Does anyone else think this is propaganda?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter The riddler
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the characterization of an advertisement about global warming as propaganda. Participants explore the implications of propaganda, its definitions, and the effectiveness of the advertisement in conveying its message. The conversation touches on themes of truth, exaggeration, and the subjective nature of predictions related to climate change.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that the advertisement contains elements of propaganda, questioning its truthfulness and intent.
  • Others argue that propaganda is not inherently false and can include truthful elements, citing historical examples.
  • A participant expresses difficulty in determining the extent to which propaganda can be acceptable, especially in the context of vague predictions about global warming.
  • Concerns are raised about the use of fear tactics in the advertisement, with some suggesting it represents the worst kind of propaganda.
  • There is a discussion about the subjective nature of predictions regarding climate change and how they can be interpreted differently.
  • One participant reflects on their personal lifestyle changes in response to perceived threats from climate change, despite feeling their individual impact is negligible.
  • Another participant questions the rationale behind changing actions if they believe their influence is minimal.
  • Some participants discuss the philosophical implications of meaning in life and actions, contrasting self-gratification with striving for a greater purpose.
  • There are references to other viewpoints, including the perspective that opposing views on climate change can also be seen as propaganda.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of opinions on whether the advertisement qualifies as propaganda, with no clear consensus reached. Some agree on the problematic nature of propaganda, while others defend its use in conveying urgent messages about climate change.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes varying interpretations of propaganda and its implications, highlighting the subjective nature of the claims made about climate predictions. There are unresolved questions regarding the effectiveness and ethical considerations of using propaganda in environmental messaging.

The riddler
Messages
88
Reaction score
0
Does anyone else think this is propaganda?

Its an advert about global warming I keep seeing, I think it has all the key elements of propaganda. Do you think so?

Link:

Thanks for any replys :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org


Obviously, if you just care about little children, you would be in favor of the Democrats' agenda. You do love little children, don't you? Don't you? Well, don't you?!

Come on now, how could that possibly be propaganda? :bugeye:
 


Of course it is propaganda.

Propaganda is the spreading of facts, ideas, rumors, or allegations to further ones cause.

Propaganda is not inherently false, in fact the most effective propaganda is the truth. Although Goebbels big lie theory has proven to be quite effective.

For instance, to this day a majority of people believe Hitler was a vegetarian, although his official biographies tell us otherwise.
 


It is difficult to judge just how far one should go with propaganda. Outright lies are generally considered wrong, exaggerations, only maybe. In particular, with global warming, since all we have are vague predictions anyway, it is tough to argue if an ad such as this has gone too far.
 


russ_watters said:
It is difficult to judge just how far one should go with propaganda. Outright lies are generally considered wrong, exaggerations, only maybe. In particular, with global warming, since all we have are vague predictions anyway, it is tough to argue if an ad such as this has gone too far.

I agree with everything here except the characterization of "vague predictions". I realize of course that vague is more subjective than objective, which is why it is difficult to quantify whether or not the ad goes to far.

If the ocean's ecosystem collapses in the next two decades due to acidification and stratification, then we can say the message was not urgent enough. If on the other hand, the solar magnetic field weakens and we experience another Maunder like minimum and by some yet unknown evolutionary mechanism plankton rapidly adapts to the more acidic seas, it will seem as if they were overstating the threat.

I like to gamble, but I always bet the odds. I take the threat seriously, so I am changing my lifestyle.
 


Skyhunter said:
For instance, to this day a majority of people believe Hitler was a vegetarian, although his official biographies tell us otherwise.

Hitler was a vegetarian?? :confused:
 


Pengwuino said:
Hitler was a vegetarian?? :confused:

According to his biographers, some who knew him personally, he was quite fond of Bavarian sausage. According to his head chef, his favorite dish was squab pie.

His doctors prescribed a vegetarian diet as a cure for his flatulence, but he did not follow their prescription, and there is no evidence that a vegetarian diet will cure flatulence. In fact it is the soluble fibers in fruits, vegetables, and legumes that are most likely to cause flatulence.
 


The riddler said:
Its an advert about global warming I keep seeing, I think it has all the key elements of propaganda. Do you think so?

Link:

Thanks for any replys :)


Not only does it have the elements of propaganda, it has the elements of the worst kind of propaganda.

Talk about fear tactics.
 
Last edited by a moderator:


Nature called that AWG UK clip the http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2009/10/worst_climate_campaign_ever.html" . I agree it's awful.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10


Skyhunter said:
I agree with everything here except the characterization of "vague predictions". I realize of course that vague is more subjective than objective, which is why it is difficult to quantify whether or not the ad goes to far.

If the ocean's ecosystem collapses in the next two decades due to acidification and stratification, then we can say the message was not urgent enough. If on the other hand, the solar magnetic field weakens and we experience another Maunder like minimum and by some yet unknown evolutionary mechanism plankton rapidly adapts to the more acidic seas, it will seem as if they were overstating the threat.

I like to gamble, but I always bet the odds. I take the threat seriously, so I am changing my lifestyle.
Yikes, perhaps I should have said "overly specific!"

Usually, though, what we see is a potential range of temperatures and probabilities, along with possible effects of warming in those ranges.

Just out of curiosity, what do you consider the odds of that first scenario and what do you consider your ability to influence those odds to be?
 
  • #11


russ_watters said:
Yikes, perhaps I should have said "overly specific!"

Usually, though, what we see is a potential range of temperatures and probabilities, along with possible effects of warming in those ranges.

Just out of curiosity, what do you consider the odds of that first scenario and what do you consider your ability to influence those odds to be?

My examples are what I consider the extremes. I think that the odds of the first scenario, within the time frame stated are lowe, but given that ocean acidification and stratification is the primary suspect for the seas dying during the Permian extinction event... well given enough time this is a real possibility.

My ability to influence the odds is negligible. But I don't let that stop me from changing my lifestyle. Humans as a whole are definitely altering the chemical and thermal structure of the atmosphere, and the carbon cycle. How the biosphere responds to these changes is still an open question, but if the past is any indicator it will not be a good thing for life in it's present form.
 
  • #12


Skyhunter said:
My ability to influence the odds is negligible. But I don't let that stop me from changing my lifestyle.
I find that very odd. If your actions make a negligible difference, why change your actions?
 
  • #13


russ_watters said:
I find that very odd. If your actions make a negligible difference, why change your actions?

Because it is the right thing to do. Be the change you want to see in the world.

Nothing I can do will change the nature of the universe to any significant degree, yet I will perform my every act to best of my ability, striving to act impeccably.

The alternative would be to just die, since existing only for self gratification is meaningless.
 
  • #14


Skyhunter said:
The alternative would be to just die, since existing only for self gratification is meaningless.

What special meaning—beyond the meaning you assign yourself—does your particular world-view give your life? The universe probably doesn't care if we destroy ourselves or our planet.
 
  • #16


Choronzon said:
What special meaning—beyond the meaning you assign yourself—does your particular world-view give your life? The universe probably doesn't care if we destroy ourselves or our planet.

I agree the universe does not care and nothing I can do is significant. The only thing I can control to any degree are my actions. So my actions are what is significant in my life.
 
  • #18


propaganda is a neutral word. It implies no deception, disingenuousness, dishonesty or otherwise. Did you refer to propaganda that is deceptive, disingenuous, dishonest or otherwise?
 
  • #19


Skyhunter said:
That's not propaganda, it is art!

And these are exclusive? ;-p
 
  • #20


Skyhunter said:
I agree the universe does not care and nothing I can do is significant. The only thing I can control to any degree are my actions. So my actions are what is significant in my life.

So you've declared that your life has meaning, and that those who "exist only for self-gratification" lead meaningless lives?
 
  • #22


edward said:
Was it propaganda or just advertising a point of view.

Isn't that more or less the definition of propaganda?
 
  • #23
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #24


TheStatutoryApe said:
Isn't that more or less the definition of propaganda?

I think propaganda is generally restricted to promoting an ideological point of view. A product advertisement for example would not necessarily be propaganda.
 
  • #25


Galteeth said:
I think propaganda is generally restricted to promoting an ideological point of view. A product advertisement for example would not necessarily be propaganda.

Its what he said. "Advertising a point of view". I took the 'ideological' part for granted since this ad is not advertising points of view on any products.
 
  • #26


russ_watters said:
I find that very odd. If your actions make a negligible difference, why change your actions?


Arguments against changing your lifestyle because of the minimal individual impact of your actions are quite flawed. You would be ignoring the impact of aggregate change.
 
  • #27


Another opinion about the campaign http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26290477-7583,00.html

Panic, little ones, it's the Carbon Monster
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Replies
28
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
9K
  • Poll Poll
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
11K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K