People don’t understand what I was getting at.
In my book any furthering of any position is propaganda.  It’s not just when you do it in a dishonest or underhanded way.  That’s the old-school definition.
Now what started this was the bald assertion that all most messaging is propaganda.  Okay.  People went with it, including the person I replied to.  And that’s not objectionable according to my own definition.  But if it is only “nefarious” messaging which is propaganda then you set yourself up for throwing stones in a glasshouse.  Because a lot of comments (including the one I replied to) contain at least assumptions that further a world view.  I don’t have to make an outright statement.  I just have to hint at an assumption.  And yeah, that’s what they did too.