All the disparaging references to Daily Mail

[Abitwobblynow]

Does it not occur to you right-on caring sort, that the Daily Mail is the largest-selling newspaper in this country?

In other words, DM could reflect the views of the silent majority.

And your caring sharing good intentions could be an imposition, not an ideal or a truth.

So who are you with your sneering?

Finally: what is so heinous about a view point that gives importance to the concept of personal responsibility, and the values of the country?

... and I kind of think that being a 'caring sort' is a good thing, is it not?

I consider myself a caring sort. Know what sorts I prefer.

The OP did slightly undermine her point about sneering by writing an OP which was a bit, well, sneery.

I can understand how that happened though. Sneer is the Daily Mail's own stock in trade, and I guess it prompts the same attitude in both people attacking it and people defending it. It's like the most successful troll ever (and would be no matter what its actual position/outlook was).

'the horror and despair at the views expressed by'

A very good example of emotional rhetoric asserted as fact, a favoured tactic of the Anointed.

Next!

''the horror and despair at the views expressed by the Daily Mail'

A very good example of emotional rhetoric asserted as fact, a favoured tactic of the Anointed.'

I can't see anything being asserted as fact here. Can you explain what and where you believe the fact to be, OP?

Being a 'caring sort' generally is a good thing of course. But, and I can't quite explain myself, but those who criticize sometimes seem too busy sneering to do any real good challenging the views expressed in the dm. If people really care about changing attitudes they would educate and discuss issues in the dm rather than just ridicule their readers.
Instead it sometimes feels like people want to be 'perceived' as being the caring sort and taking the moral high ground when in reality they are doing nothing constructive and are just indulging in a different kind of negative finger pointing.

Ah, you're just bored and shit stirring op.

Next!

This post is hilarious OP, keeping me amused no end.
What Chubfudder said.

'Being a 'caring sort' generally is a good thing of course. But, and I can't quite explain myself, but those who criticize sometimes seem too busy sneering to do any real good challenging the views expressed in the dm. If people really care about changing attitudes they would educate and discuss issues in the dm rather than just ridicule their readers. I spend a LOT of time challenging, and people get less and less receptive as time goes by, parttly IMO due to the brainwashing that the media as a whole seems to be enagged in.

I have a BIL who claims he read that you can get DLA and a statement for autism by filling in a basic form with your name and address; he knows this as it said so in the papers. So much so that he regualrly attacks me and my friends with disabled kids online; yet my 2 that are claimed for are at SN Schools........ one of those friends has a terminally ill child.

Am loving being the anointed me and my silver spoon council house deprived estate sink school upbringing, if only everyone else were so lucky eh The ONLY reason I now have a degree and postgrad is slog and dedication.

Ah, Peachy, I was also anointed from birth with a working-class sink-school upbringing.

I therefore think I'm better than everyone else. As, no doubt, do you.

Indeed I do LadyCarrick.

And not for example damned lucky to have aprents who avued education or to have met a DH who considered me gpoing back to study an investment and worthy aim.

Very little of what we are is attributable to ourselces; except how hard we work and how much we love,

maybe the woman (a little Oxford graduate is derogatory and superior) just didnt want to swap magazines with you because you are weird

I agree, Peachy.

But who's LadyCarrick?

Actually considering changing my name to that. I rather like it.

Argh sorry clarice LMAQO - am useless today!

There's the rather brilliant Daily Mail island to show its incipient ghastliness.

No worries, Peachy. But what's LMAQO?

[bit dim emoticon]

laugh my arse quite off?

Candis is the first to respond to the hints, and start the ad hominem attacks [yawn].

Clarice: 'I don't see the sneering as much as the horror and despair at the views expressed by the Daily Mail.'

WHO do these horrified and despairing people, think they are, to negate other people (who read the Daily Mail, and who support DM values)?

WHAT makes them so superior?

WHY do their 'caring' Good Intentions elevate them to a position where they don't have to examine their assumptions (because those assumptions are an Inherent Good), and why, when these assumptions are challenged (see Candi, above) does this reduce people who do NOT agree with their stance, as very bad and, indeed, 'wierd'?

Doesn't this lack of independence, this thought control, just worry you even a tiny bit?

My commentary on the Oxford graduate, supposedly the best educated in the land, was a commentary on her LACK OF CURIOSITY. Or rather, having no intention of reading anything different that might broaden her outlook.

Civilisations/countries/cultures crash on delusions. From the Incas to the Nazis. Challenging set beliefs, is important, and it doesn't make you wierd and it doesn't make you bad.
For example: the latest being the Euro Project (enjoying your tougher economic circumstances?). Remember, opponents of the Euro Project, were objecting to a fault line that was obvious TO THEM at the start, which was: you cannot have monetary union without political/federal union, and what implications for sovereignty?

For which the superior beings who really believed in the Greater Good of The Project sneered called them crazy, or wierd, evil, Little Englanders. Daily Mail readers, probably. But, you know what?
they were pointing out a teensy little flaw in the delusion.

Does that make them evil reactionary and uncaring? Because that is what they were painted as, and that is the topic of this thread, just to remind you.

I think you're overthinking this a bit, wobbly

Personally I think the DM is crap and sneer at it because it's an appallingly written tabloid which generally * relies on scaremongering rather than reporting actual news to promote its agenda. I am not saying that the Guardian is better - I don't buy that either.

Just because someone hates the DM, it doesn't make them a lily-livered, champagne socialist liberal leftie Guardian reader, as many DM readers appear to believe.

And I think I speak for the majority of Mail-disparagers. We don't like the Mail because it's crap.

• the Lawrence case aside.

OP, I didn't say 'I don't see the sneering as much as the horror and despair at the views expressed by the Daily Mail.', BigStick did.

I was responding to your comment on it: 'A very good example of emotional rhetoric asserted as fact, a favoured tactic of the Anointed.'

My comment/question was 'I can't see anything being asserted as fact here. Can you explain what and where you believe the fact to be, OP?'

Isn't it odd how some posts have a positively manic energy about them? I may do some research, cook up a slightly patronising, half-baked rant of my very own and see if it reads the same way.

Full moon. Just saying

Aerial agree - My sneers are mainly because it is frankly just shit - Stories (or non stories) spun to be provocative. and hey look it's sparked a huge thread and this much opinion - I bet they'd love this at DM if they read it - it's obvious some articles/comments in there are written just to make your blood boil - a bit like reality TV - some people watch it because they just love to hate it - either way it's win win for them - people are still watching.

Ooh by the way back2 I reckon a daily Daily Mail deconstruction thread could be fun.....

I don't think a newspaper should have views.

And I particularly dislike newspapers that try to hammer those views down people's my throat.
In that respect, I despair of some most British newspapers.

And it hardly has any important news, it's mostly gossip!

Compare:
DM - Guardian

Again:
Guardian - DM

And so that I'm not biased:
Telegraph - DM

Again:
DM - Telegraph

Do you see the difference and why some people consider the DM trash?