User:Damnpositive/sandbox

= Overskrift I (Heading in Danish)=

The inherently violent "nature of war" means that exaggeration and invention of atrocities often becomes the main staple of propaganda. Patriotism is often not enough to make people hate the enemy, and propaganda is also necessary. "So great are the psychological resistances to war in modern nations", wrote Harold Lasswell, "that every war must appear to be a war of defense against a menacing, murderous aggressor.

I have added several Line Breaks and block quotes along the page :)


 * Here is Lauras awesome wiki list
 * It is still awesome
 * Wow sub-item!
 * Still going Strong
 * Hi Matt! Good luck with your toddler

5. Line breaks or newlines are used to add whitespace between lines, such as separating paragraphs.

Laura likes musicals

domestic

Musicals ticket can be found at here

= Overskrift II =

There must be no "ambiguity" about who the public is to hate." Human testimony is deemed unreliable even in ordinary circumstances, but in wartime, it can be further muddled by bias, sentiment, and misguided patriotism, becoming of no value whatsoever in establishing the truth.

The term atrocity story (also referred to as atrocity tale) as defined by the American sociologists David G. Bromley and Anson D. Shupe refers to the symbolic presentation of action or events (real or imaginary) in such a context that they are made flagrantly to violate the (presumably) shared premises upon which a given set of social relationships should be conducted.

The recounting of such tales is intended as a means of reaffirming normative boundaries. By sharing the reporter's disapproval or horror, an audience reasserts normative prescription and clearly locates the violator beyond the limits of public morality. The term was coined in 1979 by Bromley, Shupe, and Joseph Ventimiglia.[8]

Bromley and others define an atrocity as an event that is perceived as a flagrant violation of a fundamental value. It contains the following three elements:

moral outrage or indignation; authorization of punitive measures; mobilization of control efforts against the apparent perpetrators. The veracity of the story is considered irrelevant.[9]

The term was coined by Stimson and Webb in discussing the ways in which patients talk about doctors.[10]

It has also been applied in health care contexts to examine the way in which such stories are used to assert and defend the character of an occupation against illegitimate claims to its work or social standing.[11]