Can we have a Daily Mail apprection thread after this article?!

slow hand clap for the person who really hasn't read the thread

Eeeee do you ever think you're on the wrong side of history when you're celebrating a rag like this? 😳😂

I'm taking that personally.

Thanks!

You’re really grasping when the only comment you can make on a thread is to be sarcastic about a typo

Firstly, it wasn't my only comment. Secondly, I wasn't being sarcastic, I was making a lighthearted joke about a humorous typo.

Same with Brexit and wokebros like LOJ bashing those thicko Northern proles who dared to vote leave (even though Corbyn very clearly wanted to leave and did nothing about presenting the 'other side' of the coin). And voting for Boris too even though the opposition was a bag of warm shit. How DARE they?

Also to those people who keep using 'right wing' as an insult - it is a perfectly legitimate political standpoint, as is being left wing. Being right wing does not make you a Nazi however much you might think it does. Some posters really need to grow the fuck up.

I am shocked, SHOCKED I tell you, that working class (gulps) men are reading. I mean actually reading, a newspaper. And the thought that ANYONE is reading ANYTHING when it hasn't been produced entirely by saintly virgins rapt in prayer and meditation HORRIFIES me. Please please MN promise that you will not encourage this evil (clutches pearls).

Or at least encourages it only for long enough for whoever it was to get their rocks off. We're not monsters after all.

I was rather hoping it was a new term I hadn't encountered before. A strawnan somehow implies lots more personality and gumption than a straw man.

Arsey old lady argument, takes no shit from anyone, obviously GC.

Having hurried through this thread I have a sense of déjà vu.

Remember when Donald Trump was running for president in the USA and lots of people and media laughed at him and the few oiks that would vote for him? All those stupid, redneck bigots?
Remember how Hillary Clinton sneered and condescended in the debates, even though Trump served up bullshit on a platter?

The great unwashed proletariat not knowing what was good for them.

Of course Trump won.
How can you pretend to care for the people when you openly despise the majority of them and use wanky academic language that hardly no one understands?

I know this is a UK site. But this thread reminded me of that.
Some so-called left of centre bashing Daily Mail readers without articulating very well what would be better. On this one particular topic.

Trotting out nazi comparisons is very tired and worn out at this point.

Read a large variety of news outlets. As we can see very clearly here, democracy is dependent on reporting from all political biases.

You’re really grasping when the only comment you can make on a thread is to be sarcastic about a typo 😎

So what are you saying? Sanchez Manning doesn't care about women?

When you group think "they" you subsume women journalists under men's control as an expression of your prejudice.

That's not very feminist.

If I am not mistaken, BBC only showed cropped version?

I bet they did

That picture helped loads

I think this comes down to the fact that the DM does in fact want to be the newspaper of women, the idea that was laughed at by some back in the first few pages of the thread.

So they want to cover issues women take seriously in a serious way - rape, women's spaces, etc.

But the fact is, the people who want to read about celebrity gossip and outfits people wear and the rest are not, mainly, men. They are also women.

I think they have a very good understanding of their audience, and they want to sell newspapers to them.

Edit: Should be a sarcastic vom not a smile!!!

DM is still not far off body shaming by posting full photo of the rapist in pink leggings showing bulge :)
If I am not mistaken, BBC only showed cropped version?

Do you genuinely refuse to read or believe things because they are reported in a source you don’t like? You’d rather not know?

And regarding opinions, do you realise that agreeing on one issue doesn’t mean you have to agree on everything?

@CandidaAlbicans2 I have similar sentiments to you but to their credit, the DM also highlights women' sports, sexual attacks and rape on women in hospital, the scandals at the Tavistock, the indoctrination of children and the hounding by TRA's of both men and women who hold gender reality views etc

By comparison BBC R4 Women's hour is an absolute disgrace by their silence and subservience to this issue

Worzel Gummidge's Grandmother?

@RudsyFarmer
'Strawnan'?
Typo? Or is a strawnan something I need to learn about?

I'm very glad the DM are covering the womens rights Vs trans issues as it's getting this shit out to a wide audience. However, I'm not sure their motives are honourable and that they are doing it to benefit women, but rather they dislike men in dresses and want to turn the public against them. That they've chosen to attack them under the guise of "women's rights". They seem to love building the public up into a froth of rage, so whatever works for them.

The reason I say that is because they are very fond of publishing photos of women and judging their appearances, either positive (in the case of sexy, young, attractive females), or negatively (anyone else). But as I said, good on them for highlighting the trans issue, which is more than can be said for much of the mainstream media 🙄

Don't get me wrong, I've never been a fan of the Daily Mail generally speaking - but let's be real here; the snobbery just isn't warranted.

Every single main stream newspaper will have its biases and it's views, it's just a matter of whether you agree with it or not that taints your opinion.
Every media outlet to ever exist is guilty of stretching the truth, lying by omission, or just outright lying at some point. They ALL have an agenda whether you'd like to think so or not.

The ganging up on one specific newspaper from MNer's is quite shocking to me to be honest? I thought it was just common sense that it's wise to look at news from all sides of the isle as opposed to just a select few so that you can actually get a full picture of something??

And ironically it was in The Guardian, back when it was a reputable newspaper, that I read that anyone who used ‘Nazi’ as a routine insult for non-fascist opponents had automatically lost the argument.

so, that would be a no then.

Good to know.

Yes, we must refuse to read news reported by non-approved sources. Those nasty facts they report could hurt some men’s feelings.

I suppose that's a fair assumption. Because no publication is entirely unproblematical. I wish the Guardian would return to sanity. Even if the Times or the Telegraph weren't behind a paywall, I don't agree with the bulk of the politics they espouse. The Express seems barmy (though that was Brexit) and the Independent, when I remember it exists, is nearly as bad as Pink News. I did have a faint hope there'd be something I missed.

So, for news outside of politics I check the Guardian. I don't read the Mail but I will read flagged articles on this subject.

Oh yeah, the Sun, puhleeze, the Mirror, unreadable so many popups and ads, though it's been ages since I've looked at it.

So, I appreciate the DM covering this subject, the light it shines on it and for bringing attention to a wider readership. I don't care what their motives are. I'm not happy about it, I sympathise with pp and the problems they have with things like its sidebar. My approving or disapproving of the DM will have zero affect on it or on anyone else reading or not reading it.

Have you got any actual answers, or are you just doing the "if I make a funny people will forget they asked" thing?

I mean, that can work, but you have to succeed with the funny.