Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

phadrus56 t1_ja7e1gr wrote

Reply to comment by session6 in An advert in a Japanese smoking room that is pro-smoking propaganda. by session6

So why are facts on how the taxes are used classified as propaganda?

−15

session6 OP t1_ja7kjbm wrote

I implore you to critically engage with what propaganda is.

12

phadrus56 t1_ja7n00n wrote

propaganda

prŏp″ə-găn′də

noun

The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.

−7

PhantomTroupe-2 t1_ja7tp93 wrote

And what don’t you get

6

phadrus56 t1_ja8yimz wrote

Sorry, I always took propaganda to mean lies or misinformation.

5

PhantomTroupe-2 t1_ja944av wrote

Nah it’s just information to serve a narrative basically….can be lies or legit

4

blackbirdblackbird1 t1_ja92rmg wrote

Using specific facts can also be used to drive an agenda. They don't have to be made up.

For example: Local Police Department: Car break-ins are up 50% this year! They conveniently didn't tell you that car break-ins went from 2 to 3.

This poster is basically trying to imply that smoking is good because the taxes collected do so much good.

3

phadrus56 t1_ja9x8rx wrote

It's good for the economy, the farmers and the tobacco industry

−1

blackbirdblackbird1 t1_ja9xj4z wrote

But known to negatively impact your health and the health of people around you.

The whole point is propaganda can be anything that intentionally leaves out important information.

1

phadrus56 t1_jaahfbj wrote

Minor health impact. People who don't smoke have a 3% chance of getting lung cancer. Smoking doubles that. To 6 %. 94% chance of not getting it.

−1

blackbirdblackbird1 t1_jaakpct wrote

Interesting numbers. Do you have any citations?

Here's what I was able to find: American Cancer Society: 2023 SPECIAL SECTION: LUNG CANCER

Page 32: > The lifetime risk of developing lung cancer is approximately 6.2% among men and 5.8% among women, or 1 in 16 men and 1 in 17 women during their lifetime (Table 6).

> However, these probabilities are based on lung cancer occurrence in the general population so the risk is substantially higher for those with a history of smoking. 15

Page 37: >The primary risk factor for lung cancer is cigarette smoking, which accounts for about 80% of lung cancer cases and deaths (Figure 4).1 Cigarette smoking increases the risk of lung cancer 25-fold in both men and women compared to people who never smoked.15

1

phadrus56 t1_jaazm0s wrote

This doesn't refute what I said. The numbers are close.

−1

blackbirdblackbird1 t1_jaazu3b wrote

Just admit you're in denial (or you're intentionally spreading incorrect information (aka... propaganda))

Double your numbers for non-smokers and smokers are 25x more likely is close?

1

phadrus56 t1_jac1rtj wrote

Life time risk for men is 6.2%.

−1

blackbirdblackbird1 t1_jae8l2x wrote

> Life time risk for the male population, on average, is 6.2%. FTFY

This does not mean smokers have only a 6.2% chance of getting lung cancer.

1

Leanardoe t1_ja837qz wrote

So this perfectly falls within the definition.

5

No_Log_5682 t1_ja8gyg6 wrote

Dude put up the definition of the word and it still flew over his head

4