The appeal to authority is a rhetorical technique in which a claim is presented as true or trustworthy simply because it is endorsed by someone perceived to be an authority—often regardless of whether that person has relevant expertise. While appealing to expertise isn't inherently fallacious, this technique becomes propaganda when the authority's opinion is treated as conclusive without critical scrutiny, or when the authority lacks credibility in the field being discussed.

The appeal to fear/prejudice is a manipulative technique that attempts to influence public opinion by arousing fear or exploiting existing prejudices rather than through rational argument. Often framed as “you are in danger,” this technique presents a threat—real or imagined—to manipulate the audience’s emotions and push them toward a desired conclusion or behavior.

The bandwagon technique is a propaganda strategy that encourages people to adopt a belief, take an action, or support a cause because “everyone else is doing it.” It appeals to the human desire for belonging and social conformity rather than to evidence or logic. The implication is that popularity itself is proof of truth or correctness.

The Black-and-White Fallacy, also known as the False Dichotomy or False Dilemma, is a propaganda technique that simplifies complex issues by presenting only two opposing options—one desirable and one undesirable—while ignoring the existence of alternative perspectives or middle ground. In its authoritarian or dictatorial form, this fallacy is used to polarize debate, eliminate nuance, and force public alignment with one sanctioned viewpoint.

Causal oversimplification is a propaganda technique that attributes a complex issue or phenomenon to a single cause, ignoring the multifaceted nature of most real-world problems. This can involve blaming one group, event, or policy for an outcome that has multiple contributing factors. While simplification can aid communication, it becomes propaganda when it distorts reality to promote a specific agenda.

Doubt as a propaganda technique involves intentionally introducing uncertainty or skepticism about established facts, expert consensus, or trustworthy sources. It doesn’t necessarily argue against the evidence—it simply casts enough suspicion to delay action, weaken trust, or keep the public undecided.

Exaggeration and minimisation are complementary propaganda techniques that distort the perception of reality by inflating or downplaying the importance, severity, or impact of information. These techniques exploit emotional reactions by altering the scale of an issue—either making something seem more urgent and alarming than it is (exaggeration), or less serious and more benign (minimisation).

Flag-waving is a propaganda technique that appeals to nationalism or patriotism by framing a person, policy, or action as synonymous with loyalty to the nation. It suggests that supporting the promoted viewpoint is patriotic, while questioning or opposing it is disloyal or even treasonous. The term refers to the literal and symbolic use of flags and national symbols to stir emotional allegiance and suppress dissent.

Glittering generalities—also called virtue words—are vague, emotionally appealing phrases associated with high ideals like freedom, justice, or progress. These words sound positive and uncontroversial, but they lack concrete meaning in context. Propagandists use them to inspire approval without having to explain what they mean or how they apply.

Loaded language refers to words and phrases that carry strong emotional implications, either positive or negative, and are used to influence perception without providing objective information. This technique seeks to shape public opinion by appealing to feelings rather than reason, using emotionally charged terms that imply value judgments.

Name calling, also referred to as labeling, is a propaganda technique in which emotionally charged, negative terms are used to attack individuals, groups, or ideas rather than engage with their arguments. This approach relies on dismissive or derogatory language to reduce complex identities or positions to a simplistic and hostile tag.

Obfuscation, intentional vagueness, and confusion are propaganda techniques used to obscure meaning, prevent understanding, or deliberately make communication ambiguous or misleading. Rather than clarify or inform, these techniques rely on unclear, overly complex, or evasive language to confuse the audience or stall inquiry.

A red herring is a propaganda technique in which attention is diverted from the real issue by introducing irrelevant or tangential information. It does not disprove or resolve the original topic—instead, it misleads the audience by steering the conversation toward something emotionally charged, confusing, or simply unrelated.

Reductio ad Hitlerum is a rhetorical fallacy in which a person, idea, or policy is discredited by associating it with Adolf Hitler, Nazism, or fascism, regardless of the context or validity of the comparison. The technique substitutes emotional condemnation for rational debate, capitalizing on the moral repulsion associated with Nazi history to shut down discussion.

Repetition is a propaganda technique that involves stating the same message, slogan, or idea over and over again until it becomes familiar, accepted, and eventually internalized. Known also as the illusory truth effect, repetition increases perceived truthfulness through sheer familiarity—even when the statement is false or misleading.

Slogans are short, catchy phrases used in propaganda to encapsulate a message, evoke emotion, and promote group identity. While not inherently deceptive, slogans become manipulative when they oversimplify complex issues, discourage critical thinking, or serve as substitutes for reasoned argument.

Smears are propaganda techniques that involve making vague, unverified, or emotionally charged accusations against an individual, group, or idea to tarnish their reputation. Unlike constructive criticism, a smear is designed to discredit without engaging in substantive debate. It can include personal attacks, insinuations, and guilt-by-association tactics.

The straw man technique involves distorting, exaggerating, or misrepresenting an opponent’s actual argument in order to make it easier to attack or refute. Rather than engage with the true substance of a claim, a straw man argument substitutes a weaker version—often absurd or extreme—and then proceeds to dismantle that instead.

A thought-terminating cliché is a commonly used phrase that is intended to end debate, silence dissent, or halt critical thinking. These phrases appear to resolve complex issues but actually dismiss further inquiry. They are often short, memorable, and emotionally satisfying—but intellectually empty.

Whataboutism is a rhetorical tactic that deflects criticism by redirecting attention to a different issue, usually one that implicates the critic or their group. Instead of addressing the original concern, the speaker responds with “What about…” and points to another problem—often unrelated or exaggerated—to create a false equivalence.