is it not legitimate to dislike the daily mail?
or are we just not allowed to say so without it being an entirely selfish and egotistical act?
this phrase you've picked up 'virtue signallers' has no redeeming features.
It's a bitter auto ad-hom that takes away from the statement (the daily mail is shit-- which it clearly is), and turns the focus to the (in this case hypothetical) speaker, and their tiny minded, but crucially projected need to find confirmation.
the more likely reality, but the one you seem unable to accept, is that some people simply aren't cunts.
(don't get me wrong, I'm also no fan of wiki-leaks)
(, Sat 4 Mar 2017, 13:42, Reply)
The Daily Mail, is, in many ways, shit.
However the fashion for everyone falling over themselves to scream out that it's shit is even shittier.
A) If you don't like it, don't consume it.
B) IF. YOU. DO. NOT. LIKE. IT. DO. NOT. CONSUME. IT.
C) Stop pretending it's really influential. It isn't. Just as Murdoch isn't either.
I call it virtue signalling because it is precisely that. There is a growing trend whereby thing X is held up as a bad thing, and people are encouraged to expresss condemnation of said bad thing. Like this picture if you hate cancer etc. With the Daily Mail it has become a hackneyed expression of tribal membership. People love to tell each other that they hate The Mail because it is code for "I am liberal, anti racist and pro immigration." It's a bit like people who preface a statement with "speaking as a Christian..." The Mail is many things, shit being one of them, but it is nowhere near as bad as its caricature, nor is it any worse than other papers, the Guardian is full of batshit crazy bollocks and insidious cant just as much, just from the other end of the political spectrum. But mainly it pisses me off because it such an unimaginative and unoriginal thing to say. It's trite remark made on every panel show since they were invented. And, shock horror, lots of good, decent non racist and non hateful people read it.
(
Prufrock Lucifer, son of the morning!, Sat 4 Mar 2017, 14:08,
Reply)
It's sadly influential on the BBC
Here are 4 of their 13 front page headlines right now:
Dying Woman Writes Husband's Dating Profile
Louis Tomlinson Arrested in LA
Burglars Raid John Terry's Mansion
She Kept the Secret for 70 Years
We're living through a century-defining defining era: I don't give a flying fuck about John Terry's crapshack.
(
After you my dear Alfonse No. After you., Sat 4 Mar 2017, 15:56,
Reply)
It publishes 500,000 stories a year.
Sorry that not all it's news is serious enough to meet your yardstick. The Pink Un is very good value.
(
The Ann Coulter Fan Club Babylon is burning at, Sat 4 Mar 2017, 16:58,
Reply)
You seem to think that because it is a newspaper
It should only contain serious news. Newspapers have long been in the business of entertaining too. Indeed, tabloids or mass/middle market papers have long prioritised entertainment over news. This was exacerbated by the rise of celebrity gossip magazines. Yes, those stories are dross, but ALL papers contain acres of dross. I only know what The Pengest Munch is because I read the Guardian.
(
Prufrock Lucifer, son of the morning!, Sat 4 Mar 2017, 17:30,
Reply)
My point was that the dross
shouldn't have a prominent place on the national broadcaster: those headlines are from the BBC News online front page which has been perceptibly creeping into MailOnline territory, despite your assertion that the Mail isn't influential.
Sorry to break it to you about Louis Tomlinson by the way. I'm sure he'll be OK.
(
After you my dear Alfonse No. After you., Sat 4 Mar 2017, 17:47,
Reply)
"I call it virtue signalling but you're unimaginative and unoriginal"
What a ridiculous narcissist
(, Sat 4 Mar 2017, 17:00, Reply)
It's not as good as snowflake to be honest
Is that one of yours too?
(, Sat 4 Mar 2017, 17:47, Reply)
*slips into catatonic state induced by your tedium*
(
Prufrock Lucifer, son of the morning!, Sat 4 Mar 2017, 17:57,
Reply)
catatonic state
I see you are still mouthing off your bullshit "virtue signallers" how about this you scum bag - My ex used to have a turn of phrase "I would not piss on him if he was on fire" - Me your not worth a match. Enough virtue signalling for you or are you so thick you do not get it !!! FUCK OFF CUNT
(, Sat 4 Mar 2017, 19:08, Reply)
Hmmmm,
You are an immigrant, not an "ex pat". Calm down and fuck off. If you don't like it, use the ignore button, you stupid cunt.
(
Prufrock Lucifer, son of the morning!, Sat 4 Mar 2017, 19:41,
Reply)
well that's put frockie in his place
he'll be in his room in the dark crying now. Devastating critique too.
(
The Ann Coulter Fan Club Babylon is burning at, Sat 4 Mar 2017, 19:41,
Reply)
I stopped reading papers and websites because of all the fake news.
(
drimble he'd been white, he'd been black, Sun 5 Mar 2017, 9:31,
Reply)
No you call it virtue signalling because it is an in vogue word on the far right sites you read.
(, Sun 5 Mar 2017, 20:12, Reply)
If you've read the article, that isn't the point at all.
The point is that a bunch of weirdos have declared it to be a non-source for Wikipedia - while leaving the North Korean News Agency, RT, Prsss TV and Exaro in. That's just plain fucking stupid.
No one could give a fuck what you or anyone else thinks of the Mail or what I think of the Guardian.
And it isn't bloody wiki-weaks which is an entirely separate organisation.
(
The Ann Coulter Fan Club Babylon is burning at, Sat 4 Mar 2017, 15:00,
Reply)
ahh, my bad
I didn't read the article.
Personally I'm glad that Wikipedia exists, regardless of it's inconsistent approach to sources, it does more right in educating people than it does wrong in offending on political grounds.
Another way of thinking about the banning of the Mail but not the others: the journey of a thousand miles...
(, Sat 4 Mar 2017, 15:54, Reply)
But the entire point of wikipedia
is that it relies on third party links. If there was a page entitled 'The Ann Coulter Fan Club' and I posted on it to correct something, they'd edit me out because I hadn't linked to a third party. The fact that 53 people can ban a news source because they just don't like the mail's weltgestalt is wrong. And it really should have occurred to the ring leader that online actions have real world consequences. On the upside for him, if they;ve got anything wrong he can both complain to IPSO and sue for libel where the burden of proof will be on the Mail.
(
The Ann Coulter Fan Club Babylon is burning at, Sat 4 Mar 2017, 15:57,
Reply)
{{Citation needed}} seems like a decent rule
If I were helping maintain an encyclopedia though, I'd think the quality of those links would count for more than their existence.
(Mails viewpoints aside, their hyperbolic style often encroaches beyond the refreshingly unconcerned with the vulgar exigencies of veracity)
(, Sat 4 Mar 2017, 16:44, Reply)