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

[55balloons]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11995903/The-new-face-extremism-unmasked-Republicans-watching-trantifa.html

Well done Reem Alaselem. Now the UN are on board.

Interesting. Post deleted for saying “far right fruitcakes”. I’ve seen so much worse on here. Touched a nerve, presumably.

@BodgerLovesMashedPotato yes, there were a couple of posts, but, iirc, they were saying they were told the paper was aimed at women. It's a bit hairsplitty but there is a difference.

You're welcome.

Not all misogynists are necessarily male.

Lovey, you can fruitcake me all you like, I enjoy it

Ok, I see I've been deleted
For those who didnt see, a poster (who has admitted they're the one who used it first, I was just responding to it) was calling another poster that word, saying they thought that they looked like one.
Without using their terminology like in the gone whoosh post, I was saying that its daft to think that just because someone is a carer, a nurse, that they can never be prejudiced and are automatically an angel as a result.
Which the poster seemed to think.
I even said I wasn't referring to her MIL, as I wasnt at all, I was meaning in the case of people in caring professions as a whole, as it seemed a strange view to have.

Yes, I think the phraseology was that the Mail wanted to be the paper of women

and as pet @OldGardinia ’s post, it is read by slightly more women than men

Yes , I think your argument was ‘it’s ok for me to assume someone is bigoted and prejudiced if they read the daily mail’, no?

I understand that you read the daily mail. I shall assume hear with that my working assumption that you are bigoted and prejudiced is correct

Umm..... that's not what I said at all.

Right, well that's cleared that up.

I didn't see the deleted post and I feel none the wiser now.

You're saying people are sensitive when you call them 'fruitcakes' because they have mental health issues?

Or you're trying to say we are 'far right'? And think that has 'touched a nerve'? How so? What does 'far right' actually mean, to you?

ok 👍

Ok

I’ve skimmed back through your contributions to the thread to try to understand what you are saying (I’d hate to do you an injustice)

despite saying ‘hear hear’ to the rather trite ‘lie down with dogs, get up with fleas’, which I read as ‘don’t read the Mail’, I think your problem is not with people reading the Mail, but rather with the Mail being celebrated

I think your other issue is with the idea that the mail might be regarded as a paper for women

I would make 2 points in response

1. does the fact that in the early days they were literally the only mainstream outlet who would touch the incursions on womens rights that we’re seeing from transactivism not warrant some acknowledgment? Journalists like Sanchez Manning in particular will have taken the chance that this might damage their careers and done it anyway

2. more women than men buy the Mail. In that respect it is a paper for women. Don’t those women count?

and a third point: have you considered conveying your position more clearly? You could have avoided being mean about my lovely MIL who hardly deserved it

Interesting. Post deleted for saying “far right fruitcakes”. I’ve seen so much worse on here. Touched a nerve, presumably

That was me and no nerve touched, I can assure you as I'm neither 'far right' -well at least not in my terms. Obviously I don't know what your's are as you didn't clarify them but descended to what I thought was personal abuse. Clearly MN agreed with me as they deleted it.

And 'I've seen much worse on here' isn't exactly something to be proud of.

Um.... yet again, I wasnt meaning your "lovely MIL"
I'm sure she is.
The original post said I wasnt referring to her, my clarification explains what I meant and you still don't seem to understand?
Not sure I can be arsed answering the rest of your bullet points and summary when you seem determined to misunderstand what people are saying and are still making it about your MIL when I was talking about people in the caring profession as a whole not being automatically completely prejudiced, and perfect angels which you bizarrely seem to think.

Posted too soon - neither far right nor a fruitcake. Although I don't know what would make you describe anyone as a fruitcake because you didn't define that term, either. I assume it was to imply MH issues.

Don’t those women count?

We know by now, surely, that women are only afforded full human status if they perform correctly and do as they're told.

What's your point, Bodger?

It was in response to bernard in case you missed that.

What's your point, Bodger?

IS there one? that was a bit of a word salad with no post to refer back to.

Right, yes, you focus on the least important point and don’t bother clarifying your position 👍

that seems…easy

my clarification explains what I meant

It really doesn't. It isn't a clarification.

@ArabeIIaScott @MrsDanversGlidesAgain
Was in response to this here you go

Bodger's trying to say that not all caring staff are 'perfect angels', I think.

Looking forward to your thoughts on ursine defecation habits in arboreal environments, too, Bodger.

Still none the wiser. I blame the heat.

It IS hot.