source

If you don’t see what i’m referring to, it’s just the usual stuff :

More here, here, and a bit of debunking there

  • soumerd_retardataireOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    If i meant that only one side uses (atrocity/war/… )propagaganda. It was admittedly a very poor choice of words on my part.

      • aelwero@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Only one side of anything being propagandised is effectively a non-existent concept. Propaganda is simply promotion of an opposing idea. People tend to equate the term with outright lies, but propaganda is far more often truth that’s specifically chosen to influence opinions in a certain direction.

        The very notion of “only one side” propagandising is, in and of itself, propaganda (and in my opinion, a very common form of it, one you’ll find much more egregiously used in US politics). I was simply pointing out the irony without meaning any implications to either side.

        • diegeticscream[all]🔻
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          9 months ago

          You know what? No.

          OP says specifically that only one side uses “atrocity propaganda”.

          Only one side is here, so fuck off with the both sides bullshit.

        • diegeticscream[all]🔻
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Ok, I understand that. Surely you can agree that one side has a significant propaganda advantage? There’s a massive difference between splashing news across every Western Source, and dropping a propaganda video on telegram.