Daily Mail or Stormfront?

(17 Posts)
ttosca Mon 28-Oct-13 21:40:16

Upvoted comments on Mail Online versus
posts on neo-Nazi message board Stormfront.

Can you tell which is which?

toys.usvsth3m.com/daily-mail-or-stormfront/

I got 4/10 smile

MiniTheMinx Tue 29-Oct-13 11:47:36

9/10

I strongly dislike the Daily Mail but I suspect that you could cherry-pick that sort of comment from pretty much anywhere, including here.

I think you could definitely cherry-pick from CIF too.

orwellian Sat 09-Nov-13 12:28:48

You could get the same result using The Guardian and their bogeymen.

ironman Sat 23-Nov-13 12:11:07

Since when diid telling the truth become a crime, well it apparently has.
Many of those living in the middle east are tribal. Iraq is tribal as are those in Afghanistan and many other countries.
Saying that we don't want certain people in this country only reflects public opinion. The Daily Mail is the only paper with the guts to say it!

The Guardian a snivelling fascist rag only has a readership of 75.000 a day, as opposed to the Daily Mails readership of 2.5 million. So we can ascertain from that the readership must all be horrible, suggesting that they are like Stromfront is nonsense.

Must stop and have a cup of tea and biscuit.

KissesBreakingWave Sat 23-Nov-13 12:30:07

ABC figure for the Guardian is actually 200,000. Daily Mail is 2,000,000, although it's padded with so-called 'bulks' - copies heavily discounted, given away free etc. ironman, both the figures you quoted were wrong. Also, you should look up what the word 'fascist' actually means before flinging it about.

ttosca Sat 23-Nov-13 15:07:15

lol - the Guardian is fascist? smile Is it their commitment to social liberalism which gives it away?

ironman Sat 23-Nov-13 22:08:12

ttosca The Guardians commitment to social liberalism? I think they may be too liberal and so will many of MN's when I've finished this passage.

The journalist Jon Henley writes on the 3rd January of this year, the following; The Jimmy Saville scandal caused public revulsion, but experts disagree about what causes paedophilia - and even how much harm it causes.
This absolute nutter then goes onto to state his case for more understanding by quoting various 'experts' and 'research' that shows that in some cases that sexual abuse of children does not harm them!

What planet do the journalists at the Guardian live on? For that matter the
editors?

Are the articles put forward by journalists on this 'very liberal' paper not censored?

Who in their right mind would buy a paper that writes these type of articles?

I dislike the Guardian and now anyone can see why!

KissesBreakingWave Sun 24-Nov-13 02:45:10

That was the strapline, not part of the article. Which was a review of thirty years of research on both sides of the question and draws, on my first reading, no actual conclusion.

Here's a link to the actual article. There's a considerable amount of reference to initiatives to get people with those urges to get help before they abuse a child. It also links to the actual research being cited.

I'm not going to take the time to check Henley's work: it's late and I'm tired. (And the leftist in me says that the point the paedophilia-does-no-harm crowd are making fails at the first hurdle because there is always a power imbalance between adult and child, it'd take a really dyed-in-the-wool tory to try and make the case that ... oh, what's the point? I'm debating a twat.) But it speaks well of his honesty that he provides the means to do so.

You're making a point about the paper as a whole by quoting something one journalist out of hundreds (who himself has 2718 bylined pieces) didn't even write. That speaks very poorly about your personal honesty. That you assume your claims will go unchecked is an insult to the intelligence of everyone who reads your post. Which speaks very poorly of your manners.

LuisGarcia Sun 24-Nov-13 03:17:54

Hey, ironman why is the fact that the daily mail is practically indistinguishable from a nazi forum a story about the guardian, for you?

KissesBreakingWave Sun 24-Nov-13 10:34:13

He's a rightard. And with them, IT'S ALWAYS PROJECTION. The inside of their heads is a scary, spooky place where nothing makes sense and everything is hateful and they want an Authority to make it all right again even if it means having a boot on their neck. They think it's like that for everyone.

claig Sun 24-Nov-13 12:53:49

Hold on a minute. There seems to be some baseless, unfounded and quite scurrilous remarks about the paper of the people - the Daily Mail - on this thread. In the interest of fairness, I don't think this should remain unchallenged.

Posters are right that both the Guardian and the Daly Mail cannot be accused of fascism. However, it is a widely held belief that the Daily Mail reflects realism while the Guardian is a proponent of nonsensism.

claig Sun 24-Nov-13 12:57:41

Even our own esteemed Prime Minister is this week reported as saying 'cut the green crap'. It is still unclear whether he was looking at a copy of the Guardian at the time.

ironman Sun 24-Nov-13 12:58:15

KBW. Actually I'm not a man, but hey don't let that stop you from insulting me, and defending this perverted article!

Another user has the name 'TerryWogansCock" do you think Mr. Wogan's willy is posting on line? Stop your rascality at once!

'He's a righthard?' Don't you mean retard. Or do you mean I'm right wing and hard?

As far as the dopey journalist in the Guardian is concerned of course he wrote this very 'sympathetic' article, Im sure you will use some form of 'intellectualism" to suggest its 'projection' on my part. Give me break!

I'm afraid you cannot try to intellectualise this argument and his article was plain wrong. I have never seen such a sympathetic article in any other newspaper, but then I'm what you would consider a pleb, I read other papers other than the 'edgy', liberal ( only liberal if you agree with them)
Guardian! I also have a sense of humour that's why I'm replying to you.

Unlike you I don't have to wind my neck out and insult others whenever someone is critical of the wonderful Daily Mail. I use rational argument.

Must go now to meet my left wing mates up in Primrose Hill.

Tatty bye!

flatpackhamster Mon 25-Nov-13 12:50:20

KissesBreakingWave

He's a rightard. And with them, IT'S ALWAYS PROJECTION. The inside of their heads is a scary, spooky place where nothing makes sense and everything is hateful and they want an Authority to make it all right again even if it means having a boot on their neck. They think it's like that for everyone.

Yet ISTM that it's always the Guardian calling for government intervention - be it nationalisation, rigging energy markets, fuel poverty, whatever. Guardian readers are natural authoritarians. Wherever they see a problem, it's government that is the solution.
The Guardian is The Mail for people who think they're too good for the Mail.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now