AIBU in thinking that all readers (and writers) of the Daily Mail should be put to death?

[TiggyD]

Well?

Right-wing, over-reacting, paparazzi funding, health scare loving, minority hating sub-literature for busy bodies, racists and little Englanders who live in the past?

You can assume that the people in the BNP who can read both buy the Daily Mail.

Be nice; you just know that somebody at the Mail will read this

"Funny how I never see a thread with the title ' How I wish all Guardian readers would just die ' from DM readers or words to that effect... and they're supposed to be the 'tolerant' ones???""

Which was also the point of my first post on this thread "Hmm a left-wing position which wants to silence and ignore anyone who does not agree with their opinion. It's about par for the course with modern 'liberals' "

Btw I probably hold more left-wing (On multi-cultural,immigration etc) views than I do right-wing (global warming is the only position I think I come close on, Oh and in harranging pinky-lefty liberals when they go to far I get all republican on that point ), so this isn't a left vs right issue for me.
It's more of a "my understanding of a modern liberal" vs "my understanding of a traditional liberal" POV.

I buy the mail at the weekends. the tv listing on saturday is the best. the you magazine witht eh liz jones column, makes me laff and laff at what a sorry state of a woman she is.

I know they exagerate stuff. But guess what, I have the common sense to know this. I take everything that i read wit a pince of salt. not a s gospel.

but on Mn, I can not be given credit for having any common sense.

besides is any paper any better. even the times and the telegraph and the guardian are all written from a certain perspective.

its as though you can't credit me witht heinteliigence to take what i want from an article. mind you lots of women can't read a paretning book, be it gina ford, or annabel karmel, and take what they want from it, whilst dismissing the rest. I am capable of doing thta. I don't feel guilty or thta i am not good enough , once i have read a parenting book.
I guess i see it as the same thing.

I don't buy a paper in the week. but i just don't get the slating that the DM gets. I just can't see why people object to it that much.

And to back up shineons point even more...

I had a conversation with someone yesterday who thinks I should be banned, I think my Daily Maill views are a bit too much for her delicate brain...

I asked her to explain why she wants me banned, as I wouldn't want any liberals banned..I'm more than happy to talk to them...because if I don't talk to them I can't expose them for the idiotic hypocrites that they are..

..She hasn't come back to me yet...

Agree mayorquimby and dp.

I'm frequently shocked at just how venomous the left are in their opinions and just how much they can hate.

Oh ignore her dp, some people will always want to ban everything they can't control.

I don't like the DM. I know its crap. No one has come up with a reasonable alternative yet. They are all rubbish. SO why pick on the DM ?

"
I don't buy a paper in the week. but i just don't get the slating that the DM gets. I just can't see why people object to it that much"

TBH I think a lot of the time people on here just want to appear to hate the mail as they think it gives them the moral highground etc. and there's nothing more crawling than the simpering "sorry for the DM link/ I know it's the mail but.../ probably not true cause it's the mail but..."
Look just post the link and comment on the content of the article and why you disagree with it. You obviously read the website or the paper and if that's the case do it unapologetically. Nobody links an item on climate change from the guardian and says " I know it's the guardian so they're obviously biased towards a green agenda/ sorry for the guardian link/ it's the guardian so take it with a pinch of salt."
No they link it and say something along the lines of "saw this interesting article...DISCUSS" or occassionally present it as fact.

Keep reading both sides because then you will get a fuller picture. The right-wing view has been caricatured to stop you asking questions. The right-wing are not against immigration per se. Tebbitt, Portillo and many other Tories are themselves of foreign extraction. You need to read both sides in order to understand the true agendas, and then you might find that you would change your mind.

lemonmuffin; I will ignore her from now on....I don't need another stalker...

'"Funny how I never see a thread with the title ' How I wish all Guardian readers would just die ' from DM readers or words to that effect...' - actually there was such a thread not so long ago, saying that Guardian readers were intolerably smug, self-righteous etc etc. IIRC the world did not end.

the Guardianistas want to make it the norm that anybody quoting the Mail has to apologise for it. This is an insidious from of control so that reading the Mail becomes almost taboo, and others are influenced not to trust the Mail. That way any valid arguments that the Mail brings to the table are immediately dismissed as nonsense, and the Guardianistas can gain an easy victory rather than having to engage in an honest debate. These techniques are only employed against the Mail, not the Sun or Telegraph, because the Mail is the only paper that is doing them damage.

PW - smug and self righteous is not quite the same as wishing them dead though is it.

Call me mad, but it seems to me that the thread title is employing a touch of exaggeration for comic effect.

You too dp, glad you're not letting the bs get you down

agree with lemonmuffin, smug and self-righteous are harmless, but the OP mentions
"minority hating sub-literature for busy bodies, racists and little Englanders who live in the past"
classing people as racists and homophobes is much more extreme and is a way of ostracising people and ignoring their points of view. It is an attempt to exclude them from debate. It has the effect of discrediting them and their ideas and is a bullying tactic which seeks to stop others listening to them.

Any fair-minded person would have to admit that the Mail does publish some items that are homophobic and/or racist (the Jan Moir article on Stephen Gately; the recent editorial cartoon equating inter-ethnic marriage with inter-species marriage). I think you'd be hard put to find any equivalents in the Guardian.

Link to the cartoon here (Not DM, safe to click )

That link says it all policywonk.

Why do those who support the Mail always claim to be some kind of dissenfranchised minority, whose freedom of speach is being curtaliled by big nasty guardian readers? Are Mail readers such wimps? Are guradian readers all built like brick sh*t houses?

Maybe some kind of en-mass boxing match/wrestling tournament should be founded, to settle the matter once and for all..

Oh come on PW..alot of people would have found that funny ..

Are people only allowed to laugh at Stephen Fry..?

I know amber, it's pretty fucking disgusting isn't it. I'm sure it's appreciated by BNP voters though.

Full disclosure - I never read the Mail, so I've no idea what's in it on a day-to-day basis. But these broad characterisations of newspapers have a basis in truth. The Guardian is painted as smug and preachy because, er, it can be. And the Mail is painted as Little Englander and fearful because, er, it can be. Neither characterisation represents the full truth.

As to why it tends to come down to a dog-fight between Mail readers and Guardian readers - I think it's because they are the strongest newspaper brands in their respective political corners, with the most brand-identified readers. So it's a compliment to both, really. They're both doing something right to have such a strong public image and so many readers who would rather chew their arms off than read anything else on a regular basis.

All very true PW.

My prefered paper is the Indy. Mainly for the book bits but I think it also has the better news stories.

I do scan the Guardian, the Mail, the Times and even the Telegraph occasionally. If nothing else to get a balanced view of the world.

It's quite interesting to pick a story which is featured in several papers and compare them.

Have to admit that I do not trust science reporting in any paper - I've seen my own discipline woefully missunderstood too many times lol.

I find that cartoon offensive. I don't think it is representative of the Mail. I hope that cartoonist was reprimanded and whoever let that get into the paper. Some readers have commented on the Mail's website that it may be some sort of ironic reference to sheep-shagging farmers etc. Whatever it is, it is highly offensive.

There are more Mail readers than Guardian readers. Mail readers are prepared to debate all issues. In my opinion it is more often some socialist Guardian readers who wish to narrow the parameters of possible debate, in order to avoid an open discussion of certain issues e.g. global warming etc. They are more likely to bandy about insults such as flat-earthers, bigoted, small-minded, racist, homophobe etc. in order to close down debate.

Even GB himself has used these techniques, when describing those who disagree with him over global warming
"He said: "With only days to go before Copenhagen we mustn't be distracted by the behind-the-times, anti-science, flat-earth climate sceptics. We know the science. We know what we must do.?

End of argument, he knows the science, he knows what he must do, and he's going to do it whatever those crazy flat-earthers think.

Guardian readers have limp and damp handshakes. Fact

DM readers of course don't do handshakes. Just nazi salutes ...

OTOH claig, after the scandal of the East Anglia CRU leaked emails, the Guardian ran a three-day story going into the leaks in some details and being pretty ruthless about exposing the nasty things they revealed about the CRU scientists (while concluding that the essential science remains sound). It has also reported all the recent shenanigans around the IPCC in a lot of detail and without shielding the IPPC from criticism. It's not as Stalinist as you seem to think.