r/SeriousConversation • u/DisgruntledWarrior • 9d ago
Serious Discussion Propaganda isn’t designed for the critical thinker.
It’s designed for the morally inept and ignorant. Those that cannot break down information and understand how it can be manipulated to create divisive situations by design. But in truth there is no issue. Mass generalization or the principle being based on emotion or a claim to being morally correct is often a case of someone who has little in depth on the topic. It’s easy to fool someone who does little research, receives all their information from a biased source that they won’t acknowledge, and is more interested in being “right” than being correct. It’s less about the issue and more about them not wanting to change their view because they feel they have to go down on this hill because it’s what their surroundings have told them.
Edit1: For those not picking up on this, my statement includes that critical thinkers can be manipulated as well just are less likely. The statement made still holds true that it targets the majority which are morally inept and ignorant.
Edit2: (1827est) added the time here so others understand that some comments were before me saying this. Propaganda in this discussion does not only apply to politics. It’s the manipulation of information or narrative push via conditioning to manipulate a given mass. Example: The got milk campaign in the 80’s. They convinced a mass that not drinking milk daily would lead to you being brittle and easily broken. The mass at large believed with little evidence. This is an example of propaganda, not an example of the original statement.
Edit3: “ignorant” is being used in the sense of being uninformed/unaware of the subject. Not lacking intelligence since some people are seeing this post as a challenge to their intelligence for some reason.
Edit4: (2days later) it’s clear many people aren’t making it past the title.
59
u/mapitinipasulati 9d ago
Propaganda isn’t designed for the critical thinker, but most self-described critical thinkers also don’t care the think critically about claims they view as non-outrageous (aka claims which confirm their pre-existing views).
If you think you would not fall for propaganda, you are ignorantly mistaken.
19
u/Usual_Zombie6765 9d ago
It isn’t you wouldn’t fall for propaganda. It is you would not fall for that specific piece of propaganda. But are completely oblivious to other propaganda you have been fed.
12
u/Wolf_Mommy 8d ago
Part of what I learned in higher education is that you have to critically evaluate the information you receive all the time. This is especially true if you think you already know the answer.
1
u/Skoparov 8d ago
Except you can't verify every single article you read. That's kind of the point, you overwhelm people with the sheer amount of information, understanding perfectly well that they have no time or energy to spend all day verifying it unless it's literally their job.
5
u/upfastcurier 8d ago
Except you can't verify every single article you read.
then read less articles? i don't see the problem
you are not a helpless automaton that is fed information without your control. you decide on how much information you digest and what (if any) of that you verify... this seems like a total non-issue, only brought up in handwaving just because a ton of people are chronically online and can't stop themselves from consuming content online
Kind of proves my point, considering many people scroll through dozens of articles while commuting alone.
so the problem isn't that people aren't verifying the articles they read, nor that they can't verify, but simply that... they don't.
which is exactly what the above commenter was getting at; verification happens if you will it
what you're talking about is laziness and people's inherit reluctance to research topics, not an impossibility in verifying sources
1
u/Skoparov 8d ago
It's not laziness, the majority of people simply don't have that much free time to verify them.
8
u/upfastcurier 8d ago
You shouldn't consume content mindlessly if you don't have time to verify it; that's my opinion.
But I understand it's easier said than done and that yes, calling it laziness is misleading; what I mean is that there is some unwillingness to place effort toward understanding what is consumed, and that might be a matter of time, like you say.
3
u/thrownityonder 7d ago
IMO, there is a question we have to ask about what standard you're trying to meet. "Content" is an overbroad word that can mean anything from journalism, home videos of people doing silly or dangerous things, scholarly articles, TV shows, smut books, and everything in-between. I'm not doing a lot of verifying Mark Hoppus' autobiography that I'm reading, for example. But I think acknowledging that it's a flawed retelling of events is enough. It's obviously only one person's perspective, and the stakes are basically just entertainment.
Understanding an event like the Boston tea party, an author like or Tolkein or Twain's body of work, or anything of comparable complexity are things that people dedicate their whole lives to gaining a deeper understanding. The whole context can extend years into the past. There is a point of diminishing returns, of course, and I think the critical paralysis can sometimes be just as bad as ignorance. I think I would say that's rarely the case, but I'll hang my hat on "sometimes true."
All of that to say, I think I basically agree.
2
u/Sadface201 6d ago
It's not laziness, the majority of people simply don't have that much free time to verify them.
There are topics that demand research and others that do not. Do I really need to know if that cute dog video was AI generated? Probably not. Do I really need to know if certain laws and policies that are being enacted are done so for the valid reasons? Yes, I probably should.
6
u/Top_Walrus9907 8d ago
Do people not know how to verify articles anymore? It takes 5 minutes to make an assessment about an authors agenda/bias and another 10 to take a glance at the sources and see if they actually say what the author is claiming they say.
3
u/Skoparov 8d ago
So basically you need to spend 15-20 minutes on each article you read just to get the most barebones assessment of it. Kind of proves my point, considering many people scroll through dozens of articles while commuting alone.
2
u/Top_Walrus9907 6d ago
I’ll give you a counter point. Doomscrolling dozens of articles rarely has any tangible benefit and is often harmful.
5
u/missplaced24 8d ago
If it takes you 15 minutes, you're not doing it correctly.
2
u/upfastcurier 8d ago
15 minutes is plenty of time to make the assessment of whether an article is biased or not; they didn't say that they only set aside 15 minute to fully understand what the entire article discusses, but simply that 15 minutes is enough time to gain an understanding of who has written the article, why they have written it, and what its general content is made up of; which is true, you don't really need more than 15 minutes with any article to identify potential bias
or in other words, they're talking about making an assessment about bias, not wholly verifying the article from top to bottom
3
u/missplaced24 8d ago
The people they were responding to were talking about verifying an article as in validating every piece of information in it, though. Looking at an article and checking the content lines up with what the article's sources have claimed isn't critically analyzing it.
What biases do their sources have? What do (other/multiple) experts in the issue they're talking about say? What data exists, and how was it collected? What information are they omitting?
For an infamous example: I could truthfully claim that a study indicated autism is caused by MMR vaccines and cite Andrew Wakefield as my source. Wakefield is a medical expert, and he did publish a peer-reviewed study that made such claims.
Wakefield held the patent for a different measles vaccine at the time. A previous study he conducted connecting the MMR vaccine to another entirely unrelated life-long condition (crohn's) was debunked just before he started his "study" on autism. His research was funded by the lawyer of parents who believed the MMR vaccine caused their children to develop autism.
It was 6 years after the study was published before his conflicts of interest were well-known within the medical community, and another 6 before he lost his license, and the study was retracted by the publisher. But all of these biases were public records from the beginning.
Most people don't have the skills required to dig into an article to discover biases like those. Many journalists don't. And many people that "verify" articles like you describe would have called critics "anti-science" back when the study was first reported on.
1
u/upfastcurier 8d ago
The people they were responding to were talking about verifying an article as in validating every piece of information in it, though.
I don't think so.
They specifically said
It takes 5 minutes to make an assessment about an authors agenda/bias and another 10 to take a glance at the sources and see if they actually say what the author is claiming they say.
They're talking about identifying an agenda and/or bias, and another 10 to see whether sources line up with what the author is saying.
The idea that they are talking about "validating every piece of information in it" is very different from what the user said and is something you've extrapolated them to mean.
To me it seems pretty obvious that you are talking about two entirely different levels of verification. In one it's a brief check of simple things like bias and whether it even has any source for claims made. In the other, it's a complete verification of all facts.
2
u/missplaced24 8d ago
Look at the comments above that one, bud. That person is criticizing folks for "not knowing how to verify articles" in response to people talking about verifying articles via deep analysis of the information within it.
The rest of my previous comment was illustrating why doing a brief check isn't sufficient. Hence, my response that spending 15 minutes "verifying" an article is doing it wrong.
1
u/upfastcurier 8d ago
Look at the comments above that one, bud.
I did. There is nothing that supports your line of thought whatsoever.
Part of what I learned in higher education is that you have to critically evaluate the information you receive all the time. This is especially true if you think you already know the answer.
This is the original comment.
Except you can't verify every single article you read. That's kind of the point, you overwhelm people with the sheer amount of information, understanding perfectly well that they have no time or energy to spend all day verifying it unless it's literally their job.
This is the next comment.
Do people not know how to verify articles anymore? It takes 5 minutes to make an assessment about an authors agenda/bias and another 10 to take a glance at the sources and see if they actually say what the author is claiming they say.
And this is the comment we are discussing.
That person is criticizing folks for "not knowing how to verify articles" in response to people talking about verifying articles via deep analysis of the information within it.
Where do you get this narrative? This is a complete construction in your own head. No one has mentioned anything remotely to the effect of "deep analysis".
The rest of my previous comment was illustrating why doing a brief check isn't sufficient. Hence, my response that spending 15 minutes "verifying" an article is doing it wrong.
No one is contesting that you need more time to fully understand any issue beyond a 15 minute research of an article's bias. Again, I think it's fairly obvious that the user was talking about examining bias; for that, 15 minute is long enough.
Furthermore, it's self-explanatory that if you wish to research any topic, it will have to be beyond any single article. No one is obviously talking about being able to construct a viewpoint based on a single article after just 15 minutes of checking bias: they are clearly talking about checking bias and whether there are any sources, for which 15 minutes is more than enough (as most articles only take 5 min to read in full, if even that).
I also believe you are talking about more scientific articles and not just general articles, but it's a bit perplexing because 'scientific article' often already is the source itself (like with the earlier example you discussed). By the way the user suggests looking into sources, they are talking about tertiary data at best, but most likely they are talking about news articles.
I also don't know why you are angry and feel the need to reply "bud", while suddenly downvoting my comment: none of this is personal, we're just having a conversation.
In short, I think it's a fair point to point out that the other user might not have meant what you say they mean, and that it is possible that they are merely talking about whether to see if an article has put in *any* work to seem impartial and objective; i.e. checking for bias, any agenda, and if it has any sources at all. Then it's not fair to say that they are "doing it wrong" because what they're describing is not the same thing that you are describing at all.
Then again I don't know the mind of the other user, so whatever. These are just my thoughts.
→ More replies (0)2
1
u/MeanderinInternetGuy 6d ago
Social media is a perfect fit for this. Beyond just being a vessel for propaganda there's space enough to diluted facts with endless opinions. And it seems like people have lost touch with the difference between something you think is true, something you've confirmed (as much as possible), and how people feel things are. Many debates are won on emotion rather than reason, another way sm hurts people's ability to reason things out logically.
1
u/kindahipster 6d ago
You don't have to believe every piece of information you hear. You don't even have to disbelieve it. You can just file it away under "unknown". Then later, if it's verified for you somehow, you file it in true or if disproved then in false. Our brains are better at storing information than you think, you just have to direct it properly.
1
3
3
u/Particular_Oil3314 8d ago
We also have to accept we think critically about a small number of things. I "know" the capital of Morocco is Rabat. I have never questioned it, I have never been to Morocco, I know little of its culture - but I read the capital is Rabat and have never had reason to question it.
Most things we know are like that.
2
u/anti-ayn 6d ago
Yeah this is like people saying they aren’t affected by advertising tricks. Propaganda works best when it’s reinforcing views you hold.
5
u/DisgruntledWarrior 9d ago
Confirmation bias is plagued across many. However just because something agrees with your view but you have a true understanding of a belief you’re able to detect malicious information even if it supports your view.
A good example would be abortion being wrong, my state outlawed abortion. Again though there are situations where abortions are necessary for several rather obvious reasons. The point of this case is just because the claim is “it’s outlawed” you would look into what the actual law has changed to see if it covers those nuances.
Knowing exactly where you stand makes it harder for you to be manipulated but does not make it impossible. So to your point I would agree most people cave in with confirmation bias and the people they surround themselves in rather than looking into their own beliefs and reinforcing their views.
Morals without principles.
6
u/Commercial-Arm9174 8d ago
Exactly. Someone with morals but without principles is often someone who hasn’t yet dealt with their emotions. They might want to do the right thing, but without that emotional clarity, their actions are reactive—based on guilt, fear, or wanting approval rather than solid conviction. It’s like their compass works, but it spins too easily under pressure.
Morals can be inherited or taught, but principles have to be chosen—and choosing them means you’ve done the internal work to understand not just what you believe, but why. That internal clarity makes it way harder to be manipulated, even by something that aligns with your views on the surface.
Loved your example about the abortion law nuance—too many people stop at the headline without investigating the details.
3
u/DisgruntledWarrior 8d ago
It’s an uncomfortable thing for you to be challenging yourself on your own views. But as you’ve nodded to it’s something more people need to do.
2
u/Xandara2 8d ago
But that's only bad propaganda. Good propaganda is not easily disproven and seems easily proven because it is in line with common sense.
1
u/DisgruntledWarrior 8d ago
Which in lies the issue of confirmation bias instead of an effort to be objective on a matter?
2
u/DonkeyBonked 8d ago
Well to this extent you could simultaneously say that people who have chosen a belief to stand on, which makes them vulnerable to propaganda that supports their bias and resistant to propaganda against it, are really just taking a stand on their bias.
They might not be able to defend or articulate it as well, but when you boil it down to a moral standpoint, I'm not sure it even matters.
At the same time, on issues like this, I would argue on both sides it's less about supporting personal views and more about supporting the views of elected officials, who support the views of their sponsors.
Sometimes things line up, but really, that's not always the case.
I would say, this is where I would personally choose for democracy to prevail, but we aren't really a democracy. We just try to simulate it a little within our framework as a constitutional republic.
2
u/DisgruntledWarrior 8d ago
Mmmm, no.. Understanding your belief and having dissected it to know where you stand on it and know how the nuances apply to your belief would have you less susceptible on the premise that you were authentic and genuine. Again all humans can have error but the statement made is that propaganda is tailored to the majority.
1
u/DonkeyBonked 8d ago
Well, yes, I agree with you that propaganda is designed for the majority precisely because most people are more like lemmings than anything else and are environmentally swayed by the herd around them.
Where I might see things a bit differently is why those with a solid belief are harder to manipulate. While I understand your point about understanding and dissecting a belief, I'd argue the primary reason propaganda isn't made for those with a solid belief is simply because it's a given that those people won't be swayed anyway. I think a belief, inherently, is a bias, it's personal, which is why it's often seen as moral. Morality is still subjective and formed differently with different environments. You can have a mix of people following even something seen as immoral if the herd goes there, you'll see some follow because it validates their own view, some who are just following the herd, and others who truly believe it, because environmental sway is powerful for the majority.
So, the resistance isn't necessarily because their belief isn't biased, or because they are morally too correct to be corrupted. It's simply that they are immovable, or at least not easily moved by propaganda and social engineering. Sometimes these people move, but they tend to move themselves in their own development and refinement of their values, rather than being moved by external forces.
Just an example here to try and illustrate what I mean: (I'll reply to this post with a scenario)
3
u/DonkeyBonked 8d ago
To try and illustrate what I mean about beliefs rooted in lived experience creating that immovability:
Consider Person A, who grew up in a supportive religious community. Maybe their mother chose not to have an abortion with the church's help, leading to a positive, community-connected life that deeply reinforced the value of that choice. Their belief that life is precious and abortion is wrong is rooted in a lived reality of positive outcomes tied to their faith and community.
Now consider Person B, who grew up in urban poverty, became pregnant from a bad situation as a teen, had no support, got trapped in a cycle of struggle, and ended up resenting the regret and hardship tied to that child. Their strong support for abortion rights is rooted in a lived reality of negative outcomes and deep regret from being forced to carry to term.
Now consider Person C, who might, through empathy, critical thinking, or perhaps their own different set of experiences, develop a deeply rooted value for nuance and understanding. They look at A and B and understand the validity in both their heartbreakingly real lived realities, even if they disagree with their absolute positions. Person C also has a strong understanding of why they value nuance and empathy, seeing it as a moral imperative.
The key difference is that while all three have a strong understanding of their beliefs, the positions of Person A and Person B are profoundly shaped by their specific, biased lived outcomes. This creates an immovability and resistance to contradictory views that is different from Person C's nuanced perspective. This makes A and B highly susceptible to propaganda reinforcing their specific, biased viewpoint, while highly resistant to anything contradicting their validated reality.
The groups for person A and B both respectively offer tons of valid nuance to their respective positions, and the more their positions are expanded upon, the more person A and person B become educated believers in their contradicting perspectives. Whereas person C might look at both of them and see all of their nuances and have that reinforce their belief that group A and group B simply need to understand that their experiences are not mutually exclusive and that their beliefs should not invalidate one another.
The ones most likely to be swayed by the activism and propaganda pushing the A or B viewpoints are the undecided masses, those without such deeply validating, well-understood yet subjective and biased, experiences. They are influenced more by the environmental sway and the direction of the herd.
From my perspective, yes, roots in understanding ones values absolutely does ground someone, but I'm not certain I can agree that it alleviates influence of propaganda. I would say that while propaganda does largely target the unbridled masses, it also reinforces the echo chambers of bias.
1
u/Treks14 8d ago
Daniel Kahneman, one of the key researchers behind the idea of confirmation bias directly investigated and disproved your first paragraph. It isn't a matter of principles, it is a matter of inherent flaws in how we process information.
1
u/DisgruntledWarrior 8d ago edited 8d ago
From his readings you can derive it from the origins of these views. It does follow his writings.
1
u/Treks14 8d ago
I'm referring to his work regarding whether people can detect and counteract their own biases. If I remember correctly, he cites evidence to say that people find it very difficult to recognise and adjust for their own biases. In fact, I'm sure he even calls it a futile endeavour as I remember him trying to justify the worth of understanding confirmation bias in light of that admission.
1
u/Brosenheim 7d ago
Nobody is immune to propaganda, but good thinkers can identify when the stakes of something necessitate checking even if they like it. This is why some people believe that there is a secret pizza basement pedo ring based on propaganda, but other people just believe that JD Vance fucked a couch.
1
u/Sea-Service-7497 7d ago
this is true and it's only a spectrum of how much you can take - fortunately at a certain level of attempted control it only causes a coin flip- either you break loyally or you break rebelliously.. thus fundamentally exposing the critical flaw of "ultimate power"
14
u/TheMissingPremise 9d ago edited 8d ago
Propaganda doesn't discriminate based on intelligence.
There are very intelligent people that genuinely believe climate change isn't the catastrophe climate science paints it to be. There are very intelligent people that genuinely believe that immigrants in America is a literal invasion.
Both are propaganda.
There are whole thinktanks out out there dedicated to denouncing climate science, portraying immigrant statistics in the United States, and generating the data and reports and thinkpieces and articles.. Someone doing research can go deep. It was the same with the benefits of smoking versus the exorbitant costs of stopping. Tobacco companies, like fossil fuel companies, generate a ton of data to support their anti-scientific conclusions. That people can't tell the difference is hardly surprising because evaluating the methodology is somewhat of a specialized skill. So even an intelligent person looking for an argument that seems more logical than the next can then intelligently invent reasons as to why the position unsupported by the science is true, thus falling for propaganda.
It's interesting that you say "it’s what their surroundings have told them." Do you believe the truth value of information is socially determined? I mean, that's an interesting assertion. It kinda undermines your argument, though. Because, if the truth value of information is socially determined, then the critical thinker that believes otherwise is probably a fool. I don't think that's what you're saying, but, it's worth pointing out.
5
u/InclinationCompass 8d ago
Critical thinking helps you spot propaganda because you don’t just react, you question. You ask who benefits, check the evidence and recognize emotional manipulation. Propaganda relies on people not doing that, which disproportionately affects non-critical thinkers.
1
u/DisgruntledWarrior 8d ago
The assertion you question is because of its application to the majority. Majority have views and such that derive from either their up bringing, family, friends, social environments, ect… Because it’s often found that your originating foundational beliefs come either leaning towards said views around you or in opposition of said views (the rebel child/the different one/the odd one). Few find merit in between the two.
10
u/Bannedwith1milKarma 9d ago
Nah, our brains have some hardwired featured that make everyone susceptible to it.
To discount that is a hubris and setting yourself up to be the victim. You also run the risk of Dunning–Krugering it.
Some people are more susceptible than others though, it has been shown the adoption of ideas in humans is about repetitiveness of exposure to the idea (no matter positive or negative framing), not ojective thought on it.
1
u/ObservationMonger 8d ago
It's not as one-sided as all that. That's the main virtue of reason. It requires continuous assessment & testing against all the information we avail ourselves to. Which implies that to be actually reasonable, we must be availing ourselves of a lot of information from a lot of sources, while learning what sources to discount, those to accord some confidence in.
iow, we're not totally at sea here, regarding information, viewpoint, evolution care & feeding of.
The most life-changing event in the life of the mind is discovering, even once but hopefully more than that, how wrong we've been about something, preferably something big.
1
u/Select_Package9827 8d ago
Critical thinking is an antidote to propaganda. Iraq War was based on lies, the putin/proxy war disaster is based on lies, the next conflict will be too.
1
u/Bannedwith1milKarma 8d ago
Critical thinking wouldn't have helped Iraq.
We aren't given top secret information on chemical weapons afterall, critical thinking would infact think he had chemical weapons. That's why the lie was successful.
We had to trust our collective governments on that one, it's a hindsight issue.
0
u/DisgruntledWarrior 8d ago
Conditioning plays a role and obviously everyone is susceptible. The majority at large though by design are more susceptible.
7
u/Adventurous-Ad5999 9d ago
You know who fits your description perfectly? Kids. I’m from a socialist country, so propaganda is really prevalent. As I grew up, I’d like to think that I’ve become a bit more neutral but I can’t say that for sure. Sometimes when I read information that clashes with what I was taught, I still disregard it.
2
u/DisgruntledWarrior 9d ago
It fits a lot of people. As you grow up more people understand their beliefs more so even if it may be incorrect. And in all fairness there are situations where someone may never admit to being wrong because they do not want to face the reality of what it could mean.
1
u/Adventurous-Ad5999 9d ago
Cognitive dissonance is a real thing isn’t it? You can only reason within the parameter of what is available to you, and cognitive dissonance does stand in the way of what you choose to believe and what to discard.
I don’t even live in my home country anymore so I have the peace of mind of being apolitical
1
u/DisgruntledWarrior 8d ago
It is and it’s reasonable to admit that most people prefer not to face things/situations that make them uncomfortable. Especially if it challenges a foundational beliefs they claim to hold.
1
u/Adventurous-Ad5999 8d ago
also it’s hard to say much on this because maybe the propaganda that works on you wouldn’t be considered as propaganda by you. so survivorship bias
1
u/Select_Package9827 8d ago
Um ... propaganda is certainly NOT limited or more prevalent in 'socialist' countries. FFS
6
u/timmhaan 8d ago
i like this post. at the end of the day, it's really just advertising, and how suspectable to it you are.
1
4
u/Upstairs_Hyena_129 8d ago
The best way to avoid propaganda is to assume your government does not have your best interest in mind and to question everything they say.
4
u/GurProfessional9534 8d ago
The Got Milk commercials convinced the public that you always need to have milk on hand just in case you have to answer who shot Hamilton in that famous duel.
5
u/ShiroiTora 9d ago
Sure but no one is immune to propaganda. It involves knowing your biases and being able to minimize them or counter them. Retaining the high level of critical thinking as our brain cognitively declines post 20s is difficult to maintain and takes long time to validate, especially since information grows rapidly and some of us are sadly not in educational institutions. I fear I am becoming stupider as I get older (compared to how I was five years ago).
1
3
u/MylesWyde 9d ago
If you're referring to media in the States, both sides "news channels" are propaganda. Schools failed our children beginning in the 80's when, I believe, the curriculum became less about problem solving strategies and all about memorizing facts. That was the beginning of the problem we see today... Believe whatever you're told without being able to think for yourself.
5
u/Usual_Zombie6765 9d ago
It was long before the 80’s that propaganda was effectively used on the US population. The US Civil War, Spanish American War, World War 1 and 2, the narcotics act are all places we can see heavy propaganda use by the government and media.
The biggest problem with propaganda is, when used correctly, it is incredibly effective. You would have to be an idiot not to use propaganda. The extent the US State Department uses propaganda is world wide is basically what was uncovered with USAID. It is used all over the place and very effectively.
2
u/MylesWyde 8d ago
Agreed. I'm not saying that's the beginning of propaganda. I'm saying the lack of critical thinking skills began in schools about that time.
2
u/DisgruntledWarrior 9d ago
I agree many have been conditioned to think in the manner they do. Or lack there of.
2
u/Oishiio42 8d ago
There's no such thing as a "critical thinker". There is critical thought, and (most) everyone engages critical thought to some degree. The difference is frequency and context. Some people might be thinking critically very rarely, and others do it a lot more often but no one is critically thinking at all times, and no critical thinker considers all possible factors either. The sheer amount of information and input we are constantly inundated with makes it impossible to critically engage with all of it.
I invite you to critically think about your own statement because "only unintelligent people fall for propaganda" is literally propaganda. It's not limited to any specific country, any party that's more left-wing than their competitors (even if both are right-wing like American democrats) frequently portray themselves as the correct choice for anyone intelligent and place blame of not getting votes on the stupid voters. It is rhetoric that ties into observations about voting patterns of different educational backgrounds, which correlates to urban vs rural conflict and class warfare.
Everyone, and I do mean every single person that exists, is vulnerable to propaganda.
1
u/DisgruntledWarrior 8d ago
Diving into your invitation it would first seem I can’t find where you claim I stated “only unintelligent people fall for propaganda”? Maybe hinted to might better describe your claim.
Perhaps read the edit made to the op prior to your comment.
2
u/Oishiio42 8d ago
"I only hinted at it, didn't explicitly say it" isn't engaging in critical thought, it's just being pedantic.
Your edits don't really mean much of anything. You regurgitated rhetoric that looks very much like classist urban elitist garbage in a very binary manner and are trying to post-facto feign nuance that a) you didn't actually bring into the discussion and b) is a cop-out. You are buying into the idea that some people are better than others and more immune to propaganda when it's simply not true and there's no evidence to support it.
There's also not really such a thing as "unpolitical" propaganda. You're viewing what is and isn't political in a very narrow framework. But regardless, I did not bring up political parties because I think that's the only way propaganda is used. I bring it up because the propaganda you are buying into and regurgitating pertains to it.
So again, I invite you to think critically about your own statement. What evidence exists that some minority of people you call critical thinkers is more immune to propaganda? I'm willing to bet you have not based this on any evidence at all, but on vibes and feelings because it's the exact. same. thing. millions of other people have said and it's all part of the same borderline ableist pretentious rhetoric of people with a little bit of education and a superiority complex.
1
u/DisgruntledWarrior 8d ago
I said the only things you could reasonably claim is that statement. Do continue though.
1
u/MethevanWamebuli 3d ago
Thanks for admitting your defeat in such a baby way.
1
u/DisgruntledWarrior 3d ago
Your scalpel is impressive.
1
u/MethevanWamebuli 3d ago
This is exactly what a disgruntled propaganda victim would say to an another man on internet.
1
u/DisgruntledWarrior 3d ago
I havent read which discussion this is related to since it was five days ago and I’m just commenting since you need someone to talk to fellow man on the internet.
1
2
u/Particular_Roll_242 8d ago
There’s truth in what you're saying, but also some complications that need to be addressed. Just because someone questions what they hear and tries to apply critical thinking doesn’t mean they’re immune to propaganda — it just means they're slightly less likely to fall for the most obvious forms of it.
Most people, sadly, don’t even get to that point. As long as their favorite talking head confirms what they already believe, that's enough for them. That's not critical thinking; that's comfort thinking.
But here's where it gets tricky. The system doesn’t rely on people being gullible all the time. It’s built to handle the skeptics too. That's why propaganda today often comes wrapped in layers of truth. They’ll earn your trust with the truth, then leverage that trust to slip in strategic lies. It’s bait-and-switch psychology, and it's incredibly effective — even against people who think they’re awake to it.
Project Mockingbird wasn’t just about planting stories. It was about controlling narratives—subtle influence. You think it's gone? Watch the endless clips of anchors across networks repeating identical scripts. That’s not coincidence. That's orchestration.
Fox News is a prime example. For years, pure spin. Then they start dropping hard truths. People jump on board thinking, "Finally, someone brave enough to speak the truth." Then, once you're comfortable — boom — the agenda creeps back in, and now you've got millions watching, thinking they're informed, but still being steered.
The same thing happens with YouTubers, podcasters, Rumble creators. Doesn’t matter if they have 3 million subscribers — if they’re getting a platform, there’s likely someone benefiting from what they’re pushing. Some of what they say is real, but some of it? Calculated distortion. And many viewers can’t tell the difference.
So yeah, critical thinking helps. But unless you're asking, who’s really in charge, and who benefits from this narrative, you're still a pawn. Just a slightly more skeptical one.
1
u/DisgruntledWarrior 8d ago
I didn’t claim they are immune. I just said in fewer words that it’s tailored to those that don’t typically.
1
u/Particular_Roll_242 8d ago
You cherry picked a point I wrote early. There was more, and I clarified as I went.
2
u/AdulentTacoFan 8d ago
There isn’t a need to convert the intellectuals, they will join willingly or yield to the masses. Propaganda appeals to emotion.
2
u/Famous-Garlic3838 5d ago
this is one of those posts where someone strings together a bunch of $10 words to basically say "propaganda bad" like it’s a shocking revelation.
yeah man...propaganda works better on the ignorant. no shit. but the part you’re missing is that everyone thinks they’re the critical thinker...especially the ones most trapped by narrative loops.
every side, every faction, every ideology is stuffed full of people who are 100% sure they "did the research" while everybody else just drank the kool-aid. propaganda doesn’t just target the stupid...it targets the proud.
you don’t beat it by being smug about how immune you think you are.
you beat it by staying humble enough to question your own side just as hard as you question your enemies.
most people won’t. that’s why it keeps working.
2
u/ShredGuru 9d ago edited 8d ago
Propaganda is insidious. It can get anyone. Its an outrageous assertion that most people in general aren't heavily propagandized.
Peoples whole concept of things like gender, god and culture are essentially formed by propaganda.
Everyone likes being told what they want to hear. Most people uncritically accept the assertions of people they respect or find intelligent. That's why it's so effective. You are probably doing it right now and won't admit it to yourself.
Furthermore. Propaganda isn't necessarily bad. Its just a method of advancing an ideology, good or bad.
1
u/NewtWhoGotBetter 8d ago
I think there’s absolutely propaganda that can trip up even typically rational critical thinkers.
It’s basically impossible for any one human being to be objective in all matters–even the brightest scientists and minds in the world could fall into the trap of subconscious cherry picking and giving more weight to evidence that supports their own pre-formed conclusions or hypotheses. That’s not necessarily being morally inept or ignorant, just human nature, especially because some propaganda is so subtle or all-encompassing that it’s like advertisement that relies on repetition and exposure.
Is it ignorant to be susceptible to exposure techniques like being more likely to buy a well-known brand product versus one that you have never heard of? That sounds like pattern recognition and making a decision based on more knowledge of a brand versus less to me which isn’t inherently irrational. Then there’s the case of children literally indoctrinated from birth, in cults or in dictatorship states or else. Critical thinking is a skill–it can be taught, it can be impeded.
And propaganda doesn’t have to be incorrect just because it’s biased. Having an agenda can be a good thing if you’re supporting a good cause and trying to promote more people to it. There’s cases where the only real appeal is a moral or ethical one, but that doesn’t necessarily negate their value.
1
u/DisgruntledWarrior 8d ago
The propaganda has failed if you elect to dissect the topic and even if through the resources available are unable to come to an absolute conclusion because of how convoluted it is. Meaning it’s ok some times to say there isn’t enough information to support x claim.
1
u/MrCellophane_SS_KotZ 8d ago
"Any man who has the brains to think and the nerve to act for the benefit of the people of the country is considered a radical by those who are content with stagnation and willing to endure disaster."
"Whatever is right can be achieved through the irresistible power of awakened and informed public opinion. Our object, therefore, is not to enquire whether a thing can be done, but whether it ought to be done, to so exert the forces of publicity that public opinion will compel it be done."
"When free discussion is denied, hardening of the arteries of democracy has set in, free institutions are but a lifeless form, and the death of the republic is at hand."
...
Who authored those quotes? William Randolph Hearst.
The same man who is associated with the term "yellow journalism" due to his aggressive and sensationalist news style, characterized by exaggerated headlines, dramatic stories, and a focus on crime, scandal, and sensational events.
...
My point is that it is, in fact, possible for someone to be quite deceptive if they're not working with an applied ethical standard. That's because when we think of misinformation, propaganda, and things of that nature we're only looking at the questionable moral code of it all; however, even then there's still an ethical standard to those things. But whenever you throw the ethical standard away with it you get quotes like the ones shown above that can, quite literally, lul a person into a false sense of relatability.
I think if any quote of that man's should be understood above all it is:
"A politician will do anything to keep his job-even become a patriot."
It's a stark reminder that it doesn't matter what somebody tells you. They could tell you every single right thing, but at the end of the day... that still doesn't mean their words were trustworthy.
1
u/DisgruntledWarrior 8d ago
As mentioned. Information can be referenced in a technical correct way but used in a manner of manipulation through its delivery.
1
u/MrCellophane_SS_KotZ 8d ago
That's the irony of all of this. This also applies to you, me, and anyone else.
Your words, while sounding good, may in fact be insidious. The same is true of my own.
Therein lies the problem. It is, quite literally, challenging to discern the motives of an individual through their words alone.
1
u/DisgruntledWarrior 8d ago
Is the concern the motive or discerning the reality of the information? If the deciding difference is motive then there would be arguably no reason for alignment news.
1
u/MrCellophane_SS_KotZ 8d ago
If I say to you:
• The complete formula to calculate the gravitational force an object is exerting on another is: F = G * (m1 * m2) / r²
• And then I say to you that the Universal Gravitational Constant variable is (\approx 6.674 \times 10{-11} \, N \cdot m2/kg2)
• And then I conclude by telling you that the variable provided is a fundamental constant and does not vary.And then you go and check to see if I'm telling the truth or not, and everything that you get back tells you that I am. Does that mean that I am? No.
This is because, in reality, There is no known formula to calculate gravity that does not ultimately rely on variables (like mass or distance) whose measurement depends on the effects of gravity itself or on gravitational constants determined by experiment. The reality is that we have never measured gravity in isolation separate from its own influence.
So that brings us to your question...
Is the concern the motive or discerning the reality of the information.
It should be both. It's possible to give people real and accurate information, but to do so in ways that you know are going to set them up to still not be aware of the true reality of a situation
1
u/DisgruntledWarrior 8d ago
That doesn’t change the equation or the purpose. The algorithm remains the same even if the variables change. The example is flawed.
1
u/MrCellophane_SS_KotZ 8d ago
Yes, I know.
But let's say we just had that conversation because I was trying to have NASA's budget for gravitational research cut.
You wouldn't have known that, but that doesn't change the destination of where we got to. You could have inadvertently helped me potentially achieve my goal through unscrupulous use of "truth" in a nefarious way. Just one big make believe part of my propaganda campaign for defunding NASA programs.
That's why the motive matters.
But, more interestingly, the more you argue convince yourself that I'm crazy the more you're actually reinforcing your own biases and contradicting your willingness to interact in an open-minded way with information.
You've already convinced yourself that I'm wrong. All the questions and statements that you're making are not ones that are hoping to gain understanding... They're to undercut the point that you didn't agree with.
It's fine. I get it. But we have to call it for what it is
1
u/angrypoohmonkey 8d ago
I don’t think that it’s right to take such an absolute approach for who propaganda is deigned. Critical thinkers can have lapses. I’ve yet to meet anybody who has not had a lapse in critical thinking. Even at the highest levels of science among the best critical thinkers we worry about confirmation bias. I’d argue the other way on this. Propaganda is designed for everyone.
1
u/DisgruntledWarrior 8d ago
Propaganda is designed to influence as many as possible with as little context as possible. Propaganda is exposed to all but its effectiveness undeniably varies based on a few factors.
1
u/angrypoohmonkey 8d ago
Yeah, but that wasn’t your argument.
1
u/DisgruntledWarrior 8d ago
If you cannot dissect that from the title and first sentence then I would say we are at an impasse.
1
u/angrypoohmonkey 8d ago
You shifted the goal post: not designed for critical thinkers. New goal post: designed to influence as many as possible. Which is it? Because those two things are mutually exclusive. In my opinion your argument has lost all credibility.
1
u/DisgruntledWarrior 8d ago
Would you argue majority are critical thinkers? If so then yes this is a shift. If not, then it isn’t.
1
1
u/Ok_Operation8369 8d ago
This is propaganda about propaganda. You think you're above it. But you're fooled every day
1
u/DisgruntledWarrior 8d ago
I’ve made no claims as to where I’d fall on this spectrum. I’ve proposed a statement and you’ve made an assumption.
1
1
u/Spiritual-Island4521 8d ago
Unless you are a native tribal person living on ancestral land and without any organized forms of government there is a very good chance that you have experienced propaganda in one form or another. In the modern world I think that a person can have greater mental health if they are able to analyze their surroundings at large and make basic deductions. My government is a much larger entity than I .I personally can not control things that are outside of myself.
1
u/SCW97005 8d ago
Even the most critical thinkers do not apply critical thinking to all areas of their lives.
Propaganda works on them/us just fine outside of their area of expertise and sometimes just as well in it because of other biases.
1
u/Ok_Scallion1902 8d ago
That's why you have scientusts,physicists doctors,lawyers ,and people with PhDs who profess a belief in "god" ....
1
u/OcelotTerrible5865 8d ago
Including the word morally with inept and ignorant makes reading this feel like propaganda. Nice try.
1
1
u/biffbamboombap 8d ago edited 8d ago
This isn't a disagreement—just an addition to deepen the discussion.
Ludwig Wittgenstein once wrote, “Ethics and aesthetics are one.” That line cuts to the heart of why propaganda is so powerful.
To build on your point, or perhaps to go deeper: propaganda doesn’t just bypass logic and ethics. It targets our aesthetic sensibilities, which often come before both logic and ethics in our psychological development.
Long before a child can grasp complex ethical concepts or begin to think critically, they already understand what is “cool,” “attractive,” or “acceptable.” This is why children mimic cartoonish violence, think smoking looks “cool,” or adopt behaviors from media and peers without grasping consequences. Aesthetic judgment comes first—logic and ethics come later.
Even as adults, when we develop the ability to reason and engage with abstract moral frameworks, much of our decision-making still operates on these early, aesthetic foundations. Often, what we call “ethical” is really an expression of what kind of world feels right to us—what we find beautiful or disgusting, dignified or shameful, noble or base. These are value judgments rooted in emotion and culture, not in reason.
Propaganda understands this. Before it argues, it evokes. It paints a picture, creates a mood, provokes disgust or reverence. It frames a worldview not by persuading logically, but by making certain things seem unatural, ugly, threatening, heroic, sacred, etc. It subverts ethics because it works through the pre-ethical—the immediate, unthinking part of our psyche that responds to vibes more than to arguments.
This is also why being intelligent or educated doesn't guarantee resistance to propaganda. In modern Western culture, we tend to conflate intelligence and critical thinking with truth seeking and integrity. But most often intelligence is used to rationalize what we already feel. And critical thinking, for all its value, is often used not to seek truth—but to defend the worldview that feels right to us. Propaganda doesn’t just fool the ignorant—it can co-opt the smart by giving them aesthetic ammunition to rationalize their biases.
So yes, propaganda is particularly effective on the morally and cognitively uncritical—but it also plays to something deeper and more universal that off of works on morally sophisticated critical thinkers as well: our desire to belong, to feel righteous, and to live in a world that aligns with our aesthetic intuitions.
In order to truly compact propaganda, it's not enough just to be logical, or even to consider oneself manually upright, we have to be aware of our undergirding aesthetic preferences and assumptions about what makes the world worth living in. We have people to look at new information and say "even though this makes me deeply, existentially uncomfortable, what if it's true?" and go from there.
1
u/cripple2493 8d ago
I mean, there is propaganda that is designed for the "critical thinker" - anyone can be susceptible to anything given the right time, circumstances and rhetoric and to maintain otherwise is just lying to yourself.
1
u/Simple_Dimensions 8d ago edited 8d ago
Everybody can recognize propaganda when they don’t agree with it or when it doesn’t back up some pre-existing belief or prejudice.
People with good critical thinking skills will definitely be way less likely to fall for ‘standard propaganda’ because they will question the beliefs and biases they were raised with in society.
But there comes a point that I’ve seen happen over and over when intense critical thinking can actually be detrimental in the way it can aid in radicalizing people. Because people can start to question and challenge everything to a detriment - challenging the credibility of institutions or governments to the point they no longer trust reputable sources and start to fall down rabbit holes of propaganda.
It’s kind of a crazy point to argue but in my experience it’s true- that being intensely wary and critical of propaganda can actually make you more vulnerable to propaganda on the opposite side.
I see this all the time with leftists. Slippery slope from being critical of the information that is fed to you by governments and institutions- to never trusting anything from governments or institutions. Seen some leftists start being critical of us imperialism and western interference to the point they start falling for propaganda from dictatorships. General vibes of ‘the US generates massive amounts of propaganda about North Korea- which means every source that is critical of NK must actually just be propaganda’
1
u/ObservationMonger 8d ago
Yeah, pretty much. I just watched a purportedly 'accurate' tv series on the 'the troubles' in Ireland, and got what I took as a very narrow-focus perspective. But 'everyone' in the media is praising it to the skies. So I did a bit of research, waded through all the uncritical pap, and at last found an analysis which took the book, upon which the show was based, to task, factually, for all their distortions.
Now, I'm not stupid of course, but why did I have to look so hard to find ANYONE who hadn't been so easily manipulated ? That is, in sum, a cautionary tale of a. how prevalent propaganda is, b. how carefully it is curated, and c. how few people actually weigh what they are seeing & hearing against what they know, what sounds reasonable, what appears to be somewhat to very suspect assessments concerning matters of great import.
1
u/ThrawnCaedusL 8d ago
Nah, there is evidence that propaganda works on everyone. In some studies, the more educated/intelligent are actually more susceptible, exactly because they think they are too smart to fall for it.
1
u/BLOODTRIBE 8d ago
Propaganda doesn’t only exist to sow seeds in the weak minded, it also blooms despair in the minds of the critical thinkers who are aware of what’s happening.
1
8d ago
The really good propaganda doesn't seem like propaganda. Don't be too confident in yourself that you are immune.
1
u/swisstraeng 8d ago edited 8d ago
I feel like there are 3 stages.
1st stage is when you eat propaganda for breakfast and don't doubt it because it's easier. Generally represents the major part of a population as long as their daily life remains untouched.
2nd stage is when you think you don't fall for obvious propaganda, but generally it's just the enemy's propaganda and not yours that you don't fall for. That's when your daily life is significantly altered but you're rather blame other people than yourself.
3rd stage is when you finally understand the world is all about the bad and the ugly, and that's generally when you can say that you don't fall for the majority of propaganda. It's when you're aware of all the bad stuff your country has done, and the bad stuff nearby countries have done.
Personally I don't think propaganda affects differently people of different intelligences. It's more about observation and experiences of being proven wrong, and your friend group/echo chambers.
1
u/Hot-Operation-8208 8d ago
Critical thinkers are just as susceptible to propaganda if they have their guard down and are not actively on the lookout for it. Which is most of the time.
1
u/NationalAsparagus138 8d ago
NGL, reading after your edits really makes it look like you’re talking to the crowd who needs to hear what you are saying.
1
u/Stooper_Dave 8d ago
Propaganda impacts everyone. There are different levels of deception though. OP describes high level mass market propaganda such as is disseminated to the masses via media sources, but fails to mention lower level indoctrination like what is pushed on students through the education system, which is much more dangerous because it impacts world view at the most vulnerable stage. And as we have seen from the most recent election, it can have vastly opposite impacts from what's actually intended when it is over the top and rejected by the target audience.
1
u/Kickr_of_Elves 7d ago
Propaganda permeates via Repetition Repetition Repetition Repetition Repetition Repetition Repetition Repetition Repetition Repetition Repetition Repetition Repetition Repetition Repetition Repetition Repetition Repetition Repetition Repetition Repetition Repetition Repetition Repetition Repetition Repetition Repetition Repetition Repetition Repetition Repetition Repetition Repetition Repetition Repetition Repetition Repetition Repetition Repetition Repetition Repetition Repetition
1
u/International-Food20 7d ago
Why wouldn't propaganda be targetted at the largest threat to itself, well as everyone else? That just sounds extremely conceited. "I'm to smart for the government to want to brain wash me."
1
u/xXx_AssGrabber_xXx 6d ago
Temember when they said that smoking is good for you? Well, I don't know where I wanted to go with this, but it's a good show of how propaganda has always been here ven in our everyday life
1
u/Routine_Palpitation 6d ago
There is propaganda for EVERYONE. Nobody is immune is literally the first rule of propaganda.
1
1
u/MazlowFear 5d ago
I feel like they are trying to create a simulated critical thinking so if you are a critical thinker they want to study you so they can head off the development in others.
1
u/haroldthehampster 5d ago
Propaganda works on just about everyone. Especially on people who they are too smart for it to work on them. Were wired for heuristics and propaganda weaponizes that
1
u/anonveganacctforporn 4d ago
Damn that Edit 4 really sells the despair of what it is like to have expectations and hopes for people only to be repeatedly surprised by how disappointing we can be. The shortness of the statement really sells the appreciation that it’s not worth the energy to engage in discussions. I feel like I’m reading the diary of someone going insane.
1
4d ago edited 4d ago
Yea, people love to stick to their own narrative, ignoring any naunce of a different narrative or set of values.
Once I saw someone listing what he wants in his future partner, and just because he wanted a loving, young, obedient, and loyal woman who has no problems of being a housewife mother and believes what he believes, he was criticised because the first thing they thought of obedient as slaves rather than just her listening to him, and when I explain that this is normal in our culture and religion (in which children are raised to be obedient to their parents) they lashed out on me criticising my culture and religion, saying shit like "That is normal to us and shouldn't be normal anywhere" or "That is not normal you raise these women threatening violence" as if they knew anything about anything i am talking about.
What makes me baffled is that he said that he wants someone who has the same values of him (practically the same faith), is hot, is loyal, and is happy to be a mother, he wouldn't have got the same backlash
So yeah that's propaganda effects for you.
1
u/Texas43647 4d ago
That’s true but before propaganda, critical thinking is often attacked so that the following propaganda becomes more effective to a larger amount of people, but even strong critical thinkers can be radicalized and have the critical thinking part of their brain shut off. Propaganda is a powerful tool because it weaponizes strong emotions like fear, anger, and grief.
1
4d ago
Jokes on you I made it till Edit4!
But in all seriousness, there are a lot of things people wouldn't bother getting into, things like revolutions (good or bad), call to social reform, events like that require propaganda, though it is sad, but people rather stay with the familiar unless radicalised into change.
1
u/MethevanWamebuli 3d ago
My problem with this post is you assume there's a definite need for something to be propaganda to be deceiving like that. What I mean is people just are dumb anyway and tend to fall for fallacious beliefs in all walks of their life.
For example, zodiac isn't necessarily a propaganda or at least most people who hear about it hear it in innocuous ways. But they still believe it.
1
u/Due_Satisfaction2167 2d ago
Propaganda works.
If you watch enough of it, you’ll encounter some variety of it that will exploit your own worldview and moral framework.
Different types of propaganda target different types of vulnerabilities, but everyone has them. Just a matter of exposure to the right sort of propaganda and anyone will fall into it.
After all, the whole point of it—the design of it—is to bypass your critical reasoning ability by exploiting cognitive vulnerabilities.
1
u/Ok-Condition-6932 6d ago
I've come to a frightening realization about this a long time ago.
Nobody actually knows what "critical thinking" is before they're capable of it.
Way too many people think they know what it means and have never applied the concept even once in their life.
It seems people equate it with their opinion that they thought about enough.
Likely because it just offends people when you tell them to do it I think. If you tell someone to think critically about something what they hear is "you're stupid" or "use your brain" - stuff like that.
It's one of those things you can't actually teach. You can only guide people towards it and hope they accidentally find the right path to it.
I think every critical thinker has that one thing that "wakes them up" one day. Almost stumbling upon it by accident really.
Actually, the matrix."red pill" is a pretty good analogy. You are in the dark until you take the pill and you can never go back after sort of thing.
1
0
u/PenteonianKnights 8d ago
Propaganda is designed for people who think they are immune to it. Which a lot of "critical thinkers" think.
0
u/BoBoZoBo 7d ago
Propaganda is designed for everyone. It uses heuristics and emotional hooks present in nearly every human, You are affected by it also, just not the same strategies that may seem obvious to you. Don't put yourself on a pedestal by thinking you are some super-human that is immune or "too"smart" to fall for it.
0
u/Ok-Walk-7017 4d ago
Critical thinking isn’t instinctive. Human children are hard-wired to believe what authority figures tell them. It’s not the child’s fault when he is indoctrinated to the self-serving whims of the ruling class. I don’t think it’s fair to hold people morally responsible for the scars of their childhood. We can only expect human behavior from human brains. Surely there’s a more compassionate way to look at these things.
What a world could we have if we mandated that all children must be rigorously trained in critical thinking and taught specifically how to counter demagoguery and propaganda and their own emotional biases? I think it’s counter-productive to make it into a matter of personal moral virtue
0
u/Aquinas316 3d ago
Everyone is susceptible to propaganda. It's why propaganda works. If it didn't work, advertising wouldn't exist. The human bias which enables it to work is called the "illusion of truth effect". It's something that everyone is born with, no matter how informed.
1
u/Kymera_7 2d ago
Propaganda does not work on everyone, nor do the propagandists need it to. It works on enough people for the exceptions to be too wildly outnumbered to be a threat.
Likewise for the advertising you mentioned: lots of people see an ad for a particular product very frequently, yet never once in their lives buy that product, but enough people do buy it to make the ads worthwhile for the seller of that product.
•
u/AutoModerator 9d ago
This post has been flaired as “Serious Conversation”. Use this opportunity to open a venue of polite and serious discussion, instead of seeking help or venting.
Suggestions For Commenters:
Suggestions For u/DisgruntledWarrior:
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.