Vile left wing envy and hatred

Alejandrosdog

the achingly oh so right on Guardian, shown for what it really is.

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

PhilipPirrip

They've apolgised completely. Quite admirable in a time when people form rabid, unwavering views on just the slightest bits of information.

kingstongraham

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.

Alejandrosdog

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

robert88

Yes, strangely enough although his political skills were found so wanting, Cameron seems to be a reasonably decent human being. How quickly things change.

PhilipPirrip

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.

imposter2.0

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..

elbowloh

It's shit. 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.

kingstongraham

Cracking fishing expedition thread, mind you.

Alejandrosdog

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.

Alejandrosdog

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

imposter2.0

KingstonGraham wrote:

Cracking fishing expedition thread, mind you.

yep..

rolf_f

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.

davebradswmb

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_666

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.

rick_chasey

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

TheBigBean

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_666

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.

Stevo_666

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.

rick_chasey

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.

Alejandrosdog

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_chasey

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_666

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.

Alejandrosdog

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.

bondurant

^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

Alejandrosdog

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_chasey

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_666

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.

bompington

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.

imposter2.0

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_chasey

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.