<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div dir="auto">Important aspect too. In what sense was the op ed from Tom Cotton fake or false in your opinion ? </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">-J.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div><br></div><div style="font-size:100%;color:#000000" dir="auto"><!-- originalMessage --><div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: uǝlƃ ☣ <gepropella@gmail.com> </div><div>Date: 6/5/20 17:19 (GMT+01:00) </div><div>To: FriAM <friam@redfish.com> </div><div>Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Freedom of opinion or fascist trap </div><div><br></div></div>I disagree somewhat. I think propaganda is closely related to fake news. And the disruption scheme the Russians use involves fake news about all candidates (e.g. Trump donating his plane to help people). The propaganda *also* "treats both sides". My suggestion is that propaganda is distinguishable from conspiracy theory through the inclusion of *detail*. Propaganda seems a bit light on detail, whereas conspiracy theories are detail rich. Both are false.<br><br>The tricky distinction is between conspiracy theory and credible detail-wading. Rachel Maddow is a good foil for that distinction. Sometimes she looks like a dork just doing a good job. And sometimes she looks like a wacko spouting (very detailed) conspiracy theories ... still a dork, of course, which is why I love her.<br><br>On 6/5/20 8:10 AM, Jochen Fromm wrote:<br>> When does an opinion become propaganda? I think this happens when you repeat one-sided opinions. <br><br>-- <br>☣ uǝlƃ<br><br>- .... . -..-. . ...- --- .-.. ..- - .. --- -. -..-. .-- .. .-.. .-.. -..-. -... . -..-. .-.. .. ...- . -..-. ... - .-. . .- -- . -..<br>FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv<br>Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam<br>un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com<br>archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/<br>FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ <br></body></html>