Propaganda vs Independent Thinking

[jerdge]

While I almost completely don't care about current conflicts as long as they don't concern me, I often read the discussion arising around them.

Today I read a post that stroke me with something that "sounded wrong" and I cut and filed it until I had, isolated, what I believe is a very interesting sentence:
[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1281398770' post='2408662'](SNIP) if an unaligned nation decides to respond to provocation by starting aggressive wars against the alliance that provokes it, it becomes a rogue nation (SNIP)[/quote]

[i]Now a witty writer would add here some abrasive yet funny sentence, foreseeing that the "peanut gallery" won't probably be intelligent enough to distinguish the generality of the subject of this thread, as opposed to the accidentality of the current war and its CB. However, as a proud long-standing member of The Peanut Gallery(tm), I promise that I won't look down on you: I have faith that in this thread you won't insist over the particularity of the current events, but you will keep your focus on the actual topic of it.[/i]

Remaining on the fringes of the key point, for a while still stuck myself in the muds of the particularity of my example, I'd say that - considering that in CN in-game Spy Ops are generally considered an act of aggression as egregious as an in-game Declaration of War ([i]«Spying is an 'act of war'»[/i], says Bob) - the sentence that I quoted above doesn't stand the gentlest test of logic.
Or rather, it would be consistent only if we accepted that Alliances can defend against aggressions without being considered "rogues", while unaligned nations that attack back are to be labeled as "rogues" ([i]«by the standard definition»[/i]).

To me that is an obvious discrimination - which I anyway consider fine as this is just a game! - but I find nonetheless interesting (and this is the very reason I am plaguing you with this post) that Bob's statement's discriminating implications are disguised under an arbitrarily assigned label ("rogue nation") and a mix of "strange" names and theories that may want to allude to some moral justification and/or to some "international standard/law" ("standard definitions", irrelevance of the unaligned's justifications, what should and shouldn't be done in favour or against the unaligned, etc.)
I find it interesting because I see in it an attempt, maybe even unconscious, at dressing with "proper" words what otherwise would have been unpresentable. [i]Obscene[/i].

As I stated at the beginning I don't care about what's happening in Alliance Politics and the reasons, if there are any, for it... But I find it interesting to see that discrimination and propaganda are that much ingrained in our CN identities, at the point that we're probably silently accepting all sorts of discriminations without even noticing them anymore.

It might be a good idea to try apply our independent thinking capability in CN, at least as training them here can come handy in RL also.

Thoughts?

[LittleRena]

I don't think the average ruler is aware of the propergander and I'm pretty sure most people that are aware have their own options but choose to follow that of their alliance.

[Delta1212]

It's difficult for me to guage how well the average CN player recognizes propaganda. I've spent enough time building and dissecting arguments and viewpoints that I have a decent grasp of how it functions, but I don't remember how much of that was intuitive and easily recognizable before I really started putting effort into the back end of the PR machine.

I do think that it is easier for the players who spent a lot of time on the game, know it's history and personailities to spot propaganda than the general passive players who don't spend a whole lot of timethinking about global politics. I also think it's much easier to recognize opposing propaganda than that of your own side simply because you generally disagree pretty strongly with the opposing side and are more likely to think critically about their points than those you agree with.

Unfortunately, this doesn't really help build an accurate picture of reality since you are more likely to believe distortions or perspectives that agree with you and less likely to believe your opponents even when they are telling the truth.

[Qazzian]

I don't think the average CNer even comes near the OWF, so they are likely unaware of the propaganda. The most users online at one time on these forums: Around 1800. A fraction of the total player base. If you're going to be more specific and just include people who do come to the OWF, I'd say most are aware that what they're seeing is propaganda, and make their own decision based on it. Granted, a part of their decision making is going to be affected by which side they're on, but that will only go so far, and that's not something you can get away from. That's why propaganda exists in the first place: It takes advantages of slight skews in bias to convince someone.

[theArrowheadian]

You cannot deny that the average CN Player is oblivious to the propaganda, but then again the average CN player isn't in an alliance either. Is the average alliance member aware of it, of course, but they only recognize the propaganda of the opposing side. Most players would rather be ignorant to the true political nature of a situation just as they'd rather not know how their food is prepared.

[Baldr]

Propaganda exists (perhaps even stronger) on the various alliance boards. On the OWF, at least the propaganda goes in more than one direction.

Most alliances are only going to tell one side on their own boards.

[Ashoka the Great]

I'm accustomed to belonging to alliances that say the same things both in private and in public. (Rather like me.)

er....

I mean, "I say what my masters-of-the-moment tell me to say."

[Alfred von Tirpitz]

Postings on the owf, specially during times of conflict, are mostly preaching to the two choirs. While an "un-involved in the current mess" entity would be swayed if they had little to no experience in the way the political game is played on Planet Bob, most would just put it down to propaganda.

Basically it falls under a few very limited categories.

1. Covering your $@! by drawing attention away from the core issues by drowning out any counter-views and probing questions
2. Letting your allies know that you have their backs, re-inforcing it and stepping it up if you cannot be directly involved
3. Listening to your own voice

The various tools of the trade used in achieving these three are well known, as are the various schools of thought and method.

Those that frequent the owf, have their own set beliefs and relationships, propaganda and conflict time blathering does not sway them much.

[Lord Boris]

The average CNer is completely unaware of the politics or the propaganda, when you consider how few CNers are actually fairly active on the forums. Amongs OWF users, I used to think it was probably about an even split between those who use their own heads and those who go along with the propaganda trend of the time. Nowadays, I think the overall quality of the OWF has degraded a bit, so it's more along the lines of a 3:2 split between duckspeakers and those who do their own critical thinking. I think the one saving grace to the sanity of some on the OWF has been the fact that propaganda is so overdone and so common that some have gotten quite proficient at identifying it and ignoring it.

[Delta1212]

[quote name='Lord Boris' timestamp='1281453151' post='2409671']
The average CNer is completely unaware of the politics or the propaganda, when you consider how few CNers are actually fairly active on the forums. Amongs OWF users, I used to think it was probably about an even split between those who use their own heads and those who go along with the propaganda trend of the time. Nowadays, I think the overall quality of the OWF has degraded a bit, so it's more along the lines of a 3:2 split between duckspeakers and those who do their own critical thinking. I think the one saving grace to the sanity of some on the OWF has been the fact that propaganda is so overdone and so common that some have gotten quite proficient at identifying it and ignoring it.
[/quote]
That's what we want you to think.

[Alfred von Tirpitz]

[quote name='Lord Boris' timestamp='1281453151' post='2409671']
I think the one saving grace to the sanity of some on the OWF has been the fact that propaganda is so overdone and so common that some have gotten quite proficient at identifying it and ignoring it.
[/quote]

Yes, for example if an IRON member, say Matt Miller were going around loudly proclaiming how evil RoK was for DoWing the NSO, none from the Pro DoW side would really pay attention to him, well maybe those that would welcome a repartee. Similarly if I as a RoK member were to go on about how Evil the NSO were for aiding the rogue nation that led to the war, no one from the NSO and allies bunch would pay much attention to whatever I said, well maybe to engage in repartee. No debates here, have any concrete outcomes.

Come next war, we would be doing it again, the directly involved parties would change, but the posters would be the same.

[Melchior]

I don't seem to entirely grasp the logic in your statements. You produce a statement to support your view on independent thinking. Note that I say statement, not argument, and view, not a foundation for a conceptual idea as you don't properly argue for it.

You use Bobs statements to denounce the use of terminology. How come? It would be as justified to denounce a dictionary. The definition of 'rogue' is accepted by the majority of the inhabitants of our world, thus the word cannot possibly be discriminating.

I do agree with your view. I'm in favour of independent thinking. But your approach to dismantle terminology isn't the way to do it. Once you refuse to defend yourself against a rogue, you are thinking independently - but also stupid. This war, to put my point into perspective, is merely a defence and retaliation against a rogue that stepped across the line.

[Aurion]

Who knows, really? Forum debates are interesting since so much of it is based on interpretation and points of view. Though most sigs and stuff, yeah.

CN can help develop critical thinking in peacetime, I think. Moreso than wartime anyways. A lot of the really interesting things actually happen before the shooting ever formally starts, and it only makes sense to try and reason out where events will lead.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Aurion

[jerdge]

[quote name='Melchior' timestamp='1281453554' post='2409682']I don't seem to entirely grasp the logic in your statements. You produce a statement to support your view on independent thinking. Note that I say statement, not argument, and view, not a foundation for a conceptual idea as you don't properly argue for it.

You use Bobs statements to denounce the use of terminology. How come? It would be as justified to denounce a dictionary. The definition of 'rogue' is accepted by the majority of the inhabitants of our world, thus the word cannot possibly be discriminating.

I do agree with your view. I'm in favour of independent thinking. But your approach to dismantle terminology isn't the way to do it. Once you refuse to defend yourself against a rogue, you are thinking independently - but also stupid. This war, to put my point into perspective, is merely a defence and retaliation against a rogue that stepped across the line.[/quote]
Think of my example as just that: an example. If you can provide a better one, more power to you (and I'd add it to the OP if it's good).

Edited August 10, 2010 by jerdge

[Alfred von Tirpitz]

The only thing offensive about forum post propaganda is the excessive use of adjectives, specially if they attempt to assign personality or character traits or medical conditions to the object of one's ire. Sticking to the issues is good enough, without making it personal.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Alfred von Tirpitz

[FreddieMercury]

[quote name='Delta1212' timestamp='1281450010' post='2409619']
Unfortunately, this doesn't really help build an accurate picture of reality since you are more likely to believe distortions or perspectives that agree with you and less likely to believe your opponents even when they are telling the truth.
[/quote]

Basically sums up what I think. Especially on those gray area topics where the facts aren't completely clear and whether you believe one side or the other is strongly swayed by which side you reside on. I'm often guilty of that, as with 90% of the people on the forums.

It always irks me when people muck around in their obvious bias, but that comes with the territory when complete amateurs try to fit on the shoes of real world professionals (actual diplomats) who train for this stuff for decades.

[Coverzin]

Rights are a manifestation of agreements within a social contract. As such, if you have no friends, you have no rights.

[Generalissimo]

See with eyes unclouded by alliance affiliation.
I can see the truth because I’m unaligned.
I can think without the bias of alliance.
I can write without the bonds of friendship.
I determine my own truth, no truth given to me.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Generalissimo

[zzzptm]

[quote name='jerdge' timestamp='1281447651' post='2409586']
Thoughts?
[/quote]

It's an example of how the community has defined actions. Defining "rogue" otherwise involves changing the rules. If we do it IC, we start Great War N+1 and probably get our personal alliance curbstomped. If we do it OOC, we'd have to get buy-in from all interested parties, or we'd have no real change.

OOC, we recognize that. IC, we have few opportunities to exercise in public displays of independent thinking, as they could get our pixels destroyed. While there's a freedom at zero infrastructure to say whatever one wants, there is also a "you are who?" meme that can shut down those thoughts. Larger alliances or blocs will not change their ways IC unless they are forced to. A ZI guy can't force much at all.

When Walford was around, I was in a raiding nation. While Walford's protests against that practice never got us to quit, whenever a new guy raided Walford, we told him good luck and that he was about to learn a lot about war. We'd rebuild him later, but not aid him in war. We lol'd. I think I put "Don't raid Walford" in a raiding guide somewhere and if they guy didn't read it, he sure remembered it later on.

But that was our attitude. We felt that if a raided nation fights back, you had to clean up your own mess. That was our definition.

I'm in NV now and we don't raid, but our current policy isn't to try to stop those who do unless it's against us, an ally, or a protectorate. And GOONS is very happy to know that our protectorate list is mostly up to date. (One of the alliances disbanded and I didn't update the wiki. Sorry.)

So, yeah. IC, we're limited about what we do publicly. OOC, we can talk a lot more.

[Xiphosis]

Rogue is a term created, defined and used by alliances to describe freelancers who attack them. The definition has been more or less constant since the beginning of my time around these parts.

Edit: Heh, I think zzzptm and me are barking up the same tree.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Xiphosis

[Letum]

[quote name='theArrowheadian' timestamp='1281451984' post='2409654']
You cannot deny that the average CN Player is oblivious to the propaganda, but then again the average CN player isn't in an alliance either.
[/quote]

There's more people in the top 10 alliances than there are unaligned's.

[quote]
When Walford was around
[/quote]

He still is.


As for the topic itself, a rogue is whatever the guy with the guns decides to term his one-nation enemy for the sake of legitimizing whatever treatment they have in mind for them. Rogue-raiders who attack for fun or entire alliances who attack for fun are not "rogue" when they do it - merely those who are powerless in comparison.

It is a convenient international category where you can throw all those nations. It is a migh makes right situation, but it is not entirely illogical.

[Dochartaigh]

Well nowadays everything is basically labeled as propaganda no matter what side you are on or if you are entirely uninvolved. So long as you agree with Side A more than the Side B, you will be labeled as merely using propaganda by Side B and logic/critical thinking by Side A, and vice versa. so really, much like propaganda, critical thinking/logic are all a matter of viewpoint.

[Opethian]

I like to think I'm OK with propaganda, myself.

As for "the average user" (I'm assuming that by this we mean the sort who at least peruses the main CN boards and maintains alliance affiliation of some kind), I'd say they don't much care about such things; they either tow the alliance line, or are so idealistic that no view other than their own is even worthy of such contemplation.

[bigwoody]

Propaganda vs. Truth is often in the eye of the beholder.

It is hard to say how many people really can filter truth from demagoguery, since most people here play characters who align with a certain group and thus will support it, whether wrong or right (though in this game it is rarely as simple as wrong and right).

However, I am certain that the larger someone's ego is, the more they will happily look down on the apparent critical thinking skills of others.

For my part, I know some people on my side and against it well enough in an OOC sense to frame what they say in character pretty well, and sort out how sharp they actually are. And there will always be blowhards on both sides of a given issue. I do think more people are able to grasp what is really going on then are usually given credit for it.

[Qaianna]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1281484213' post='2410383']
Well nowadays everything is basically labeled as propaganda no matter what side you are on or if you are entirely uninvolved. So long as you agree with Side A more than the Side B, you will be labeled as merely using propaganda by Side B and logic/critical thinking by Side A, and vice versa. so really, much like propaganda, critical thinking/logic are all a matter of viewpoint.
[/quote]
I'd say this phenomenon right here tends to bring ideas of rational and careful thought crashing down to ruin. There was a thread I was merrily taking some shots in, but it was overriden with people arguing another point that I think my own questions were drowned out (or handily ignored). Then, as a member of side A ends up getting viciously ridiculed by side B, and welcomed by side A, it starts reinforcing such thinking. Especially a view that side B is nothing more than a collection of horrible shrieking yahoos with no intellectual integrity and the forensic ability of a six-year-old sticking his fingers in its ears while howling to drown you out by sheer volume.

I honestly wonder if there really is room for discussion on the boards these days.