Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 449: Birthright Citizenship? I hardly know her!

(+) Yeah! (+)

Admittedly I am no Jakyl.

Lopen 1 minute ago#499
Yes I know you saw them

Why are you so convinced they did anything

Is this "Advertising doesn't work on me"

Can't you even spare a guess, Lopen? I won't gun at you for being wrong if you are.

Like I guess my point of contention is that I don't believe political ads in and of themselves are actually very effective propaganda and I think actual news and social media engagement is much more effective.

Why do I think this? Because I was a child once and grew up with ads on TV where you couldn't even ad block if you wanted to. Neither me nor people I knew were brainwashed by political ads.

HanOfTheNekos posted...

Can't you even spare a guess, Lopen? I won't gun at you for being wrong if you are.

I don't know you heard the kids talking about the ads? Maybe ad watch parties are the rage now.

Lopen posted...

I don't know you heard the kids talking about the ads? Maybe ad watch parties are the rage now.

Restaurants.

I mean kids are just people-- has a political ad ever changed how you felt about anything, even when you were that young?

For me personally they definitely do but I think only ever in a negative way. Easy for a candidate's political ad to make me think "wow they're a dogshit candidate aren't they"

But also someone I trust calling me an asshole and meaning it is probably the single most likely thing they can do to change my behavior for the better so maybe I'm just not the average person here.

Lopen posted...

Neither me nor people I knew were brainwashed by political ads

How would you know if you were?

Kenri posted...

But also someone I trust calling me an asshole and meaning it is probably the single most likely thing they can do to change my behavior for the better

It works both ways

Kenri posted...

How would you know if you were?

I mean unless there are literal subliminal messages in there I think I'd know

This was uhh not a sentence I would have commuted

https://twitter.com/yashar/status/1867424521789354479?s=46

(I think its very likely that the WH didnt do due diligence on all of the individual people whose sentences were being commuted here rather than this guy specifically being picked out as a commutation recipient, but)

They did a Law and Order episode on those judges!

Lopen posted...

Why do I think this? Because I was a child once and grew up with ads on TV where you couldn't even ad block if you wanted to. Neither me nor people I knew were brainwashed by political ads.

I'm not sure you're proving yourself the best anecdotal evidence for your own cause.

Look, my point of contention is that teenagers are affected by the rhetoric they see from politics and repeat it.

Why do I think this? Because I literally saw it.

Do political ads change anybody's mind in a vacuum? No. Political ads reinforce beliefs for people who haven't developed the skills to analyze ads that appeal to them and filter out what is likely false.

A 16 year-old likely doesn't have fully-formed political beliefs, but if their parents voted for Trump, and that's a majority of parents this election cycle, then they will associate the rhetoric with truth. If any of their friends repeat those things - even just one - then it spreads. That's just standard memetic spread - something that's been known conceptually for thousands of years.

Some teenagers are very smart! In my experience though, smart teenagers have smart parents. And this country is full of people who are not.

What Biden really should do with his clemency power, and I'm hardly the first to mention this, is commute all the people on federal death row to life-without-parole. Because just like he did in his first term, Trump will restart federal executions.

Anyway, personally, I think downplaying the effectiveness of advertising is naive. It's a multi-billion dollar industry and I'm confident that's not all money wasted.

I mean

Ads work, conceptually, because they provide awareness of a product. Hey that food looks tasty Ill go eat there. That game looks cool I'll go buy it.

I'm actually kinda confused why you all are so convinced they are effective brainwashing tools for political things

Ive always felt they were just a way to funnel money into advertising companies and people were generally in agreement they didn't so anything but be annoying. You scratch my back etc.

Lopen posted...

I mean

Ads work, conceptually, because they provide awareness of a product

I'm actually kinda confused why you all are so convinced they are effective brainwashing tools for political things

Ive always felt they were just a way to funnel money into advertising companies and people were generally in agreement they didn't so anything but be annoying. You scratch my back etc.

Repeated exposure to an idea makes one more susceptible to accepting it.

Lopen, what age of kid do you think is savvy enough to be immune to propaganda and ads, and why?

Lopen posted...

Ads work, conceptually, because they provide awareness of a product. Hey that food looks tasty Ill go eat there. That game looks cool I'll go buy it.

This ideology sounds solid I'll go vote Republican

They aren't effective "brainwashing" tools but given how apathetic we've established the public is about politics, they may still pick up some ideas from them, or have them reinforced.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Lopen, what age of kid do you think is savvy enough to be immune to propaganda and ads, and why?

Like 8? Basically as soon as they aren't just mindlessly repeating stuff as standard behavior

It's not about immunity to ads it's immunity to political ads. Like I don't know do you guys actually watch them? They're generally just "this dude did this so bad vote this other dude"

I just... am highly skeptical of what brainwashing they'd even do.

Well, political ads usually do more than call the opposition bad. They name some reasons they're bad. Like, say, supporting trans rights or illegal immigrants, which the ads also need to present in the worst way possible in order to sell that as a reason to vote against the opposition. Often the ads treat that depiction as common knowledge, though, which is funny if you disagree, but if you're not otherwise that informed you might take it as possibly true.

Somebody who is a committed Republican will eat up Republican propaganda. "They're eating the dogs; they're eating the cats" is literal proof of that. People who are in the middle but could vote R are susceptible too, but moreso if their peers repeat the same talking points.

Lopen posted...

Like 8?

You do not interact with 8 year-olds.

Can you provide me a political ad that specifically attacks trans rights and why you think it'd be effective at brainwashing adolescents?

Like these are more nuanced subjects than an ad can really brainwash with. It's not "buy this burger yum"

I dunno I just think there are a lot of limiters on what they can actually do. I thought when Han was talking about "the media" he meant the news which I feel has the time to actually brainwash people. Ads? I think they can motivate people to go vote for a candidate? I don't think they can brainwash anyone on policy-- that requires more detail and discussion ie social media or news.

Lopen posted...

Can you provide me a political ad that specifically attacks trans rights and why you think it'd be effective at brainwashing adolescents?

Not a political ad, but I do have an example.

I thought when Han was talking about "the media" he meant the news

Media is actually a very wide umbrella. This anonymous GameFAQs user who posted this line probably is conditioned to consider "the media" to be the news because political rhetoric, including many ads, often refers to news as "the media" or specifically "the mainstream media". Yet books, papers, editorials, movies, tv shows, ads, comic books, social media are all media.

That this particular anonymous GameFAQs user made this limitation when considering the term "media" is proof that political rhetoric has a lasting impact on people, even those who believe they are immune to propaganda.

Not a political ad, and not about trans rights, I should clarify

I don't think campaign ads can carry an entire political narrative by any means, but they don't. There are a whole lot of tools used to carry it. As you said, social media, the news... but that doesn't make ads unimportant. They're one component of swaying the public, specifically to motivate voting.

The Daily Show had a compilation of right-wing ads that were pure nonsense, including some anti-trans ones:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKBJoj4XyFc&ab_channel=TheDailyShow

@11:30

HanOfTheNekos posted...

That this particular anonymous GameFAQs user made this limitation when considering the term "media" is proof that political rhetoric has a lasting impact on people, even those who believe they are immune to propaganda.

Actually no it was context clues because I thought you couldn't possibly think people were being brainwashed by ads.

Like say someone already kind of believes the fearmongering about trans people, because all their peers believe it, and they see an ad saying Harris is going to radically remove the legal restrictions on that stuff. Maybe they didn't care enough to vote before, but now they think it's important. Which sways the vote for politicians whose policy matches that rhetoric.

Lopen posted...

Actually no it was context clues because I thought you couldn't possibly think people were being brainwashed by ads.

But wouldn't I say "primary news message" if I meant news?
That you equated "media" with "news" is a memetic connection that has been strengthened by political rhetoric.
For the record, by media, I meant the aggregate - not just Fox News, not just ads, not just social media.

Also, I gave another example: "They're eating the dogs; they're eating the cats". The Springfield, Ohio story from this election was a complete falsehood blown out of proportion by pushing the idea through the media. Many people believed it, there were violent threats made against places in the city, including schools etc.

paperwarior posted...

Which sways the vote for politicians whose policy matches that rhetoric.

I absolutely agree it can make people vote. That's the one thing I agree with on this.

But when youre talking about brainwashing adolescents-- they can't vote. I'm skeptical ads are a factor at all for them.

HanOfTheNekos posted...

But wouldn't I say "primary news message" if I meant news?

I don't have enough respect for your precision of language to assume that, no.

I also don't think "they're eating the dogs they're eating the cats" is a good example. That's not an ad that's a meme driving that. Social media. That plays to my point not yours

They can vote in future elections. Is that not a factor?
Also you keep saying "brainwashing" like it's some fantastical hypnosis spiral shit rather than the tried-and-true methods of influencing public opinion.

paperwarior posted...

They can vote in future elections. Is that not a factor?

Uh not really no? It's a factor in them voting not in their feelings about policy etc.

Another example, I can't provide a screenshot because the overall post was deleted, but I mentioned Trump being a felon on Facebook, and somebody said that he was actually found innocent and cleared of all charges.

Now, factually, at the time, Trump was found guilty of felony and was still under investigation. I had a good talk with this friend from college and they came around to amend their thoughts. Turns out they believed Trump was cleared of all charges due to Conservative media saying it...

Now I realize that I've not been hitting the trans topic but these are just proof of concepts that are pretty blatant.

HanOfTheNekos posted...

Turns out they believed Trump was cleared of all charges due to Conservative media saying it...

Now I realize that I've not been hitting the trans topic but these are just proof of concepts that are pretty blatant.

Yeah

Proof of concepts of the news and social media's influence on people, not political ads, so glad you agree with me.

Lopen posted...

I also don't think "they're eating the dogs they're eating the cats" is a good example. That's not an ad that's a meme driving that. Social media. That plays to my point not yours

No, my point was "media drives this" which you have been arguing against. Besides, the origin of the statement was a presidential debate, not a tiktok video.

Social media is media too, Lopen! It's in the name.

Social media

right there

:)

i'd say "brainwashing" is just too strong a term for what happens. ads aren't meant to do that, but to either plant or reinforce the idea of something. this isn't exclusive to youtube either and if you want a good example of kids being hit with it, just use the one that we've been hit with when we grew up: college.

you absolutely know people who would have been better served with a trade school but college was so heavily pushed and recommended that choice was done instead. that's an ad.

but the idea of internet ads/propaganda doing something is... well yeah, of course they do. ideas are being said (or seen, in the case of memes), planted, reinforced, and when it clicks with somebody it does its job in affecting them. they aren't brainwashed but they're thinking of things in a slightly different way, or focused on a slightly different issue. the reason it resonates is a different question entirely, the point is to have that moment of "...hm."

If the point in question is just whether ads are one of the foremost influences on views on policy in young people, I'm confused as how we got into such a specific argument in the first place.

Media gets the ball rolling. I've never argued against that.

People discussing the media and how they present it (which is usually in a way designed to cause strife) is what actually causes the rift.

Like you're literally agreeing with me here you just don't know it.

That is a good way of putting it, Wang.

Anyway, I'm going to disconnect from this now that Lopen has accepted my point, that media influences people and anti-trans rhetoric was part of the Conservative media message (the primary message in ads but maybe not their primary message overall, so I can understand some confusion from lack of precision there).

paperwarior posted...

If the point in question is just whether ads are one of the foremost influences on views on policy in young people, I'm confused as how we got into such a specific argument in the first place.

Lopen likes to argue until people accept he's right and will rotate around an axis until he gets there.
That's basically what it was.

H: "Conservative media had an anti-trans message that was seen by youth"
L: "Youth don't see conservative media"
H:"Youth see ads everywhere"
L:"Youth don't see ads"
H:"No, they do"
L:"Well ads don't work"
H:"Ads expose people to ideas repeatedly"
L:"Prove that does anything"
H:"Here are some examples of media reinforcing ideas"
L:"Yeah but those aren't ads"
H:"They don't have to be ads, it's all media"
L:"That's my point, that people see Conservative media and it affects them"

Lopen posted...

Media gets the ball rolling. I've never argued against that.

People discussing the media and how they present it (which is usually in a way designed to cause strife) is what actually causes the rift.

Like you're literally agreeing with me here you just don't know it.

Honestly it seems to me like you kept redirecting the argument until the question was something we all agreed upon to begin with.

I mean Han was arguing something I never disagreed with to begin with. Thats why there was an argument to begin with

Obviously people need something to talk about and that topic is created by the media. Duh? Ive been saying that the whole time. Thats literally the whole point of me calling certain things smokescreens. Politicians have stances on simple to understand contentious points and the media focuses on those and creating a rift rather than talking about stuff people from both parties actually agree on. Then people discuss and villify the other side which is exactly what they want and what makes the divide radicalize.

I had to constantly redirect to get back to my point because Han was... attacking something random.

Okay, the Spider-Men have pointed the finger at one another. We don't have to agree on who started it, but can we agree that this is frivolous?

Like it's chicken and egg behavior here.

The politics topic does this all the time-- it's not that I'm redirecting it's that I get stances ascribed to me that I never made because they're more easily argued against, I take the bait, and then I have to clarify my point 8 times to slowly drag it back to what I was actually saying.

You can blame me but it's a recurring behavior in here with pretty much anyone, in plenty of topics I'm not involved in, so... is it me? I don't really think so.

But yes this is a frivolous discussion

No shit the media is trying to sow discord among people.

Ads have massively diminishing returns - the Kamala campaign outspent the Trump by miles running ads and more ads and it got them nowhere.