Is this really the author's biggest objection to war? Really? I'm not surprised by this development. War is about winning. Props to gamification--really pointsification--for having gained enough traction to be used in this context. War still blows though.
Supply a web feed to remotely control sniper robots and you can eat you popcorn and snipe Palestinian kids and get badges for it. Go all the way, right, was is about winning after all...
But seriously this is pretty cool, who new that a government agency had good programmers? I was very impressed with the polish of the tool while I was on the site, it felt very Hipster, could've been made by zynga or VLAMBEER or HalfBot.
IMPRESSED!
Because future armies will be soldierless, only innocent citizens will die in wars. Right?
This article is about gamification of image of war, it is not about gamification of process of war. Imagine future where army is profitable by selling rights for TV translation of war.
Not really the same thing. I think this is atrocious, but given that it's a current event and involves countries that tend to arouse people's atavistic passions, an in-depth discussion is probably not on the cards.
For those just joining us, this is what's called an "obscenity" or "moral atrocity". Please keep this in mind when reading comments praising this inculcation technique.
This could be a helpful way for the IDF to track Hamas and other Palestinian users and to see what they are most interested in reading about. Either as a way to target them electronically, or by other means (covertly for exploitation or recruitment, not by missiles).
Also might be humourous to know how many Hamas operatives or supporters have reached IDF "Research Officer" rank too.
This is only gamification if you believe this is a war being fought on social media. Of course, if you believe that, you should quickly rush out of your filter bubble.
War always included propaganda for the home front. Back then it was ridiculous posters, nowadays it of course happens in social media.
If you're going to call those "propaganda", could you please suggest another term we can use so people know we're talking about things like Triumph of the Will and not anodyne bumper stickers?
"Support the troops" is indirect propaganda. The thinking promoted is, you should support the troops (who deserve it because they are blameless) by supporting the war, even when the war is unnecessary.
It was also used as insurance so you could criticize the war and then point to your car as defense against the "but I stand with the troops" nonsense and say "I do too". At least that was my perception in suburban Massachusetts.
If you don't understand that Triumph of the Will and the yellow bumper ribbons are the exact same thing, you're not understanding propaganda.
It's always more difficult to examine something you're inside (yellow ribbons) than something you're outside (Nazi war movies). But they're identical. And in fact the modern PR industry was founded to sell World War I to the American public.
If you don't understand that Triumph of the Will and the yellow bumper ribbons are the exact same thing, you're not understanding propaganda.
Uh huh. Glorifying Hitler and the Nazis in a government comissioned film is "the exact same thing" as privately expressing support for our volunteer military in a hard situation. They're "identical", even!
Do you ever stop and think about the claims you're making? Are pink ribbons propaganda? How about the Jesus fish? The Darwin fish? A "make love not war" bumper sticker? How is private viewpoint A propaganda, while private viewpoint !A isn't? If you want to call every politically clever expression of a viewpoint "propaganda", you've robbed the term of its important, useful meaning.
The Pentagon employs 27,000 people and spends almost $5 billion per year on public relations. Cite: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29040299 So they're about twice the size of the entire New York Times company.
The "Support Our Troops" campaign didn't arise spontaneously; it was invented and promoted by some of those 27,000 people.
Pink ribbons are advertising to gain money for a private organization (whether or not they do anything to help cancer victims). The Jesus fish is also advertising, promoted by private orgs looking to gain money & power. The Darwin fish is a private viewpoint. "Support the Troops" is propaganda, "Information, esp. of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view." It's promoted by neocons or hawks or whatever you call them, who are seeking money and power via war.
From Wikipedia: Political analyst Noam Chomsky has criticized the slogan, saying, "[...] the point of public relations slogans like "Support Our Troops" is that they don't mean anything [...] that's the whole point of good propaganda. You want to create a slogan that nobody is going to be against and I suppose everybody will be for, because nobody knows what it means, because it doesn't mean anything. But its crucial value is that it diverts your attention from a question that does mean something, do you support our policy? And that's the one you're not allowed to talk about."
But its crucial value is that it diverts your attention from a question that does mean something, do you support our policy? And that's the one you're not allowed to talk about.
And this is why Chomsky is the idol of nodding undergraduates everywhere.
Not to put too fine a point on it, it's bonkers to say you're "not allowed" to debate war policy. That claim is a lie. It's readily disproven by reading any of a number of New York Times editorials or walking down any street in Berkeley, CA, or Cambridge, MA and reading the bumper stickers.
Yes, "I support the troops" is not a particularly daring or radical point of view. But it's clear from a Google search for "I don't support the troops" that there's a vocal minority who disagree with it. There was a time not so many decades ago when a much larger, much more vocal minority disagreed with it, and thus it's not quite the nullity that Chomsky describes it as.
In a free society, one opinion people are "allowed" to have is that their volunteer troops by and large deserve moral and material support even if their missions have politically controversial justification. That is an opinion a large majority of Americans currently hold. Some Americans hold an opposing view. In a democracy, this kind of disagreement happens often, and trying to convince me that one side of the disagreement has been influenced in the "exact" manner as the Nazis influenced the Germans requires a better argument than Chomsky's goofy proclamation that somehow we're "not allowed to talk about" war policy. Germans in 1942 were actually not allowed to disparage the war effort, lest they end up in prison or worse. Their primary sources of information on the conflict were all directly controlled by their government, who deliberately, actively misled them about its aims and progress. That is so many light years from a "yellow ribbon" campaign that I still can't begin to imagine how you think they're comparable.
Good points. I don't say they're the exact same thing, like jellicle does, but I do think they're both propaganda, and for the same result: to make a few people richer and more powerful, via war.
You're right that Americans could disparage the recent war efforts, but if you were doing that to someone with that yellow sticker, you were (in my experience) talking to someone who supported the troops by supporting the war. I'm confident that was the intent of the yellow ribbon.
How is this a gamification of war? Reading a blog is not war. Social media is not war. Getting a virtual badge for reading a blog has nothing to do with the morals of war. Does the author realise that people get real badges in war for ... you know ... killing other people! Not for retweeting some 140 character long message.
Propaganda is nothing new and propaganda was always quick to adopt to new media. Get over yourself...
While artillery rounds are falling, while rockets are raining, while drones are killing daily around the globe, a blogger finds out what's wrong with war : gamification. I hope to hear him talk about it on a tech-conference soon.
Obviously if you are against the IDF actions, you are moatly against promotional tools, and if you are for the IDF actions, you are mostly for the promotional tools.
Mock outrage over the promotion doesn't make any sense. They are simply an extension of the underlying actions. Be outraged by those, if you will.
37 comments
[ 1.4 ms ] story [ 85.7 ms ] threadBut seriously this is pretty cool, who new that a government agency had good programmers? I was very impressed with the polish of the tool while I was on the site, it felt very Hipster, could've been made by zynga or VLAMBEER or HalfBot. IMPRESSED!
biggest strawman right there.
That being said.. So is every other modern military.
This article is about gamification of image of war, it is not about gamification of process of war. Imagine future where army is profitable by selling rights for TV translation of war.
http://www.warhistoryfans.com/victory-tallies-enemy-flags-or...
Also might be humourous to know how many Hamas operatives or supporters have reached IDF "Research Officer" rank too.
War always included propaganda for the home front. Back then it was ridiculous posters, nowadays it of course happens in social media.
It's always more difficult to examine something you're inside (yellow ribbons) than something you're outside (Nazi war movies). But they're identical. And in fact the modern PR industry was founded to sell World War I to the American public.
Uh huh. Glorifying Hitler and the Nazis in a government comissioned film is "the exact same thing" as privately expressing support for our volunteer military in a hard situation. They're "identical", even!
Do you ever stop and think about the claims you're making? Are pink ribbons propaganda? How about the Jesus fish? The Darwin fish? A "make love not war" bumper sticker? How is private viewpoint A propaganda, while private viewpoint !A isn't? If you want to call every politically clever expression of a viewpoint "propaganda", you've robbed the term of its important, useful meaning.
The "Support Our Troops" campaign didn't arise spontaneously; it was invented and promoted by some of those 27,000 people.
From Wikipedia: Political analyst Noam Chomsky has criticized the slogan, saying, "[...] the point of public relations slogans like "Support Our Troops" is that they don't mean anything [...] that's the whole point of good propaganda. You want to create a slogan that nobody is going to be against and I suppose everybody will be for, because nobody knows what it means, because it doesn't mean anything. But its crucial value is that it diverts your attention from a question that does mean something, do you support our policy? And that's the one you're not allowed to talk about."
And this is why Chomsky is the idol of nodding undergraduates everywhere.
Not to put too fine a point on it, it's bonkers to say you're "not allowed" to debate war policy. That claim is a lie. It's readily disproven by reading any of a number of New York Times editorials or walking down any street in Berkeley, CA, or Cambridge, MA and reading the bumper stickers.
Yes, "I support the troops" is not a particularly daring or radical point of view. But it's clear from a Google search for "I don't support the troops" that there's a vocal minority who disagree with it. There was a time not so many decades ago when a much larger, much more vocal minority disagreed with it, and thus it's not quite the nullity that Chomsky describes it as.
In a free society, one opinion people are "allowed" to have is that their volunteer troops by and large deserve moral and material support even if their missions have politically controversial justification. That is an opinion a large majority of Americans currently hold. Some Americans hold an opposing view. In a democracy, this kind of disagreement happens often, and trying to convince me that one side of the disagreement has been influenced in the "exact" manner as the Nazis influenced the Germans requires a better argument than Chomsky's goofy proclamation that somehow we're "not allowed to talk about" war policy. Germans in 1942 were actually not allowed to disparage the war effort, lest they end up in prison or worse. Their primary sources of information on the conflict were all directly controlled by their government, who deliberately, actively misled them about its aims and progress. That is so many light years from a "yellow ribbon" campaign that I still can't begin to imagine how you think they're comparable.
You're right that Americans could disparage the recent war efforts, but if you were doing that to someone with that yellow sticker, you were (in my experience) talking to someone who supported the troops by supporting the war. I'm confident that was the intent of the yellow ribbon.
Propaganda is nothing new and propaganda was always quick to adopt to new media. Get over yourself...
Oh right. Probably the same reason there is outrage now and not in the past few months when 600 rockets have been fired at Israeli civilians.
Mock outrage over the promotion doesn't make any sense. They are simply an extension of the underlying actions. Be outraged by those, if you will.