How can something be "factually accurate" ... but still called "misinformation."

[Deplorable Yankee]

NYT reporter calls 4 accurate articles "right wing misinformation." Gets called out, admits they're "factually accurate" ... but says they're still "misinformation."

Nov 11th, 2020 7:38 am
Nearly two years ago, the esteemed Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez told us that something can be factually false but morally true:

"I think that there's a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right," said AOC.

The statement rightfully drew widespread criticism. Even the Left-of-Marx Washington Post said she has a "tendency to exaggerate or misstate basic facts." But AOC wanted us to know that we shouldn't let things like mathematical statistics and objective truths make us "miss the forest for the trees." In essence, she makes the argument that one can be wrong and tell falsehoods as long as one's cause is just. The ends justify the means.

Even the Post called this "the slipperiest of slopes — the kind of attitude you can use to justify pretty much anything to yourself" (they then went on to slam Trump).

Today, however, one reporter at the New York Times has expressed the inverse of AOC's statement: that something can be factually true but morally wrong and thus should be labeled "misinformation."

Read it all at America's most trusted news source

NYT reporter calls 4 accurate articles "right wing misinformation." Gets called out, admits they're "factually accurate" ... but says they're still "misinformation." 🤔

Nearly two years ago, the esteemed Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez told us that something can be factually false but morally true:

notthebee.com

The left and establishment twats are getting antsy

 

[night_son]

How can any revolutionary madness the democrats and deep state republicans pull still surprise you? THIS is exactly why THEY are winning and keep on winning and will continue to win over sanity and fact and reason; because too many Americans would rather act shocked than actually do something to stop them.

 

[edthecynic]

NYT reporter calls 4 accurate articles "right wing misinformation." Gets called out, admits they're "factually accurate" ... but says they're still "misinformation."

Nov 11th, 2020 7:38 am
Nearly two years ago, the esteemed Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez told us that something can be factually false but morally true:

"I think that there's a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right," said AOC.

The statement rightfully drew widespread criticism. Even the Left-of-Marx Washington Post said she has a "tendency to exaggerate or misstate basic facts." But AOC wanted us to know that we shouldn't let things like mathematical statistics and objective truths make us "miss the forest for the trees." In essence, she makes the argument that one can be wrong and tell falsehoods as long as one's cause is just. The ends justify the means.

Even the Post called this "the slipperiest of slopes — the kind of attitude you can use to justify pretty much anything to yourself" (they then went on to slam Trump).

Today, however, one reporter at the New York Times has expressed the inverse of AOC's statement: that something can be factually true but morally wrong and thus should be labeled "misinformation."

Read it all at America's most trusted news source

NYT reporter calls 4 accurate articles "right wing misinformation." Gets called out, admits they're "factually accurate" ... but says they're still "misinformation." 🤔

Nearly two years ago, the esteemed Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez told us that something can be factually false but morally true:

notthebee.com

The left and establishment twats are getting antsy

The most professional way to lie is to tell just enough "truth" to mislead, and then shut up. AKA, lie by a half truth.

A half-truth is a whole lie.
- Yiddish Proverb

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

How can any revolutionary madness the democrats and deep state republicans pull still surprise you? THIS is exactly why THEY are winning and keep on winning and will continue to win over sanity and fact and reason; because too many Americans would rather act shocked than actually do something to stop them.

I'm not surprised by anything they do ....ive been watching em for to long

Millions of others have woken up ....young righties are much more active than they've ever been and they're just getting started ...but
Is it to late.?......... probably ..is it hopless ....probably not entirely

To many years right wingers spent on that forced civil high road have cost us the "institutions " ...that have been marched through and corrupted

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

The most professional way to lie is to tell just enough "truth" to mislead, and then shut up. AKA, lie by a half truth.

A half-truth is a whole lie.
- Yiddish Proverb

You nazi fags are pros at that

 

[edthecynic]

The most professional way to lie is to tell just enough "truth" to mislead, and then shut up. AKA, lie by a half truth.

A half-truth is a whole lie.
- Yiddish Proverb

You nazi fags are pros at that

PROJECTION!

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Nearly two years ago, the esteemed Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez told us that something can be factually false but morally true:

"I think that there's a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right," said AOC.

Today, however, one reporter at the New York Times has expressed the inverse of AOC's statement: that something can be factually true but morally wrong and thus should be labeled "misinformation."

It's what happens when you allow the morally-depraved to define morality.

When someone's concept of “morality” is irreconcilable with objective facts, then you have to know that that person's concept is deeply defective.

It's how we get such bullshit as “transgenderism”—based on the premise that even though someone is undeniably, ads a matter of immutable scientific fact, male, that “morality” compels us to recognize him as female, and to allow him unfettered access to women's restrooms, dressing rooms, locker rooms, communal showers, etc. It's how we get society compelled to accept and treat a depraved homosexual mockery of marriage as being in any way comparable to genuine marriage, and how we get to allowing these degenerate freaks to adopt children. It's how we win up with the homosexual/transsexual/pedophile agenda being openly promoted to young children in public schools and libraries.

In essence, she makes the argument that one can be wrong and tell falsehoods as long as one's cause is just.

I think that it ought to be obvious to any sane person, that a cause that requires falsehoods to be told in order to support it is not a just cause. The need for falsehoods ought to be seen as prima facie proof that any cause that requires them is inherently unjust.