Post #3938159
2026-07-19 16:19 UTC
Replies (1)
-
@joepie91@fedi.slightly.tech 2026-07-19 16:34
@ilia@phpc.social No, there isn't. Because the post was never about "utility". It was about propaganda techniques. Utility never even came up until you brought it into the conversation. These are not two sides of the same coin, they're not even the same currency. If you choose not to reflect on it yourself, I'll spell it out for you instead: you felt uncomfortable with the absoluteness of the original post, likely out of fear that you fell for propaganda yourself or otherwise came to believe something that isn't quite right, and so tried to 'soften the [emotional] blow' by trying to find a middle ground. Since there *is* no middle ground when it comes to the topic of exploitative propaganda, you implicitly redefined the conversation to be about "was the marketing truthful" instead, because there you could argue that well, the marketing wasn't *entirely* false ("there is utility"), and it seemed closed enough topic-wise. That provided a comfortable justification for having bought into it to some degree. It's quite likely that all of that happened without you consciously realizing it, because you were trying to resolve cognitive dissonance. And I am spelling this out here because this is precisely how propaganda works; it deceives you into supporting something to a non-zero degree by, in some way, making the alternative too emotionally dissonant or disconcerting to bear. That is how propaganda becomes self-perpetuating, like you are perpetuating it here. Now, all of this is in itself understandable - like I said, it's how propaganda works. But I *am* going to push back on it, because by trying to resolve your cognitive dissonance this way, you make it *my* problem and that is not something I appreciate. You need to find a healthier way to manage your emotions around doubt and mistakes, that doesn't involve trying to insert your 'emotional support talking points' into someone else's space or conversation.