even this one.
political memes serve as a potent form of propaganda, irrespective of the viewpoint they espouse or the degree of nuance they convey. the term “propaganda” itself is morally neutral*; it’s the adherence to facts, level of honesty, and underlying goals of either empowering or oppressing that determine the moral value of political propaganda. thus, the essence lies not in the mere act of influencing opinions but in the integrity and intentions behind the message conveyed.
this principle also applies to other terms including “shill” “bot” and others. for example, calling someone spreading pro-maga sentiment a “russian bot” achieves little rhetorically and is essentially an ad hominem. more effective approaches might highlight how such behavior is rooted in protecting the status quo of violence against vulnerable communities.
*****or at least the morally neutral definition can and will be used against you if you make the error of not engaging with the actual wicked of wicked propaganda. this is a post about semantics, see the faq below.
tldr call them out for their shit, not just for how they are doing it.
caveat, of course, do not feed the trolls. calling out trolls for their behavior is effective because it encourages dismissal of their behavior altogether in the form of moderator reports and blocking.
FAQ: Isn’t this just semantics?
yes, and intentionally so. semantics exist and are useful to engage with when it comes to countering the malicious propaganda of bad actors.
calling out the propaganda itself rather than its malicious intent or falsehoods only scratches the surface of the issue. to effectively counter propaganda, one must expose the underlying agenda driving it. focusing solely on the term “propaganda” risks missing the broader context and allowing the harmful narrative to persist unchecked.
An ad hominem is an argument that “You are bad, therefore, your argument is wrong.”
Calling someone a shill or bot is usually more of a “I am highlighting that you are a shithead not worth listening to in the first place, I am not addressing your arguments at all.”
When someone says “I think all the minorities need to be genocided” and I call them a “Fascist fuck” in response, the response is not meant to counter the argument itself; the argument itself is not worth addressing. It is meant to highlight that the other party is a shithead.
read my tldr
“call them out for their shit, not just for how they are doing it”
if you are doing both, i am glad and this post is not about you. feel free to ignore.