Daily Mail thread 5

webdude;

i read quite a few papers tbh, what i meant when i said "you can't reason with the unreasonable" was more about attitudes to posters who read the DM....you know, if you have the slightest concern about immigration people assume you're racist..(laughable)...it's impossible to get through...so therefore impossible to debate.

MrsE..totally agree with your post...i found the "we can educate the DM readers" probably the most patronising..

i don't need educating.

If it's the thread I am thinking of RustyBear, I would have to admit that I was wrong then - and I was a member of the 'unanimous opposition' again

No I was just looking and looking thinking I was going nuts.DP you know what I think of you so lets just leave it at that.

Yeah, maybe - I have had people DEMAND me to do that kind of stuff though. I shalt not be so defensive

lol...and you're so grown up and reasonable..

I have to declare an interest in the archives, because they are how I found MN in the first place when my head teacher asked me to research a subject for a governors' meeting.

I googled & came across a massive hard-hat-and-popcorn thread that started off on one issue & ended up with one poster defending herself vehemently against unanimous opposition on another related issue - oddly enough that poster was none other than LH under her original name...

The standard of debate (and, because I am an incurable pedant, of the spelling and grammar) made me think this was no ordinary forum, so I investigated further, and pretty soon I was hooked.

But, in any case, I do still find the archives useful - starting a thread on, say hot flushes, might bring in a dozen replies, possibly 20-30 if you're lucky - but searching the archives gives 500+. And it meant I didn't have to start a thread giving details that I might not really want DD, who also uses MN, to read.

Sorry just 'if you don't believe me'has the ring of the playground tbh

"Chill" lo

I didn't even type any exclamation marks!

People just make it up as they go along on here

No one didn't believe you.Chill just couldn't see it here

It's in the pages of thet last thread. If you don't believe me, go look yourself.

I love the archives. Please don't mess around with them

Where is this 'thinly veiled racist' description?I can't see it

I agree WD. I don't read newspapers either on a regular basis. And all of my exposure to The Mail has come from MN'ers posting links. 100% of it.

I don't agree with some stuff in The Mail, and think Littlejohn is a zealout. But disagreeing is different from casting aspertions. For any democracy to flourish there has to be robust debate, and that means respecting the role of the opposition.

I really cannot see how people talking about (quoting from numerous peopleon the thread) 're-education', and 'teaching about diversity and tolerance' cannot see that they themselves are falling foul of the prescritiveness they seem to hate from some columnists in The Mail. Just becasue these prescritions come from the left does not make them any better than those coming from the right. Just where is the 'tolerance' in describing a huge readership as thinly veiled racists, just becasue they 'might' disagree with you. Call the colunmists what they want; the readership are just like you. Are you easily brainwashed? Are you defined by something so simple as the newspaper you read?

You can go on to the BBC politics forums and read very intolerent stuff. Do these comments represent the BBC? No. And just like any forum, you will have a hardcore of people posting most things. There is no vetting procedure. They do not constitute a 'voice of middle england'.

Taking more stock in what ignorant loudmouths have to say, rather than what is actually said in articles, is the real stuipdity here.

oh yes, blackduck. i'm curious as to why a new part 5 was started, tbh, when this one existed. and by curious i think i mean suspicious.

I meant the column issue aitch. As for the archives I don't see why they should be cleared out yearly.....

Noddy - I'm with you.

That a paper like that exists and has the circulation it has in this country shows that the education system has a way to go in teaching about diversity and tolerance.

"you just can't reason with the unreasonable" (daftpunk)

understood - but it's clear that views, especially political, can be strongly polarized, and if a prty, or paper, seems to stand for values that one doesn't agre with, one has every right not to agree with supporting them/ links to them.

I don't read any of the papers on a regular basis, and don't take much interest in even the free ones that are stuck through the door, but taking a glance at a few articles, and just as important comments from readers can show quite a strong set of values in the DM which do not look to me to be "live and let live" so while I may not suggest "work of the devil" about the DM, it's not a paper I'd want to be seen reading, to be honest.

not all over, actually. there's a discussion about the archives on here that is potentially interesting.

not all over, actually. there's a discussion about the archives on here that is potentially interesting.

All over guys - see sticky thread....

yes, that's a good idea, ladymuck, more of the topics to be binnable would also work. i agree, no reason to bin products etc if you think they're helpful.

No, he would hate me. DP likes me!

maybe DP IS Richard Littlejohn

why is there always this assumption if you are not a mail reader you must be reading the guardian?