Palimpsest  

Go Back   Palimpsest > User Forums > Palimpton Crescent


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 27th Oct 2006, 11:16   #21
leyla
Senior Palimpsester
could do better
 
leyla's Avatar
 
Join Date: 4 Sep 2006
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 1,792
Default Re: Daily Mail Baiting

Yes Nou, I was being ironic. But even enough grammatical errors to give Lynn Truss a heart attack don't seem to be enough. Maybe next time you should use a few of my pet hates, ie it's and its used wrongly - eg 'Its preposterous that its seen as acceptable for a couple to neglect they're responsibility. Marriage is the basis of civilised society and it's foundations are rocked to it's core by this kind of filth.'
Though then again, would a tabloid reader be able to manage long words like civilised and foundations?
leyla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th Nov 2006, 13:12   #22
John Self
Administrator
suffers from smallness of vision
 
John Self's Avatar
 
Join Date: 27 Jun 2003
Location: Belfast
Posts: 15,939
Default Re: Daily Mail Baiting

I've been keeping an eye on the Daily Mail site and it really is a depressing experience. It's astonishing how many of their readers really do apparently think in phrases like "PC zealots" and "left-wing BBC." It's not so much the fact that they're predictable and wrong that bugs me so much as the fact that they're so intellectually lazy. Does the woman who said on one story that it's Christians who are having their rights infringed (by the proposed introduction of regulations which will make it illegal for businesses to refuse to provide services on the basis of sexual orientation), really think that? Or really think it's worth saying?

At first I thought the reason why their stories are overwhelmed with comments from the swivel-eyed brigade was because that's the constitution of their readers. But now I'm not so sure. Over the past week numerous comments I've submitted, reasoned and non-strident but opposing the official Daily Mail line, have not been passed by moderators (others have). In each topic there are just a few comments against the prevailing wind. Could it be that comment here is not free, and that they deliberately withhold comments for fear of having more than a handful sane and liberal views?

Let's try an experiment and find out. Go to the story mentioned above and submit a comment against the view that prevails. I've tried twice without success. At present there are 26 comments, of which 20 are of the "how dare these homosexualists ask us to stop stoning them to death?" variety. Let's see how the proportion changes, or doesn't, as we all submit our views...
__________________
Reading Vasily Grossman, Life and Fate | Asylum | Book List
John Self is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th Nov 2006, 13:35   #23
Kimberley
Senior Palimpsester
could do better
 
Kimberley's Avatar
 
Join Date: 15 Aug 2006
Location: near London
Posts: 1,902
Default Re: Daily Mail Baiting

That's a tricky one there, JS. I'm having difficulty knowing what to say hahah. I had my usual chuckle about the 'silent majority' comment though. Silent???
Kimberley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th Nov 2006, 13:41   #24
Hekaterine
Palimpsestarian
laughs in the face of fear
 
Hekaterine's Avatar
 
Join Date: 14 Jun 2006
Location: Afloat!
Posts: 966
Default Re: Daily Mail Baiting

I've submitted one, JS so I'll let you know if it gets through.
Hekaterine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th Nov 2006, 13:46   #25
John Self
Administrator
suffers from smallness of vision
 
John Self's Avatar
 
Join Date: 27 Jun 2003
Location: Belfast
Posts: 15,939
Default Re: Daily Mail Baiting

Wel, you could agree with the Daily Mail line if you wish, Kimberley, but then we might have to give you a special avatar...

The 'silent majority' point is well made. It's a particular symptom of Daily Mail readers and those of a similar mindset that they think they are an oppressed majority. Never mind that all professional opinion polls of social issues in the UK show that we are essentially a liberal country on all major right-wing-hot-button issues: abortion, gay rights, race, etc. Indeed I was interested to see a poll which indicated that in the 2005 election, only 50% of Daily Mail readers voted Conservative (and no, the other 50% didn't vote UKIP). That of course was back in the good old days of Michael Howard when conservatism and Dailymailism were closely aligned, not David Cameron who most Daily Mail website commentators seem to think is practically a communist.
__________________
Reading Vasily Grossman, Life and Fate | Asylum | Book List
John Self is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th Nov 2006, 14:26   #26
Lucoid
Senior Palimpsester
could do better
 
Lucoid's Avatar
 
Join Date: 17 Apr 2003
Location: England
Posts: 1,672
Default Re: Daily Mail Baiting

Quote:
Let's try an experiment and find out. Go to the story mentioned above and submit a comment against the view that prevails. I've tried twice without success. At present there are 26 comments, of which 20 are of the "how dare these homosexualists ask us to stop stoning them to death?" variety. Let's see how the proportion changes, or doesn't, as we all submit our views...
Damnit, tried to post put couldn't see the picture code thingy, so my expressions of sadness at how the church leaders can't 'follow the Lord's example' in loving everyone ('after all, we are all equal in the eyes of God') are lost to the ether, destined never to make it onto the board.
__________________
Libraries gave us power.
Lucoid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th Nov 2006, 14:35   #27
Kimberley
Senior Palimpsester
could do better
 
Kimberley's Avatar
 
Join Date: 15 Aug 2006
Location: near London
Posts: 1,902
Default Re: Daily Mail Baiting

I have to say in my own defence that I wasn't so much agreeing with them as being unsure where to start. Hahah. Actually, one thing is I don't think churches should be forced to marry couples whose relationship is against their principles any more than they should be able to prevent them getting married anywhere else. I couldn't get married in a catholic church because I'm divorced but that's their loss, not mine. I have three beautiful sons who would have been assets to the Catholic church, who they won't get their hands on now. I think what I'm getting at is, for me at least, this is far too complicated an issue to try explaining my perspective in a one paragraph reply intended for readers with a grade 6 reading level.

PS does this make me boggle-eyed? I hope not, because I quite like the avatar I already have.

Last edited by Kimberley; 28th Nov 2006 at 14:43. Reason: to add the postscript
Kimberley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th Nov 2006, 14:42   #28
Hekaterine
Palimpsestarian
laughs in the face of fear
 
Hekaterine's Avatar
 
Join Date: 14 Jun 2006
Location: Afloat!
Posts: 966
Default Re: Daily Mail Baiting

I don't think churches will be forced to marry couples whose relationships are against their principles though - homoexual couples aren't allowed to marry per se anyway in this country.

This is fairly typical of the sort of overreaction that accompanies new equalities legislation all the time.

When the Disability Discrimination Act came in 10 years ago I heard employers banging on about being 'forced' to take on people who would run their business into the ground and they didn't even have the Lord on their side or disliking homosexuality as an excuse.
Hekaterine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th Nov 2006, 14:47   #29
ono no komachi
Senior Palimpsester
has the freedom of Palimp City
 
ono no komachi's Avatar
 
Join Date: 14 Aug 2003
Location: Gloucestershire
Posts: 3,467
Default Re: Daily Mail Baiting

Well, I posted mine about half an hour ago - no sign of it so far.

Quote:
"Christian hoteliers will be forced to rent rooms to gay couples." And so they should be. It is not within the rights of a hotelier to pass judgement on their clientele. As has been mentioned earlier, for them to refuse service to gay couples because they are gay is equivalent to refusing service to blacks or Asians.

Yet there seem to be a number of people who believe they should be allowed to do just that, which is exactly why this kind of legislation is required, so that those who wish to discriminate find they are not allowed to do so. Unfortunately it is impossible to legislate against people's prejudices, it is only possible to legislate against their actions.

Lord knows I am no fan of this New Labour government, but in this instance they are taking a stand against unfairness and prejudice and therefore are to be applauded for it.
ono no komachi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th Nov 2006, 15:03   #30
John Self
Administrator
suffers from smallness of vision
 
John Self's Avatar
 
Join Date: 27 Jun 2003
Location: Belfast
Posts: 15,939
Default Re: Daily Mail Baiting

Not bad, ono! If you'd said "I'm no fan of Tony and his cronies" or "PC Bliar" then you might have stood a greater chance of getting through...
__________________
Reading Vasily Grossman, Life and Fate | Asylum | Book List
John Self is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ken Livingstone's Nazi Jibe John Self Politics & Society 10 6th Oct 2006 10:00
Annoy the Daily Mail John Self General Chat 0 29th Nov 2004 12:22


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 19:49.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.