If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Aged 16-25? Share your experience of using the discussion boards and receive a £25 voucher! Take part via text-chat, video or phone. Click here to find out more and to take part.
Comments
The Daily Mail were moaning about Jews wanting asylum in the 1930s and they're doing exactly the same with other groups now. I think you'll find they haven't changed much throughout their history.
Both of your reactions are so fucking predictable to any given topic that were anyone to provide me with a headline, I could virtually script a little dialogue twixt the pair of you. You both need to take a step back and quesiton yourselves whether any of this shit really matters and whether you're just unnecessarily upping your blood pressure over nothing.
In my book, you both belong to the "Whatever next?!" group of social commentators, just from different sides of the tracks. And to be honest, it's getting really boring, hence my lack of posting on P&D of late.
And I have to add that it wasn't very funny. They need a new cartoonist.
Now you might think that being left of centre is as bad as being a bigoted racist scumbag, but I can assure you you're quite wrong on that respect.
Do not try to equate the two.
Different era, same abhorrent bullshit.
To be fair it's that inevitable problem when most stories kick off because of a news story - you end up with the continuation of the same agenda from the source. I'm not criticisng that - this is the place to respond to a news story.
But anyone's always welcome to kick something off that isn't related to a particular story though. We need sources when people talk about facts, but there's plenty of opportunity to discuss wider issues/ethics/personal perspectives that can be just as, if not more, rewarding as a discussion filled with outrage.
I nominate you to go first Thunder
:yes:
When in power left wing people cause as much damage and unfairly judge and persecute as many people as those on the right. I think the problem starts when you start to treat some people as less human than others, which is exactly what people viewed as educated, rational, slightly left wing liberals are doing with anyone they view as racist. Try replacing the word racist with ethnic minorities in one of these intelligent peoples rants and see how tolerant it sounds.
I think most people are capable of understanding that a cartoon represents opinion rather than fact, and in a lot of cases they're not supposed to be taken literally. People will see any meaning they want to, as controversial as it is I don't think a society with free media and free speech should be deciding what we can and can't deal with seeing.
But by that same notion, surely people have the right to complain and object? As much as this cartoonist has the right to publish a particularly shoddy piece of work, the public have the right to voice disgust at a purposefully offensive image?
In a way we should be thankful that such provocative yet hateful people are around. It seems to unite the rest of a free thinking society who don't equate minorities with animals.
This is not about left wing people disagreeing with right wing people, or viceversa. This is about a cartoon that is perceived by a great many as an unacceptable piece of bigoted shit against certain groups that borders (if not right crosses into) racism.
I'm not an ethnic minority but judging by those here who are, the implied message of the cartoon can leave little room for error. It's insulting, disgusting and appalling.
I might disagree with much of what right of centre moderate people might say, whether it is many posters here or the general editorial line of, say, the Daily Telegraph, as I'm sure they do of my views, but I'd like to think we all still fall within what we consider acceptable and civilised debate and views.
The kind of messages this cartoon in particular, and much of the Daily Mail in general puts out is, however, unnaceptable offensive odious shit, and something I would have hoped most people regardless of their political leanings would agree with. Because, make no mistake, unless one is very naive or willfully blinded, the undertone of the cartoon is crystal clear for all to see.
I don't know exactly what the cartoon is trying to say. Maybe it's deliberately extreme, in an attempt to show how idiotic it is to say some people are less human than others. Maybe it's not supposed to be taken seriously. I'm not going to decide that someone is racist, which is the worst thing you can be in this society, because of a cartoon. In my opinion it's better to be slightly naive than judgemental. The comparing of ethnic minorities to animals was the result of years of biased "scientific" study that had been concluded before it begun and only included "evidence" that supported this conclusion. It is completely idiotic and I don't even know one BNP voter who believes that ethnic minorities are in any way biologically inferior, so I can only assume that the cartoon isn't supposed to be taken seriously. Even if it is, I don't think that's how Daily Mail readers will see it. They might have mild racist views, and see it as a joke, just as those with mild sexist views have their jokes about wedding dresses matching fridges and ovens.
Have to agree with this point. You can see persecution and oppression in both extreme left and right wing Govts.
However, the "newspaper" we are talking about here isn't supposed to be an extreme. It's supposed to be mainstream. It's well known, in media circles, as an "opinion leader" and it's influence is seen on how other news outlets report the "news".
Unless you are blind you can also see it's influence in it's own comments pages where the paper's lies about immigration and muslims (in particular) are treated as "fact". Usually, even once proved to be lies, the comments are repeated.
It's also pretty sloppy when it comes to research it's own stories and seem to be "lifting" stories from other outlets - when its suits their agenda. See this story which was a virtual copy and paste from this story which appeared in the other hatred filled rag, the Daily Express.
Then look at the truth behind the story which has been published here.
Those "mildly racist views" you talk about include comments like this one:
Put the BNP in Westminster - it's the only way to get this stopped!
- John, London, 26/1/2010 11:01
Which appears in the comments section attached to that story in the Mail.
Or this one
Of course they are on their merry way over here, this island has become a vertial paradise for them, along with, the feral, the feckless, the long term useless as well as criminals with free food, accomodation, benefits & their yuman rites.
- Mr Very Very Angry, Sutton in Ashfield, 26/1/2010 9:29
and this one...
Welcome to "Great" Britain! (Great if you are an illegal immigrant that is).
- steven carlton-king, bridlington, 26/1/2010 10:30
All the while people like you defend this shit, you effectively condone it. Condone the scapegoating of immigrants, condone their setting up as the blame for all that is wrong in this country - even though most of what is reported as wrong is also lies.
Now, you can condemn Aladdin for shouting from the rooftops about how the Mail is abhorrent, I'm sure that you would also criticise me when I lump the Express into the fold. That's okay, your have the right to your opinion. But don't ever expect either of us to let anything like this get printed without condemnation or a reminder to everyone reading this site that the Daily Mail and Daily Express lie on a regular basis because their agenda is one of bigoted hatred towards anyone who is not white or straight.
Xx
Free speech is all well and good, but this idea that you should somehow be separated from your opinions on things is ridiculous, and is just the sign of someone who wants to be able to spout bigotry without taking any responsibility for what they've said. You can say whatever you want. And I can think whatever I want about you after you've said it. If that means I think you're a racist, and say I think you're a racist, well then boo fucking hoo.
Here here.
There's a show on 4OD called 'Young, Angry and White' in which, briefly, there are bunch of masked, white nationalists interviewed. Their rhetoric is spookily similar, in tone, style and content, to that of Islamic fundamentalists.
I would, but it would only be something about smoking or fox hunting.
I'm becoming a parody of myself.
The usual levels of manufactured outrage, particularly from Jamelia, seem to be on show. Every single newspaper out there has made mistakes in the past, though it seems to be The Sun and the Daily Mail that get singled out most. What about the very dodgy journalism we see from the likes of the Daily Star and the Mirror newspapers? They get a similar number of complaints about their articles, yet they are never mentioned here. Or what about the hysterical coverage on global warming in the likes of The Independent? (I also notice there is still no thread about the latest batch of climate change research to be exposed as utter bollocks - why not?)
For the record, I'm not a huge fan of the Daily Mail. I think it's too negative for its own good sometimes and some of its articles do strongly resemble a broken record. That's no different to any other paper. I just happen to think it caters more for me than any other daily. I did read The Times, but at 90p per day, I think it's simply too much to pay. I also sometimes have difficulty obtaining it here in Northern Ireland, whereas I never get such a problem with the Mail. Comprende?
Oh well, the world will continue to turn and night will continue to follow day.
P.S. Aladdin, did your inspiration for starting this thread come from my favourite joke website Liberal Conspiracy?
Non-story? Mainstream newspaper promotes and publishes racist agenda and propaganda.
Yep, nothing to worry about there
You call this a mistake? You are a propagandists dream SG. Making excuses for an intentional debasing of sector of the population.
Funny how many "mistakes" the Daily Mail makes when it comes to immigration and the islamic faith and it's followers isn't it? The way they "mistake" a quote for example so that it reads something completely different from what was actually said...
Feel free to condone this type of thing SG, if it's meets your agenda too then that's fine. They say that ignorance is bliss after all.
I don't think that they have made any mistakes. SG thinks that the Daily Mail makes mistakes.
I think that they print deliberately misleading, if not plainly untruthful, stories about immigrants and Muslims in order to meet their hate filled agenda. Either that or they will highlight a person's race or religion if it's a negative story (or one that meets their stereotyped agenda of dole scrounging, criminals for example) but ignore it when it's positive or about someone who is white/christian.
What deliberately misleading or plainly untruthful stories has the Daily Mail printed about the Islamic faith?
I just want some examples. If they’re valid examples then I will agree with you.
The Daily Mail needs news stories on a daily basis in order to fill its pages day in day out. Do you really think that they’d ignore a juicy story about a white/christian individual because, well, they just don’t like to condemn white/christians... and they only go after the non-white/non-christians?
Do you think that, for example, the Daily Mail publicised and condemned Tiger Woods adultery, but ignored John Terrys? Or were they both given plenty of column inches and condemnation?
As for highlighting a persons race or religion, on the whole I think they only do this if the persons race or religion is relevant to the story.
To be fair I think I do recall some instances where I thought it was unnecessary to put the person’s race/religion in the headline, but I don’t think its common enough to warrant the generalisation.
A good example would be these stories:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1110205/Christian-counsellor-loses-discrimination-battle-refusing-offer-sex-advice-gay-couples.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1033955/Victory-Christian-registrar-bullied-refusing-perform-sinful-gay-weddings.html
If we believe all the things that you and Aladdin say then you’d expect the Daily Mail to put the word “Black” in the headline of those stories instead of "Christian".
But of course, the fact that they happen to be black is of no relevance. The fact that they are Christian does.
You cite one example of asylum (which I don’t want to go into).
Newspapers are written by people. The attitudes of people have changed and evolved throughout the decades and therefore, so has the attitudes and agendas of newspapers like the Daily Mail.
I’m sure you would’ve encountered the N word in all newspapers many decades ago, but you wouldn’t get that now. So yes, the Daily Mail, and every other newspaper has changed throughout their history.
The point I was trying to make earlier was that I don’t like it when people dismiss an article because it’s from the Daily Mail.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1236080/Yob-yanked-Muslim-womans-headscarf-ordered-pay-1-000-compensation.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1243871/Double-standards-row-Ed-Balls-refuses-ban-smacking-mosque-schools-avoid-upsetting-Muslim-sensitivities.html#comments
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1249797/Labour-threw-open-doors-mass-migration-secret-plot-make-multicultural-UK.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/columnists/article-1250096/Using-immigration-turn-Britain-nation-Labour-voters-shameful-I-hardly-believe-it.html
e.t.c. e.t.c.
The Mail is full of anti-immigrant shit stirring, most of which is completely untrue.
Okay, remember I said about immigration and Islam/followers:
There's this whistleblower story about how immigration policy was fixed to allow more, but conventiently they didn't report on this one where the immigrants are the victims.
There's the coverage of this terror plot compared to this one. Guess which has more details and sensationalism - the one involving whites or the one... (well you get the picture). Also worth noting the BNP member on gets this coverage once convicted, note there was nothing before. You might also want to look at the moderated comments which follow. Their readers apparently believe that his conviction is racially motivated.
Analysis like this might be worth looking at. Surely just a coincidence?
You could look at this story where it's a Muslim man accused of racially abusing Nick Griffin - see image Mail 1
Strangely this is changed to Asian man once he was cleared. So, isn't he Muslim anymore, is it's it relevant now? Or was it actually relevant in the first place?
You could look at this reporting - see image Mail 2
So a slightly built mother (religion not mentioned) shoots a Muslim man, who apparently isn't slightly built or a parent but is religious to the point that it's important to the story. For some reason.
As the Americans would say, go figure. I'm sure it's all just coincidence...
Shock horror. Mail portrays Christians as victims... but apparently Muslims aren't?
It's a despicable piece of shit of a newspaper. Nor that that should be news to anyone of course.
The whole reason that newpapers were started was to provide a non biast report of facts and events. Obviously the Daily Mail has broken every single fundemtal rule then...