning.  Mornings start a new day.

Report this
Gary Mont's avatar

By Gary Mont, June 18, 2011 at 9:42 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous: Gary Mont - there is something that often works and therefore some-thing positive to be said on behalf of reciprocity.

—-

OK, I’m feeling a little thick tonight - shitty weather - hasn’t stopped raining all day and its cold - and cold and I are long time enemies…

And while I can’t really disagree with the statement’s sentiment…  I have to assume - since the only posts I’ve made in this particular forum are both about the Millers - that your comment refers to the my attitude toward the Millers.

Specifically - that a little give and take from me, could have a positive effect on the way the Millers respond to inquiries and critiques of their claims.

If this is indeed what you’re referring to, all I can say is that I’ve given them a month and a few dozen posts, to reply with a single explanation for any part or portion of their claims and all I’ve gotten for my effort is multi-repeated quotes from Hegel, insults, innuendo and absurd claims about my political habits, for my efforts.

I began my Milleresque-inquiry quite willing to accept any new thought or idea that could be verified as sound and was at first quite determined to try and understand what the Millers were claiming as a true panacea, even though they were describing the panacea only in a private language to which I was not privy.

Their initial statement that the language has been bastardized to prevent the American poor - called the Majority Common Population by the Millers and shortened to the MCPopulation by me - from successfully debating against the aristocracy was dead on, and captured my interest immediately.

From that first post on, aside from the enlightening web-investigations into Hegelian Mathmatica, Dialectic and Sophistry, Propaganda and Rhetoric, every moment thereafter was a complete waste of time and effort.

Worse still, after refusing repeatedly to explain anything except via their private language and instead claiming that the stupidity of all who dared ask for clarity was the reason for the lack of comprehension, the Millers proceeded to flood the forum with near identical and identically pointless post after post, in what could only be seen as an attempt to disrupt the flow of thought of other posters discussing any topic other than their Miracle Hegelian Dialectic Panacea - their wannabe claim to fame.

If you find this difficult to believe, please look at the forum below: start around page 2-3.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/this_is_what_resistance_looks_like_20110403/

(you may have to cut and paste the URL into the browser address box)

If you’re not referring to the bobsy twins of Hegelian Mysticism, then I have no idea at all to what you might be referring, although, as I said, I do agree with sentiment of the statement.

But then, I am feeling a tad thick tonight.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 18, 2011 at 5:53 pm Link to this comment

...and extra pitch on the torches!

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 18, 2011 at 4:47 pm Link to this comment

A little or a lot of linseed oil on the pitchfork handles could be worthy start.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 18, 2011 at 4:21 pm Link to this comment

Not if the tools are old and rusty.  Would need some oiling to work
efficiently. 

Gary Mont - there is something that often works and therefore some-
thing positive to be said on behalf of reciprocity.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, June 18, 2011 at 4:06 pm Link to this comment

Tools would be operated more efficiently.

Report this
John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, June 18, 2011 at 3:29 pm Link to this comment

@Leefeller: I so agree on stepping back.  I’ve suggested a sort of ‘left-centrist-ish’ invitation only virtual think tank.  Ideas, memes, etc, have power. 
@Anarchissie: Why ‘standard crank’, not something more?  I think MArthA/ThomasG are tools, not originals, but tools of serious linguistic warriors.  Or not.
@Shenonymous: Thanks, no sweat.  You’re a total pro.
@OzarkMichael:  My guess on the presumed advantage of her def?  All the ‘gray persuasion’ is no longer classified propaganda, only the black and white stuff, which keeps a lot of influential material from getting that nasty label, propaganda.  Or not.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 18, 2011 at 11:02 am Link to this comment

It seems this thread spent a bit of time on Dialectic Dumbing Down then headed over to the binary brainlessness and much earlier some time was spent featuring Fascism according to Martha A. 

We have some real problems appearing before us, I suspect many of the posters here can agree on this, maybe even which ones to prioritize?  What I have never understood is, with these never ending constant distractions, bickering and arguing, how anything would ever be achieved? 

So what I propose is stepping back and looking at the forest for the trees,  separating the chaff from the grain, the cicadas from the slugs, the political skunks from the real ones and maybe even formulating a plan. Now some may not agree with my beliefs or opinions,... case in point may be my housebreaking dogmas in the existence of Santa Claus, the tooth fairy and occasionally I have delusions fantasize about far out things like in the existence of accountability, integrity and compassion, and then I even go further into gaga land and hallucinate with fervor in the existence of a good inexpensive Tequila.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 18, 2011 at 8:43 am Link to this comment

We frequently get people here pushing some out-there religious or pseudo-religions “philosophy” who when challenged on the basic and fundamental illogic of their beliefs, simply restate them as is multiple repetition substitutes for reasoned argument.

Then they get abusive, concoct various insults and finally storm off to sulk or get banned.  This pattern repeats itself and the old-timers, like us, remain.

There’s a great line at the end of Seven Days in May (the book) where the General curses out a Senator and he responds:
“Hell, General. You could put us both in a barrel and roll us down a hill….and there’d always be a son-of-a-bitch on top!”

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 18, 2011 at 8:26 am Link to this comment

Bat Shit crazy comes to mind!

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, June 18, 2011 at 7:34 am Link to this comment

I think we’re observing standard crank behavior, not a plot or a con game with a hidden agenda.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, June 18, 2011 at 7:16 am Link to this comment

I dont understand something. I would like Martha writing as Thomas, (or Thomas writing as Martha, whichever is more convenient) to explain it to me:

Martha/Thomas, please explain why the definition of propaganda as “binary emotional rhetoric” was so important three years ago that you had to pick a fight with Wikipedia over it, causing the editor to remove stuff you put up. And please explain why your definition is so important at Truthdig that you risked blowing your cover and blowing all the progress you made with the Leftists here. A bit like Anthony Weiner. Too much exposure and you get caught. the party is over. You have to skulk away.

Granted that some people are just obnoxious for no reason at all, but I suspect there was a reason for Martha/Thomas to be obnoxious about the definition of the word ‘propaganda’. I suspect that “binary emotional rhetoric” is helpful to forwarding Martha/Thomas political beliefs and she thinks if her definition is accepted it gives her some sort of advantage.

I would like to know what that presumed advantage would be. If there is something, I would like to know what it is.

If you dont answer, Martha/Thomas, we will all understand that John Best has bested you, doing what I hoped to accomplish for a long time. Yes, kudos to him.

In that case, Martha/Thomas, good bye and good riddance. 

However, I hope you will stay and answer the question, even if you do it with a new name. Ever helpful, i suggest something simple like ” AnnM”.

Or maybe swing on both sides of your dual sexuality with “GannAnn”

Or if you really want to be stealthy “MilleR” would fool everyone.

Or you can pick an entirely new sort of name that suits your occasionally violent emotional binary rhetoric… “ReportThis”.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 17, 2011 at 7:25 pm Link to this comment

BTW:  Having had a spare minute, I tried the MarthaA’s backwards-
only paragraph in the correct sentential Left to Right format test. 
The “Sorry, Page Not Found” came up!  It is indeed a mystery.  I will
be sending the paragraph in its right order to the Webmaster, who
by the way is a rather nice chap and who has responded fairly quickly,
say within a few days, to any site problems I’ve ever had over the
years.  Maybe he can and will explain what is the problem.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 17, 2011 at 7:18 pm Link to this comment

As I was scrolling down this latest forum page to review some of
the dialogue, I see that I owe John Best an apology.  He gets first
credit for finding the Wikipedia pages re: MarthaA.  On June 16 at
8:09 am and at 8:53 am he posted the two sites I listed last evening,
June 16 at 9:39 pm.  Again, my apologies John Best, I had actually
found the sites independently.  Having to rush off yesterday morning,
while glancing at them I did not pay as close attention to your two
posts as I should have (I can assure you that will not happen again!). 
Because of MarthaA’s constant claim, and to see if I could find a more
simple discussion of the phrase and its relationship to propaganda, I
had been in a hurry to google search binary emotional rhetoric when I
got in from working last evening.  Yours came first so you get the “find”
credit.  Too generously, you did not even mention it.  Nevertheless, I
like to set the record straight.  (ITW: Take note and I think your
comments were most apropos.)  The find, both John Best’s and mine, I
think are extraordinarily telling.

Report this
Gary Mont's avatar

By Gary Mont, June 17, 2011 at 3:28 pm Link to this comment

On the other hand, attempting to post the statement MartaA/B has challenged everyone to post - the one she can post backwards only - results in being sent to the Page Not Found page, no matter how often I try.

Veddy interesting….

Report this
Gary Mont's avatar

By Gary Mont, June 17, 2011 at 3:15 pm Link to this comment

Snake Oil Salesmen with visions of grandeur.

Is there a term for the seeking of fame at any cost?

It would appear that the MarthaA/B team is determined to get a page in history as either:

The One(s) who saved the Majority Common Population from the evil Sophist Aristocats by reforming the nation’s education to include Hegelian Logic and Dialectic, allowing the MCPopulation to become as adept at sophistry as the Aristocracy and thus disarming the Sophist aristocratic war against the MCPopulation.

or…

The One(s) who saved the MCPopulation by redefining Sophist aristocratic Propaganda as Binary Emotional Rhetoric so that the MCPopulation was able to perceive the dishonesty in the aristocatic Sophist arguments and thus disarm the Sophist aristocratic war against the MCPopulation.

or…

Both.

He, She, They simply want to make their mark in history, as having done something important.

Methinks it may be the years of (well earned)rejection by almost everyone they’ve encountered, that has made them so bitter and anti-social.

They may have even been very nice people long, long ago, but their lack of success and mounting age is making them desperate. Today, they’re just frauds desperately looking for a means to get their day in the sun before their time is up.

Too bad they didn’t choose to use their intellect for a more viable solution, or to analyze their own claims.

Too bad they could not bring themselves to listen to the arguments posed against their ideas, by all those they encountered over the years.

Cuz now they’re just Snake Oil Salesmen with visions of grandeur.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 17, 2011 at 10:44 am Link to this comment

Nice way to say that someone is dishonestly and deviously trying to push her definitions out as “standard” when they are anything but.  Good one, She!


Another of MarthaA’s bat-shit crazy definitions:
Rational thought based on facts, ascertainable premises, and rigorous logic = “psychotic episode”.

Yet again, we see that MarthaA’s idea of, in this case, a “psychotic episode” is disagreeing with her and pointing out the blatant holes in her logic.

I would guess that MarthaA is projecting again, in a sense of desperation….My Gods! NOBODY is worshiping at MarthaA’s feet! NOBODY is hanging on her every word of “wisdom”. 
Oh, the humanity!
The Horror, the Horror!

I sure hope no one takes my ROFLMAO as a “psychotic episode”.

Report this
John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, June 17, 2011 at 7:17 am Link to this comment

Tactics like guilt by innuendo and association, attacks on the person instead of the argument, etc, etc, are immediate signs of the most unsophisticated sorts of trolls. 

I hate to use a dismissive term like ‘trolls’, because these people represent an undercurrent of disillusioned people who sometimes expend significant effort to fight a perceived enemy.  The ‘enemy’, usually being someone identified as ‘not one of us’, and being labeled a liberal, or a progressive.  In any event, this sort of personality, who places their need for group ‘belongingness’ above the need to be civil to ‘outsiders’, is dangerous and easily harnessed by repressive regimes and institutions.  So, I suppose we need to understand and help these people feel comfortable with this crazy world?

wrt. MarthA, writing for Thomas, I am still open to the possibility they are rejected leftists who simply lacks social skills or ability to work with others, as evidenced by their experiences with the DNC, corrupt or not.  I no longer think they are sophisticated right wingers who have successfully tied up this forum.  If they were truly sophisticated right-wingers, they would have had the understanding and restraint to avoid using the childish name calling and innuendo tactics.  Lacking restraint (from using childish tactics of argument), they cannot be classified as sophisticated, but this leaves the possibility they are unsophisticated right wingers, intent on disruption, and possibly only capable of having been schooled in the verbiage surrounding propaganda, Hegel, and a few other bits and pieces they’ve picked up.  They may simply exhibit a facade of intellectualism (much like my own), which allows them to engage, distract and ultimately disrupt discussions such as those we enjoy here on Truthdig.  I’m not saying we have the same intent, but I’m just pointing out that I am not trying to pass as an intellectual…...I’m just a dumb engineer trying to figure out this ultimate puzzle called Humanity. 

What I am trying to do, is to allow the disruptive attempts by MarthA to become a learning experience for the ‘politically motivated disturbance of public discussion’.  So, if we are to acheive a ‘win’ here, we might develop sensitivity to the warning signs of intentionally disruptive personalities, and countermeasures.  A sort of ‘field guide to social media counter-counterinsurgency’.

The general problem highlights the need for a ‘quiet’, non-extremist think tank. 

And Martha A, and Thomas G…......relax.  Enjoy life.  Don’t be so stressed.  Step back from the part of society which lives on the continuous generation of fear of outsiders so it can ultimately exploit them.  If I can speak as if I were a religious person, I’d say our ‘original sin’, that which we cannot escape, is the susceptibility to instantly be turned against perceived outsiders.  Regardless of your classification, ‘rejected leftist’, ‘unsophisticated rightist’, or other, you are involved in a run-away social mechanism that periodically returns mankind to the dark ages.  If we slide back there, be assured the illusions of loyalty will vanish in a horrible moment of the realization of betrayal.  So think about ‘lightening up’, reevaluating, apologizing, re-entering a very nice community.  Forget that binary us-vs.-them world and embrace the marvelously challenging complexities of the human experience as it is.

Have a wonderful weekend each and every one.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 17, 2011 at 2:38 am Link to this comment

(Coniving + convincing) + (saturation * nonsence) = MA

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 16, 2011 at 9:36 pm Link to this comment

Sorry but that link didn’t flesh out properly.  The entire link has
to be activated.  For some reason Truthdig formatting will not activate
it in its entirety and leaves off /Archiv_50 so it has to be fully copied
and pasted into the browser

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_50

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 16, 2011 at 9:29 pm Link to this comment

Well and FYI all. In my latest cavorting on a ‘Net search (I cavort
a lot), I ran across the following most interesting site and
recommend those who have been busy on this discussion to visit
it to see what MarthaA has been up to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_50

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 50

Under Contents, scroll to #38 where you will see a conversation between
MarthaA and the editors of Wikipedia and Wikipedia policy.  Read that
part , then if you click on (talk) that appears after her name at 00:42. 24
July 2008 (UTC) that will take you to another page of discussion between
MarthaA and editors again.  Both pages are very revealing.  Clicking on
her name is merely a page that says “MarthaA” is not a name has a user
page and telling her some of the rules of Wikipedia submissions.  It looks
like MarthaA has been trying to establish her notion of propaganda as
binary emotional rhetoric on Wikipedia for about three years. 

Now I don’t mind if someone wants to perpetrate a pet theory, but I do
mind when it is sprung on a Truthdig forum as if it were a practice or in
common use when in fact it is quite esoteric, or in the words of
Dictionary.com, “understood by or meant for only the select few who have
special knowledge or interest.”

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 16, 2011 at 8:36 pm Link to this comment

MarthaA – “We already know that the term binary emotional rhetoric
as a definition for propaganda is already in use in our area and have
?given you examples of that use.”
  What?  Now I know you are off
beam!  Who is the we you are talking about anyway?  And what makes
you think your area is the universe? 

What do I imagine I will demonstrate with my test?  That you are
provincial in your thinking.  You imagine my test will be restricted
to my area. I know people in many countries, and certainly all over
this country, both academics as well as those “outside the halls of
academia,” so it will be a very broad sampling and I expect very
interesting.  I suspect ITW and John are right!  You don’t really know
that you don’t know what you are talking about.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 16, 2011 at 7:04 pm Link to this comment

John Best, June 16 at 6:44 pm,

“wasting the time of the otherwise productive and bright people
here.”—John Best, June 16 at 6:44 pm

More personally abusive behavior in the name of “bright and
productive people”——Sounds like a good Fascist attitude there,
John Best.

Do you suppose that Ernst Rohm felt the same way, right up until
the Night of the Long Knives?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives

Report this
John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, June 16, 2011 at 6:44 pm Link to this comment

Yes Shenonymous, just take Marta’s word for it and move on.  You are out of touch with modern vernacular.  You are in good company, from Oxfords English Dictionary: propaganda: “information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view”.

We are all out of touch, except those who have been trained by Thomas Gann Miller to repeat back to him what he has ‘taught’.  Get with the program and join the cult of ‘binary emotional rhetoric”!

Seriously, I’m making a call soon: ultra-troll or “complex personality”.  Either way, an expense report would show an enormous amount of productivity in wasting the time of the otherwise productive and bright people here.  A lesson of this age.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 16, 2011 at 6:31 pm Link to this comment

Inherit The Wind, June 16 at 5:52 pm and John Best, June 16 at 5:40
pm,

It sounds to me like you two are well on your way to a psychotic
episode, but that is your problem, not mine.  I suggest emergency
medical treatment is most probably in order from the manic, frantic
and in a panic sound of your posts.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 16, 2011 at 6:21 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous, June 16 at 5:11 pm,

Your experiment sounds interesting, but what do you expect to
demonstrate other than that the term defining propaganda as binary
emotional rhetoric is or is not already in use in your area?

We already know that the term binary emotional rhetoric as a
definition for propaganda is already in use in our area and have
given you examples of that use.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 16, 2011 at 5:52 pm Link to this comment

Inherit The Wind, June 16 at 12:05 pm ,

“If you cannot explain what you are doing or what you mean to a lay person, then it is clearly obvious that YOU don’t understand it yourself.”—Inherit The Wind, June 16 at 12:05 pm

The answer to YOUR problem is “The Culture of Critical
Discourse.”  YOUR cup is full of irrelevant information of
monkey-like programming that prevents you from thinking outside of the box of “The Culture of Critical Discourse.”

Don’t get your panties all in a knot, just pour out some of the content of YOUR cup, so that YOU have a little room in YOUR cup for something other than the certainty of what you think you know that prevents you from understanding what you want to know, and add a little to YOUR cup of what YOU need to know, and it will all become clear to you.  Don’t look for understanding externally, because you are not going to find it there.

Look inward to the contents of YOUR cup; SERIOUSLY, the
contents of YOUR cup needs attention ———Look to it,
because that is YOUR OWN internal problem, rather than an
external problem for you to try to transfer off onto me or anyone else.

*******

So…I say if you can’t communicate your professional idea to a lay person you don’t understand it.

You respond with an irrelevant and trite cliche “think outside the box.”  What box and what’s inside and what’s outside.  It’s a metaphor, because YOU can’t explain what you are talking about.

Another meaningless metaphor combined with an insult:
“YOUR cup is full of irrelevant information of
monkey-like programming that prevents you from thinking…”

What cup? Another bullshit metaphor.  My mind isn’t a cup that can only hold “so much and no more information”.  We use far less of our mental capacity than we have, and the storage capacity of mind is far beyond what we can actually put in it.

Naturally an illogical “higher thinker” like you would think that the formal applied structured logic and disciplined trained thinking one must have to do it is “monkey-like”.  Conceptual structures in programming are just as real as steel structures in buildings and the price of doing them wrong is just as deadly.  Build a structure wrong and it will say a drug is safe that is deadly.

Brown, in his classic book on IBM 360/370 JCL (Job Control Language) described the 360/370 OPERATING system as the most complex machine ever built by humans.  Not the computer it ran on, which vast and costly was child’s play in comparison.  No. the virtual machine built by “monkey-like” men and women like me.

But the bottom line is you are STILL incapable of communicating your “higher (ie pompous) thinking” to anyone else.

I’d much rather be a rational and logical, not mention ETHICAL “monkey” than an ethereal, irrational, illogical, stuffed shirt who thinks she’s too “good” to soil her hands, even metaphorically, doing anything actually productive.

MarthaA, you remind me of the Saturday Night Live spoof “Deep Thoughts”, where everyone but the “deep thinker” knows what crap it is.  I swear, the way you describe “propaganda” it almost sounds like Scientology.

Report this
John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, June 16, 2011 at 5:40 pm Link to this comment

To any and all who venture here…..It is not known at this time if MartAs tactics are a case study in a form of ‘Electronic Brownshirting’, or if Thomas Gann Miller likes to behave as if he has some form of aspergers.  Please ignore the posts and enjoy the forum. 

To MartA, and anyone studying Thomas Gann Miller, writing as “MartA”..........

You wrote: “.....binary nature of human existence, pain and pleasure, and how that stems from the five senses of human existence.” 

The anecdotes about the children teachers do not smell good, it does not smell bad, but they certainly smell. 

It is necessary for some people to see the world in black and white.  Us vs. them.  With the comforting illusion that there is an absolutely bad enemy, and that ‘we’ are good.  Good people don’t do bad things in that world, bad people can never do good or well. 

To these sorts of people, a world where propaganda is good or bad might be comforting.  Unfortunately, for the rest of us, propaganda is defined as: “information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view”. 

With regard to my question, no, you did not answer if I would be engaging in propaganda wrt. the baseball team. 

On another topic, be advised MartA, I was perfectly tolerant of some nasty name calling on your part, but these posts in duplicate and triplicate are intolerable.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 16, 2011 at 5:11 pm Link to this comment

MarthaA, your family experiences, and friends, is I would say
unusual.  I have never really heard the expression binary emotional
rhetoric used as a definition of propaganda before this forum.  All
the definitions I’ve heard I gave in the 43 dictionaries’ definitions.

I will conduct a test.  I will put the question to a significant number
of people.  I will be honest and I will report back.  This will not be an
overnight experiment. May take a day or so.  But I will see for myself
whether the phrase is commonly understood, or not.  I will be
meticulous in my recording answers and not nudge anyone’s answer. 
Further I will put the question two ways but not to the same person. 
1. To define the word propaganda, and
2. To say what is binary emotional rhetoric.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 16, 2011 at 5:09 pm Link to this comment

John Best, June 16 at 2:48 pm,

You have your answer in my post of 6-16-2011 at 1:17pm and
in compliance with your request, I am reposting that answer
for your benefit.

“By MarthaA, June 16 at 1:17 pm Link to this comment

John Best, June 16 at 10:17 am,

“In practice, this may be the case….”John Best, June 16 at
10:17 am

Your example of “true - false” as being “binary” is a valid example,
and the answer to your question about using “binary emotional
rhetoric” to emotionally lead others to make a choice of either
“true to the exclusion of false” or “false to the exclusion of true”
would be PROPAGANDA; the answer is YES, there are
only two choices in propaganda, and the object of propaganda
is that those who are being propagandized are being emotionally
led to choose one of the two choices to the
exclusion of the other choice.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 16, 2011 at 5:08 pm Link to this comment

John Best, June 16 at 2:48 pm,

You have your answer in my post of 6-16-2011 at 1:17pm and
in compliance with your request, I am reposting that answer
for your benefit.

“By MarthaA, June 16 at 1:17 pm Link to this comment

John Best, June 16 at 10:17 am,

“In practice, this may be the case….”John Best, June 16 at
10:17 am

Your example of “true - false” as being “binary” is a valid example,
and the answer to your question about using “binary emotional
rhetoric” to emotionally lead others to make a choice of either
“true to the exclusion of false” or “false to the exclusion of true”
would be PROPAGANDA; the answer is YES, there are
only two choices in propaganda, and the object of propaganda
is that those who are being propagandized are being emotionally
led to choose one of the two choices to the
exclusion of the other choice.”

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 16, 2011 at 5:00 pm Link to this comment

John Best, June 16 at 2:48 pm,

You have your answer in my post of 6-16-2011 at 1:17pm and
in compliance with your request, I am reposting that answer
for your benefit.

“By MarthaA, June 16 at 1:17 pm

John Best, June 16 at 10:17 am,

“In practice, this may be the case….”John Best, June 16 at
10:17 am

Your example of “true - false” as being “binary” is a valid example,
and the answer to your question about using “binary emotional
rhetoric” to emotionally lead others to make a choice of either
“true to the exclusion of false” or “false to the exclusion of true”
would be PROPAGANDA; the answer is YES, there are
only two choices in propaganda, and the object of propaganda
is that those who are being propagandized are being emotionally
led to choose one of the two choices to the
exclusion of the other choice.”

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 16, 2011 at 4:47 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous, June 16 at 2:36 pm,

“I am simply saying that to try to put the phase
as a stand in for the singular word propaganda
into the lingua franca appears to
me to be counterproductive to your intention, or
at the least would
slow down your intention.”—Shenonymous,
June 16 at 2:36 pm

Replacing the word is not my intention, defining the word
propaganda as being “binary emotional rhetoric” IS my intention.

Of my grandchildren, one is in school being educated as a
physicist, and another is being educated as a doctor; both have
known and used binary emotional rhetoric as the definition of
propaganda in their school work, since they were five years old,
and neither have had a problem with the definition in their school
work or with their teachers.

In our extended family and friends, the same holds true, none
have had difficulty with the definition or with their use of the
definition in either school work or personal usage in a period of at
or about 20 years.

You may be right that there is someone out there that would have
difficulty with the definition, but so far, of the hundreds of people
that have been subjected to the definition of propaganda, as
being “binary emotional rhetoric,” the only ones that have had
difficulty with understanding and applying it to propaganda
analysis are the people on the Truthdig forum.  You should
understand that this isolated lack of understanding after 20 years
of usage leaves me a bit dubious as to the ingenuous nature of
that lack of understanding.

It is also true that within our extended family and circle of friends
that we are all familiar with the binary nature of human existence,
pain and pleasure, and how that stems from the five senses of
human existence.

When my granddaughter was in grade school one of her teachers
was trying to propagandize her along with the rest of the class. 
My granddaughter told the teacher that he was talking
propaganda.  The teacher told my granddaughter that he was not,
then my granddaughter asked the teacher, “How do you know,
you don’t even know what propaganda is?”  The teacher
answered my granddaughter and said he knew what propaganda
is, so my granddaughter asked her teacher to explain what
propaganda is, if he knows.  When the teacher answered his
answer was “binary emotional rhetoric” to her surprise, and her
teacher explained the meaning of the words to my
granddaughter.  My granddaughter told her teacher, “That is
correct.” At that point the conversation dropped.  My
granddaughter told the whole family when she got home.

In college, when my grandson used the definition of “binary
emotional rhetoric” to define propaganda, my grandson’s College
Professor told him without hesitation, “That is exactly what
propaganda is.”  and my grandson was the only one in the class
that knew the answer.

As you say, there may be people out there that will have difficulty
with the definition, but, so far, our extended circle of family and
friends have not encountered them anywhere other than on the
Truthdig forum.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 16, 2011 at 4:43 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous, June 16 at 2:36 pm,

“I am simply saying that to try to put the phase
as a stand in for the singular word propaganda
into the lingua franca appears to
me to be counterproductive to your intention, or
at the least would
slow down your intention.”<b>—Shenonymous,
June 16 at 2:36 pm<b>

Replacing the word is not my intention, defining the word
propaganda as being “binary emotional rhetoric” IS my intention.

Of my grandchildren, one is in school being educated as a
physicist, and another is being educated as a doctor; both have
known and used binary emotional rhetoric as the definition of
propaganda in their school work, since they were five years old,
and neither have had a problem with the definition in their school
work or with their teachers.

In our extended family and friends, the same holds true, none
have had difficulty with the definition or with their use of the
definition in either school work or personal usage in a period of at
or about 20 years.

You may be right that there is someone out there that would have
difficulty with the definition, but so far, of the hundreds of people
that have been subjected to the definition of propaganda, as
being “binary emotional rhetoric,” the only ones that have had
difficulty with understanding and applying it to propaganda
analysis are the people on the Truthdig forum.  You should
understand that this isolated lack of understanding after 20 years
of usage leaves me a bit dubious as to the ingenuous nature of
that lack of understanding.

It is also true that within our extended family and circle of friends
that we are all familiar with the binary nature of human existence,
pain and pleasure, and how that stems from the five senses of
human existence.

When my granddaughter was in grade school one of her teachers
was trying to propagandize her along with the rest of the class. 
My granddaughter told the teacher that he was talking
propaganda.  The teacher told my granddaughter that he was not,
then my granddaughter asked the teacher, “How do you know,
you don’t even know what propaganda is?”  The teacher
answered my granddaughter and said he knew what propaganda
is, so my granddaughter asked her teacher to explain what
propaganda is, if he knows.  When the teacher answered his
answer was “binary emotional rhetoric” to her surprise, and her
teacher explained the meaning of the words to my
granddaughter.  My granddaughter told her teacher, “That is
correct.” At that point the conversation dropped.  My
granddaughter told the whole family when she got home.

In college, when my grandson used the definition of “binary
emotional rhetoric” to define propaganda, my grandson’s College
Professor told him without hesitation, “That is exactly what
propaganda is.”  and my grandson was the only one in the class
that knew the answer.

As you say, there may be people out there that will have difficulty
with the definition, but, so far, our extended circle of family and
friends have not encountered them anywhere other than on the
Truthdig forum.

Report this
John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, June 16, 2011 at 2:48 pm Link to this comment

MarthaA, with regard to your June 16 at 1:17 pm post, you neglected the question which I posted.

I re-post it, phrased better I think: “Are there analog forms of propaganda? For instance, would I be engaged in propaganda if I attempted to convince you that my hometown baseball team was much better than it actually is?” 
You can answer:
1. No-No
2. Yes-No
3. No-Yes
or
4. Yes-Yes

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 16, 2011 at 2:36 pm Link to this comment

While I have been using computers since 1980, ITW, (I had one of
the first designed Macintoshes that used 2 disks, one the program
and the other the data! but I would not say I was a true geek), I
thought surely someone else would remind everyone that in binary
form, 10 is equal to 2, this is an old joke but only those who
understand what binary means in computerese would recognize it. 
5 Yuks (just to make sure everyone knows what I mean, a yuk is a
“friendly” laughing sound).

MarthaA, it is plain from most of us who are left on this forum are
saying to you that in order to effect a huge population change in
perception of the subject propaganda, that simple language is the most
propitious.  Binary emotional rhetoric is not a simple expression in
natural and common language.  Not all of us are contentious with
you and are genuinely interested in pushing an idea to its usefulness. 
I have no argument that your three words can combine to define
propaganda but it is not inherently obvious.  Yes of course the word
binary means composed of two parts, but it does not necessarily mean
opposing parts.  Neither does the word emotional, nor does rhetoric. 
How you synthesize these discrete words to give the explicit meaning
of propaganda is a major semantical feat.  But if you say that is what
these words mean, and that it is your idiosyncratic composite
relationship assigned to these words, that really is a personally
assigned semantic function, and probably a good many people
would understand.  I am not saying you may not use your phrase. 
I am simply saying that to try to put the phase as a stand in for the
singular word propaganda into the lingua franca appears to me to be
counterproductive to your intention, or at the least would slow down
your intention.

Speech and writing are two distinct (and different) systems. Originally
they were similar but speech has changed more over the centuries. 
Speech is more important than writing.  Oral rhetoric is like a theatrical
performance using vocal gestures, inflections that are not really found
in writing even when the writing is essentially rhetorical.  To speak and
say “binary emotional rhetoric” to an audience of ordinary people would
be to speak over their heads and they would be less inclined to
understand what you mean than if you used the mass noun
propaganda.  I think the phrase would be more successful in written
form.  As it would linger in the mind enough to allow the meanings to
blend.  As already noted, most conscious people whether highly
educated or not, understand fairly quickly what is meant by the word
propaganda.  It just seems to me that your phrase would be useful for
those (who are students of propaganda) who are seeking to understand
how propaganda works (they would be a much smaller group at any
rate) would find binary emotional rhetoric descriptive of how the
psychology of propaganda works, but you said you were after educating
the public at large. 

I think it is time, at least for me, to move on as I have said as much as I
can on the topic.  I wish you luck, MarthaA, and when I hear the phrase,
I certainly would understand what you mean, but if my grown kids
heard it, and they are fairly well eductated, I can assure you they would
not.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 16, 2011 at 2:08 pm Link to this comment

Inherit The Wind, June 16 at 12:05 pm ,

“If you cannot explain what you are doing or what you mean to a
lay person, then it is clearly obvious that YOU don’t understand it
yourself.”—Inherit The Wind, June 16 at 12:05 pm

The answer to YOUR problem is “The Culture of Critical
Discourse.”
  YOUR cup is full of irrelevant information of
monkey-like programming that prevents you from thinking outside
of the box of “The Culture of Critical Discourse.”

Don’t get your panties all in a knot, just pour out some of the
content of YOUR cup, so that YOU have a little room in YOUR cup
for something other than the certainty of what you think you know
that prevents you from understanding what you want to know,
and add a little to YOUR cup of what YOU need to know, and it will
all become clear to you.  Don’t look for understanding externally,
because you are not going to find it there.

Look inward to the contents of YOUR cup; SERIOUSLY, the
contents of YOUR cup needs attention ———Look to it,
because that is YOUR OWN internal problem, rather than an
external problem for you to try to transfer off onto me or anyone
else.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 16, 2011 at 1:17 pm Link to this comment

John Best, June 16 at 10:17 am,

“In practice, this may be the case….”John Best, June 16 at
10:17 am

Your example of “true - false” as being “binary” is a valid example,
and the answer to your question about using “binary emotional
rhetoric”
to emotionally lead others to make a choice of either
“true to the exclusion of false” or “false to the exclusion of true”
would be PROPAGANDA; the answer is YES, there are
only two choices in propaganda
, and the object of propaganda
is that those who are being propagandized are being emotionally
led to choose one of the two choices to the
exclusion of the other choice.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 16, 2011 at 12:12 pm Link to this comment

Have you YET figured out the joke?

There are 10 kinds of people in the world: Those that understand binary and those that don’t.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 16, 2011 at 12:05 pm Link to this comment

As definition and understanding of dialectic and sophistry as used in propaganda becomes more and more simple by definition, it becomes more and more difficult to couch dialectic, sophistry, and
propaganda in complexity that is beyond average
people to understand and analyze; the result of this is that those who use complexity as a cover to promote dialectic, sophistry, and propaganda start and progress toward being perceived by those who they target for their dialectic, sophistry,
and propaganda, to be considered more and more as looking and being ignorant or stupid when they persist in intentionally misrepresenting definition, that is easily understood by the masses, as being complex, unfathomable, and beyond the nderstanding of anyone other than long haired geniuses hanging
out in the academic atmosphere of universities.

************

You need to look in an intellectual mirror.  I think the word we are looking for is “projection”—accusing others of what you are doing.

Why is it impossible for you put “propaganda” into lay terms?  If I can read and enjoy “Moby Dick”, ace a class in Integral Calculus, write Standard Operating Procedures for major corporations, and design and build bug-free software that runs for years, YOU should be able phrase your ideas in ways I can understand.

If you cannot, the fault is yours, not mine.
A housemate of mine, many years ago, was a graduate student in Psychology.  His professor (having clearly faced this problem) asked the class to write up an explanation of “Statistically Significant” that was both accurate yet understandable to the lay person.  At the time, I was years away from taking statistics, so I was his guinea pig. (It was and is a very,very fine and selective state university and I was a junior)

He wrote up what he thought was a clear and clean definition.  In a word, it was gibberish, because HE was basing his explanation on the assumption that I would understand certain jargon, which, when dealing with the “laity” is an invalid assumption.

By the time we were done, it was much clearer and understandable, but the lesson to him and his fellows (unless they were as dense and self-centered as some here, unlike my roomie who just a plain, nice guy, studying and working with a bunch of mostly sickos) was this:

If you cannot explain what you are doing or what you mean to a lay person, then it is clearly obvious that YOU don’t understand it yourself.

Think about the late Carl Sagan, a brilliant astronomer, capable of explaining the most esoteric and difficult-to-comprehend concepts to ordinary people….

Report this
John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, June 16, 2011 at 10:17 am Link to this comment

An explanation, good. 

I do not like the word ‘binary’, since, should it be accepted, coupled with the words ‘emotional’ and ‘rhetoric’,  would imply that all propaganda is precisely two-state, true-false, etc.  In practice, this may be the case in a majority of situations, but, is it accurate to limit ‘propaganda’ to two presumably opposing choices?  Are there analog forms of propaganda, for instance would it be propaganda for me to try to convince you that my hometown baseball team was much better than it was?

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 16, 2011 at 10:16 am Link to this comment

John Best, June 16 at 8:53 am,

“attempting to supplant the definition of ‘propaganda’ with ‘binary
emotional rhetoric’.”—John Best, June 16 at 8:53 am

I have provided a more functional definition of propaganda that
defines propaganda as “binary emotional rhetoric,” a
definition that expresses the structure and purpose of
propaganda that can be used for propaganda analysis.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 16, 2011 at 9:57 am Link to this comment

Shenonymous, June 16 at 7:27 am,

Again, Shenonymous, I say that — Binary Emotional
Rhetoric—
is the DEFINITION of Propaganda;
language that leads others to accept a choice of one of two
emotional choices given
, to the exclusion of the diversity of
reality.

BTW, examples of binary are: good—bad,
right—wrong, them—us, winner—loser,
like—dislike, pain—pleasure,
pretty—ugly, love—hate
to name a few.

Emotional is connected with the binary
nature of the senses
, for example——pain -
pleasure—— and Rhetoric is
language used to lead others to a conclusion.

Together these three words combine to
DEFINE PROPAGANDA
Binary—Emotional—and Rhetoric can be used
as a standard, therefore, to analyze language content; if
all three elements are present in a form that leads others to
accept one of two emotional choices, the language being
analyzed is PROPAGANDA.

In the phrase “binary emotional rhetoric”,
binary
is used in the context of
definition as stated in Webster’s dictionary which
is as follows:

*******

binaryPertaining to, characterized by or made
up of two; double; paired.


*******

To me, all of the talk about the use of the word binary
seems disingenuous at best.

Report this
John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, June 16, 2011 at 8:53 am Link to this comment

Hmmmmmm…..
Two back to back re-postings of this MarthA comment: June 16 at 6:04 am

I re-advance the hypothesis MarthA needs to ‘bury’ (push down the list) those postings which act as a trigger, requiring exactly the response described in the first paragraph in her post of June 16 at 8:07.

I will test my hypothesis by reposting the ‘trigger stimulus’ and observe the response.

50-50 today posting links that work…..
Google “binary emotional rhetoric”, 4th article listed takes you here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_50#Propaganda_Analysis_.3D_Binary_.28Two_Part.29_Emotional_Rhetoric
Go to article number 38.

On a ‘talk’ page, here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MarthaA it seems Marth Ann Miller, typing for Thomas Gann Miller is attempting to supplant the definition of ‘propaganda’ with ‘binary emotional rhetoric’.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 16, 2011 at 8:26 am Link to this comment

Shenonymous, June 15 at 9:42 pm,

I have been saying over and over again for years that “binary
emotional rhetoric”
is the common thread that the
Seven Categories of Propaganda can be reduced down to.

I have never said that I trolled around the internet looking for
Culture of Critical Discourse nuggets that I could regurgitate like
Long John Silver’s parrot; that is NOT my schtik —my schtik is
independent thought and analysis.

What I said in my recent post to you is ”.... the definition I have
given to you and the World for what propaganda is ——binary
emotional rhetoric?”

This reaction is an example of what I was talking about with
regard to the cup needing to have some of its contents emptied of
useless content, so that more beneficial content can be added.

This is the way I see things, independent of emotional feelings of
pride and desire to protect self esteem; I do not mean to offend.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 16, 2011 at 8:17 am Link to this comment

Shenonymous, June 15 at 9:42 pm,

I have been saying over and over again for years that “binary
emotional rhetoric”
is the common thread that the
seven categories of propaganda can be reduced down to.

I have never said that I trolled around the internet looking for
Culture of Critical Discourse nuggets that I could regurgitate like
Long John Silver’s parrot; that is NOT my schtik —my schtik is
independent thought and analysis.

What I said in my recent post to you is ”.... the definition I have
given to you and the World for what propaganda is <b>——binary
emotional rhetoric?”

This reaction is an example of what I was talking about with
regard to the cup needing to have some of its contents emptied of
useless content, so that more beneficial content can be added.

This is the way I see things, independent of emotional feelings of
pride and desire to protect self esteem; I do not mean to offend.

Report this
John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, June 16, 2011 at 8:09 am Link to this comment

50-50 today posting links that work…..
Google “binary emotional rhetoric”, 4th article listed takes you here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_50#Propaganda_Analysis_.3D_Binary_.28Two_Part.29_Emotional_Rhetoric
Go to article number 38. 

On a ‘talk’ page, here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MarthaA it seems Marth AnnMiller, typing for Thomas Gann Miller is attempting to supplant the definition of ‘propaganda’ with ‘binary emotional rhetoric’.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 16, 2011 at 8:07 am Link to this comment

Shenonymous, June 15 at 9:23 pm,

I find John Best’s posts to be mostly background noise
that is seemingly used to diminish and overcome dialogue that
promotes propaganda analysis and dialectic analysis by way of
personal abuse, distraction, and volumetric overload that is of a
sophist nature and use, that I consider to be irrelevant distraction
used to cumulatively diminish focus on basic understanding of how
dialectic and sophism is used in propaganda to control the masses.

It is necessary, from my perspective, to overcome the background
noise that prevents understanding and simplification of dialectic
and sophistry, as they are being used in propaganda to control
the masses, so that the masses can become capable of leading
themselves by a “standard” based upon their own understanding,
rather than to continue to be led by others in pursuit of a false
sense of advantage by a “standard” that is of, for, and by others
benefit, and excludes the masses from both understanding and
benefit.

As definition and understanding of dialectic and sophistry as used
in propaganda becomes more and more simple by definition, it
becomes more and more difficult to couch dialectic, sophistry, and
propaganda in complexity that is beyond average
people
to understand and analyze; the result of this is that
those who use complexity as a cover to promote dialectic,
sophistry, and propaganda
start and progress toward being
perceived by those who they target for their dialectic, sophistry,
and propaganda, to be considered more and more as looking and
being ignorant or stupid when they persist in intentionally
misrepresenting definition, that is easily understood by the
masses
, as being complex, unfathomable, and beyond the
understanding of anyone other than long haired geniuses hanging
out in the academic atmosphere of universities.

This was a problem for OzarkMichael, because
OzarkMichael did not want to be perceived as ignorant
and stupid for trying to couch understanding of dialectic, sophistry,
and propaganda in complex, unfathomable terms beyond the
average person’s understanding, and this is a problem
for all sophists and propagandists, because if they, the
propagandists, are perceived as ignorant and stupid by their
target audience, the value of their dialectic, sophistry, and
propaganda is diminished from control of the masses to being
perceived as foolish figures and objects of scorn by the masses.

On my side, I am not in a state of contention with John
Best
, Gary Mont, and the rest; I am simply in a state
of disagreement with their aims.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 16, 2011 at 8:02 am Link to this comment

You know, finding attention on binary coming from Martha A makes sense to me. I have always suspected Martha A was really a computer program instead of a person or she could even be one of those brains in a jar which just happens to have a dramatic thought impediment obviously lacking in social graces.

For instance, most of her stuff seems cut and past to me, usually the same word or group of words are used over and over by her, (occasionally copying other peoples words). Almost always happening in the first sentence, and seldom coherent. Programmers or mad scientists may be working on Martha A the computer but it seems to be evolving about as well as instilling integrity into our congress?  I may have missed it, but I have never noticed Martha A contribute anything to an article or even discuss the issues of the day, instead it usually ends up as some sort of obfuscation or insult. Shrill or troll does come to mind?

Since I have been insulted by Martha A on more then many occasions and found my feelers hurt to point to even crying into my Tequila.  I feel absolutely no obligation to be polite to MA,  nor do I feel the need to tip toe around and whisper like I may wake up a baby iceberg.

As for the electronic brown shirts I believe John Best may be correct in his associated idea of an Arab Spring, we do seem be heading towards Silent Spring and I also would like to see a clean spring.

As for Martha A and her connections to doing number 1 or number 2,... I have little else to add;... except, when I read Martha’s prattle I do find myself in the very same funk as when I listen to Republicans preforming their programed sound bites on just about anything. Republicans consistently seem to be do number 2 on the the people they represent. Last evening I heard Texas Governor Perry considering himself as a man of profit, I find that the most refreshing truth if have ever heard from any Republican.

I find it very important to keep a paper bag handy in my regular exercise of hyperventilation, which seems to be more and more frequent these days. like When I see Wisconson Walker do number 2 on the people of his state, I grab my paper bag and do number… 3.

Report this
John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, June 16, 2011 at 7:30 am Link to this comment

Drat, the link didn’t work as planned…
Well, it’s the comment thee in the Chris Hedges ‘What Resistance Looks Like’ article at June 16 at 6:55 am.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/this_is_what_resistance_looks_like_20110403/#409056

By the way, I googled ‘binary emotional rhetoric’, and about 2/3 down this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_50
there seems to be a failed attempt to be objective about it.

I also found this very good article on ‘emotional binaries’, http://www.opendemocracy.net/conflict-war_on_terror/article_89.jsp, and I call it an very good article because it agrees with my pre-existing opinion.  That being that very, very few topics can be reduced to the sort of binaries we are used to dealing with in boolean logic.  In fact,these ‘emotional binaries’, are something quite different, explosive, irrational, passionate.  They lend themselves to conflict instead of resolution.  I take issue that what ‘binary emotional rhetoric’ implies at face is in any way compatible with the ideas put forth in “The Fine Art of Propaganda” here http://ics.leeds.ac.uk/papers/vp01.cfm?outfit=pmt&folder=715&paper=1145

In fairness, perhaps the words ‘binary emotional rhetoric’ do not represent the underlying concept accurately.  That is, on it’s face the phrase ‘binary emotional rhetoric’ has an implied meaning to the reader.  It is the responsibility of the creator of that phrase to clarify whatever misconceptions arise in it’s absorption to the audience.  Until such clarification is made, the phrase ‘binary emotional rhetoric’ may itself indeed be a sophism.  I would hope this is not the intent.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 16, 2011 at 7:27 am Link to this comment

Good Morning

Obviously there is a misunderstanding.  If you are the author of the
phrase Binary Emotional Rhetoric, MarthaA, it’s news to me, as I have
never heard the phrase before this forum.  If you stated it elsewhere
on TD, it was a forum I had not visited in any capacity. Your post of
June 14 7:56pm to ITW seems to suggest the three words are
described at the Taylor site, but perhaps I interpreted your post
wrongly.  I did not suspect it was your idiosyncratic definition. 
Definitions in the public domain are ones that the public would know
and recognize when spoken or written. That is why using personal
esoteric phrases for the public to understand is egotistical and
somewhat pretentious.  Why use three words when one word in the
lingua franca is sufficient.  It is not necessary to use a surplus of words. 
It is better to be without elaborate artificiality as possible.  You speak
of cause/effect.  I think Aristotles’ efficient cause is a wise guide which
hails the primary source as that from which a change may begin and
the most simple terms are the most efficient way affect the people who
are the ones to be changed and will more directly set change in motion.

I do not disagree that your phrase describes to a degree how
propaganda operates.  Emotion is the only way action is motivated but
action is the second step whereas causing emotion is the first step. 
Effecting change ought to be effortless on the part of the one to be
changed.  It is only logical. 

Propaganda is the main tool of fascists (physical coercion is the next
favorite tool) but it is also the tool of non-fascists to affect those who
desire action in those prone to inaction.  Rhetoric is such a devise as
well, but if one does not limit it only to the most narrow of definitions,
not all rhetoric is propaganda.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 16, 2011 at 7:15 am Link to this comment

Like a bad marksman you keep missing the mark.

If someone is trying to sway you to their POV (or a POV) and provides you with complete facts and a sound analysis, even if you don’t like their conclusions, it’s not propaganda.

If, instead, they omit, or skew, a fact or their logical analysis is incorrect or incomplete, it may be propaganda, or it may simply be incompetence.

If, however, they DELIBERATELY omit, skew or falsify a fact, or they DELIBERATELY provide an incorrect or incomplete logical analysis, it is, by definition, propaganda.

Propaganda in toto, of course, may have, as pieces, non-propaganda analyses of specific situations.  But the propagandist gets the most mileage from combining clearly true and verifiable analysis with less reputable work.

Report this
John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, June 16, 2011 at 7:07 am Link to this comment

By golly, you’re right!  we can thank MarthA for this that very good link to “The Fine Art of Propaganda, A Study of Father Coughlin’s Speeches.” Credit where credit is due.  A nice nugget like that gives me hope that MarthA can be evolved away from the mean spirited nature she exhibits. 

On another topic, perhaps you’d be interested in a little thought I’ve expressed here:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/this_is_what_resistance_looks_like_20110403She/#409056  I’ll call it my crude attempt at being Orwellesque.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 16, 2011 at 6:04 am Link to this comment

Shenonymous, June 15 at 9:42 pm,

I have been saying over and over again for years that “binary
emotional rhetoric”
is the common thread that the
Seven Categories of Propaganda can be reduced down to.

I have never said that I trolled around the internet looking for
Culture of Critical Discourse nuggets that I could
regurgitate like Long John Silver’s parrot; that is NOT my schtik
—my schtik is independent thought and analysis.

What I said in my recent post to you is ”.... the definition I have
given to you and the World for what propaganda is ——binary
emotional rhetoric?”

This reaction is an example of what I was talking about with
regard to the cup needing to have some of its contents emptied of
useless content, so that more beneficial content can be added.

This is the way I see things, independent of emotional feelings of
pride and desire to protect self esteem; I do not mean to offend.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 15, 2011 at 9:42 pm Link to this comment

Visiting the site a second time, you are right, John Best, it is very
interesting and we should thank MarthaA for putting us onto it. 
From the Institute of Communications Studies, University of Leeds,
UK, Phil Taylor - As generally understood, propaganda is opinion
expressed for the purpose of influencing actions of individuals or
groups.  More formally, the Institute for Propaganda Analysis has
defined “propaganda is the expression of opinion or action by
individuals or groups deliberately designed to influence opinions
or actions of other individuals or groups with reference to
predetermined ends.”  The entry on this page is completely about the
nature of propaganda and gives the seven ABC’s of propaganda
analysis. 

The seven ABC’s are logical and maybe common sense.  They could
be listed along with Leefeller’s favorite, Britt’s 10 points of fascism
for those who want to keep up with this sort of thing.  They might be
worth repeating them here.  It would take a couple of posts, maybe
three.  Why even a pamphlet could be made of the two sets!  The site
is most instructive but it does not mention binary emotional rhetoric.

MarthaA, if you could point to a place on Taylor’s Leeds, UK website
where your phrase BER is used, I’d be glad to visit it.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 15, 2011 at 9:23 pm Link to this comment

In frolicking around the resources on the Internet, instigated
by that rascal, John Best, I checked out the Wiki bio on George
Armitage Miller.  Seems like he is the 20th most historically
important psychologist of the 20th century.  He is presently 91
years of age.  I would be pleased to be his relative.  I like his
theory of seven.  Seems to dovetail in with the Rule of 9.  If you
enjoy a little diversion check out
http://www.curiousmath.com/index.php?name=news&file=article&sid=33

I found Miller’s Law sensible:  “In order to understand what another
person is saying, you must assume it is true and try to imagine what
it could be true of.”  Seems appropriately applied on this forum.

MarthaA, I have never found John Best’s comments blather!  Why not
reply to what he has discovered?  All it could be is either true or not true.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 15, 2011 at 6:56 pm Link to this comment

Hey! Leave Pocahontas out of this!

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 15, 2011 at 12:19 pm Link to this comment

ITW, Not only blather, but also a self induced expert on physics, psychosis, and probably Pocahontas.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 15, 2011 at 11:50 am Link to this comment

And LeeFeller?
MarthaA’s the EXPERT on blather!

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 15, 2011 at 9:33 am Link to this comment

Leefeller, June 15 at 8:44 am,

What you are most probably describing, Leefeller is a
psychotic episode.  Perhaps when it passes and you morph
back into your usual fugue state, you will be able to spout your
blather with what you consider a less clouded mind, although I doubt
seriously others perception of your state of slumber will be affected.

Report this
John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, June 15, 2011 at 8:47 am Link to this comment

Shenonymous, that is a nice article at http://ics.leeds.ac.uk/papers/vp01.cfm?outfit=pmt&folder=715&paper=1145

I initially rolled my eyes at the “7 ABC’s of propaganda analysis”, but they were quite good.  The common logical fallacies he chooses to enumerate are worth the refresher. 

But ironically, if one applies Dr. Taylors methods to his own article, one must second guess their own objectivity and susceptibilities, even though the article appears extremely objective and neutral.  I suggest this as a joke really, I found the article to be good and I think I am being objective and not prejudice by my preconceived notions of the elements of ‘critical thinking’ he pens.  Damn though, ‘critical thinking’ may be a ‘virtue word’.  I’ll crawl back out of this rabbit hole in a bit. (<:

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 15, 2011 at 8:44 am Link to this comment

I must thank Martha A for her cornucopia of pointless dissertations, using the word dissertations lightly here….On second thought distractions seems more like it?  I am not thanking Martha A just for the inaneness of her content or her copious saturations,... but I am thanking her for her dogma in constancy. I have discovered Martha A helps me achieve a state of being which has been problematic for some time now. ...Martha A seems to be the unsuspecting provender of the perfect product which induces in me a condition of body and mind where my nervous system becomes inactive, my eyes close, all my postural muscles become very relaxed, and my consciousness becomes practically suspended,... well more suspended than my usual consciousness, ... clearly Martha A has become the cure all for my insomnia.

Report this
John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, June 15, 2011 at 8:18 am Link to this comment

Shenonynous, Hello again.

I am glad you found the Jacoby book worthwhile, and I thank you for the suggested reading.  I will do what I can.  Unfortunately, one must pick and choose.  I read at the end of the day, and as I get older, it makes me sleepy!  I am working through Michael Parenti’s “The Assasination of Julius Ceasar”.  Some insight as to the apparently consistent behaviors which go along with developing greed and protecting wealth.  Things never change.

You say, “I think, however, one should be poised to stay on a middle path of sound mind without falling into excessive passion and become frozen about a political position.”, and I reply, yes, indeed, but oh, so difficult.  All extremes hate the center, I think because we don’t do ‘tribe’ well.

I really don’t know about the Millers, I have very little data except the rather disruptive posts in a Chris Hedges forum “This is what Resistance looks like”.  I certainly can’t make an out-and-out accusation, but if I extend the benefit of the doubt, I’d say they are extremely intolerant of anything outside their narrow view, quick to call names, cast aspersions, and were extremely disruptive to the otherwise enjoyable discussion.  That is the best I can say.  Who knows?  If these people are some sort of troll, they are fascinating indeed because of that extreme dedication.  It’s almost unimaginable, but I’m keeping all options open.

As for this article/forum, I found the article interesting, as controlling dissent in this very new and not yet understood internet era is going to be a challenge for the status quo.  If adequate flow of bread and circus cannot be maintained, might we have our own version of the ‘Arab Spring’?  I suspect the various think tanks have dispatched monitoring/disruption activities formally, and there is no shortage of self-styled wanna-be amateurish garden-variety right-wing, evangelical troll.  So…...this ‘electronic brownshirts’ idea is a force to be much better in the public discourse.  I suppose it will evolve, and I am hopeful we will learn to be generally more perceptive in our interpretation and sensitive in handling this force.  Very interesting.

I think I am going to pick up the Eric Hoffer book you recommend. “True Believer”. 

Well, carry on…..  love your day.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 15, 2011 at 7:57 am Link to this comment

John Best, June 15 at 2:27 am,

Blather.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 15, 2011 at 7:45 am Link to this comment

JB:
Catching up on your link to Goffman I immediately noticed that his “stigma”‘s 3 types lacked an obvious 4th: That people can get stigmatized because of their behavior.  While plenty of jackasses enjoy popularity, others do get stigmatized and ostracized for the obvious: They are jerks.

Social science modeling depends heavily upon assumptions but assumptions must be generally considered reasonable.  Otherwise, like the apocryphal economist “We don’t have a problem.  All we need to do is assume we have can-opener”.

“Assume a can-opener” has become short-hand in Economics for an absurd, unsupportable assumption that makes a theory work, and, without, the theory collapses.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 15, 2011 at 7:43 am Link to this comment

It is a good policy, Inherit The Wind, to say
NOTHING, if you have NOTHING to say. 

In your case, however, having NOTHING to say is no
deterrent to your proclivity to say NOTHING
“continually,”

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, June 15, 2011 at 7:21 am Link to this comment

drbhelthi, June 14 at 1:21 pm:

‘... As far as the blog in German is concerned, there is not a correct sentence in all of it. ...’

I was quoting one of Hegel’s more famous quips.  I am sure his ghost will be dismayed to learn that his German was bad!  Why don’t you correct it for him?

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 15, 2011 at 6:55 am Link to this comment

Good Morning all, and hello John Best, it is good to see you show
up on this forum!  I was going to go to the other forum to tell you
I have been reading the Susan Jacoby book and am riveted by her
informed insights.  It has led me to buy her mentor’s book, Richard
Hofstater, Anti-Intellectualism in American Life, as well as Monkey
Girl by Edward Humes both excellent if you have not run across them. 
I am so glad you recommended the Jacoby.  These three are crucial
reads to collect sane information about the intentions of the Right-
Wing quasi-theocrats to confiscate this country on behalf of the
upper 1% where I think they consider themselves as also residing.

I think RIchard Wolin’s book, The Seduction of Unreason, who wrote in a
similar vein as Jacoby’s thesis of the intentional program to keep people
ignorant, only on a world scale, is just as important.  There is also an English
drafted-philosopher, Hector Hawton, whose, Reason in Action presents five
essays that builds a rational case for people’s responsibility for making their
own judgments and decisions that keeps them on a path for what kind of life
they should walk on.

I think Eric Hoffer’s tremendous book, True Believer, should never be put away
even if once read and kept as a companion to remind one to be aware of how
fascism or coercion of attitudes happens.  To be able to reason well gives one the
ability to make better choices for one’s life.  I think, however, one should be poised
to stay on a middle path of sound mind without falling into excessive passion and
become frozen about a political position.

The notion of propaganda is another topic that I think is important, so I am
interested to see how further MarthaA creates her thesis.  I am not sure about the
credentials of the Institute for Communications and Propaganda and Phil Taylor at
http://ics.leeds.ac.uk/papers/vp01.cfm?outfit=pmt&folder=715&paper=1145
Much more information about this group is needed.  Their writings found at the
website is vast.  Taylor does not have a Wikipedia page, but was affiliated with USC,
which turns up on a google page when a search is invoked for Professor Philip
Taylor, Professor of International Communications.

Much as I appreciate your cogent posts, I read your post here with a squinted
eye though.  The “Millers” have been on these threads for many years and have
consistently and always have promoted a socialist flavor to politics and the dangers
of the ultra-conservatives.  They and I have waged mighty bloody forums, but seem
to have worked our way through them, which is unusual as movement by both sides
(them and me) towards better understanding and tolerance has happened.  Perhaps I
am naive.  I would be the first to admit it though upon better verifiable information. 
Their style shows incendiary impatience (at passion’s gate) at times. You seem to
suggest there might be a morbid agenda to it.  My attention is piqued to see what
you post further, and of course responses from MarthaA and if he jumps in,
ThomasG.

Report this
John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, June 15, 2011 at 2:27 am Link to this comment

I couldn’t help trying to find out who these people are….Martha and Thomas….their tactic is so interesting, and they seem to have some tools.  So, I poked about and thought I’d share this.  Following a ‘linguistics’ trail I found the famous George Miller. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Armitage_Miller
The short biography is worth reading. His current project: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WordNet 
Might Martha’s husband, Thomas G, be the frustrated son of the renowned George Miller?

Another possible clue?? In this book: http://www.uk.sagepub.com/books/Book210765/toc
A Thomas G. Miller contributed a chapter about “Goffman, positive and the self?” Being ignorant of Goffman, I Googled and it led me here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_stigma  Of course this may just be something that was located at random, but it is extremely interesting, the sort of fundamental in which a member of a right wing boiler room operation’ would be schooled.  I’m chasing ghosts? 

I’m just curious if Martha/Thomas are members of a small ‘right wing boiler room operation’,an accusation they’ve made about others.  I also find the fruits of the pursuit to be in keeping with the original ‘electronic brownshirts’ theme.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 14, 2011 at 8:14 pm Link to this comment

MarthaA, June 14 at 7:56 pm Link to this comment

Inherit The Wind, June 14 at 7:47 pm,

Binary Emotional Rhetoric is three words that unify the
SEVEN definitions of propaganda defined by The Institute For Propaganda Analysis in “The Fine Art of Propaganda, A Study of Father Coughlin’s Speeches.”

Check it out.

**************

Who gives a shit? 

Like I said, a small, make that TEENSY, circle of intellectually incestuous stuffed shirts. Yeah, they really get to supersede the dictionaries of the English Language.

The pitiful thing is you don’t see how pitiful this all really is.

10 kinds of people: Those that understand binary and those that don’t.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 14, 2011 at 7:58 pm Link to this comment

5 Yups ITW, but I’m not surprised!  You know what they say
about great minds, Sie schwimmen im selben Kanal! lachen lachen
Gute nacht

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 14, 2011 at 7:56 pm Link to this comment

Inherit The Wind, June 14 at 7:47 pm,

Binary Emotional Rhetoric is three words that unify the
SEVEN definitions of propaganda defined by The Institute For
Propaganda Analysis in “The Fine Art of Propaganda, A Study of
Father Coughlin’s Speeches.”

Check it out.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 14, 2011 at 7:52 pm Link to this comment

She: Once again we were thinking in the same (jugular) vein!

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 14, 2011 at 7:47 pm Link to this comment

The definition of propaganda is binary emotional
rhetoric, Shenonymous, a three word definition that
means two part choices of emotional content that is framed in the context of rhetoric, which is language that is used to lead others to a conclusion.

***********

No, that’s not the definition of propaganda. That’s just more of your arcane euphemistic horseshit that you pompously like to toss around.  Who died and made YOU the authority on what propaganda is? Maybe in some small circle of stuffed shirts that’s the definition, but here’s one that is far more widely accepted:

1 cap: a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions. 2: the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping of injuring an institution, a cause or a person. 3:ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one’s cause or to damage an opposing cause; also: a public action having such an effect

The source of this is my Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11 ed.

I’m not even sure you know what binary means. There are 10 kinds of people in the world: Those that understand binary and those that don’t.

As for rhetoric, it’s merely the art of speaking or writing effectively.  When the art of speaking subsumes that substance we use “rhetoric” pejoratively.

And we all know what emotional means.

So “Binary Emotional Rhetoric” doesn’t by any stretch of the (sane) imagination define propaganda.

So…I weigh the balance….Whose definition do I accept? The condescending and inarticulate euphemism passer MarthaA…or the authoritive Merriam Web 11?

Hmmmmm….that’s a toughie….Hmmmm….

No it’s not.  I go with M-Web 11. And I’ll bet only one other person will go with MarthaA’s definition…the ever-insulting, never-amusing, thick-as-a-brick, racist, anti-Semitic Dr. Quack.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 14, 2011 at 7:35 pm Link to this comment

Part 1
All right MarthaA.  There are 43 dictionaries I have found on
the OneLook Dictionary Search site at
http://www.onelook.com/?w=propaganda&ls=a  that have
definitons for the word propaganda.  It is not my intention
to incur your ire over this.  I am providing this as a favor to you.

The word propaganda is related to the word propagate.  From New
Latin prop?ganda, short for Congreg?ti? d? Propagand? Fide,
“congregation for propagating the faith”, a committee of cardinals
established 1622 by Gregory XV to supervise foreign missions, and
properly the ablative feminine gerundive of Latin prop?g? (“propagate”)
(see English propagation). Modern political sense dates from World War
I, not originally pejorative.  Wiktionary does not offer binary emotional
rhetoric. 

But here are the references:  (of interest is #18) #23 & #24 are useless.
I particularly like #25 as it gives an encyclopedic entry as well. #31 is
very interesting in that it is a lengthy explanation and is called “Slanted
Language.”  #33 the ArtLex – scroll down to the word then click.  #37 is
lengthy.

Your favorite phrase binary emotional rhetoric is not used in any
dictionary nor the encyclopedias referenced.  Perhaps Ruth Marcus made
the phrase up and perhaps you just happen to like the three words put
together because they approximate your emotional attachment to the
idea.

1.  propaganda: Compact Oxford English Dictionary
2.  propaganda: American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
propaganda: Vocabulary.com
3.  propaganda: Macmillan Dictionary
4.  propaganda: Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary, 11th Edition
5.  Propaganda, propaganda: Wordnik
6.  propaganda: Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary
7.  Propaganda: Wiktionary
8.  propaganda: Cobuild Student Dictionary for Learners of English
9.  propaganda: Collins Pocket English Dictionary
10.  Propaganda, propaganda: Encarta® World English Dictionary,
North American Edition
11.  propaganda: Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th Ed.
12.  [propaganda: The Wordsmyth English Dictionary-Thesaurus
13.  propaganda: Infoplease Dictionary
14.  propaganda: Dictionary.com
15.  propaganda: Online Etymology Dictionary
16.  propaganda: UltraLingua English Dictionary
17.  propaganda: Cambridge Dictionary of American English]
18.  Propaganda (Aftershock album), Propaganda (Linux distribution),
Propaganda (Lp), Propaganda (Melotron), Propaganda (Serbian band),
Propaganda (Sound album), Propaganda (album), Propaganda (band),
Propaganda (book), Propaganda (disambiguation), Propaganda (film),
Propaganda (operating system), Propaganda: Wikipedia, the Free
Encyclopedia Propaganda: Online Plain Text English Dictionary

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 14, 2011 at 7:33 pm Link to this comment

Part 2
21.  propaganda: Webster’s Revised Unabridged, 1913 Edition
22.  propaganda: Rhymezone
23.  Propaganda (f), propaganda, propaganda, propaganda,
propaganda (de): AllWords.com Multi-Lingual Dictionary
24.  Propaganda: Encarta® Online Encyclopedia, North American
Edition
25.  Propaganda: 1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica
26.  propaganda: Free Dictionary
27.  propaganda: Mnemonic Dictionary
28.  propaganda: WordNet 1.7 Vocabulary Helper
29.  propaganda: LookWAYup Translating Dictionary/Thesaurus
30.  propaganda: Dictionary/thesaurus
31.  Propaganda: UVic Writer’s Guide
32.  propaganda: Wikimedia Commons US English Pronunciations

Art (2 matching dictionaries)
33.  propaganda: ArtLex Lexicon of Visual Art Terminology
34.  propaganda: ODLIS: Online Dictionary of Library and Information
Science

Business (2 matching dictionaries)
35.  propaganda: Legal dictionary
36.  propaganda: BusinessDictionary.com

Computing (1 matching dictionary)
37.  propaganda: Encyclopedia

Medicine (2 matching dictionaries)
38.  Propaganda: Medical Dictionary
39.  propaganda: online medical dictionary

Miscellaneous (1 matching dictionary)
40.  propaganda: Political

Tech (1 matching dictionary)
41.  propaganda: DOD Dictionary of Military Terms
 
Quick definitions from WordNet (propaganda)

42. noun:  information that is spread for the purpose of promoting
some cause

43.Check out the Urban Dictionary for the following for a very
humorous definition:  In the search bar type in:  A station that allows
propaganda in order to turn everyone into mindless Republicans

Phrases that include propaganda:  black propaganda, agitative
propaganda, a station that allows propaganda in o, anti-soviet
propaganda, british propaganda during world war ii

Words similar to propaganda:  propagandist, propagandistic,
propagandistically

Now I looked up every single one of these dictionary references.  If you
are honest, I suggest you will do the same.  I will address your other
questions tomorrow.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 14, 2011 at 7:10 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous, June 13 at 9:04 am,

“Teaching the public dialectic is like teaching them to eat worms. 
Worms might be full of protein and could be shown to be a good
addition to one’s diet but in this culture it is stigmatically arcane. 
Teaching them about propaganda with a constant stream of
simplified information about how they are being duped is a better
and more propitious course.  KISS theory works!  You are not
wrong about positive and negative balanced dialectic.  But their
inclusion in the articulation of the political scene would fly over
ordinary Americans’ head.  Just look at the more conscious few
who people this forum and how it goes over their heads!” 
—Shenonymous, June 13 at 9:04 am

KISS Theory is what defining propaganda as being “binary
emotional rhetoric” is all about.  What could be more KISS than
propaganda defined as “binary emotional rhetoric,” three words
that would empower even Joe Six Pack to do propaganda analysis?

With regard to positively and negatively balanced dialectic, I do
not see any more of a KISS problem with these forms of dialectic
than with propaganda.  I see the problem as being a full mental
cup where space is NOT available for new thought that is separate
and apart from what the mental cup is full of, rather than just a
KISS problem.  Both concepts have a role.  No matter how simple a
concept is, if there is not room in the mental cup and the concept
is crowded out by existing propagandistic content of the mental
cup, simplicity will become irrelevant, and propaganda will
overcome all else.

I see the problem as being one of starting to understand that our
mental cups are full of content that does not provide benefit, and
that we need to start a process of determining what needs to be
emptied from our mental cups and what that content needs to be
replaced with.

Learning to do propaganda analysis and dialectic analysis will
allow the population as a whole to start evaluating the contents of
their mental cups as their mental cups currently exist, to start to
make more measured judgments about what needs to be emptied
from their cups and what content should be used to refill the cups.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, June 14, 2011 at 5:54 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous, June 13 at 9:08 am,

“It would appear MarthaA, that you want to install a political
rhetorical propaganda-detecting machine (mental machine that is)
in everybody in order to counteract the propaganda that is being
continuously perpetrated….”—Shenonymous, June 13 at 9:08
am

With regard to the above excerpt from your June 13 9:08am post,
let’s have a look at some of the key words—political rhetorical
propaganda-detecting machine.

If we can empty our cup of the nonsense that our heads are full
of, and look at what a political rhetorical propaganda-detecting
machine (mental machine, that is), as you say really is, your
statement says that in machine fashion we could do political
analysis, rhetorical analysis and propaganda analysis to determine
the true nature, meaning, and intent of dialogue.  Is it so difficult
to comprehend that normal people could analyze linguistics in this
fashion, and that to do so would be “Using excessive social
psychological arcane euphemisms, like binary emotional
rhetoric…”
that is self defeating?  Also, please
explain how the use of binary emotional
rhetoric
as a definition of propaganda is
self-defeating.

The definition of propaganda is binary emotional
rhetoric
, Shenonymous
, a three word definition that
means two part choices of emotional content that is framed in the
context of rhetoric, which is language that is used to lead others
to a conclusion.

It is well within the ability of the average human being to
remember a three word definition of propaganda, as binary
emotional rhetoric
and the definition of these three words
that I have given are simple and straight forward enough to allow
average people to do propaganda analysis.

Please explain “arcane euphemisms” as indicated in your post in
relation to the definition of propaganda as an “arcane
euphemism”.  So far as I know arcane in the context you use the
word is a secret or hidden description of something disagreeable,
and propaganda defined as binary—two part, emotional, rhetoric
—language used to lead others to a conclusion is about as
straight forward and descriptive as a definition of propaganda, as
it is humanly possible to construct, that is concise, and to the point of
describing exactly what propaganda is.

I suggest that you open your dictionary to the definition of
propaganda, read the definition in your dictionary and then tell me
which is a more clear and concise definition of what propaganda is,
your dictionary definition or the definition I have given you and the
world for what propaganda is —binary emotional
rhetoric?
  If you are ingenuous in your response, I already
know what your answer is, and that is ——binary emotional
rhetoric——
the most clear, concise definition for defining
propaganda that has ever existed and enables propaganda
analysis by ordinary people by nothing more than knowledge of
the definition of three simple words—— binary emotional
rhetoric
.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 14, 2011 at 3:32 pm Link to this comment

If you insist on staying on a forum where I plan to linger for
awhile, drbhelthi, and continue your assaults on me and my
character, you will have to suffer the comments as they come.
I caution you, though, just as MarthaA has had others cautioned
who have taken to insulting her. Instead of merely accusing, show
exactly how my comments are redundant, superfluous, hyperbolic,
as well as constant, diminutive retorts and as against whose opinions?
For if you don’t, you are lying.  Also show that the German used is
not in correct form. Dein Verstand scheint zu sein, ganz voll von
Scheiße!
  It is too bad you feel so reactively inferior, that happens to
pompous anti-intellectuals who get mowed down. And it is not the
case that opinion and information cannot coincide.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 14, 2011 at 1:55 pm Link to this comment

I must admit this reminds me of Hunter S. Thompson:
“When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.”

I can only presume that TM has cited the AUP.

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, June 14, 2011 at 1:21 pm Link to this comment

I find little in the redundant, superfluous hyperbole of Shenonymous
that constitutes an adult blog, and even less useful information. 
Constant, diminuitive retorts against opinions of others, using
verbal superlatives, reflects an extensive vocabulary. Plus, an
underlying personality trait.

As far as the blog in German is concerned, there is not a correct
sentence in all of it, nor does it pass for street talk.  Demanding
to be recognized as perfect and all-wise is a thread that pervades
the blogs of Shenonymous.  And, a couple of other bloggers.  An
opinion is an opinion.  Information is information.  The two are
rarely identical.  Redundant, verbose hyperbole skirts both.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 14, 2011 at 12:54 pm Link to this comment

Sorry, that should have read: Whether the doctor has spoken
German

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 14, 2011 at 12:52 pm Link to this comment

Almost right, MarthaA.  The translation is:  Good morning! Mainly
because it serves the purposes of humor. But more than that, for
my part, it is an esoteric perversion to drill deep into the brain of
the anti-intellectual. Laugh laugh. Sounds like ultra-conservative
grumbling. Why are you such a crank? Who cares if you give points
anyway? What makes you think you rate a special honor?

Whether the doctor has spoken grammer for 54 years or not he
shows a disingenuousness in asking constipated questions.  The
grammar is perfect in the above statements written in a speaking voice,
not a strictly literary one.  He appears bitter because he is asked to
explain his churlish remarks.  It is of no importance whatsoever if one
uses the rhetorical device of slipping in a sentence or two of a different
language.  It makes for a more colorful expression. 

Anarcissie’s use of the pronoun we did not seem to be the “all inclusive”
we as Hedges the weezer usually does.  But I felt it included me even if
it was not meant to.  It was a perfect response. 

It seems that more toleration around the entire forum might be prudent
and adult.  The conversation has been interesting at least to me and if
one is not interested, no one is breaking any e-arms to stick around
either on this forum or any other.

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, June 14, 2011 at 11:55 am Link to this comment

Martha A. “Flammendeshaeusl”

Thank you, Martha.
I have spoken German since 1957. I did not respond to the blog, as
whoever wrote it missed some classes in German grammar, but has broadened ones vocabulary since then.  Having been a psychologist and supervisory psychologist since 1971, I prefer to be as healthy as possible.  Responding to blogs that tend to scapegoat me, tends to strengthen the underlying weakness of the writer, which is contrary to my almost forty years of practice. Not only is it a waste of my experience and energy, it is also a waste of valuable space on Truthdig.

Report this

Page 3 of 6 pages  <  1 2 3 4 5 >  Last »

 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook