NY Times caught once again promoting leftist propaganda

Whether you or others' arguments are relevant or accurate is not the point, Pycckia.

What is the point is that the word 'great' is an accurate description of Mao's role and place in 20th century world history. It so applies to Hitler, Stalin, Churchill, FDR, de Gaulle, and so on.

Quit quibbling: it makes your argument look parochial.

The same with others above.

 

But the rise to prominence in the world today is not due to anything Mao did. Mao's actions delayed the rise. The credit for China's success is due to Deng Xiao Ping who did so by reversing Mao's polcy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deng_Xiaoping

 

I think the inaccuracy of other's arguments are exactly the point (and we have a recent example where the poster suggested Mao had a hand in China's impressive growth). The NYT misleads others into errors by omitting crucial information. They even admitted so themselves in a tweet explaining the deletion of the original tweet.

Why are you defending the NYT when they have already admitted their mistake?

 

I somewhat get the gist but these are pretty poor examples of NYT propaganda... objectivity dictates that one recognize that Moe achieved a hell of a revolution - good, bad or otherwise. The term "Great" is perhaps ill chosen ... but not a "great" example of outright propaganda - .. but a little.

There better - ones that include direct and intentional deception and misrepresentation on a far greater scale - and on issues that directly impact US citizens. Things like covering up Obama's arming and supporting the 911 terrorist group - Al Qaeda and others of the same ilk in Syria... and then going along with Obama's "Moderate Rebel Lie" when their own reporting of the war prior - to this moderate rebel false narrative being issued from the Obama Admin/Establishment - stated defacto that there were no moderate rebels.

They quickly forgot this previous reporting and touted the Establishment line - as did every other MSM outlet - including on the right.

Not even the radio talk show big whigs would touch it with a 10 foot pole ...

Mao is dead but, his revolution in part - is on the verge of achieving great things - Propaganda ? a little perhaps .. nothing in comparison to many other things though.

 

I am defending the correct use of 'great' in this case and pointing out where you are wrong? Why are you defending your wrong point?

 

Why are you defending the use of "great" when the authors (i.e. NYT) apologized for it?

 

1. Nope; I'm well aware of leftist ideology, which is why it's so easy for me to identify.

2. I conducted a 30 second online search and came up with two immediately, which I linked. But since you called it a 'supposed research center' it's obvious you didn't exam it. Again, show me a major U.S. university praising someone like Hitler. You can't. So you're flailing (and pretty early in the discussion as compared to our usual debates).

3. You didn't say anything about universities because YOU CAN'T.

4. I defined it for you, quoting from a left wing site I often visit. If you believe it means something different, please share. But you won't, as usual...

 

Of course they apologized for it .. just like the male Dem politicians in general bend over backwards to apologize for being male ... white and so on.

That does not make the thing they are apologizing about for wrong.

 

And once again the right wing completely failed here.

 

1. Real America is fully aware of traitorous far right ideology, which is so easy for Americans to identify.

2. Two or three or nine is not "many." So weak.

3. I don't have to say anything about universities..

4. Your misdefinition of a definition from a site is meaningless.

 

I don't need reminders. I was there. I'm guessing that most of the people who work for the NYT were, too.

I prefer to remember those who perished at the hands of terrorists, not the terrorists themselves. I prefer to remember the first responders who lost their lives going up the stairs, including 80% of my own local fire station, guys I used to speak with at the local grocery store every week. I prefer to remember the men and women who jumped while the rest of us watched in horror, only guessing at the choice they made, probably thinking that if they jumped, at least then their bodies would be found and not burnt to cinders. They didn't show that on your TV, I'm guessing.

So please stop thinking that you have the moral high ground here. You don't. All you've done is use a tragedy that too many of us lived through to try to make a pathetic political point.

 

See comment #88.

Please prove your claims:

- "many leftists in the U.S. voicing their admiration for Mao"
- "Or the New York Times doing the same with Stalin"

And I call bee ess on your claim that local media, in partnership with law enforcement, don't identify the race of a suspect still at large.

 

The result of his revolution was a total change of the political system which was the aim of the Revolution. And please tell me how he destroyed the\\ civilization.

 

What about the readers who weren't there, who are too young to remember? When we remember the tragedy we ought to remember why it happened, to remember that their are forces in this world totally inimical to our way of life. If you don't remember why it happened the history of the 21st C can't be understood.

The failure to remember why is the pathetic political point here. It is to ignore the threat of Islam. You prefer to wallow in sentiment. So be it. The rest of us understand the historical significance.

 

He destroyed it piece by piece. If you want to see the art Treasures of Chinese civilization, go to Taipai where Chiang Kai Shek carried off what he could gather. There are none to be found in Beijing. The Red Guard roamed the country destroying art and antiques,

--------------
At the Red Guard rallies, Lin Biao also called for the destruction of the "Four Olds"; namely, old customs, culture, habits, and ideas.[38] Revolutionary fever swept the country by storm, with Red Guards acting as its most prominent warriors. Some changes associated with the "Four Olds" campaign were largely benign, such as assigning new names to city streets, places, and even people; millions of babies were born with "revolutionary"-sounding names during this period.[citation needed] Other aspects of Red Guard activities were more destructive, particularly in the realms of culture and religion. Various historical sites throughout the country were destroyed. The damage was particularly pronounced in the capital, Beijing. Red Guards also laid siege to the Temple of Confucius in Shandong province,[40] and numerous other historically significant tombs and artifacts.[41]


The remains of Ming Dynasty Wanli Emperor at the Ming tombs. Red Guards dragged the remains of the Wanli Emperor and Empresses to the front of the tomb, where they were posthumously "denounced" and burned.[42]

The Cemetery of Confucius was attacked by Red Guards in November 1966.[41][43]
Libraries full of historical and foreign texts were destroyed; books were burned. Temples, churches, mosques, monasteries, and cemeteries were closed down and sometimes converted to other uses, looted, and destroyed.[44] Marxist propaganda depicted Buddhism as superstition, and religion was looked upon as a means of hostile foreign infiltration, as well as an instrument of the ruling class.[45] Clergy were arrested and sent to camps; many Tibetan Buddhists were forced to participate in the destruction of their monasteries at gunpoint.[45]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution#Red_Guards_and_the_destruction_of_the_"Four_Olds"

-----------------------------------

I am beginning to think that the Leftists here know nothing about the history of China in the 20th C. The NYT isn't going to help you, either.

 

None of that you write, Pycckia, invalidates Mao as a 'great' historical figure in the world much less China.

 

You give up way too easy my young friend.

Not even an effort anymore? Why do you bother?

 

See comment #59, I already provided you with links, including one from Stanford University. It took me less than a minute to find them after a brief online search. The information is out there unless you try to actively avoid it.

You claim to live in New York and are not aware of the NY Times and their Stalin/Soviet puff pieces from a couple years ago? Really? I don't live anywhere near New York and I read them.

I already provided this link in an earlier comment to someone else, so you probably didn't see it:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...9f28e0-c5c3-11e7-84bc-5e285c7f4512_story.html

And local law enforcement always releases full suspect descriptions; it's the media providers that decide to leave the race out.

https://www.cleveland.com/readers/2014/07/the_complex_issue_of_identifyi.html

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local...cle_746cabfc-beb7-11e0-90c4-001a4bcf6878.html

I located these in a brief online search. Are you going to read them or simply ignore them, as you did in post #59?

You don't seem to be aware of much, why is that? Perhaps it's living within the NY City bubble?

 

This is cute. You throw a home run pitch and yell "I struck him out!"

 

How can anyone trust your historical judgement? You have no idea of recent Chinese history, and neither does any lefty here. I suppose such historical ignorance coupled with an overbearing arrogance is what you get from trusting the NYT.

 

Wallow in sentiment? That was uncalled for. I expressed respect and remembrance of the lives lost that day, and that's your response? You sound like Trump, ugly on the inside.

It is not the job of newspapers to educate our children on the events of 9/11. You are choosing to make a hate-filled political fight over it.

 

I no longer live in NYC and only read the NYT articles piecemeal online. An article on Stalin wouldn't interest me, since I have studied history of that era, and am old enough to have lived through some of what came after Stalin's horrors, like fat little Nikita shouting "We will bury you!"

You seem to look for articles to confirm your bias against the left. I get that, but I don't agree with your interpretation of what is or isn't a "puff piece."

I moved to California at the beginning of 2003, and lived in what was once a very red congressional district. I take all right wing spin with a very large grain of salt, and can spot most cherry picking jobs by the second paragraph. I mostly get my information from sources known to be neutral, like AP and Reuters. If you are interested, I recommend the following website:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/

I will follow your links and read those articles, but I will also look up those sites on the above.

 

Okay, while I respect your sources, these are opinions, not information. The cleveland.com article was written by a sports reporter trying to sound like a psychologist. Speaking for myself, when I hear about a violent crime, my first thought is not about the race of the perpetrator, it's about whether or not that perpetrator has been caught, and if not, is he or she or them in my area.

According to the Washington Post, they ran a series of opinion pieces a couple of years ago. I don't see that as pro-communism on the part of the NYT, but I get how it would seem that way given the subject matter and how it was covered. The WAPO article quotes only little cherry-picked pieces of those opinions. Where is the rest? They didn't even include links. I don't like to judge things without full context, but I guess that's just me.

As for the St. Louis article:

"In crime stories in which authorities seek a fugitive, a racial designation is included only as part of a very detailed description that provides enough information to aid in the capture of a suspect."

Like I stated previously, if the suspect is still at large, law enforcement nearly always includes race in the description.

Your insults aside, with all due respect, I just don't see it the same way you do. I don't see the NYT as pro-communist, and I don't agree with a sports writer's assessment of what most people think about upon initially hearing about a crime.

Oh, and BTW, when I lived in the big city, I found most residents to be fairly well informed. I also lived on a farm in a remote area of Kentucky for a couple of years, long ago, and I can't say the same about the people there.

 

You claimed the moral high ground. I slapped you down. It is the job of newspapers to educate their readers.

Hello? 9/11 was a political act. It was not the work of deranged killers but a cool, methodical act of terrorism. the response to it is necessarily political, too.

If you don't want to talk politics, that's fine. But don't be outraged if you find political talk on a site called "Political Forum."

 

Slapped me down? Sure ... right ... if that makes you feel good about yourself, you go ahead and stick to that. I see it the other way around.

And I never claimed the moral high ground for myself, just pointed out that you aren't standing on it.

It is the job of newspapers to inform, not to educate.

Don't bother to reply. Your complete lack of civility has put you on my "ignore" list.