even this one.

political memes serve as a potent form of propaganda, irrespective of the viewpoint they espouse or the degree of nuance they convey. the term “propaganda” itself is morally neutral*; it’s the adherence to facts, level of honesty, and underlying goals of either empowering or oppressing that determine the moral value of political propaganda. thus, the essence lies not in the mere act of influencing opinions but in the integrity and intentions behind the message conveyed.

this principle also applies to other terms including “shill” “bot” and others. for example, calling someone spreading pro-maga sentiment a “russian bot” achieves little rhetorically and is essentially an ad hominem. more effective approaches might highlight how such behavior is rooted in protecting the status quo of violence against vulnerable communities.

*****or at least the morally neutral definition can and will be used against you if you make the error of not engaging with the actual wicked of wicked propaganda. this is a post about semantics, see the faq below.

tldr call them out for their shit, not just for how they are doing it.

caveat, of course, do not feed the trolls. calling out trolls for their behavior is effective because it encourages dismissal of their behavior altogether in the form of moderator reports and blocking.

FAQ: Isn’t this just semantics?

yes, and intentionally so. semantics exist and are useful to engage with when it comes to countering the malicious propaganda of bad actors.

calling out the propaganda itself rather than its malicious intent or falsehoods only scratches the surface of the issue. to effectively counter propaganda, one must expose the underlying agenda driving it. focusing solely on the term “propaganda” risks missing the broader context and allowing the harmful narrative to persist unchecked.

  • TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Sorry for this incomplete reply, but I read this much earlier and just haven’t had time to address. But I’d love for a compelling argument for #0. I’m open to it, but lean strongly towards it being over represented in online spaces with some tragic spillover events. Relatively, it’s spillover are of course horrible, but there are traditional forms of propaganda like a trump rally that presents an immediate, festering danger that spans several thousand or more people willing to act.

    • spujb@lemmy.cafeOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      You’re seeking a direct cause-effect relationship as evidence, but it’s often a longer chain of events, akin to dominos falling.

      Take the “RIGHT WING GRIFTER destroys FEMINAZI” meme on mid-2010s YouTube, for instance. Did these videos directly incite violence against women? Unprovable. Did they significantly alter the prevailing sentiment among young men, fostering behaviors that normalize violence? Indisputably.

      Another instance is the stochastic terrorism of Libs of TikTok. While not directly inciting violence, this account has indirectly resulted in literal bomb threats.

      Not all serious matters are as overt as a MAGA or Nazi rally. All memes are a form of speech with the potential to effect change. Some speech and memes are hateful and violent.

      Consider your example of a Trump rally. Do you believe everyone just showed up one day to support him? Of course not. Persuasive media, including FOX News and Facebook, played a role. Racist, sexist, and xenophobic memes also doubtless played a part for many. Hence my conclusion, memes have the potential to he deadly serious.

      • TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        I’d be open to statistical cohort analysis demonstrating construct validity for a population when a threshold exposure to memes create a set of results. Which is to say, this group of people, when spending time online in these meme heavy sites are more likely to engage in certain behaviors relative to their peers who don’t. The reason I’m saying this is because it’s hard to isolate memes are being more influential than other forms or propaganda.

        Secondly, let’s assume the effect is large, what is the relative size of that population to other populations who may have be exposed to a set of propaganda that has a smaller effect?

        None of this is to say that propaganda shouldn’t be taken seriously. It should. But where to address it and how to address it become a crucial question. Memes exist within a complex web of media through which propaganda is distributed. You acknowledge this fact in your reply. Your conclusion that “memes have the potential to be deadly serious” isn’t clearly differentiated from “propagandas have the potential to be deadly serious”.

        • spujb@lemmy.cafeOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          i uh… what is your goal with this lol. is this some new form of trolling im not aware of? you had my position right earlier but now you have left that and are building some crazy strawmen that i don’t stand by. here’s one:

          The reason I’m saying this is because it’s hard to isolate memes are being more influential than other forms or propaganda.

          not my intent. the italicized statement above i neither believe to be true nor have ever implied to be. you came up with that on your own.

          moreover:

          “memes have the potential to be deadly serious” isn’t clearly differentiated from “propoganda has the potential to be deadly serious”

          just… huh? what does “clearly differentiated” mean? again you’re putting words in my mouth or something? my position can be expressed quite simply as:

          all propaganda can be serious
          all political memes are propaganda
          therefore, all political memes can be serious

          i feel like this is pretty straightforward. that’s a valid syllogism, so if the first two premises are true the conclusion must necessarily also be true.

          this thread is getting weird. i don’t know what’s going on and i feel that one of us is quite out of our depth here. i’m not a researcher i am a dumb person who posts memes to the internet sorry if i somehow came across otherwise lol

          • TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            Sorry. Didn’t mean to unintentionally troll. I just don’t understand the value of focusing on memes specifically over propaganda in general.

            I wish you well on your journey and I hope you can forgive me for being too pedantic. Cheers!

            • spujb@lemmy.cafeOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              7 months ago

              no problem. i focus on memes cuz they are my “thing.” its not only a way i socialize with my friends, but it’s also a way that i learn about the world and the human condition. i know that sounds stupid and over-serious but i mean it genuinely.

              id never ask anyone else to involuntarily take up the same specific relationship to memes as i do, this post is only me sharing information which i have found to be generally valuable when it comes to the political subset of memes. cheers :)