Then you have a somewhat unconventional personal definition for "propaganda". Almost always people use that word to imply something clandestine, misleading, or both.
What you showed is a paid advertisement from a US-registered 501(c)(3) nonprofit, JewBelong, with public accounting on all donations, and a relatively clear mandate for how it spends its money.
Again, you're simply saying that a (really only slightly edgy) billboard paid for by your fellow americans with their own money and aimed at changing your opinion via argumentation should be disallowed as "propaganda" simply because you disagree with it (and again: I disagree with it too!).
Tough love: of the dueling philosophies at play here, yours is by far the most dangerous. Let people argue with you, for crying out loud.
Both very famous pieces of propaganda the US put out during War. Neither of them are misleading. They were put out to encourage people to take an action.
Then maybe cite the definition you're using? And explain why it doesn't fit every kind of opinion broadcasting. Like, are flyers for a protest "propaganda"? Is grafitti propaganda? Is writing an opinion essay propaganda? Hosting a blog propaganda? Where does it stop?
Do you cite a definition for every word you use? Of course not. I am using the definition as defined by Webster and every other source I can find.
I am using it the same way that the pieces I referenced, were also considered propaganda.
I am using the excepted actual definition of Propaganda and there is zero reason to expect I need to define otherwise. That is just not a normal expectation when communicating. You having your own definition that does not follow the accepted definitions of the word with examples, is not my problem.
You also didn't answer my question about rosy the riveter which if we would consider that propaganda (which it is considered propaganda) I would consider the billboards propaganda.
Like, are flyers for a protest "propaganda"? Is grafitti propaganda?
They easily can be. Same with opinion broadcasting. It's not a matter of some strict definition, just whether you prefer a negative connotation with "propaganda" and how you feel about the thing being propagandized given that the negative connotation is the most common English usage.
Generally, Propaganda is used to sway opinion, get action, or similar when people may not be inclined a certain way on their own.
Ask yourself this: if there was not opposition to what Israel is doing right now, would they have made these billboards. Most likely no.
Would Rosie the Riveter happen if there was not a need for Woman in the workforce during the war?
Could keep giving examples, but you get the idea.
There are plenty of examples out there of established propaganda that isn't misleading or negative. It depends on the message they are trying to send and the action they are looking for.
> sway opinion, get action, or similar when people may not be inclined a certain way on their own.
This is tiresome and seems like it's in bad faith. Once more: that's just a definition for "argument". You can apply it to "propaganda" if you insist, but I can only repeat that this is not the way others interpret it.
You don't go around calling your friends propagandists when they try to sway your opinion, so don't do it here just because you dislike seeing billboards by Jewish advocacy groups.
I find it tiresome that I have given you 2 examples of established propaganda, there really is no debate as to whether or not these are considered propaganda, that do not fit your definition and you continue to ignore those.
Yes propaganda tends to be negative, but my point (again with examples to back up my point) is that it does not have to be.
You claim others do not see it that way, but that is obviously not true. Or we would not consider Rosy the Riveter as propaganda. It does not fit your definition.
Ignoring that there are examples of propaganda does not make your definition correct.
The reality is these words are murky, what is the line between advertising and propaganda. and similar comparisons.
But I will die on this hill and it is well established by this point, propaganda does not have to be negative.
Unless you are going to acknowledge rosy the riveter and either explain how that is not propaganda (which for the record you would be in the minority with that opinion) or explain how it was negative or misleading I see no point in continuing this conversation.
The question isn't about your digressions and nitpickery about whatever definition you think I proposed (which I'm ignoring quite deliberately), it's whether a billboard by a non-profit can reasonably be considered "propaganda". And your insistence on digressions instead of defending that (IMHO ridiculous) notion is the part I called "bad faith"
Just stop. JewBelong is a group of your fellow americans and you need to treat them like that and not call them propagandists as a way of dismissing their ideas. Your freakout here is everything wrong with Trumpist america, and I hate it.
Don't know about other countries, but in the Bay Area a bunch of those billboards have been vandalized/edited by non-Zionist Jewish groups.
Anyway, advertising media are antithetical to debate, which presumes approximately equal access to an audience to lay out two or more competing ideas at once. You can't argue with a billboard, you can only rent another billboard, and pretty soon you have billboards everywhere. This is a garbage concept of political discourse.
> Almost always people use that word to imply something clandestine, misleading, or both.
No, propaganda is often quite blatant. Look at the posters from both of the World Wars, depicting US enemies as vicious, inhuman monsters.
Even the “Rosie the Riveter” and Uncle Sam imagery is propaganda.
Propaganda can be any sort of one-sided media used to manipulate public opinion. It doesn’t necessarily have to be banned, but people need to learn more media literacy to recognize it.
