A line-by-line evaluation of a textbook example of propaganda. Re;Is not joining Facebook a sign you're a psychopath?

2nd edit: Obviously I have no idea how subscriptions work :/

I am disgusted to be apart of generation Y it is full of sheeple and immature idiots that do not see the bigger picture. Fuck fakebook.

"Facebook, twitter", etc are right up there with personalized car tags, "free offers" and other gimmicks
when it comes to painting a bullseye on your dunb ass.
Just make it easy for the FBI, CIA, ETC and just send them all of your personal info, cut out the middleman

Because the actions are just so blatant, and I'm a bit bored, I'm going to nitpick through the article to illustrate how this is a textbook example of propaganda.

The title: Is not joining Facebook a sign you're a psychopath? Some employers and psychologists say staying away from social media is 'suspicious'

First notice the diction. "Is not joining Facebook a sign you're a psychopath?" The term "psychopath" evokes an instant, strong reaction in the mind of the reader. The connotations associated with "psychopath" evoke mental images of chainsaw massacres and Christian Bale trying to feed a cat into an ATM. Important to note here is the interrogative nature of the statement. Is it a sign<question mark>. Can pigs fly? The statement asserts nothing, but it places an Inception-esque seed in the reader's mind. Continuing, "Some employers and psychologists say staying away from social media is 'suspicious." "Some" is a textbook weasel word that means approximately jack shit. Note the quotation around the word "suspicious." Try to notice the perceptual difference between the two phrases:

Some employers and psychologists say staying away from social media is suspicious

Some employers and psychologists say staying away from social media is 'suspicious'

If you noticed a difference between the two, you're not alone. The quotations are placed to deliberately make the reader stop and think about the connotations of that particular word. What else is 'suspicious?' Child molesters in long dark trench-coats? Burglars creeping in your windows? Remember, propaganda is the art of evoking mental images to sway one's perception.

On to the article:

Facebook has become such a pervasive force in modern society that increasing numbers of employers, and even some psychologists, believe people who aren't on social networking sites are 'suspicious.'

The article sets out to immediately assert that facebook is "such a pervasive force in modern society" that it would almost be foolish not to have one. This is known as argumentum ad populum, or more commonly "bandwagon fallacy." Just ignore the fact that over six billion people (over 85% of Earth's population) do not have facebook accounts. The paragraph follows up with more weasel words and quotation bullshit.

The German magazine Der Taggspiegel went so far as to point out that accused theater shooter James Holmes and Norwegian mass murder Anders Behring Breivik have common ground in their lack of Facebook profiles.

Here we have what can be called the "primary source" of the article. Conveniently sourced in German to an English-speaking audience so that only experienced translators could possibly check the validity of the source. Additionally, the claims can be proven patently false with a simple Google search. That's just shitty pseudo-journalism.

On a more tangible level, Forbes.com reports that human resources departments across the country are becoming more wary of young job candidates who don't use the site.

Here, DailyMail references a Forbes article that was written by the same Facebook marketing shills that paid for the DailyMail article. I could go through the Forbes article the same way I'm doing this, but I'm getting a bit hungry, so I'll stick to one piece of propaganda at a time.

<picture of employee presumably wasting company time> Normal: Facebook has become so pervasive in this culture that not having a profile is considered 'abnormal'

"Normal:" what we say you should do. "Abnormal:" what we say you shouldn't do. More argumentum ad populum.

The common concern among bosses is that a lack of Facebook could mean the applicant's account could be so full of red flags that it had to be deleted.

"common concern," "could mean," "could be." Weasel. Fucking. Words.

Slate.com tech reporter Farhad Manjoo wrote in an advice column that young people shouldn't date anyone who isn't on Facebook.

Guess that means tough shit for 85% of the world. DailyMail is hoping here that you won't notice how being a "tech reporter" for slate.com carries approximately zero credibility for anything. Presumable credentials for Mr. Manjoo carry about as much weight as a Dear Abby column mixed with a 4chan post.

'If you’re of a certain age and you meet someone who you are about to go to bed with, and that person doesn’t have a Facebook page, you may be getting a false name. It could be some kind of red flag,' he says.

Ignoring the implausibility of that scenario for a moment (uhh, hold on baby, before you take my pants off, can you accept my friend request?) this could be easily resolved by having other forms of identification, or the off-the-wall crazy concept of having fucking real-life friends who can vouch for your identity.

The tech news site Slashdot summed up Der Taggspiegel's story about social networking as 'not having a Facebook account could be the first sign that you are a mass murderer.'

I suppose DailyMail was just playing Russian Roulette on this one and hoping that nobody actually clicked the slashdot link. Provided here for your convenience, slashdot's community completely shits all over the propaganda piece.

<picture of Holmes> Loner: James Holmes, the accused Colorado theater shooter, does not appear to have friends and did not have a Facebook page.

[citation needed]. How do you know Holmes doesn't have friends? There is no mention of any confirmation of this fact by Holmes or close associates of Holmes. DailyMail literally made this shit up.

Breivik used MySpace and Holmes was reportedly on the hookup site Adult Friend Finder.

Here's what I consider proof that this piece was authored by Facebook's marketing team. Since when was MySpace not a social networking site? It's the same fucking thing as Facebook without the pokes and digital cows. Even Adult Friend Finder requires elements of sociability. How does a man presumably seduce women over the internet without appearing at least amicable?

Psychologist Christopher Moeller told the magazine that using Facebook has become a sign of having a healthy social network.

Using the most popular social networking channel in the world is a sign of having a healthy social network? youdontsay.jpg Take note that this statement by the sole psychologist quoted in the entire article means absolutely nothing.

Psychologists have noted that Holmes, along with several noted mass murderers, have lacked any real friends.

"several," "real" friends

And this is what the argument boils down to: It's the suspicion that not being on Facebook, which has become so normal among young adults, is a sign that you're abnormal and dysfunctional, or even dangerous, ways.

Here is where the bandwagon bullshit comes to a climax. Using our product is "so normal among young adults." If you don't use our product, you're obviously "abnormal and dysfunctional," or even "dangerous." Remember kids, Pol Pot and Idi Amin never had Facebook accounts!!! Use our product, or people will mistake you for a psychopathic, violent killer!

~ end

Source:
[link to www.reddit.com]

Because the actions are just so blatant, and I'm a bit bored, I'm going to nitpick through the article to illustrate how this is a textbook example of propaganda.

The title: Is not joining Facebook a sign you're a psychopath? Some employers and psychologists say staying away from social media is 'suspicious'

First notice the diction. "Is not joining Facebook a sign you're a psychopath?" The term "psychopath" evokes an instant, strong reaction in the mind of the reader. The connotations associated with "psychopath" evoke mental images of chainsaw massacres and Christian Bale trying to feed a cat into an ATM. Important to note here is the interrogative nature of the statement. Is it a sign<question mark>. Can pigs fly? The statement asserts nothing, but it places an Inception-esque seed in the reader's mind. Continuing, "Some employers and psychologists say staying away from social media is 'suspicious." "Some" is a textbook weasel word that means approximately jack shit. Note the quotation around the word "suspicious." Try to notice the perceptual difference between the two phrases:

Some employers and psychologists say staying away from social media is suspicious

Some employers and psychologists say staying away from social media is 'suspicious'

If you noticed a difference between the two, you're not alone. The quotations are placed to deliberately make the reader stop and think about the connotations of that particular word. What else is 'suspicious?' Child molesters in long dark trench-coats? Burglars creeping in your windows? Remember, propaganda is the art of evoking mental images to sway one's perception.

On to the article:

Facebook has become such a pervasive force in modern society that increasing numbers of employers, and even some psychologists, believe people who aren't on social networking sites are 'suspicious.'

The article sets out to immediately assert that facebook is "such a pervasive force in modern society" that it would almost be foolish not to have one. This is known as argumentum ad populum, or more commonly "bandwagon fallacy." Just ignore the fact that over six billion people (over 85% of Earth's population) do not have facebook accounts. The paragraph follows up with more weasel words and quotation bullshit.

The German magazine Der Taggspiegel went so far as to point out that accused theater shooter James Holmes and Norwegian mass murder Anders Behring Breivik have common ground in their lack of Facebook profiles.

Here we have what can be called the "primary source" of the article. Conveniently sourced in German to an English-speaking audience so that only experienced translators could possibly check the validity of the source. Additionally, the claims can be proven patently false with a simple Google search. That's just shitty pseudo-journalism.

On a more tangible level, Forbes.com reports that human resources departments across the country are becoming more wary of young job candidates who don't use the site.

Here, DailyMail references a Forbes article that was written by the same Facebook marketing shills that paid for the DailyMail article. I could go through the Forbes article the same way I'm doing this, but I'm getting a bit hungry, so I'll stick to one piece of propaganda at a time.

<picture of employee presumably wasting company time> Normal: Facebook has become so pervasive in this culture that not having a profile is considered 'abnormal'

"Normal:" what we say you should do. "Abnormal:" what we say you shouldn't do. More argumentum ad populum.

The common concern among bosses is that a lack of Facebook could mean the applicant's account could be so full of red flags that it had to be deleted.

"common concern," "could mean," "could be." Weasel. Fucking. Words.

Slate.com tech reporter Farhad Manjoo wrote in an advice column that young people shouldn't date anyone who isn't on Facebook.

Guess that means tough shit for 85% of the world. DailyMail is hoping here that you won't notice how being a "tech reporter" for slate.com carries approximately zero credibility for anything. Presumable credentials for Mr. Manjoo carry about as much weight as a Dear Abby column mixed with a 4chan post.

'If you’re of a certain age and you meet someone who you are about to go to bed with, and that person doesn’t have a Facebook page, you may be getting a false name. It could be some kind of red flag,' he says.

Ignoring the implausibility of that scenario for a moment (uhh, hold on baby, before you take my pants off, can you accept my friend request?) this could be easily resolved by having other forms of identification, or the off-the-wall crazy concept of having fucking real-life friends who can vouch for your identity.

The tech news site Slashdot summed up Der Taggspiegel's story about social networking as 'not having a Facebook account could be the first sign that you are a mass murderer.'

I suppose DailyMail was just playing Russian Roulette on this one and hoping that nobody actually clicked the slashdot link. Provided here for your convenience, slashdot's community completely shits all over the propaganda piece.

<picture of Holmes> Loner: James Holmes, the accused Colorado theater shooter, does not appear to have friends and did not have a Facebook page.

[citation needed]. How do you know Holmes doesn't have friends? There is no mention of any confirmation of this fact by Holmes or close associates of Holmes. DailyMail literally made this shit up.

Breivik used MySpace and Holmes was reportedly on the hookup site Adult Friend Finder.

Here's what I consider proof that this piece was authored by Facebook's marketing team. Since when was MySpace not a social networking site? It's the same fucking thing as Facebook without the pokes and digital cows. Even Adult Friend Finder requires elements of sociability. How does a man presumably seduce women over the internet without appearing at least amicable?

Psychologist Christopher Moeller told the magazine that using Facebook has become a sign of having a healthy social network.

Using the most popular social networking channel in the world is a sign of having a healthy social network? youdontsay.jpg Take note that this statement by the sole psychologist quoted in the entire article means absolutely nothing.

Psychologists have noted that Holmes, along with several noted mass murderers, have lacked any real friends.

"several," "real" friends

And this is what the argument boils down to: It's the suspicion that not being on Facebook, which has become so normal among young adults, is a sign that you're abnormal and dysfunctional, or even dangerous, ways.

Here is where the bandwagon bullshit comes to a climax. Using our product is "so normal among young adults." If you don't use our product, you're obviously "abnormal and dysfunctional," or even "dangerous." Remember kids, Pol Pot and Idi Amin never had Facebook accounts!!! Use our product, or people will mistake you for a psychopathic, violent killer!

~ end

Source:
[link to www.reddit.com]

Is GLP considered social media?

If so, I'm good.

Hey employer do you wanna see what I say at night while in a drug hazed drunken stupor?

You wanna fire me now?

By that I mean, will you fire me now?

Spending 8 hours at work detracts from my Godlikeproductions.com time.