this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2025
142 points (94.4% liked)

Asklemmy

45511 readers
849 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Just wanted to prove that political diversity ain't dead. Remember, don't downvote for disagreements.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago (2 children)

You still haven’t achieved that understanding. Ideology does not come about from ‘convincing’ or ‘swaying’ anyone. I once again suggest you to read Settlers to see why this thought process is flawed. I understand where you are coming from but the material precedes the immaterial

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Ideology does not come about from ‘convincing’ or ‘swaying’ anyone.

Tell that to the propaganda model. False consciousness is a real barrier which can, and has, dominated material class interests.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Propaganda functions with a pre-supposition of the initial dominance of the material over the immaterial. People are functionally motivated to accept specific ideological and social viewpoints where the material state encouraging that comes first. I think this article makes an interesting case for why this general concept is non-Marxist: https://redsails.org/masses-elites-and-rebels/

[–] [email protected] 1 points 12 hours ago

Thanks for linking the Red Sails article, I've finally gotten around to reading it. Interestingly, while the work critiques even the title of Manufacturing Consent, it provides a similar sense of fulfillment to Manufacturing Consent by providing a material, non-conspiratorial explanation to a more-or-less 'common sense' phenomenon (media control, brainwashing).

In a way, the premise and conclusion echo some wisdom I'd heard before, albeit in a different context: It's not enough to be right.

While that speaker had basically meant that theory is useless if it is never applied, and only used as an "I told you so" after-the-fact, this article makes a related case, that the correctness of an idea doesn't automatically mean it will be accepted by a typical healthy person. And as someone who veers towards a more academic and scientific side of life, where correctness is so valued and there's an expectation that everyone in the scene is on the same page about basic fundamental facts, the brainwashing framework is a convenient and intuitive (even if false) rationalization of why so many people can be so ignorant to these basics (like flat earth theory, anti-germ theory, that level of ignorance). It really is hard to empathize and not be condescending to people in relatively-advanced countries in the modern age still believing that kind of thing. The brainwashing theory is convenient - they've been dupped by a cult leader! the [religion/government] wants to keep them ignorant and encircled them with a false reality! they've been conditioned to be dumb since birth! This explains it! But that only goes so far, there is a point where a person has enough access to information that the brainwashing theory fails to justify their rejection of evidence. I know first hand, like many, that it takes time to dismantle the propaganda pervading our liberalist status quo, but it's not magical or hypnotic.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

Very well, I'll look at it.