>This chan itself is a manifestation of something propaganda
On the contrary I've always felt that anonymous imageboards are by their nature resistant to the control of corporate advertisers. I'm sure at any rate Wetherspoons is sick of people abusing the disabled toilets by now.
You could even suggest that the ubiquitous nature of the internet in the 21st century generally has more and more led to a complete loss of control over the narrative (for better or worse). The end result is manufacturing consent increasingly looks like an anachronism.
Not that I do any of these things, but it's good to have goals.
>This chan itself is a manifestation of something propaganda. How do we think around it?
I've often wondered about our almost autistic adherence to the culture of britfa.gs. Not naming the other chan is my main grievance; can't we just get over ourselves. In-jokes like Crabkiller and Auntfucker are nice to see though, despite me not having a clue what they're about.
From a low-educated point of view; I think the affects of 'propaganda' are going to happen to a greater or lesser degree simply as an effect of the human condition. Applied propaganda is just a knowledge of human behavior; this shit happens naturally as it is; without really knowing about it I'd wager the concepts of culture (ie cultivate) and propaganda (ie propagate) are closely tied. Even a brief look at their definitions indicates such.
>>21766 Someones shared this link here a while ago - https://pepethefrogfaith.wordpress.com/ - I'm sure it has been edited a number of times so it may have changed since I read it, but it's very interesting if you can manage to imagine 'behind the scenes'. A vastly popular medium that promises repeated momentary exposure of images and messages will do more to influence it's users than you'd like to believe.
I'm left wondering just how many times the quote pictured has been repeated.
>>21768 >Not naming the other chan is my main grievance; can't we just get over ourselves.
That is a (relatively common) in-joke itself. Everyone knows what's meant by it; so it means essentially the same thing as just writing 4chan. It's like those people who write G-d as though it's less blasphemous than writing God. It stands for the same concept.
If I remember correctly it was someone stuck up their own arse who threw a hissy fit about us mentioning 4chan; whenever I partake in the other place meme it's with a sense of pisstaking.
>>21772 It has always annoyed me too. Calling 4chan "the other place" has never been a rule. It is perhaps an allusion to the Commons referring to the Lords, perhaps. Or its just someone being a bit of a cock.
I recall a thread in the shed years ago, complaining how britfa had lost its way from the lovely olden days because people were using the word "memes" ("We've always called them in-jokes!", except for all that time before they were being called that when we didn't) and freely discussing 4chan ("I've always thought of us as being a step above that, certainly not a chan.")
It's advisable to switch off from the mass media if you can. Dispassionately researching facts and drawing your own conclusions is the best you can do. You won't have an accurate perception of the world, but at least you won't be believing someone else's lie.
The real question is; what sort of information should I seek, ultimately, and what sort of information should I seek next in furtherance of that? How much detail do I need to know? How much time should I devote to learning one thing over another? It's a really puzzling question.
What we can say for certain is that of the information available, it's in our best interests to omit the set of information presented to us which is intended to control our behavior and so limit our pursuit of personally relevant information in our interests. Thus; cut out the mass media. The mass media is and always has been there to serve a political function; it was never meant to give people an accurate and relevant perception of the world and its goings on.
I think one of the most important things to remember is that these type of medias focus on issues happening in the Americas, not the UK (so much at least). It's easy to overlook this and make significantly paranoid and panic stricken changes to your lifes because you're worried about floride, food additives (or whatever). This isn't to say conspiracies don't happen here, but consider this; While you're investigating the corrupt goings on in a country on the other side of the globe, you're missing what's happening here, possibly on your doorstep. Distraction, you know?
>If people try to enter the system who don't have [the manufactured] point of view, they're likely to be excluded somewhere along the way. After all no institution is going to happily design a mechanism to self destruct. So they all work to exclude, marginalise or eliminate dissenting voices or alternative perspectives because they're disfuntional to the institution itself.
What I find interesting about this is there seems to be a split going on in America at the moment regarding 'alternate facts', race groups, etc. Who's behind this destabilisation of the status quo; could multiple parties be battling it out or is it all a ploy by those in power?
