online discussions of Dr. Talinn Phillips' ENG 308J course at Ohio University
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Katz
Katz argues that “[b]oth technology and politics can become the basis of ethics; both lead to power...But technology can become the basis of politics as well” (265). Do you think this is true? Why or why not?
I believe that can easily be true. Throughout the article, a common term that came up was expediency, and this means that boiled down means a better regard for what is advantageous than what is right. Katz stated that by using political and technological expediency, the nazis gave thier final solution a moral basis that their people could stand on. Both those things led to power for the nazis, but technology was different. Technology was able to root itself into politics.
For example, the politics of the nazis was to take over Europe, eliminate the inferior jews in order to spread the more enlightened german philosophy. That was the political expediency. However, to fuel this political expediency, the government had to look towards science and technology. With all the studies and development made with technology, it allowed the nazis to develop war machines that allowed them to initiate their politcial expediency. As a result, the technological expediency became a basis of the nazis poltical expediency, for their government relied on and depended on technology so much, that technology became a basis for their government. Without the technology, the nazi government couldn't function. Therefore, technology didn't just become a basis of the nazi politics, it was needed as a basis.
This doesn't have to just apply to the nazi's. Any nation that puts expediency before virtue would probably have a need for technology as a way to further advance their politics. A current example would be the U.S. Our political expediency is that we wish to give aid in the Middle East by introducing democracy to it. In order to make this happen, the US had to rely heavily on technology to forcefully enter nation's. Could this invasion of other nation's be seen as unethical? Very much so, but that is because we justified our actions by the benefits we received. In order to power this political expediency, we needed technology. Therefore, like the Nazi's, we required technology become a basis for our politics, and it still is, as if one looks at our budget, military is still one of our largest budgets. So, I just ended my post by comparing the US to Nazi's. I either said something pretty stupid or pretty smart there.
I feel as though Katz made a valid point when he claimed that technology could be a basis of politics. It seems as though in the most recent presidential campaigns, the candidate with the most personality on the television screen was clearly in charge. In addition, many candidates are taking to the Internet to advocate their policies with hopes of gaining votes. Although this might not be the same technology that Hitler used to gain power, the same principals apply. If Hitler had no means to make his message widespread via the usage of technology such as the radio or newspaper, his politics would have fallen apart. As a tremendous public speaker, Hitler’s widespread appeal and promises of a new Germany seemed like a good direction for the country initially. With this new Germany came new war innovations, such as further development of tanks, atomic bombs, and other technology that would influence political decisions for the remainder of the war. When compared to today’s technology, the Internet or television might seem relatively harmless. Although there is no clear abuse of these new technologies, an effect on decision-making is clearly evident. History tells us of JFK’s calm and cool demeanor during the televised debates with Richard Nixon, a historical and technical breakthrough that very well might have cost Nixon the election. In a similar circumstance, Howard Dean’s notorious ‘Dean Scream’ brought an overnight end to his presidential chances, and the frequent repeated plays on TV and online made the several second clip a staple of the election. Technology and politics are a combination that can easily lead to as much bad as good. With the various news broadcast channels, all with their own agenda, getting a completely honest, non-biased overview of a candidate is sometime difficult, if not impossible. Although Katz’s article primarily deals with WWII, I feel many of the concepts he mentions can still be applied to today’s world.
When reading this article, I could definitely see how technology became the basis of politics. From the examples in the reading to our political system today, technology has had a big impact on them. Back in Hitler’s time, they used many different “new” technologies to exterminate the Jews. They used gas chambers to “process” Jews. They also said in the reading that they found new and improved ways to administer pain and eliminate people. Also, I found in the reading that Hitler used technological expediency to help with his plans for mass extermination. Today, you could examples of technology advances that could kill mass amounts of people if used. We see nuclear weapons being built every day that have topped the last nuclear weapon and if these are used then they could easily kill mass amounts of people. Recently, we wanted to find weapons in the Middle East that we thought were going to kill many people. We didn’t want those weapons around so we wanted to get rid of them as soon as possible so no one gets hurt.
We also see different forms of technologies used in our political system today. We see new ways presidential candidates and/or the president try to answer people’s questions. Just this past presidential election, we used video for people to ask the candidates questions about their platforms. We also see new advancements in technology every day that we could use in our next election that could help get the candidates opinions out to mass amount of people so they know what those candidates stand for. We have progressed a lot over the elections that we recently have had. The technology that has been used in our recent elections is completely different from the technology that we used in even Bill Clinton’s election. Technology is something that will always influence politics from the political races to finding new nuclear weapons.
First, being Jewish and reading this article it was hard not to feel angry about the fact that rhetoric took any form of precedence over ethics. It is very clear that justification is provided when the idea of technical communication is what brought about certain beliefs regarding the Holocaust. The memo to me is disturbing and being that we already know what it was in regards to the ethos factor is there. If someone were to read that memo without having any knowledge as to what event it applied to it might not be as disgusting. Obviously technology was used to slaughter a culture as well as to communicate what exactly was happening at the time. I appreciate that Katz uses different references in addition to his own opinion about how the ethical matter is disregarded in such technical arguments. There is a point in his writing that I feel sums up his argument which is, "Most arguments of worth and goodness, if they are present at all, are subsumed under expediency, becoming another means to a desired end, becoming expedient in themselves (like appeals to give to charity based on the advantage of a tax break)" (p. 8). This spoke to me by relating it to an issue of tax breaks which we see in our current culture.
Technology today has done the same thing as it did in the Holocaust era with our war on terrorism. Although we have had troops overseas fighting a war we only get to see a portion of what is really going on via television and internet. Today's technology makes it easy to restrict the audiences knowledge on a political issue. It also helps in forming opinions based on what messages are being chosen to relay to the general population. After reading the article and relating it to our current war I absolutely agree with the statement Katz made about technology becoming the basis of politics. I watch it happen all of the time when people get a message that was sent via t.v. or internet and all of a sudden they side with a certain political viewpoint on the issue. It is as if nobody owns their own set of ethical values. The general population just follows what the text says is good or bad.
Technology is expanding so fast that some day it will out date itself every day. Our culture is obsessed with technology and the expansion of it. We are constantly looking for the newest thing and can’t seem to keep satisfied. For these reasons I agree with Katz and his argument about the link between technology, politics, power, and ethics. Technology seems to change drastically every decade and each time period has examples of how they change politically. The Vietnam War was shaped by the inclusion of the media and televising the war. Televisions were essentially the ‘new thing’ at the time and they were able to watch coverage of the war right at home. The Vietnam War was one of the most negative wars that the United States has undergone—maybe television had something to do with this? Katz brought up the correlation between the Holocaust and technology, which was largely because that Hitler could carry out his operations because of the technology he had at hand. If you think about it, each war is shaped by technology. If you have the economy to support a strong military then that means you have the military technology to win wars. From ships to tanks, if you have the technology then you will become powerful. Today our 24/7 news programs are constantly reporting what is considered news so it is obvious there is a link between technology and politics. Politics are shaped by what technology medium we have at the time and our current status is the use of social media and the Internet. Our culture is so fast paced now that politicians have to keep up in order to become powerful. Technology is the foundation for essentially everything and it determines the ethics of each political move by each country.
I am not sure if Technology and Politics become the basis of ethics but the way they are used can definitely influence ethics. Perhaps that is what Katz is arguing and I misunderstood. IF that is the case then I definitely agree. Technology makes our lives easier, that is the entire point of technology. Technology makes it easier to travel, to do our jobs, and to receive information. After a while people just assume that the information they are receiving through technology is true. At that point, if personal bias is added to the information being broadcast then the population receiving that information begins to take on that bias, unless they are aware of it.
Hitler and the Nazi party took advantage of the post war turmoil in Germany and with the aid of technology convinced the German people that a genocidal extermination of Jewish people was the only way to improve their lives.
This manipulation through technology is present everywhere. Information is cut and tailored before it is passed on to the general public. The way informations is sent and received greatly affects the degree to which information is controlled. Because the Internet has very few limitations many different sources of information are present so many different bias's can be seen. This makes it easier to see that there are many different ways of looking at a problem. If the general public doesn't receive all of the details of an event or problem then a biased conclusion is more likely to form.
In the end people need to realize that there will always be bias's present in the information they receive. To avoid being manipulated toward one conclusion or an other people need to stop and look at what they have been told, and try to think of the other side of the argument, before forming an opinion.
I agree that technology and politics can become to basis of ethics and that they both can lead to power. I think that technology has always been the basis of politics, but as technology advances it begins to have a larger impact on our political opinions. Many political candidates use our advances in technology to gain popularity with the voting population. Though times have increasingly changed with technology the same idea is applied to Hitler and the Nazi's. The propaganda that they used through posters, on the radio and newspapers made Hitler's views very popular with Germany at the time. I liked that Katz used Hitler as an example, though the Holocaust was a very tragic experience for the world, we all have knowledge of it and can apply their propaganda, politics, ethics of the time and how they used the technology available to use it. I find it interesting to see that the Nazi used rhetoric to sell their beliefs, until this class I would have never thought to put rhetoric and Nazi Germany Together. Our technology today is censored every second breaking news is being presented. Each government in the world has some type of censorship that does not let their citizens know every single detail about an event, giving limitations on our opinions... this allows for us to conform around information that isn't necessarily 100 percent true. That being said, there are also limitations still today via internet, newspapers and news on the television because anyone can put anything on the web at anytime, there are only so many things are news correspondents can inform us about and the government may censor certain information. For example, we only know so much about our soldiers who are stationed and fighting over in Europe and the Middle East.
After reading the Katz article I believe that technology and its advances could become the basis of politics in certain countries in the world. Countries that do not have a government that their people appreciate and agree with could fall to this theory/idea more so than others. Not all countries that use technology for politics are bad but in Hilters case it was. The way that the Nazi party used technology to gain its popularity and rise to power was very smart on their part. Although the Nazi party was trying to commit genocide and take over all of Europe and are one of the most hated groups known today through history. If you look at what they did to obtain their power and popularity at first, it was obtained using rhetorical strategies. The technology they used put fear into people it made the people scarred to challenge the Nazis and their doings. With all the new technology builds that Hilter had created with his army they were almost co-dependent if not completely co-dependent on each other. Without the new invention and technology the Nazi party would not have been able to come to power with their politics and without the politics they would not have been able to provide money and have the help from the government. With this being said technology was the basis of politics during the Nazi party reign in Germany. Katz picked a perfect time frame to discuss and argue his thoughts on how technology and its advances could become the basis of politics. In today’s day and age everyone uses technology to become informed about politics. We have numerous television stations that are dedicated strictly to broadcasting politics. Without this advancement in technology how the people would be informed on the most recent politics that are occurring with our own government.
I agree with Katz’s argument that while technology and politics can both become the basis of ethics as they both lead to power, technology can also become the basis of politics. Katz also argues that the focus in most deliberative rhetoric is on expediency (Katz 257). Katz relates Just’s memo to the “ethos of expediency” which utilizes techniques of speech for convenience and appropriateness. While using expediency, Just also takes advantage of enthymemes which are merely syllogisms that offer a conclusion while excluding the major and minor premises of the conclusion being made. I believe that Katz recognizes these connections as technical writing methods. In politics, many people are held to ethical standards, which they are to abide by in order to uphold their social image. Katz says that “the ethic of expediency that enables deliberative rhetoric and give impulse to most of our actions in technological capitalism as well…” I agree with Katz’s overall argument that technology and politics can become the basis of ethics, although I do not believe that itself can be considered ethical. Ethics should be based off of morals, values, and each individual’s personal experiences. More so, I agree that technology can become the basis of politics as the use of all rhetorical strategies help to fabricate an image of someone that can be accepted in a widespread society of politics.
I think that this is incredibly true. I mean, think about it, what is politics but an art of persuasion? As the article mentions, propaganda technology can perpetuate beliefs and support of politics. That is a form of persuasion technology which is what politics is all about, persuasion.
The topic of ethics when it comes to persuasion and politics is interesting, however. Usually, when the term “persuasion” is used, its meant as a tactic of manipulation. And if you think about it, politics is all about manipulating issues to sway group X towards one side of the fence or the other. In this way, ethics plays merely a minor role in persuasion technology and politics. The article expands on this when it discusses Nazi Germany and its use of propaganda technology. The use of dehumanization when it came to describing the Jewish population, thereby making antisemitism and genocidal tendencies toward the Jewish people acceptable in society, was not necessarily ethical, but it accomplished the political goals of those in power in Nazi Germany.
That technology helped that particular political view in Nazi Germany and was, therefore, a basis of politics because it helped to perpetuate a certain viewpoint. Such a phenomena can be seen today through the dehumanization of homosexual couples in the United States. In political ads (often through modern technology such as the internet or television), these people can be depicted as destroying the traditional American family and ruining the good life that so many honest Americans have worked for. It is not necessarily true and it harms the entire homosexual community by separating homosexuals from humanity, but it helps to fill a political goal and is accepted and utilized. The similar negative outlooks were cast upon the Jewish population in Nazi Germany which shows that technology can be a basis for political gain or agenda.
I believe that can easily be true. Throughout the article, a common term that came up was expediency, and this means that boiled down means a better regard for what is advantageous than what is right. Katz stated that by using political and technological expediency, the nazis gave thier final solution a moral basis that their people could stand on. Both those things led to power for the nazis, but technology was different. Technology was able to root itself into politics.
ReplyDeleteFor example, the politics of the nazis was to take over Europe, eliminate the inferior jews in order to spread the more enlightened german philosophy. That was the political expediency. However, to fuel this political expediency, the government had to look towards science and technology. With all the studies and development made with technology, it allowed the nazis to develop war machines that allowed them to initiate their politcial expediency. As a result, the technological expediency became a basis of the nazis poltical expediency, for their government relied on and depended on technology so much, that technology became a basis for their government. Without the technology, the nazi government couldn't function. Therefore, technology didn't just become a basis of the nazi politics, it was needed as a basis.
This doesn't have to just apply to the nazi's. Any nation that puts expediency before virtue would probably have a need for technology as a way to further advance their politics. A current example would be the U.S. Our political expediency is that we wish to give aid in the Middle East by introducing democracy to it. In order to make this happen, the US had to rely heavily on technology to forcefully enter nation's. Could this invasion of other nation's be seen as unethical? Very much so, but that is because we justified our actions by the benefits we received. In order to power this political expediency, we needed technology. Therefore, like the Nazi's, we required technology become a basis for our politics, and it still is, as if one looks at our budget, military is still one of our largest budgets. So, I just ended my post by comparing the US to Nazi's. I either said something pretty stupid or pretty smart there.
I feel as though Katz made a valid point when he claimed that technology could be a basis of politics. It seems as though in the most recent presidential campaigns, the candidate with the most personality on the television screen was clearly in charge. In addition, many candidates are taking to the Internet to advocate their policies with hopes of gaining votes. Although this might not be the same technology that Hitler used to gain power, the same principals apply. If Hitler had no means to make his message widespread via the usage of technology such as the radio or newspaper, his politics would have fallen apart. As a tremendous public speaker, Hitler’s widespread appeal and promises of a new Germany seemed like a good direction for the country initially. With this new Germany came new war innovations, such as further development of tanks, atomic bombs, and other technology that would influence political decisions for the remainder of the war.
ReplyDeleteWhen compared to today’s technology, the Internet or television might seem relatively harmless. Although there is no clear abuse of these new technologies, an effect on decision-making is clearly evident. History tells us of JFK’s calm and cool demeanor during the televised debates with Richard Nixon, a historical and technical breakthrough that very well might have cost Nixon the election. In a similar circumstance, Howard Dean’s notorious ‘Dean Scream’ brought an overnight end to his presidential chances, and the frequent repeated plays on TV and online made the several second clip a staple of the election. Technology and politics are a combination that can easily lead to as much bad as good. With the various news broadcast channels, all with their own agenda, getting a completely honest, non-biased overview of a candidate is sometime difficult, if not impossible. Although Katz’s article primarily deals with WWII, I feel many of the concepts he mentions can still be applied to today’s world.
When reading this article, I could definitely see how technology became the basis of politics. From the examples in the reading to our political system today, technology has had a big impact on them. Back in Hitler’s time, they used many different “new” technologies to exterminate the Jews. They used gas chambers to “process” Jews. They also said in the reading that they found new and improved ways to administer pain and eliminate people. Also, I found in the reading that Hitler used technological expediency to help with his plans for mass extermination. Today, you could examples of technology advances that could kill mass amounts of people if used. We see nuclear weapons being built every day that have topped the last nuclear weapon and if these are used then they could easily kill mass amounts of people. Recently, we wanted to find weapons in the Middle East that we thought were going to kill many people. We didn’t want those weapons around so we wanted to get rid of them as soon as possible so no one gets hurt.
ReplyDeleteWe also see different forms of technologies used in our political system today. We see new ways presidential candidates and/or the president try to answer people’s questions. Just this past presidential election, we used video for people to ask the candidates questions about their platforms. We also see new advancements in technology every day that we could use in our next election that could help get the candidates opinions out to mass amount of people so they know what those candidates stand for. We have progressed a lot over the elections that we recently have had. The technology that has been used in our recent elections is completely different from the technology that we used in even Bill Clinton’s election. Technology is something that will always influence politics from the political races to finding new nuclear weapons.
First, being Jewish and reading this article it was hard not to feel angry about the fact that rhetoric took any form of precedence over ethics. It is very clear that justification is provided when the idea of technical communication is what brought about certain beliefs regarding the Holocaust. The memo to me is disturbing and being that we already know what it was in regards to the ethos factor is there. If someone were to read that memo without having any knowledge as to what event it applied to it might not be as disgusting. Obviously technology was used to slaughter a culture as well as to communicate what exactly was happening at the time. I appreciate that Katz uses different references in addition to his own opinion about how the ethical matter is disregarded in such technical arguments. There is a point in his writing that I feel sums up his argument which is, "Most arguments of worth and goodness, if they are present at all, are subsumed under expediency, becoming another means to a desired end, becoming expedient in themselves (like appeals to give to charity based on the advantage of a tax break)" (p. 8). This spoke to me by relating it to an issue of tax breaks which we see in our current culture.
ReplyDeleteTechnology today has done the same thing as it did in the Holocaust era with our war on terrorism. Although we have had troops overseas fighting a war we only get to see a portion of what is really going on via television and internet. Today's technology makes it easy to restrict the audiences knowledge on a political issue. It also helps in forming opinions based on what messages are being chosen to relay to the general population. After reading the article and relating it to our current war I absolutely agree with the statement Katz made about technology becoming the basis of politics. I watch it happen all of the time when people get a message that was sent via t.v. or internet and all of a sudden they side with a certain political viewpoint on the issue. It is as if nobody owns their own set of ethical values. The general population just follows what the text says is good or bad.
Technology is expanding so fast that some day it will out date itself every day. Our culture is obsessed with technology and the expansion of it. We are constantly looking for the newest thing and can’t seem to keep satisfied. For these reasons I agree with Katz and his argument about the link between technology, politics, power, and ethics.
ReplyDeleteTechnology seems to change drastically every decade and each time period has examples of how they change politically. The Vietnam War was shaped by the inclusion of the media and televising the war. Televisions were essentially the ‘new thing’ at the time and they were able to watch coverage of the war right at home. The Vietnam War was one of the most negative wars that the United States has undergone—maybe television had something to do with this?
Katz brought up the correlation between the Holocaust and technology, which was largely because that Hitler could carry out his operations because of the technology he had at hand. If you think about it, each war is shaped by technology. If you have the economy to support a strong military then that means you have the military technology to win wars. From ships to tanks, if you have the technology then you will become powerful.
Today our 24/7 news programs are constantly reporting what is considered news so it is obvious there is a link between technology and politics. Politics are shaped by what technology medium we have at the time and our current status is the use of social media and the Internet.
Our culture is so fast paced now that politicians have to keep up in order to become powerful. Technology is the foundation for essentially everything and it determines the ethics of each political move by each country.
I am not sure if Technology and Politics become the basis of ethics but the way they are used can definitely influence ethics. Perhaps that is what Katz is arguing and I misunderstood. IF that is the case then I definitely agree. Technology makes our lives easier, that is the entire point of technology. Technology makes it easier to travel, to do our jobs, and to receive information. After a while people just assume that the information they are receiving through technology is true. At that point, if personal bias is added to the information being broadcast then the population receiving that information begins to take on that bias, unless they are aware of it.
ReplyDeleteHitler and the Nazi party took advantage of the post war turmoil in Germany and with the aid of technology convinced the German people that a genocidal extermination of Jewish people was the only way to improve their lives.
This manipulation through technology is present everywhere. Information is cut and tailored before it is passed on to the general public. The way informations is sent and received greatly affects the degree to which information is controlled. Because the Internet has very few limitations many different sources of information are present so many different bias's can be seen. This makes it easier to see that there are many different ways of looking at a problem. If the general public doesn't receive all of the details of an event or problem then a biased conclusion is more likely to form.
In the end people need to realize that there will always be bias's present in the information they receive. To avoid being manipulated toward one conclusion or an other people need to stop and look at what they have been told, and try to think of the other side of the argument, before forming an opinion.
I agree that technology and politics can become to basis of ethics and that they both can lead to power. I think that technology has always been the basis of politics, but as technology advances it begins to have a larger impact on our political opinions. Many political candidates use our advances in technology to gain popularity with the voting population. Though times have increasingly changed with technology the same idea is applied to Hitler and the Nazi's. The propaganda that they used through posters, on the radio and newspapers made Hitler's views very popular with Germany at the time. I liked that Katz used Hitler as an example, though the Holocaust was a very tragic experience for the world, we all have knowledge of it and can apply their propaganda, politics, ethics of the time and how they used the technology available to use it. I find it interesting to see that the Nazi used rhetoric to sell their beliefs, until this class I would have never thought to put rhetoric and Nazi Germany Together. Our technology today is censored every second breaking news is being presented. Each government in the world has some type of censorship that does not let their citizens know every single detail about an event, giving limitations on our opinions... this allows for us to conform around information that isn't necessarily 100 percent true. That being said, there are also limitations still today via internet, newspapers and news on the television because anyone can put anything on the web at anytime, there are only so many things are news correspondents can inform us about and the government may censor certain information. For example, we only know so much about our soldiers who are stationed and fighting over in Europe and the Middle East.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the Katz article I believe that technology and its advances could become the basis of politics in certain countries in the world. Countries that do not have a government that their people appreciate and agree with could fall to this theory/idea more so than others. Not all countries that use technology for politics are bad but in Hilters case it was. The way that the Nazi party used technology to gain its popularity and rise to power was very smart on their part. Although the Nazi party was trying to commit genocide and take over all of Europe and are one of the most hated groups known today through history. If you look at what they did to obtain their power and popularity at first, it was obtained using rhetorical strategies. The technology they used put fear into people it made the people scarred to challenge the Nazis and their doings. With all the new technology builds that Hilter had created with his army they were almost co-dependent if not completely co-dependent on each other. Without the new invention and technology the Nazi party would not have been able to come to power with their politics and without the politics they would not have been able to provide money and have the help from the government. With this being said technology was the basis of politics during the Nazi party reign in Germany. Katz picked a perfect time frame to discuss and argue his thoughts on how technology and its advances could become the basis of politics. In today’s day and age everyone uses technology to become informed about politics. We have numerous television stations that are dedicated strictly to broadcasting politics. Without this advancement in technology how the people would be informed on the most recent politics that are occurring with our own government.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Katz’s argument that while technology and politics can both become the basis of ethics as they both lead to power, technology can also become the basis of politics. Katz also argues that the focus in most deliberative rhetoric is on expediency (Katz 257). Katz relates Just’s memo to the “ethos of expediency” which utilizes techniques of speech for convenience and appropriateness. While using expediency, Just also takes advantage of enthymemes which are merely syllogisms that offer a conclusion while excluding the major and minor premises of the conclusion being made. I believe that Katz recognizes these connections as technical writing methods. In politics, many people are held to ethical standards, which they are to abide by in order to uphold their social image. Katz says that “the ethic of expediency that enables deliberative rhetoric and give impulse to most of our actions in technological capitalism as well…” I agree with Katz’s overall argument that technology and politics can become the basis of ethics, although I do not believe that itself can be considered ethical. Ethics should be based off of morals, values, and each individual’s personal experiences. More so, I agree that technology can become the basis of politics as the use of all rhetorical strategies help to fabricate an image of someone that can be accepted in a widespread society of politics.
ReplyDeleteI think that this is incredibly true. I mean, think about it, what is politics but an art of persuasion? As the article mentions, propaganda technology can perpetuate beliefs and support of politics. That is a form of persuasion technology which is what politics is all about, persuasion.
ReplyDeleteThe topic of ethics when it comes to persuasion and politics is interesting, however. Usually, when the term “persuasion” is used, its meant as a tactic of manipulation. And if you think about it, politics is all about manipulating issues to sway group X towards one side of the fence or the other. In this way, ethics plays merely a minor role in persuasion technology and politics. The article expands on this when it discusses Nazi Germany and its use of propaganda technology. The use of dehumanization when it came to describing the Jewish population, thereby making antisemitism and genocidal tendencies toward the Jewish people acceptable in society, was not necessarily ethical, but it accomplished the political goals of those in power in Nazi Germany.
That technology helped that particular political view in Nazi Germany and was, therefore, a basis of politics because it helped to perpetuate a certain viewpoint. Such a phenomena can be seen today through the dehumanization of homosexual couples in the United States. In political ads (often through modern technology such as the internet or television), these people can be depicted as destroying the traditional American family and ruining the good life that so many honest Americans have worked for. It is not necessarily true and it harms the entire homosexual community by separating homosexuals from humanity, but it helps to fill a political goal and is accepted and utilized. The similar negative outlooks were cast upon the Jewish population in Nazi Germany which shows that technology can be a basis for political gain or agenda.