Firm Apologises For Daily Mail Ad.

[Funkycoldribena]

"Viciously attacking"
Sounds very hatey to me.

[irocfan]

Funkycoldribena said:

"Viciously attacking"
Sounds very hatey to me.

Ahhh but it's ok when it's done against the evil right

[Funkycoldribena]

irocfan said:

Ahhh but it's ok when it's done against the evil right

I was going to start stopfundingtheguardian but no one reads bloody reads it.
Think Betterware get more readers.

[Mark Benson]

Lord Marylebone said:

Tl;DR: The Daily Mail is fabricated hate speech, yet terrifyingly it poses as a newspaper and is consumed as such by millions of people. Therefore attacking it is fine by me as society would be a less hateful place without it.

Attacking a newspaper you've deemed hateful is OK.

What about books? Must be a few of those you disagree with and think are harmful - Katie Hopkins' latest perhaps - we could have public bonfires and everything.



FWIW I think the Daily Mail is a strag, so logically I don't read it.

I don't however want to go down the route of having self-appointed arbiters of what's acceptable deciding what should be allowed or not. The reasons ought to be obvious to anyone.

[Shakermaker]

Funkycoldribena said:

I was going to start stopfundingtheguardian but no one reads bloody reads it.
Think Betterware get more readers.

Is Betterware the one that leaves a catalogue on your doorstep that you don't want, and then gets annoyed at you for throwing it away with the recycling along with all other junkmail?

The ferocity of the attack I got for doing that was worse than any terrorist encounter I have ever had. (total terrorist encounters: 0) and leads me to believe that Betterware is also peddles hatred amongst its readers.

[Funkycoldribena]

Shakermaker said:

Is Betterware the one that leaves a catalogue on your doorstep that you don't want, and then gets annoyed at you for throwing it away with the recycling along with all other junkmail?

The ferocity of the attack I got for doing that was worse than any terrorist encounter I have ever had. (total terrorist encounters: 0) and leads me to believe that Betterware is also peddles hatred amongst its readers.

That's the one.
An array of vicious implements,chemicals, compression stockings, everything you need for a one man war.
Delivered to your door,kids could get hold of it.

[WinstonWolf]

Lord Marylebone said:

Tl;DR: The Daily Mail is fabricated hate speech, yet terrifyingly it poses as a newspaper and is consumed as such by millions of people. Therefore attacking it is fine by me as society would be a less hateful place without it.

So you condone viciously attacking it to get rid of hate. Hmmm

[Disastrous]

Mark Benson said:

Lord Marylebone said:

Tl;DR: The Daily Mail is fabricated hate speech, yet terrifyingly it poses as a newspaper and is consumed as such by millions of people. Therefore attacking it is fine by me as society would be a less hateful place without it.

Attacking a newspaper you've deemed hateful is OK.

What about books? Must be a few of those you disagree with and think are harmful - Katie Hopkins' latest perhaps - we could have public bonfires and everything.



FWIW I think the Daily Mail is a strag, so logically I don't read it.

I don't however want to go down the route of having self-appointed arbiters of what's acceptable deciding what should be allowed or not. The reasons ought to be obvious to anyone.

It's a fair point and I sort of see where you are coming from but where do you stand on Popper's paradox of tolerance?



I would argue the DM is not a tolerant institution thus it becomes acceptable to argue against it...

[XM5ER]

Funkycoldribena said:

irocfan said:

Ahhh but it's ok when it's done against the evil right

I was going to start stopfundingtheguardian but no one reads bloody reads it.
Think Betterware get more readers.

I think you should, just for sts and giggles.

[XM5ER]

Disastrous said:

It's a fair point and I sort of see where you are coming from but where do you stand on Popper's paradox of tolerance?



I would argue the DM is not a tolerant institution thus it becomes acceptable to argue against it...

Do you think the same standard should be applied to the far left and islamic fundamentalists?

Edited by XM5ER on Wednesday 6th December 11:04

[Mark Benson]

Disastrous said:

I would argue the DM is not a tolerant institution thus it becomes acceptable to argue against it...

Argue, yes. I do it all the time with my mother who's an occasional DM reader.

Ban, censor, actively seek to deny revenue? Not if they're printing material which the law deems acceptable, no. They're a newspaper, not an institution.

You think the DM is an intolerant institution so you want to use Popper's argument against them. I think they're a populist strag that reflects it's readership. As are most newspapers - they all have a readership that they cultivate by publishing articles that chime with their worldview, left or right.

Popper was talking about Nazism, not a crappy newspaper.

[otolith]

Popper's argument - that a tolerant society may need to protect itself from those who are intolerant - is an argument for state restrictions on the freedom of expression. We have those restrictions. They are applied through the law, under the oversight of the judiciary. It is not - though it is often cited in that context - an argument for "punching Nazis". It's not an argument for individuals or groups setting themselves up as the intolerant watchmen of intolerance because that raises the question of who watches them.

[Disastrous]

Broadly agree - I don’t want to ban the DM either. I do think/wish it was more openly ridiculed for what it stands for though. When that happens then banning becomes pointless anyway.

I am strongly against how it tries to stir up hate, and yes I apply that principle to the extremist Islam, the Left and Right equally. I think it should be held to greater account for the feeling it stirs up, and I despair how it seems to have managed to get into the hands of otherwise perfectly nice, though perhaps less bright, members of the Great British public, seemingly as agit-prop by stealth.

[Derek Smith]

Disastrous said:

Broadly agree - I don’t want to ban the DM either. I do think/wish it was more openly ridiculed for what it stands for though. When that happens then banning becomes pointless anyway.

I am strongly against how it tries to stir up hate, and yes I apply that principle to the extremist Islam, the Left and Right equally. I think it should be held to greater account for the feeling it stirs up, and I despair how it seems to have managed to get into the hands of otherwise perfectly nice, though perhaps less bright, members of the Great British public, seemingly as agit-prop by stealth.

A coffee shop I use in town has a number of DM readers. Most are of a certain age. The majority look mildly affluent, middle class if you must. They tend to fiddle with their glasses as they read.

There's a group of us in my road, all of us of a certain age, or at least approaching it, who get together on occasion. Only one of us voted brexit (he thinks his wife did as well, but all the rest of us doubt it) and he gets the DM. We steer clear of the subject as much as possible but alcohol loosens tongues. I'm tee-total so I get the job of trying to head if off.

He is firmly of the opinion that leaving the EU means we'll have fewer Asians and Arabs. He'd read it in the DM apparently. One of the others suggested that, with the shortfall of EU workers, we were more likely to opt for Asia, particularly India, as a source of labour. It didn't end well.

[irocfan]

Derek Smith said:

He is firmly of the opinion that leaving the EU means we'll have fewer Asians and Arabs. He'd read it in the DM apparently. One of the others suggested that, with the shortfall of EU workers, we were more likely to opt for Asia, particularly India, as a source of labour. It didn't end well.

interestingly enough I always assumed that Brexit would lead to more Commonwealth immigration and less 'white' immigration. Sadly enough I know people who also think the same and that is why they voted to remain....

[Second Best]

I have been unfortunate enough to read a few DM articles in the past. From what I can gather, there are two demographics that read it - the elderly, who think saying "oh, you're a coloured chap, do you know Akbar from the hospital?" is acceptable, and the "full time yummy mummy", who has nothing to do except read about celebrities and get angry at the successful brigade because she hasn't got what they have.

[Norfolkit]

Derek Smith said:

Puggit said:

Still annoyed with them for bowing down to the hate group that is trying to curtail free speech.

I can't see the threat to free speech. It is people exercising their right to protest. Whether we agree with their aims or their methods, what they are doing is legal. I'd say it is good for people to get involved. This is effective, from their point of view, use of the internet. It's neither clever nor subtle, nor is it an attack on free speech.

A hate group? A bit harsh. A bit of fun group perhaps or a group trying to use what little leverage they have.

If they were banned from such action, then it would be curtailing free speech.

Absolutely wrong in every respect Derek.
How is an unelected, unregulated, unanswerable, self appointed arbiter of what's acceptable as free speech not a threat to free speech.
Who defines free speech, them?

A bit of a fun group? Any group with a political agenda and the self appointed power to try to shut down free speech should never be that lightly dismissed.

"If they were banned from such action, then it would be curtailing free speech.". Pot, kettle, black, they are trying to curtail free speech so they can't really argue if they get a bit of attention along the same lines. The real answer is, stop trying to control free speech then you get the same privilege.

A free press is an absolute must in any democratic country, these people disagree, maybe they don't believe in democracy (unless it's doing exactly what they want).

Curtail freedom of the press at extreme peril, they're one of the few safeguards you've got against a government going mental.

“I wholly disapprove of what you say and will defend to the death your right to say it.” is as valid today as it ever was.

If you disagree with someone's point of view, shoot them down with a reasoned argument, do not ever deny them their right to say what their point of view is, argue, persuade, reason but do not deny, that way lies totalitarianism.

Edited by Norfolkit on Thursday 7th December 03:37

[BlackLabel]

A boxer has been suspended after praising the Sun. Strange.

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/boxing/boxer-...

However if you praise Robert Mugabe and make comments about the ‘superior black race’ then the same employer does nothing.

http://www.worldboxingnews.net/2017/12/30/news/fan...

[Countdown]

BlackLabel said:

A boxer has been suspended after praising the Sun. Strange.

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/boxing/boxer-...

However if you praise Robert Mugabe and make comments about the ‘superior black race’ then the same employer does nothing.

http://www.worldboxingnews.net/2017/12/30/news/fan...

Nothing "strange" about it. It's purely down to how much profit the two respective boxers generate for Matchroom.

[mx5nut]

Virgin Trains to stop selling or giving away the Daily Mail.

Oh dear, how sad, never mind.