It’s not that I needed more historical context to make sense of the information you’re providing. The history lesson makes sense. It’s that you never drew any conclusion, nor connected it to the original post. Your post was heavy on insinuation, but void of clear meaning, leaving readers to draw their own conclusions on your intent. The only methods to “fill in variables” here are to make assumptions, possibly with the extra context of your post history, or politely ask your intent. I chose the latter. Though I still have to derive your intent from your post to be that I used the word incorrectly, as you’ve again neglected to actually say what you mean.
“Brainwash” is used to refer to exactly the condition I was referencing: being led to believe falsehoods completely and wholly, through the control of information and repetition of said falsehoods. Its original popuparization in anti-Russian, American political discourse is completely irrelevent to the message the word effectively communicated to those who read my post.
Language changes, and it’s the current interpretation of it that gives it meaning. Hilariously, you used the word “propaganda” to refer to falsehoods used to dismiss outside views; the word propaganda simply means information with political intent and its relation to falsehoods was a result of the Third Reich. The Ministry of Propaganda and Public Enlightenment, founded by Joeseph Goebbels, became famous for its spread of intentionally misleading propaganda, and popularized the connection of the word to lies and falsehoods. So should I suggest then that your use of the word is incorrect, as you’ve removed it from its context and used it to convey negative connotations that it didn’t originally hold?
Again, I genuinely do appreciate the history lesson. The intersection between words and their historical context is exactly in my professional field and I find it to be a fascinating topic. But if the intent was to attack the quality or authenticity of my post through semantic analysis via historical meaning, I think there are better ways we can both spend our time.
“Brainwash” is used to refer to exactly the condition I was referencing: being led to believe falsehoods completely and wholly, through the control of information and repetition of said falsehoods.
It’s regularly abused to describe differences in opinion or deficits in trust. Case in point, evangelicals will fling it around regularly when arguing over the practice of teaching Evolution in high school. They’ll assert Biblical Infallibility and claim paleontology is a falsehood that children are indoctrinated into.
You get the same out of war time propaganda. Particularly out of the Korean War, when the Red Scare was particularly high pitched.
So should I suggest then that your use of the word is incorrect, as you’ve removed it from its context and used it to convey negative connotations that it didn’t originally hold?
Do as you please.
I found a certain irony in the poster using the term to describe what is functionally just a reflection on the author’s own dogmatic views. I thought the history of the term - itself deeply reflective of an entrenched adversarial worldview that brooked no rebuttal to the point of dropping thermonuclear devices on people who adhered to a different economic philosophy - helped illustrate that.
Apparently I was wrong. The dogged insistence that Chinese people are incapable of thinking for themselves in the aggregate, and only Taiwanese people are true free thinkers, is too deeply baked into the Lemmy zeitgeist.
It’s not that I needed more historical context to make sense of the information you’re providing. The history lesson makes sense. It’s that you never drew any conclusion, nor connected it to the original post. Your post was heavy on insinuation, but void of clear meaning, leaving readers to draw their own conclusions on your intent. The only methods to “fill in variables” here are to make assumptions, possibly with the extra context of your post history, or politely ask your intent. I chose the latter. Though I still have to derive your intent from your post to be that I used the word incorrectly, as you’ve again neglected to actually say what you mean.
“Brainwash” is used to refer to exactly the condition I was referencing: being led to believe falsehoods completely and wholly, through the control of information and repetition of said falsehoods. Its original popuparization in anti-Russian, American political discourse is completely irrelevent to the message the word effectively communicated to those who read my post.
Language changes, and it’s the current interpretation of it that gives it meaning. Hilariously, you used the word “propaganda” to refer to falsehoods used to dismiss outside views; the word propaganda simply means information with political intent and its relation to falsehoods was a result of the Third Reich. The Ministry of Propaganda and Public Enlightenment, founded by Joeseph Goebbels, became famous for its spread of intentionally misleading propaganda, and popularized the connection of the word to lies and falsehoods. So should I suggest then that your use of the word is incorrect, as you’ve removed it from its context and used it to convey negative connotations that it didn’t originally hold?
Again, I genuinely do appreciate the history lesson. The intersection between words and their historical context is exactly in my professional field and I find it to be a fascinating topic. But if the intent was to attack the quality or authenticity of my post through semantic analysis via historical meaning, I think there are better ways we can both spend our time.
It’s regularly abused to describe differences in opinion or deficits in trust. Case in point, evangelicals will fling it around regularly when arguing over the practice of teaching Evolution in high school. They’ll assert Biblical Infallibility and claim paleontology is a falsehood that children are indoctrinated into.
You get the same out of war time propaganda. Particularly out of the Korean War, when the Red Scare was particularly high pitched.
Do as you please.
I found a certain irony in the poster using the term to describe what is functionally just a reflection on the author’s own dogmatic views. I thought the history of the term - itself deeply reflective of an entrenched adversarial worldview that brooked no rebuttal to the point of dropping thermonuclear devices on people who adhered to a different economic philosophy - helped illustrate that.
Apparently I was wrong. The dogged insistence that Chinese people are incapable of thinking for themselves in the aggregate, and only Taiwanese people are true free thinkers, is too deeply baked into the Lemmy zeitgeist.