Forum home› Road cycling forum› The cake stop

Vile left wing envy and hatred

AlejandrosdogAlejandrosdog Posts: 1,975
edited September 2019 in The cake stop
the achingly oh so right on Guardian, shown for what it really is.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49710874
«13456

Posts

  • PhilipPirripPhilipPirrip Posts: 616
    They've apolgised completely. Quite admirable in a time when people form rabid, unwavering views on just the slightest bits of information.
  • kingstongrahamkingstongraham Posts: 23,898
    It's not envy is it? Just unthinking, wrong headed hatred. It's terrible that anyone thought it, let alone got it through an editorial meeting and published it.

    Pretty much everyone left or right that I've seen commenting has condemned it.
  • AlejandrosdogAlejandrosdog Posts: 1,975
    PhilipPirrip wrote:
    They've apolgised completely. Quite admirable in a time when people form rabid, unwavering views on just the slightest bits of information.

    hmmm so you think they've behaved admirably.......... that says a lot about you
  • robert88robert88 Posts: 2,696
    Yes, strangely enough although his political skills were found so wanting, Cameron seems to be a reasonably decent human being. How quickly things change.
  • PhilipPirripPhilipPirrip Posts: 616
    Alejandrosdog wrote:
    PhilipPirrip wrote:
    They've apolgised completely. Quite admirable in a time when people form rabid, unwavering views on just the slightest bits of information.

    hmmm so you think they've behaved admirably.......... that says a lot about you
    As I said, some people form rabid, unwavering views on just the slightest bits of information.
  • imposter2.0imposter2.0 Posts: 11,986
    Alejandrosdog wrote:
    PhilipPirrip wrote:
    They've apolgised completely. Quite admirable in a time when people form rabid, unwavering views on just the slightest bits of information.

    hmmm so you think they've behaved admirably.......... that says a lot about you

    I think he means the apology is admirable (and necessary) - not the original statement, just in case that wasn't clear..
  • elbowlohelbowloh Posts: 7,078
    It's censored . They should never have published it and have rightly taken the editorial down, but it clearly doesn't mean that this is how all lefties think or feel in the same way that the some of the things in the Mail or the Telegraph don't reflect how everyone on the right thinks or feels.
    Felt F1 2014
    Felt Z6 2012
    Red Arthur Caygill steel frame
    Tall....
    www.seewildlife.co.uk
  • kingstongrahamkingstongraham Posts: 23,898
    Cracking fishing expedition thread, mind you.
  • AlejandrosdogAlejandrosdog Posts: 1,975
    Imposter wrote:
    Alejandrosdog wrote:
    PhilipPirrip wrote:
    They've apolgised completely. Quite admirable in a time when people form rabid, unwavering views on just the slightest bits of information.

    hmmm so you think they've behaved admirably.......... that says a lot about you

    I think he means the apology is admirable (and necessary) - not the original statement, just in case that wasn't clear..

    That the apology were necessary at all is the issue. Not that that is a rabid view at all. Im surprised he felt it necessary to defend the guardians behaviour with an attack.
  • AlejandrosdogAlejandrosdog Posts: 1,975
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    It's not envy is it? Just unthinking, wrong headed hatred. It's terrible that anyone thought it, let alone got it through an editorial meeting and published it.

    Pretty much everyone left or right that I've seen commenting has condemned it.

    title amended :)
  • imposter2.0imposter2.0 Posts: 11,986
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    Cracking fishing expedition thread, mind you.

    yep..
  • rolf_frolf_f Posts: 16,015
    Not as though there is a shortage of vile right wing envy/hatred etc in the media though is there? There's a few orders of magnitude more right wing bile being published daily than the left wing variety.
    Faster than a tent.......
  • davebradswmbdavebradswmb Posts: 344
    Alejandrosdog wrote:
    PhilipPirrip wrote:
    They've apolgised completely. Quite admirable in a time when people form rabid, unwavering views on just the slightest bits of information.

    hmmm so you think they've behaved admirably.......... that says a lot about you
    And your posts say a lot about you.
    Have you got instance ever had a rant about any of Katie Hopkins vile remarks? She on her own must outnumber anything in the Guardian by at least 10 to 1.
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 54,487
    Alejandrosdog wrote:
    the achingly oh so right on Guardian, shown for what it really is.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49710874
    Fair point Mr. Dog, but it's not exactly news in my view. Just more evidence of what most of us already know about the Guardian.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 67,500 Lives Here
    I don't think you'll find anyone who agrees with what the guardian wrote.
    _
  • TheBigBeanTheBigBean Posts: 18,485
    At times I think the Guardian can be as bad as the Mail in its bias reporting. That said, the Guardian occasionally brings in guest writers who write outstanding pieces. I am not aware of the Mail doing anything similar.
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 54,487
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    I don't think you'll find anyone who agrees with what the guardian wrote.
    Somebody in their editorial team presumably must have agreed with it at the time for it to get published.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 54,487
    TheBigBean wrote:
    At times I think the Guardian can be as bad as the Mail in its bias reporting. That said, the Guardian occasionally brings in guest writers who write outstanding pieces. I am not aware of the Mail doing anything similar.
    True, although the Daily Mail at least doesn't have that air of smug self-righteousness that the Guardian manages to emanate.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 67,500 Lives Here
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    I don't think you'll find anyone who agrees with what the guardian wrote.
    Somebody in their editorial team presumably must have agreed with it at the time for it to get published.

    OK Stevo.
    _
  • AlejandrosdogAlejandrosdog Posts: 1,975
    I'm surprised so many are seeking to excuse the guardians repulsive editorial by commenting on the mail or Hopkins. Hopkins can be vile too but she's just an internet antagonist, the guardian is the guardian much loved by the liberals and lefty types and irrespective how vile Hopkins can be it does not give an excuse to anyone else to behave like that.
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 67,500 Lives Here
    Alejandrosdog wrote:
    I'm surprised so many are seeking to excuse the guardians repulsive editorial by commenting on the mail or Hopkins. Hopkins can be vile too but she's just an internet antagonist, the guardian is the guardian much loved by the liberals and lefty types and irrespective how vile Hopkins can be it does not give an excuse to anyone else to behave like that.

    You're fighting an imaginary person. No-one here thinks that what was written was right.
    _
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 54,487
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    I don't think you'll find anyone who agrees with what the guardian wrote.
    Somebody in their editorial team presumably must have agreed with it at the time for it to get published.

    OK Stevo.
    Glad you agree. You have to wonder how something that awful got through.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • AlejandrosdogAlejandrosdog Posts: 1,975
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    I don't think you'll find anyone who agrees with what the guardian wrote.
    Somebody in their editorial team presumably must have agreed with it at the time for it to get published.

    OK Stevo.

    He's bang on Rick. this guardian doesn't write itself and the bile filled hatred that spawned that piece was approved for publication. Their moral compass is waaaaaaaay off.
  • bondurantbondurant Posts: 858
    edited September 2019
    ^SERIOUSLY?

    I mean, good for you if you've never read it, but the Daily Mail is the home of self-righteousness. Half their articles talk about what right-thinking people would do, or highlight the moral vacuum of Britain's youth etc. When it isn't bashing immigrants anyway.

    EDIT...so many posts...this was in response to the one about the Daily Mail not being self-righteous. And no, this is not to excuse what the Guardian wrote
  • AlejandrosdogAlejandrosdog Posts: 1,975
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Alejandrosdog wrote:
    I'm surprised so many are seeking to excuse the guardians repulsive editorial by commenting on the mail or Hopkins. Hopkins can be vile too but she's just an internet antagonist, the guardian is the guardian much loved by the liberals and lefty types and irrespective how vile Hopkins can be it does not give an excuse to anyone else to behave like that.

    You're fighting an imaginary person. No-one here thinks that what was written was right.


    And yet we see people seeking to justify the behaviour by comparing it to a known internet scrote like Hopkins. All that does is give Hopkins legitimacy .
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 67,500 Lives Here
    Alejandrosdog wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Alejandrosdog wrote:
    I'm surprised so many are seeking to excuse the guardians repulsive editorial by commenting on the mail or Hopkins. Hopkins can be vile too but she's just an internet antagonist, the guardian is the guardian much loved by the liberals and lefty types and irrespective how vile Hopkins can be it does not give an excuse to anyone else to behave like that.

    You're fighting an imaginary person. No-one here thinks that what was written was right.


    And yet we see people seeking to justify the behaviour by comparing it to a known internet scrote like Hopkins. All that does is give Hopkins legitimacy .

    If you could read properly, you'd appreciate that is not the case.

    Though your lake of opprobrium for other mainstream news outlets when they produce similarly bad-taste editorials, but happen to me more aligned to your own politics, is notable, and not enormously admirable.

    I can see some people highlighting that particular behaviour, which you seem to be misconstruing for justifying an editorial that no-one agrees with.
    _
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 54,487
    Alejandrosdog wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Alejandrosdog wrote:
    I'm surprised so many are seeking to excuse the guardians repulsive editorial by commenting on the mail or Hopkins. Hopkins can be vile too but she's just an internet antagonist, the guardian is the guardian much loved by the liberals and lefty types and irrespective how vile Hopkins can be it does not give an excuse to anyone else to behave like that.

    You're fighting an imaginary person. No-one here thinks that what was written was right.


    And yet we see people seeking to justify the behaviour by comparing it to a known internet scrote like Hopkins. All that does is give Hopkins legitimacy .
    The Guardian gets a free pass on here because it's 'the right sort' of bile and hatred.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • bompingtonbompington Posts: 7,674
    What we are seeing here is classic snowflake behaviour: sit around waiting for your "enemies" to say or do something wrong, however small, then hammer them relentlessly and mecilessly, without any allowance for context, nuance or anything else. If anyone should point out that your calling-out behaviour is inconsistent with the values you profess to be supporting, the oh-so-mature response "but they started it" should do the trick.
  • imposter2.0imposter2.0 Posts: 11,986
    edited September 2019
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    At times I think the Guardian can be as bad as the Mail in its bias reporting. That said, the Guardian occasionally brings in guest writers who write outstanding pieces. I am not aware of the Mail doing anything similar.
    True, although the Daily Mail at least doesn't have that air of smug self-righteousness that the Guardian manages to emanate.

    You've not read the Daily Mail then?

    https://www.globaljustice.org.uk/blog/2 ... daily-mail
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 67,500 Lives Here
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Alejandrosdog wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Alejandrosdog wrote:
    I'm surprised so many are seeking to excuse the guardians repulsive editorial by commenting on the mail or Hopkins. Hopkins can be vile too but she's just an internet antagonist, the guardian is the guardian much loved by the liberals and lefty types and irrespective how vile Hopkins can be it does not give an excuse to anyone else to behave like that.

    You're fighting an imaginary person. No-one here thinks that what was written was right.


    And yet we see people seeking to justify the behaviour by comparing it to a known internet scrote like Hopkins. All that does is give Hopkins legitimacy .
    The Guardian gets a free pass on here because it's 'the right sort' of bile and hatred.

    Because people saying things like
    It's not envy is it? Just unthinking, wrong headed hatred. It's terrible that anyone thought it, let alone got it through an editorial meeting and published it.

    or
    I don't think you'll find anyone who agrees with what the guardian wrote.

    is evidence of the paper getting a free pass?

    Gotcha.
    _
Sign In or Register to comment.