http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/07/type-propaganda-see-north-korea-cnn-commentator-quits-present/
>Politician compares Trump TV to North Korea and claims this is nothing but state television
>Politician McMullin doesn't know nothing about living in totalitarian regimes or communist regimes. Acts hyperbolic and with vitriol in order to prove that he's not Trump.
I mean, that's just standard virtue signalling.
>LOOK AT HOW NOT-TRUMP I AM!
>>166061
Well making fun of leftists and liberals a side it genuinely has me pissed off because it's like read a book you fuckng idiots on North Korea. I've read a few books on North Korea, and how they describe propaganda and their state media is nothing compared to Trump TV. So these stupid leftists and these dumb media commentators should just go live in North Korea for a week and then come back and compare Trump to Hitler or to Kim or whatever evil villain they want to compare him to. State media North Korea promotes an ideology, this Trump TV is a brand like Trump steaks for example. Trump wants to be liked he's a celebrity for god sakes. Totalitarian regimes and regimes of the past yeah you can argue they have their own celebrity, but at the same time it's not a brand it's for an ideological purpose. it's just stupid to compare this to North Korea. It's virtue signaling at its finest and it pisses me off about it because they don't know what it's like to live in a totalitarian dictatorship.
>>166065
>haha blatant propaganda is okay because it's not as bad as it COULD be
Fuck off, idiot.
LOL! Go TRUMP Go.... This is actually a smart move. One more stumbling block for the MSM.
Private television made by a statesman =/= state television
Not that there's anything wrong with state television.
>>166066
Don't you have an antifa meeting to go to right now?
>>166606
Nah, he's serving as a cuck right now.
>>166664
No mirrors in the cuckhouse, huh?
>>166066
Well Trump has a precedent for getting to run a propaganda outlet. Obama signed a bill allowing propaganda to be used on US citizens :^) you were mad when that happened right? Remember how everyone was up in arms about it? How angry everyone was that it became totally legal to spread propaganda in the US? Remember? It was all over the news!
>>166066
>It's okay when Obama signs in a law allowing blatant propaganda
>>166699
I believe they are referencing when the Smith-mundt act was "modernized" to allow US propaganda networks to broadcast domestically. Previously these networks were limited to foreign broadcasts.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/14/u-s-repeals-propaganda-ban-spreads-government-made-news-to-americans/
>>166670
Propaganda was used on US citizens since before they were citizens and the US a legitimate country. Get fucking real.
>the other fucks are shilling propaganda
>when they do it worse than you
"wow fuckin retards don't they understand how the world works?"
>when they're successful
"where is the criticism???? This is a threat to the well being of our nation."
w e w l a d s
can -you- see the problems here? Lemme elaborate:
>>166708
Successful propaganda by nature means that its subject matter is already convincing beyond the need for criticism. That's the entire point of being fallacious. You use ideology as a platform to construct your own model of reality. It works how you say it works. You use propaganda to convince people of it. And if you're successful, the only valid criticism to be had is what fits snugly in between this construction. You must realize how valuable that is.
>Aztecs
Well we don't do this sacrifice, the world will end. Pretty much the only way to get proper sacrifices is through military subjugation btw.
>Ancient Egyptian
The hat guy is basically responsible for a lot of how the world works. Just do what they say and make sure you can replace them.
>Hindu
OK your god can exist but only because my god is all the gods and also stronger than your god. Don't worry about life-long latrine duty. You'll be king in the next. Don't be a dick that's how life works dude.
>Divine Mandate:
The last guy just wasn't doing it right. He wasn't moral enough. That's why I pillaged my way into rightful, ethical rule.
>Rome on Bread and Circus
Well would you just look at how great our Empire is doing
>Rome on Carthage:
Dude those guys eat babies
>Rome on Barbarians
We're definitely superior. Who's that at the walls though?
>E.R.E.
Well they fucked up but we're still Romans. Half the known world is our birthright.
>Islam
God wills it! And those other Muslims, too.
>Crusades
God wills it! And those other Europeans, also. Spoils of war are collateral.
>Roman Catholicism
Those guys don't know what they're talking about. We're the descendants of Rome. Our head guy is basically the best person at earth at understanding god so listen up. No you can't read that, god will it.
>H.R.E
We're also the Romans. God can vouch for us.
>Protestantism
Nuh uh.
>Divine Right of Kings
If I wasn't supposed to be an absolute ruler, god wouldn't have made it so. Checkm8, Pope.
>>166708
>Trump or his administration does something that was done by the last 3 administrations at the very least
>Suddenly its the worst, most unamerican shit imaginable
>>166715
>revolutionary USA
Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson all wrote propaganda. Apathetic Americans had to be convinced that dying over aristocratic and mercantile problems is a worthwhile endeavor. Self defense is massacre. Taxes are more inhumane and war-worthy than slavery. Freedom from taxation without representation except for you, and you, and you, and you...
>Revolutionary Texas
National sovereignty is bullshit and slavery is actually freedom
>C.S.A
What he said.
>noblesse oblige
You see it's actually our -obligation- to have more money than you because we're more noble than you are.
>Capitalism
You see it's actually my -obligation- to have more money than you because we're more noble than you are.
>colonialism
These savages must be civilized for their own good
>industrialism
These hicks must be civilized for their own good
>monroe doctrine
We have to attack them because they can't defend themselves
>fascism
I still don't see the problem with oligarchy and indefinite warfare. Rome did it so that basically means it works.
>modern liberalism
Freedom of speech and expression except you, and you, and you, and you...
>communism
So basically someday we're all going to be perfectly altruistic and that's why you need to kill a bunch of people. Give us your shit or else we'll kill you. Don't worry. It's all a part of the process.
The precedent you speak of is at least as old as recorded history.
>>166722
I don't disagree with your sentiment. It's a pretty American thing to do if Americans have been doing it for 3 administrations.
But we're now 3 assertions into this dichotomy over criticism. One side is unjustified by their own wrongdoing in criticizing another. So let he who is without sin cast the first stone, right? Problem is, Abel died. It was easier to kill him than to emulate him. Cain "won" god's scorn. Abel lost his life if you see what I'm getting at. It's a pretty damn useful metaphor for this sort of thing.
Say we're both trying to be virtuous and act as if propaganda is just wrong and it doesn't matter who's in office. This is the final straw. And through bipartisan effort we impeach trump for it. Except for next election, you don't use propaganda while I do. If propaganda as a tool works as well as stones kill, I've won Cain's victory. There may be repercussions. Cain was sent to wander. But I've set the precedent. Cain had descendants. Your side might have the moral high-ground. But what if my side uses this tool to win again? What if it changes, to something more subtle and unrecognizable? What if somebody else from my group says they won't do it? Would you trust them, knowing the risk?
Moving forward with my premises: This process of selection happens over and over again until virtuous behavior becomes sabotage in a system where unvirtuous behavior is rewarded. Nobody can give legitimate criticism on these grounds anymore. The behavior is still wrong. But the environment makes it incredibly difficult to replace unvirtuous winners with virtuous ones. If both must commit sin to win, then you will always choose from the lesser of two evils. But to find who is lesser, you have to track cause and effect back to the original two and quantify who has done less of this necessary evil.
>>166770
If you could accurately quantify all this, down to the first act, wouldn't we notice? If it were possible, a working theory could be made through empiricism. If it survives enough challenge to reach consensus, we'd know within a sliver of a doubt what works and what doesn't. It would relieve us the burden of unvirtuous necessity. We'd know the way. And everyone could win as long as they followed it. It'd be genuinely messianic. But so far every universal claim to this has failed to fulfill its promises. That's good enough reason to question your own beliefs, first. But as long as there's no messiah, that won't win you much under the precedent of Cain.