You and I are using completely different definitions of "values".
The definition my comment depended on was one where values act as a filter for actions (or patterns of actions).
Drug addicts only value short-term highs (next fix). Someone else may value being a musician, being reliable, or being honest. In 2018 maybe someone would have bought a Tesla because they value being seen as progressive and value experiencing modern technology. Notice that all my examples start with a verb, which can often manifest as a way of being.
I didn't bring up virtues, but my understanding of virtues is that they are values deemed by at least some to be objectively "good", such as the cardinal virtues. Whereas values can be both good or bad, such as masochists who value watching others suffer.
A value is something that you value after evaluating it.
A virtue is presumed to be good. If it were presumed to be bad, it would be a vice. People commit to virtuous behaviors because they expect valuable consequences.
For example, someone who considers honesty a virtue might implement that by choosing to tell the whole truth; or they might implement it by choosing not to tell lies; or even by punishing others who they believe to be dishonest. It is assumed that there is no need to evaluate their behavior, because it was guided by virtue.
Propaganda portends itself to be virtuous. This is important, because a target audience who relies on virtue ethics will not evaluate the narrative.
For example, when conservatives in the US argue against single-payer healthcare, they do not evaluate its merits against the merits of the current insurance system. Instead, they declare its foundational vice: "socialism". Opposite of the ultimate conservative virtue: "capitalism".
It doesn't matter how incoherent this argument is: it isn't an argument at all. It's a claim to virtue.
This is the core principle of conservative politics, and the primary reason conservatives are so vulnerable to fascist narratives coming out of the alt-right.
Thanks for expanding. I think we are in agreement about values and virtues, and I appreciate your perspective on the nuance of presumed virtues as they relate to propaganda, it sounds right to me.
Where you lose me is in the generalization and singling out of conservatives. It sounds like you're saying they are uniquely susceptible to propaganda, yet all my anecdotal experience adds up to it being fairly equal on both sides.
I haven't dug into any formal study so I could be wrong, but I am close to lots of people who are politically left who seem to follow that "presumed virtue" -> reaction (skip critical thinking) pattern. To be clear, my guess is it's a very common and natural pattern, like cognitive biases and optical illusions. It's a consequence/bug of collective cognition.
To be clear, I do not think conservatives are the only ones using virtue ethics. Much of how the social justice movement plays out is a good example of this dynamic.
What makes conservatism unique is that the entire movement is centered on virtue ethics. There is nothing new about this: just look at Reaganomics, the wars on drugs and terror, abortion bans, gay marriage bans, etc. Practically everything about conservative politics is expressed and defended as a virtue.
The next unique thing is that the alt-right has taken over conservative narrative. There are groups of people that literally call themselves fascist, and they aren't just getting attention from conservative politicians: they are writing talking points that are echoed over and over again by the house, the senate, and even the president.
The overwhelming majority of conservatives are not fascists, yet most are evidently happy to work with them. Podcasters and news entertainers are constantly beating the drum of alt-right rhetoric, because it's engaging, and engagement gets them paid. Conservative voters are happy because their team is winning. Fascists are happy because their virtues go mainstream. There is no infighting, because there is no criticism, because there is no evaluation to begin with.
We have ventured far enough outside my sphere of competence that I'm running out of ways to constructively engage, but I'm sure some of your points will linger in my mind.
I have had no direct exposure to what you're describing in your third and forth paragraphs, and so I am not in a position to agree or disagree. All I can say is that I haven't seen it yet. What I have seen is misrepresentation (from both sides) and a pattern of media of all types stoking division.
A few years ago I learned about the concept of "most respectful interpretation" as a tool for conflict resolution and establishing trust in teams. So much of media these days feels like the opposite.
I'm trying my best to understand what's true, while accepting my own limitations and the reality that I may never be able to tell what's really going on at the global power level. At the very least it seems to require a lot of reserving judgement.
If the media is a stained glass window, looking through the blue glass and then the red glass is not the same thing as looking through clear glass.
The definition my comment depended on was one where values act as a filter for actions (or patterns of actions).
Drug addicts only value short-term highs (next fix). Someone else may value being a musician, being reliable, or being honest. In 2018 maybe someone would have bought a Tesla because they value being seen as progressive and value experiencing modern technology. Notice that all my examples start with a verb, which can often manifest as a way of being.
I didn't bring up virtues, but my understanding of virtues is that they are values deemed by at least some to be objectively "good", such as the cardinal virtues. Whereas values can be both good or bad, such as masochists who value watching others suffer.