• Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    weren’t called psychologists and they were much less effective.

    So literally not the same thing, then?

    • Zorque@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well if it’s not literally not the same thing, then it has zero bearing on the situation!

      Absolutism is the death of intelligent discourse.

    • some_guy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      If I call it a trowel and you call it a spade, they’re not different things.

      If mine is made of paper and yours is made of aluminum, they’re still not different things.

      • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Except one of them has a history of the science of psychology behind it, as well as the many certifications and education you need to be a psychologist, and the other was a propagandist with no deep scientific education behind them, no showing why the techniques they were using were effective (because they often weren’t). One of them has evidence and science behind them and the other does not. They are not the same things.

        Literally different things.

        EDIT: Also it is worth noting that modern propaganda began after revolutions against monarchies. The French state post-revolution was a hotbed of propaganda.

        So, even by your argument, its clear that modern propaganda methods took root after the age of revolutions and at the beginning of the age of Nations.