Ignore button

(21-12-2016 20:49 )terence Wrote:  ^unfortunately, not an option for me.

You poor bugger.

(21-12-2016 21:18 )SecretAgent Wrote:  Sorry Wackawoo but I won't use an ignore button to stop seeing anyone who makes posts I find offensive. I will continue to express my views on the forum or outside it when I think I should stand up for the rights of people of all colours & religions. Calling a dead child propaganda is a chilling example of what can happen in a society where extreme views go unchallenged.

I politely suggest you should check your definition of propaganda because it certainly does not include facts like a dead drowned child being washed up on a beach.

I have no problem with anybody reading my posts, but people just take personal offence when there really isn't any there. It's more for you than me.

Anything to illicet sympathey, hate, influence a point of view is propaganda. It's not just, say poisioned propaganda gainst Jews in WW2 which is what you have linked it to in your mind.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

Quote:Propaganda is "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view"

In the case of the Asylum seekers who have died, both apply. It is to illicent our sympathy for their plight, which is bias, these news story also have the implication that this is the norm for the seekers, which could be seen as misleading; most do not perish fleeing thier country. And the cause of the crisis is the political and military turmoil in their country.

Obviously some have indeed sadly perished in this way and for the said reasons, other have also perished by hiding in vans to get to UK for a better way of life; BOTH are sad but not all death are becasue the victems are fleeing from the isis regiem.

(21-12-2016 21:55 )kelly1066 Wrote:  Sorry; but did someone start a post here? I can't see them, must be on my ignore list..?

ps, i know your joking, you don't have to keep telling me

(21-12-2016 22:05 )Tumble_Drier Wrote:  Nope. I still can't see anything here.

Bet you can now!!!!!

(22-12-2016 00:51 )wackawoo Wrote:  In the case of the Asylum seekers who have died, both apply. It is to illicent our sympathy for their plight, which is bias,

That is your own personal prejudice being applied to the story. People are dying, often fleeing their countries because they are being torn apart by wars which barely make our news anymore.
Just because that is reported doesn't make it propaganda, it is the reporting of facts, sometimes unpleasant facts which make people stop and think about things in a different way, like the images of a dead child. This is what reporters are supposed to do. You are interpreting it as propaganda because it doesn't fit your own particular world view. Perhaps if they had pulled a smartphone out of the boys pocket it would have suited you better!

(22-12-2016 00:51 )wackawoo Wrote:  these news story also have the implication that this is the norm for the seekers, which could be seen as misleading;

Again your own prejudice, there is no such implication in most of the news stories I have seen/read. Perhaps your sources of information are indeed biased, but don't apply that generally to all such information.
Maybe you need to apply an ignore button to these biased sources of propaganda you are reading.

(21-12-2016 11:31 )wackawoo Wrote:  Then I could post my musings on certian subjects without the hysterics jumping on every word I make and swizzing it and getting the wrong end of the stick and ofcourse, my post could no longer offend their tiny little eye balls.

Let me get this straight. You want other people to put you on ignore so you can post your opinions without the inconvenience of anyone challenging them?

(22-12-2016 05:42 )munch1917 Wrote:  That is your own personal prejudice being applied to the story.

I don't think your in any position to talk about prejudice.

It is a story to illicet a reaction of a certain kind from people, with incredibly emotive images. If the facts were reorted in the paper or a news caster merely anounce that a child had died there would be little to no reaction, put images of a little girl laying lifeless in the arms of her dad and you then have emotional impact, this takes it from reporting the facts of the matter to something much more. If you read there was a famine in Africa it would be nothing but a story, see them starving then you'd want to dig in your pocket. THE IMAGES OF THE SUFFERING ARE USED EXACTLY FOR THAT PURPOSE.

Imagaes of that child dying was the trigger for peoples sympathetic attitude to them.

What you don't seem to realise propaganda can actually be used for good, it's just normally associated with bad.

(22-12-2016 00:51 )wackawoo Wrote:  Again your own prejudice, there is no such implication in most of the news stories I have seen/read.

I think Germanys open doors policey and trying to find homes and getting every town and city to accept asylum seekrs across this country more than proves that people think the majority of the asylum seekers are under threat of death if they return home and that the stuggle to flee their country drives these people to such desperate measures.

It is interesting to compair to illegal imigrants who have perished by hiding in vans or drowning (including familes and children), ALL merely trying to get a better lifestyle for their families (some may even have been fleeing persecution or war zones), but because these people were classed as 'finantial' migrants there was no were near the level of public sympathy for these people probably just the oposite. There are various different ways of presenting a story from couldly factual telling of the facts, to reporting it with a more unsympathetic slant or one of an emotional slant designed to illicet a certina responce; and that my friend is were the propaganda comes in.

(22-12-2016 06:47 )The Silent Majority Wrote:  Let me get this straight. You want other people to put you on ignore so you can post your opinions without the inconvenience of anyone challenging them?

Yes I will put you straight by pasting a quote I have already posted to secret agent.

Quote:I have no problem with anybody reading my posts, but people just take personal offence when there really isn't any there. It's more for you than me.

You need to bare in mind it is you people who constantly jump on my posts, mostly it is just an excuse to have a go. You people seem to have an unusual reaction to what i write, normally through mis conceiving what I have actually wrote and what I actually mean and my terminology.

I'll give you two examples, I used the term propaganda on here, this is actually quite correct, but people seem to take great personal offence at this word, I assume they associate it with Nazi propaganda and put 2 and 2 together and reach 7. Another example would be my use of the word parasite with regards to EU member states that take more from the EU than give, this too is factual, anything that takes anything from an host is parasitic; again people took gross personal offence at this, but ignored all the times I said Polish people (for example) were good workers who do their work without moaning about it, for lower pay and are only making a living for their families, which you can't blame them for, and are actually paying taxes to this country rather than their own. You just see a particular word that gives you a knee jerk reaction and cannot (or more likely don't want) seperate what I am actually saying from what you want me to be saying. I said nothing but positive things about the Poles as people and I'm pretty sure they would love their country to be in a finantial position were they didn't have to leave their homeland and actually donate more to the EU that it takes; but this isn't that fact of the matter has it stands.

To repeat, read my posts by all means, but don't go moaning if you read a word you have a problem with, and I know there will be somehting, because you are constantly looking for something.

^ IMO what people have a problem with wackoo is not your use of the word propaganda per se, it is your very selective use of it in this single highly contentious context whilst blatantly ignoring it elsewhere.

You rightly say that all news reporting is prone to seeking a certain emotive reaction from its consumer, but your particular world view clearly pulls you to see this example as propoganda when you have happily regurgitated many other examples of reported 'facts' elsewhere on this forum that those arguing with you might look upon as far clearer cases of propaganda.

(22-12-2016 14:06 )wackawoo Wrote:  ... put images of a little girl laying lifeless in the arms of her dad and you then have emotional impact, this takes it from reporting the facts of the matter to something much more.

... THE IMAGES OF THE SUFFERING ARE USED EXACTLY FOR THAT PURPOSE.

... Imagaes of that child dying was the trigger for peoples sympathetic attitude to them.

So you are suggesting that images turn plain and simple 'news' into propaganda?
There is such a thing as journalistic objectivity, where journalists convey the facts regardless of personal opinion, and allow the viewer/reader to draw their own conclusions from those facts. If the individual viewer, or the majority of viewers, happen to draw a sympathetic conclusion, doesn't mean it was propaganda, maybe it just restores ones faith in humanity just a teeny tiny bit.

(22-12-2016 14:06 )wackawoo Wrote:  I think Germanys open doors policey and trying to find homes and getting every town and city to accept asylum seekrs across this country more than proves that people think the majority of the asylum seekers are under threat of death if they return home and that the stuggle to flee their country drives these people to such desperate measures.

Your logic here is so flawed, there is no 'proof' here at all.

(22-12-2016 14:06 )wackawoo Wrote:  ... and that my friend

Again, warped logic, we are most certainly not friends

But I guess this is not really the thread for this argument to continue, we are digressing seriously off-topic, so feel free to ignore me