NY Times caught once again promoting leftist propaganda

No, it is not. What a poor comparison that is.

 

Trump is like that in terms of Mao. Historically important yet a greatly flawed man.

 

You are a man who knows nothing of history. Zero. Nada. A big goose egg.

 

The NYT didn't say he was a bad guy, which I think they should have. The NYT has a long tradition of white washing Communist crimes including, most infamously, denying Stalin's engineered famine in the Ukraine.

In any case, the NYT deleted the tweet in question. They don't want to defend it, why do you?

 

Exactly.

As far as the Mao reference, the NYT was spot-on.

It is (literally) the height of RW Snowflakery to claim that there was anything "wrong" (whatsoever) with the Mao characterization.

 

Who? Mao? Why not? I've known many leftists who greatly admired Mao.

 

The NYT succumbed to RW Snowflakery then by deleting the tweet with the admission that "it lacked historical context."

Why are you defending the NYT when it is unwilling to defend itself?

 

I am not a leftist. Everyone who does not like Trump or Republicans in general is not a leftist. I have known many real liberals in my life and have only met a few way back in the ‘60s who liked Mao.

 

Wrong. Telling people a third of the story at best and expecting people to let it pass without comment is what's moronic. And making excuses for such nonsense may be worse.

 

Yes it is please read my response to do light.

 

Several on the far right above do not know what is revisionism then from what he posts above.

I invite all here to review the term. Revisionism itself is a process and change/lack of it is a product. For instance, the far right has tried to revise the role of the GOP in the civil rights movement in the 1960s, the Southern Strategy, and that the KKK were somehow then and now not conservatives (then Dems generally, now usually GOP).

revisionism
noun [ U ]
POLITICS, SOCIAL SCIENCE

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/revisionism

asking questions about and trying to change existing beliefs about how events happened or what their importance or meaning is:
historical revisionism

 

He was a great revolutionary figure which squashed a nascent liberal democracy to usher in a totalitarian system which killed tens of millions and imprisoned tens of millions more.

Doesn't the characterization of "great" strike you as inappropriate here given the historical context.

The NYT itself did, deleting the tweet saying:

"We’ve deleted a previous tweet about Mao Zedong that lacked critical historical context."

Why are you defending the NYT when it won't even defend itself.

 

Airplanes did bring down the towers. I was there, I watched it happen. How is that propaganda?

As for Mao, he was a "great revolutionary figure." That doesn't mean he was a good man, just that he made a deep impact. That also is not propaganda.

Neither of these statements were "leftist." Just factual. Righties sure do get their boxers in a bunch over nothing.

 

You're all going on and on, back and forth, about the second half of the OP. What about his claim that airplanes bringing down the WTC towers being leftist propaganda? Am I really the only one taking exception to that?

 

Anyone who states that planes bringing down the Towers is "leftist propaganda" can be ignored.

 

It's deeply insulting to those of us who lived through that day.

 

It is propaganda because the article failed to mention who was flying the planes.[/quote]

It is propaganda because it failed to mention the outcome of the revolution

They are lies of omission the most insidious sort of lies. They are lies which support the leftist cause.

"A lie of omission is a lie in which someone deliberately withholds pertinent details about something in order to skew someone else's idea of the truth or engender a misconception. Although a lie of omission is not technically a lie because it contains no false information, it is still referred to as one colloquially because it is deliberately misleading."

https://www.reference.com/government-politics/lie-omission-c9740e1f75e5556c

 

Pycckia's definition of 'propagada' is personal and particular, not objective and exact.

 

I don't understand your point regarding Mao Zedong? The adjective 'great' has several meanings, some good and some not good. Mao Zedong was absolutely one of the most despicable revolutionary leaders in modern history. Whether someone uses the adjective 'great', 'significant' or 'exceptional', it's all the same. It simply is what it is. There are only a handful of despotic leaders that could be compared with Mao Zedong.

adjective
adjective: great; comparative adjective: greater; superlative adjective: greatest

1. 1.
   of an extent, amount, or intensity considerably above the normal or average.
   "the article was of great interest"
   synonyms: considerable, substantial, pronounced, sizeable, significant, appreciable, serious, exceptional, inordinate, extraordinary, special More
   
   
2. 2.
   of ability, quality, or eminence considerably above the normal or average.
   "the great Italian conductor"
   synonyms: prominent, eminent, preeminent, important, distinguished, august, illustrious, nobl

 

The airplanes flew themselves into the towers, just as trucks purposely drive through crowds, right? And we can't forget about how guns are always shooting people.

Why do many of those on the left shy away from assigning blame to those who commit the crimes when the bad guy is from a what they consider a 'marginalized' group? This intersectional nonsense has made many on the left so politically correct that they refuse to acknowledge that Islamic extremists were responsible for 9-11.

Also, we know that many Democratic Party operatives who pose as journalists admire Mao; from prior puff pieces to the Obama White House placing an ornament with Mao's photo on their Christmas tree, many leftists refuse to condemn his slaughter of millions of his citizens.

Is it an ideology thing with you guys?

 

My definition of propaganda is "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view."

The NYT, through their lies of omission, published misleading information to promote the leftist view of the world.

What is your definition?

 

"intersectional"? Some apparently have no idea what they are talking about. There was no grand conspiracy, there was no 'leftist' cabal. Some baddies from al-quada's jihadists formulated an amazing plan then carried it out. Any who try to make it out that some other 'baddies' from 'our' side was directing them needs to be pointed out and marginalized, then asked 'why' they are doing that.

 

Yes, that is exactly what you are doing.

 

What misleading information have I given here?

 

It is propaganda because it failed to mention the outcome of the revolution

They are lies of omission the most insidious sort of lies. They are lies which support the leftist cause.

"A lie of omission is a lie in which someone deliberately withholds pertinent details about something in order to skew someone else's idea of the truth or engender a misconception. Although a lie of omission is not technically a lie because it contains no false information, it is still referred to as one colloquially because it is deliberately misleading."

https://www.reference.com/government-politics/lie-omission-c9740e1f75e5556c[/QUOTE]
Good grief.

Perhaps the NYT just assumes that readers are knowledgeable and don't require every detail. Silly of them to make such an assumption, in light of some of the comments here.