Can someone add this to Gilfs Dad's list of acheivements please -
If it wasn't for that list of Gilf's Dad's drunken exploits, Chunks would have never tried to "win" that thread and this revelation would have never come to light so Gilf Dad has to get ratings for indirectly exposing "Rapist Dad"
Well it's important, I mean this guy was so angry that the majority wasn't being represented in the Olympic opening ceremony, maybe they should have had some paedos in it?
Well it's important, I mean this guy was so angry that the majority wasn't being represented in the Olympic opening ceremony, maybe they should have had some paedos in it?
They probably lost your number m8 no need to feel bitter
Watching the opening ceremony right now (bored) so far, conspicuous in their absence:
Linford Christie, Oasis, any Garage, any Dubstep, any D&B/Jungle (before anyone cries, all important genres of music in the last 20 years), Emile Heskey.
They broadly covered dance music though, i don't think there would really have been much point in going into every genre and sub genre that came as a consequence of 1988 and acid house, Joe Public doesn't care about that.
i heard oasis are going to be involved in some way in the closing ceremony. Well, Liam Gallager anyway.
How do they get away with this shit? What exactly is the agenda of this paper
While it's very easy to bash it, the Mail exists because people (if you can call them that) want it. If nobody bought it or visited the website, then it wouldn't publish this kind of thing.
This goes for all newspapers. The smug, powered by our own fair-trade sense of self-satisfaction and bollocks to anyone who doesn't live in London of The Guardian.
The Mail largely exists because it stokes outrage, that's all. There are some middle england idiots that buy it sure, but largely this country isn't full of enough bigoted simpletons to make it one of the largest news mediums in the world.
The Mail largely exists because it stokes outrage, that's all. There are some middle england idiots that buy it sure, but largely this country isn't full of enough bigoted simpletons to make it one of the largest news mediums in the world.
not every bigot reads the sun and shouts about it on facebook. They are usually found at dinner parties, country gastropubs and waitrose. To quote p0rt, middle class fux0rs. And there's a lot of them, but 'we' don't hear about them as it's easier and more acceptable to castigate working class/lower middle class bigots than it is in mid middle class upwards.
The Mail largely exists because it stokes outrage, that's all. There are some middle england idiots that buy it sure, but largely this country isn't full of enough bigoted simpletons to make it one of the largest news mediums in the world.
not every bigot reads the sun and shouts about it on facebook. They are usually found at dinner parties, country gastropubs and waitrose. To quote p0rt, middle class fux0rs. And there's a lot of them, but 'we' don't hear about them as it's easier and more acceptable to castigate working class/lower middle class bigots than it is in mid middle class upwards.
I refuse to believe that that is to do with anything but the art of trolling that they have perfected. Perhaps I'm around the wrong people, or have a little bit too much faith in our population (which is still very little) to believe that The Mail's stereotypical reader that everyone takes the piss out of, doesn't really exist in anything like the numbers that their readership suggests.
All you've got to do is look at the comments section of any particularly idiotic article. Always, everytime, the reasoned left leaning counter arguments, picking apart the article, are top voted and the stereotypical mail opinion downvoted to fuck.
< Message edited by Shiverman -- 4/9/2012 3:25:41 AM >
The Mail largely exists because it stokes outrage, that's all. There are some middle england idiots that buy it sure, but largely this country isn't full of enough bigoted simpletons to make it one of the largest news mediums in the world.
not every bigot reads the sun and shouts about it on facebook. They are usually found at dinner parties, country gastropubs and waitrose. To quote p0rt, middle class fux0rs. And there's a lot of them, but 'we' don't hear about them as it's easier and more acceptable to castigate working class/lower middle class bigots than it is in mid middle class upwards.
I refuse to believe that that is to do with anything but the art of trolling that they have perfected. Perhaps I'm around the wrong people, or have a little bit too much faith in our population (which is still very little) to believe that The Mail's stereotypical reader that everyone takes the piss out of, doesn't really exist in anything like the numbers that their readership suggests.
All you've got to do is look at the comments section of any particularly idiotic article. Always, everytime, the reasoned left leaning counter arguments, picking apart the article, are top voted and the stereotypical mail opinion downvoted to fuck.
In terms of the mail website this argument does indeed hold water. Contention is a great way to generate traffic and the Mail have perfected the art. However, they are also have the second highest circulation after The Sun (with both being way more than the rest) You don't buy a paper if you completely disagree with it. We can conclude that there are indeed a lot of right wing loons in this country.
ORIGINAL: nayf not every bigot reads the sun and shouts about it on facebook. They are usually found at dinner parties, country gastropubs and waitrose.
I can vouch for this, plenty of them round here. It's shocking how narrow minded some people are, especially after a few drinks.
ORIGINAL: nayf not every bigot reads the sun and shouts about it on facebook. They are usually found at dinner parties, country gastropubs and waitrose.
I can vouch for this, plenty of them round here. It's shocking how narrow minded some people are, especially after a few drinks.
Generally middle-aged men in middle management, thinking they're Jeremy Clarkson. Factor in that there's also a readership for the Express and the Daily Star, hardly shining examples of the left leaning press, one can conclude there's plenty of cunts to lap this shite up.
I have gone on record earlier in this thread as stating that this article is disgusting, but I also intensely dislike this pervasive intolerant liberal/left leaning attitude typified by nayf above that anyone that reads a paper with right wing leanings is by definition a 'cunt'.
Some people don't buy a newspaper for daily ideological briefings to top up their inherent levels of bigotry, they might buy it cos they 'like the sport', or they like the way the Mail is formatted. Whatever you think of its politics, it has a reputation in the media for being one of the best edited papers which is probably a big driver for its popularity.
Just because you don't agree with the content, does not make its entire readership 'cunts'. Throughly intolerant and frankly ignorant opinion.
I have gone on record earlier in this thread as stating that this article is disgusting, but I also intensely dislike this pervasive intolerant liberal/left leaning attitude typified by nayf above that anyone that reads a paper with right wing leanings is by definition a 'cunt'.
Some people don't buy a newspaper for daily ideological briefings to top up their inherent levels of bigotry, they might buy it cos they 'like the sport', or they like the way the Mail is formatted. Whatever you think of its politics, it has a reputation in the media for being one of the best edited papers which is probably a big driver for its popularity.
Just because you don't agree with the content, does not make its entire readership 'cunts'. Throughly intolerant and frankly ignorant opinion.
You chose to ignore the bit where I slagged off The Guardian then, eh?
quote:
Throughly intolerant and frankly ignorant opinion.
quote:
Throughly intolerant and frankly ignorant opinion.
quote:
Throughly intolerant and frankly ignorant opinion.
The reality is that I dislike most humans, and the way news is nothing to do with actual news. I was going to say "anymore" but the reality is that it's always been this way, it's just that it's so in your face and obvious these days - whether you're from the left or the right.
As it happens I headed away from the left when it became - as you hint at, quite rightly - that it became so prescriptive; it's not so much about liberty as diktats from George Monbiot and Polly Toynbee about how we should be living according to some inane code dreamt up in some Islington dinner party over fair trade (but imported thousands of miles at huge cost to the environment, kiss my bitter ironies) vegan food, and anything else instantly makes you Jeremy Clarkson covered in flaming oil beating baby seals to death with copies of Mein Kampf.
< Message edited by nayf -- 5/9/2012 12:44:05 AM >
I have gone on record earlier in this thread as stating that this article is disgusting, but I also intensely dislike this pervasive intolerant liberal/left leaning attitude typified by nayf above that anyone that reads a paper with right wing leanings is by definition a 'cunt'.
Some people don't buy a newspaper for daily ideological briefings to top up their inherent levels of bigotry, they might buy it cos they 'like the sport', or they like the way the Mail is formatted. Whatever you think of its politics, it has a reputation in the media for being one of the best edited papers which is probably a big driver for its popularity.
Just because you don't agree with the content, does not make its entire readership 'cunts'. Throughly intolerant and frankly ignorant opinion.
You chose to ignore the bit where I slagged off The Guardian then, eh?
quote:
Throughly intolerant and frankly ignorant opinion.
quote:
Throughly intolerant and frankly ignorant opinion.
quote:
Throughly intolerant and frankly ignorant opinion.
I hadn't read that quote, but it doesn't particularly change anything to me. You are slagging off the newspaper, which would be fair enough in either the Guardian or the Mail's case as they are institutions who should be accountable for their own content but you aren't calling the collective readership of the Guardian 'cunts'.
I have gone on record earlier in this thread as stating that this article is disgusting, but I also intensely dislike this pervasive intolerant liberal/left leaning attitude typified by nayf above that anyone that reads a paper with right wing leanings is by definition a 'cunt'.
Some people don't buy a newspaper for daily ideological briefings to top up their inherent levels of bigotry, they might buy it cos they 'like the sport', or they like the way the Mail is formatted. Whatever you think of its politics, it has a reputation in the media for being one of the best edited papers which is probably a big driver for its popularity.
Just because you don't agree with the content, does not make its entire readership 'cunts'. Throughly intolerant and frankly ignorant opinion.
You chose to ignore the bit where I slagged off The Guardian then, eh?
quote:
Throughly intolerant and frankly ignorant opinion.
quote:
Throughly intolerant and frankly ignorant opinion.
quote:
Throughly intolerant and frankly ignorant opinion.
I hadn't read that quote, but it doesn't particularly change anything to me. You are slagging off the newspaper, which would be fair enough in either the Guardian or the Mail's case as they are institutions who should be accountable for their own content but you aren't calling the collective readership of the Guardian 'cunts'.
A client I was working with on the weekend left a copy of the Mail on Sunday in the office and I came in today to find my two new colleagues thought it was mine and were concerned that I might be a massive racist.
I explained that the Mail wasn't mine but that I was a massive racist all the same.
A client I was working with on the weekend left a copy of the Mail on Sunday in the office and I came in today to find my two new colleagues thought it was mine and were concerned that I might be a massive racist.
I explained that the Mail wasn't mine but that I was a massive racist all the same.
it's reassuring to know there are still decent, honest racists out there that don't read that tripe.
I hadn't read that quote, but it doesn't particularly change anything to me. You are slagging off the newspaper, which would be fair enough in either the Guardian or the Mail's case as they are institutions who should be accountable for their own content but you aren't calling the collective readership of the Guardian 'cunts'.
A lazy and inane generalisation.
It's an exaggeration, but are you telling me that if you found out one of your mates, or work mates was a serial Mail reader, you wouldn't at the very least find it a bit perplexing?
I usually buy a copy of the sun on the way to work, simply for the sports pages especially the football, i literally do not even turn to the front of the paper and read through it....shoot me down
I usually buy a copy of the sun on the way to work, simply for the sports pages especially the football, i literally do not even turn to the front of the paper and read through it....shoot me down
There's more of an argument with The Sun because their sports pages are actually good. There is very little to support the Mail. There is an element of, if you don't agree with the majority of the content should you really be supporting it with your custom.
I'm a hypocrite though. I hate buying Murdoch press but i still subscribe to Sky.
On the wider point, it's not really about right wing/left wing as such. To me, not only is the Mail right wing, it's also irresponsible, sensationalist, and just generally evil. Times and Telegraph are solid right wing newspapers, even though i don't particularly like either set of owners or their politics.
Printable Version
RE: The Daily Mail's rascist far right view of the Olym... - 
.jpg)
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread