Have DM readers had half their brains removed? Watch

Unruly Marmite
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#61
Report 5 years ago
#61
(Original post by Octopus_Garden)
I call it the Daily Heil, in homage to its adoring stance towards pre-war Germany and the Daily Wail, in tribute to its relentless articles about the moral decay of modern Britain, if that helps.
Well, 'I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it'. That's your opinion, and those names are at least somewhat justified. I mainly dislike the way in which every reader of the Daily Mail is sometimes portrayed as ignorant, though the comments on their website hardly help.
0
reply
aranexus
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#62
Report 5 years ago
#62
(Original post by Clip)
You will find far worse on TSR, yet most of the people here think they're rocket scientists.
As a rocket scientist; i am offended :rolleyes:
0
reply
Octopus_Garden
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#63
Report 5 years ago
#63
(Original post by Unruly Marmite)
Well, 'I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it'. That's your opinion, and those names are at least somewhat justified. I mainly dislike the way in which every reader of the Daily Mail is sometimes portrayed as ignorant, though the comments on their website hardly help.
Would you like to hear my favourite comment from there? No? Sorry, I have to share this.

After a story about the most badly supervised nursery ever, and one three year old hurting another one ( the article focused the moral blame on the three year old's behaviour, rather than on how the staff hadn't noticed the incident occurring at the time, and had needed to be fetched by another child, because they hadn't noticed the loser of the fight crying), one commentator said she would love to see the three year old get "knocked out". It was deleted, unfortunately, but it got a fair few votes up. As in, lots of votes.

So, erm, lots of Daily Mail readers want to see a three year old punched unconscious, if she's had a few altercations at nursery. A three year old.
0
reply
Pastaferian
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#64
Report 5 years ago
#64
(Original post by Clip)
My agenda is one of opposing ignorance. The exact opposite of the warmist agenda.

I'll all for complete openness and integrity in science - which is the exact opposite of the warmist agenda.

I could absolutely be convinced of AGW if I could be shown untainted science. I have never met an AGW proponent who says they could be convinced to the contrary under any circumstances.
Noble ideals, but unachievable from a state of ignorance. And you should get out more.

My agenda is also one of opposing ignorance, in particular vague and unsubstantiated claims like the ones you keep making. Things like 'warmist agenda', 'tainted science' - what is this? Apart from the ability to cut-and-paste from conspiracy blogs, you don't seem to have any knowledge on this subject whatsoever, much less the ability to pontificate on the quality of the science.

I know that conspiracy theorists like you think that governments have been conned by the thousands of naughty climate scientists who have ganged together to push the results of 'tainted science'. However, I'm curious why you think that the national science academics of all the major countries have gone along with the 'warmist agenda' and do not see any of the problems with openness and/or integrity that you perceive. After all, they comprise respected scientists engaged in a wide range of fields, all with clear ideas about the scientific method. Do you seriously think the lizards climate scientists have conned them too?

(Original post by TimmonaPortella)
I would be convinced to the contrary if the scientific consensus held that the contrary was true.
Me too, if the evidence pointed that way.
0
reply
Unruly Marmite
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#65
Report 5 years ago
#65
(Original post by Octopus_Garden)
So, erm, lots of Daily Mail readers want to see a three year old punched unconscious, if she's had a few altercations at nursery. A three year old.
Ok, you have a point. The Daily Mail website seems to attract some...some... I don't really have a word for it. Curses. I hate being persuadable on topics like this. I'm not going to defend them, especially as some of the comments I've seen have made me despair of the Daily Mail readership.
0
reply
Octopus_Garden
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#66
Report 5 years ago
#66
(Original post by Unruly Marmite)
Ok, you have a point. The Daily Mail website seems to attract some...some... I don't really have a word for it. Curses. I hate being persuadable on topics like this. I'm not going to defend them, especially as some of the comments I've seen have made me despair of the Daily Mail readership.
Oh it gets worse than that. You see the Daily Mail does pre-censoring on comments. (I distinctly remember commenting on an article and pointing out that they had an advert for a dating site just below an article about how dating sites were destroying modern Britain, and they removed the salient part) Maybe if you post enough, they lift the restrictions, but if so, i don't know the threshold.

So, it seems very likely to me that this comment got through active pre-moderation. What the hell? Family values, ahoy?
0
reply
Unruly Marmite
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#67
Report 5 years ago
#67
(Original post by Octopus_Garden)
Oh it gets worse than that. You see the Daily Mail does pre-censoring on comments. (I distinctly remember commenting on an article and pointing out that they had an advert for a dating site just below an article about how dating sites were destroying modern Britain, and they removed the salient part) Maybe if you post enough, they lift the restrictions, but if so, i don't know the threshold.

So, it seems very likely to me that this comment got through active pre-moderation. What the hell? Family values, ahoy?
Punching a three year old is a little, um, maniacal, but maybe the pre-censoring is mostly automated, and only cuts out certain words/ phrases? Otherwise, my faith in their website is mostly collapsing, although the comments section doesn't seem to work anyway- all I can view is the most recent seven, or how ever many there are. Suggesting a three year old get knocked out for being in a fight seems to match some comments I've seen- all 'bring back the birch!' type things.
0
reply
Octopus_Garden
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#68
Report 5 years ago
#68
(Original post by Unruly Marmite)
Punching a three year old is a little, um, maniacal, but maybe the pre-censoring is mostly automated, and only cuts out certain words/ phrases? Otherwise, my faith in their website is mostly collapsing, although the comments section doesn't seem to work anyway- all I can view is the most recent seven, or how ever many there are. Suggesting a three year old get knocked out for being in a fight seems to match some comments I've seen- all 'bring back the birch!' type things.
Could be, but comments take up to half an hour to appear, so I hypothesise it's a team of people doing it.
0
reply
Unruly Marmite
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#69
Report 5 years ago
#69
(Original post by Octopus_Garden)
Could be, but comments take up to half an hour to appear, so I hypothesise it's a team of people doing it.
Getting back on track, the Daily Mail, I think, attracts this kind of thing because, I think, it is the most right wing newspaper that is broadly circulated, so it would attract the more, shall we say 'radical' right wingers? And most more moderate right wingers probably don't see the need to post comments. Still, hardly a shining example.
0
reply
Runninground
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#70
Report 5 years ago
#70
(Original post by SoftPunch)
I am a scientist.

haha. The average Daily Mail reader is an idiot to start with, but after years of reading Daily Mail, their mental condition deteriorates.


It is the truth. No one in their right mind would refer to Daily Mail, let alone read it.
So what newspaper do you read?
0
reply
TheGuy117
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#71
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#71
(Original post by Zürich)
From a legal perspective they were British but in what sense otherwise? Am I supposed to feel kinship with some guys committing terrorist attacks in Syria in the name of Allah? Culturally, politically etc etc these people are not British.
You've clearly missed the point I am making, which is pretty unbelievable considering the title of this thread.
0
reply
Clip
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#72
Report 5 years ago
#72
(Original post by TimmonaPortella)
My suggestion is that most people who accept that we are causing global warming would be likewise convinced.
Most warmists I have met treat it like religion.
0
reply
TimmonaPortella
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#73
Report 5 years ago
#73
(Original post by Clip)
Most warmists I have met treat it like religion.
Firstly, 'warmist' is a ridiculous term.

Secondly, I've no doubt that some have accepted anthropogenic global warming as a dogma, but most accept that it is at least very likely because people who know more about science than they do have told them to. That's a perfectly rational move. The opposite is irrational, unless you are also someone who has dedicated your life to studying the issue in depth.
1
reply
The Socktor
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#74
Report 5 years ago
#74
(Original post by TheGuy117)
Firstly I would like to say that I don't care what your opinions are, however extreme - as long as they are consistent. I have a friend who thinks religion is a joke and will mock me about it from time to time, but he's consistent so it doesn't bother me.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti....html#comments

Whenever a so called Muslim commits an act of terror and actual Muslims say "well, he wasn't actually a Muslim then was he.", people always argue that's a stupid argument and say the terrorist was in fact Muslim.

Yet when a Briton commits an act of terror, he is suddenly not a Briton. :rolleyes:

People wonder why I'm so cynical about the general public's intelligence, what a joke.

Edit: Yes, maybe "at birth" was a bit too much.
Zero doesn't divide.
0
reply
Chief Wiggum
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#75
Report 5 years ago
#75
(Original post by SoftPunch)
And you're wrong - it's universal truth that DM exaggerates or writes pointless BS stories.
Practically every newspaper exaggerates to make a point.

The average TSR-user, who is someone of moderate academic ability with a vastly inflated sense of their own intelligence, seems to think the Daily Mail is the only newspaper that does this.

It's funny because people criticise a thread that references the Daily Mail if they oppose the Daily Mail story. However, if it's a story they don't have a problem with, suddenly nobody complains about the source being the Daily Mail...
0
reply
Chief Wiggum
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#76
Report 5 years ago
#76
(Original post by Octopus_Garden)
Oh it gets worse than that. You see the Daily Mail does pre-censoring on comments. (I distinctly remember commenting on an article and pointing out that they had an advert for a dating site just below an article about how dating sites were destroying modern Britain, and they removed the salient part) Maybe if you post enough, they lift the restrictions, but if so, i don't know the threshold.

So, it seems very likely to me that this comment got through active pre-moderation. What the hell? Family values, ahoy?
BBC News website surely does that as well on some stories? Pre-moderation is hardly a novel concept in terms of online commenting.
0
reply
Octopus_Garden
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#77
Report 5 years ago
#77
(Original post by Chief Wiggum)
BBC News website surely does that as well on some stories? Pre-moderation is hardly a novel concept in terms of online commenting.
Pre-moderation that lets through comments glorifying child abuse is rather a nadir for a website. It says rather a lot about the ethos of the paper!
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How did your AQA A-level Business Paper 1 go?

Loved the paper - Feeling positive (222)
22.75%
The paper was reasonable (440)
45.08%
Not feeling great about that exam... (176)
18.03%
It was TERRIBLE (138)
14.14%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed