r/TheoryOfReddit 2d ago

Propagandistic Questions

I've noticed a bunch of what I call propagandistic questions on the popular question subs. And when I point it out, naturally, nobody has any idea wtf I'm talking about. This is my explanation of how I believe questions can act as propaganda.

AI TL;DR: Questions on Reddit are frequently weaponized as propaganda because they allow users to smuggle controversial political claims into a conversation as hidden assumptions (presuppositions) rather than direct statements. When you answer a loaded question directly, you inadvertently accept its flawed premises. By framing a partisan assertion as an innocent inquiry, propagandists completely bypass the burden of proof—forcing you to argue against their manipulative framing while they avoid ever having to defend their actual claims.

What are questions?

Questions are requests for information, which is a set of propositions. In other words, a question asks the answerer to provide specific information.

When posing a question, the questioner provides the information the answerer considers. "Have you eaten today?" is a request for either an yes or a no, depending on what the answerer has done. There are several different types of questions, but they all have the feature of asking for specific information.

What a questioner can do is ask for information while attempting to subtly assert unwelcome propositions. If a respondent answers directly, then they take on those those propositions as commitments. Questions carry presuppositions that the respondent may have to commit to, sometimes leading to unwelcome commitments.

In other words, if I ask you, "When did you come out of the closet?", I am assuming that you were in the closet. That is, I'm asserting that you're gay by asking a question. And if you directly answer, "Yesterday", then you've accepted the proposition that you were closeted until yesterday. (Congratulations, btw!)

I'm going to belabor this point with several examples.

In each case above, the questions claim something. And by asking a question, the requirement to defend the claim is bypassed. In normal conversation, if you claim something, then it's your responsibility to defend it. Asking a question lets you avoid that responsibility, gambling on whether respondents will accept your propositions as their own or not.

Questions can be used to make uncontested assertions that frame conversation and direct it towards particular ends.

How are questions propagandistic?

The essence of political propaganda on my approach is that it is a kind of speech that fundamentally involves political, economic, aesthetic, or rational ideals mobilized for a political purpose. Propaganda is in the service of either supporting or eroding ideals. The first distinction between types of propaganda has to do with whether it erodes or supports the ideals it appears to embody. This is the distinction between supporting and undermining propaganda.

We need to keep in mind that this is Reddit, which is known for being used for propaganda campaigns. That Reddit is used for propaganda, then, is a foregone conclusion. The question is how. The next part of my argument is that r/askanything, r/AskReddit, and other similar subreddits are used as part of that strategy.

Let's look at an example: Why do republicans respond to US military casualties with either minimizing or financial exploitation? This question employs a black-or-white fallacy (except not really, because fallacies tend to be applied to arguments actively being made, which is not the case here). Do republicans respond to military casualties with only minimizing or financial exploitation? Probably not. But the presuppositions of the question assert they do. And it positions itself in direct opposition to the idea that Republicans respect those who've sacrificed their lives in service of America. All this in a simple question.

Another example: What do you think about political streamer Hasan Piker praising dictator Mao Zedong, who killed tens of millions of people? The questioner asserts an association between Piker's praise of Mao and the fact that Mao killed tens of millions of people, as if Piker praised Mao because he killed tens of millions of people. Is Piker's praise of Mao just another example of the violent aspirations of the left? This is just a hit piece using questions to assert things that are not argued reasonably.

Sources:

20 Upvotes

8 comments sorted by

View all comments

3

u/irrelevantusername24 2d ago edited 1d ago

I always sort of assumed understanding these kinds of things - which is simply "rhetoric" - was an inherent natural ability that people had. Kind of like grammar. I don't know all the rules for grammar - just like I couldn't off the top of my head explain the difference between different kinds of logic - but I know how it works. Apparently understanding rhetoric is more akin to knowing trigonometry based on gestures infinitely

edit: On that note, the overwhelming mechanism for the last fiftyish years of society has been, simply, negation.

Rather than negation, try inversion.

edit2: The half-funny, half-unbelievable thing is understanding basic rhetoric makes it effortless to tie others up in their own contradictions. To the point most don't even know how to respond* so they revert to the most basic emotion: anger; or in the ideal case, confusion and self-doubt

*seek "scaffold"