Vile left wing envy and hatred

2456

Comments

  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,808
    Imposter wrote:
    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?
    Not very often, it's a pile of crap. But enough to form my opinion above.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Imposter wrote:
    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?
    Not very often, it's a pile of crap. But enough to form my opinion above.

    It doesn't sound like you've ever read it, tbh.
  • bompington
    bompington Posts: 7,674
    bompington wrote:
    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.
    I should add that it's important to maintain an air of hurt, horror and injured innocence, and don't for a moment let slip that you're actually wetting yourself with glee at your enemies' misfortune
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,808
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    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.
    :roll:

    I'm sure that in a day or two, The Guardian go back to being most smart-arse sandal wearers' favourite rag and all will be forgiven.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,808
    bompington wrote:
    bompington wrote:
    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.
    I should add that it's important to maintain an air of hurt, horror and injured innocence, and don't for a moment let slip that you're actually wetting yourself with glee at your enemies' misfortune
    It's also good to nail a bit of leftie hypocrisy.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,811
    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.

    So many straw men on this thread, I may use it for animal bedding.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    Stevo 666 wrote:

    I'm sure that in a day or two, The Guardian go back to being most smart-arse sandal wearers' favourite rag and all will be forgiven.

    It's a favourite here, generally because it's the only broadsheet which isn't behind a paywall.

    People get arseache if they post too many links to articles behind paywalls.
    _
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    bompington wrote:
    bompington wrote:
    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.
    I should add that it's important to maintain an air of hurt, horror and injured innocence, and don't for a moment let slip that you're actually wetting yourself with glee at your enemies' misfortune

    I had hating the Guardian as Gammon behaviour. Can you be a gammon snowflake or does it all depend upon D.O.B.
  • Alejandrosdog
    Alejandrosdog Posts: 1,975
    is gammon anti vegan?
  • tangled_metal
    tangled_metal Posts: 4,021
    Newspaper publishes something that people don't like. That's news?

    Today it's guardian, tomorrow mail (probably still something about immigrants) and the Express the day after (probably something to get at the remoaners).

    Perhaps one of their editorials will be so bad as to get criticism from all political or ideological groups like this guardian one did.

    Is it just me or hasn't everyone basically said it's a bad thing tie guardian published? What on earth are some people complaining about?
  • rolf_f
    rolf_f Posts: 16,015
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    The Guardian gets a free pass on here because it's 'the right sort' of bile and hatred.
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Just more evidence of what most of us already know about the Guardian.

    Make up your mind please! :wink:
    Faster than a tent.......
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    Alejandrosdog wrote:
    is gammon anti vegan?

    Can you confirm your D.O.B. so that we can stuff you in the appropriate pigeonhole.
  • rolf_f
    rolf_f Posts: 16,015
    Tangled Metal wrote:
    Is it just me or hasn't everyone basically said it's a bad thing tie guardian published? What on earth are some people complaining about?

    That there exists a mostly centre left leaning paper that cares about environmental issues and writes for people with that mindset? They'd rather all papers were all adorably hard right sh1t stirrers doling out free petrol vouchers. Probably.
    Faster than a tent.......
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    Tangled Metal wrote:
    Newspaper publishes something that people don't like. That's news?

    Today it's guardian, tomorrow mail (probably still something about immigrants) and the Express the day after (probably something to get at the remoaners).

    Perhaps one of their editorials will be so bad as to get criticism from all political or ideological groups like this guardian one did.

    Is it just me or hasn't everyone basically said it's a bad thing tie guardian published? What on earth are some people complaining about?

    Ironically they seem to be exploiting the death of Ivan Cameron to bash the Guardian for exploiting the death of Ivan Cameron.
  • surfercyclist
    surfercyclist Posts: 894
    The Guardian. What a waste of dead trees.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    SurferCyclist wrote:
    The Guardian. What a waste of dead trees.

    The 1980s just called - they want their media analysis back
  • surfercyclist
    surfercyclist Posts: 894
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    SurferCyclist wrote:
    The Guardian. What a waste of dead trees.

    The 1980s just called - they want their media analysis back

    1970s in my case.

    I'm sure there's someone on this forum who just laps up the shite the Guardian spews out, can't quite remember who but seem to recall a multi-personality bandwagon jumping numbty. Basically their target readership! :lol:
  • robert88
    robert88 Posts: 2,696
    SurferCyclist wrote:
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    SurferCyclist wrote:
    The Guardian. What a waste of dead trees.

    The 1980s just called - they want their media analysis back

    1970s in my case.

    I'm sure there's someone on this forum who just laps up the shite the Guardian spews out, can't quite remember who but seem to recall a multi-personality bandwagon jumping numbty. Basically their target readership! :lol:

    We need to identify them urgently. Do try to remember for the good of your country. And we need all of their identities, mind, and where they live.
  • tangled_metal
    tangled_metal Posts: 4,021
    SurferCyclist wrote:
    The Guardian. What a waste of dead trees.
    I read it online like most people i know. Are there dead trees involved in that?
  • surfercyclist
    surfercyclist Posts: 894
    Tangled Metal wrote:
    SurferCyclist wrote:
    The Guardian. What a waste of dead trees.
    I read it online like most people i know. Are there dead trees involved in that?

    No just dead minds! :D
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    SurferCyclist wrote:
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    SurferCyclist wrote:
    The Guardian. What a waste of dead trees.

    The 1980s just called - they want their media analysis back

    1970s in my case.

    I'm sure there's someone on this forum who just laps up the shite the Guardian spews out, can't quite remember who but seem to recall a multi-personality bandwagon jumping numbty. Basically their target readership! :lol:

    You are going to be appalled when you find out their online reach - best not to look it up
  • hopkinb
    hopkinb Posts: 7,129
    SurferCyclist wrote:
    Tangled Metal wrote:
    SurferCyclist wrote:
    The Guardian. What a waste of dead trees.
    I read it online like most people i know. Are there dead trees involved in that?

    No just dead minds! :D

    Which august journal should hold the attention of those with live minds?
  • surfercyclist
    surfercyclist Posts: 894
    hopkinb wrote:
    SurferCyclist wrote:
    Tangled Metal wrote:
    SurferCyclist wrote:
    The Guardian. What a waste of dead trees.
    I read it online like most people i know. Are there dead trees involved in that?

    No just dead minds! :D

    Which august journal should hold the attention of those with live minds?

    I'd suggest a balanced view rather than anything too leftie eg Guardian or too right wing eg Mail.

    Personally I read The Times, it's not perfect but best of the bunch in my opinion. Others may differ as is their want.
  • rolf_f
    rolf_f Posts: 16,015
    SurferCyclist wrote:
    Tangled Metal wrote:
    SurferCyclist wrote:
    The Guardian. What a waste of dead trees.
    I read it online like most people i know. Are there dead trees involved in that?

    No just dead minds! :D

    Where's the slow clap gif when you need it?
    Faster than a tent.......
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    SurferCyclist wrote:
    hopkinb wrote:
    SurferCyclist wrote:
    Tangled Metal wrote:
    SurferCyclist wrote:
    The Guardian. What a waste of dead trees.
    I read it online like most people i know. Are there dead trees involved in that?

    No just dead minds! :D

    Which august journal should hold the attention of those with live minds?

    I'd suggest a balanced view rather than anything too leftie eg Guardian or too right wing eg Mail.

    Personally I read The Times, it's not perfect but best of the bunch in my opinion. Others may differ as is their want.

    Would suggest The Times' obsession with private schools is very much not balanced.
    _
  • surfercyclist
    surfercyclist Posts: 894
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    SurferCyclist wrote:
    hopkinb wrote:
    SurferCyclist wrote:
    Tangled Metal wrote:
    SurferCyclist wrote:
    The Guardian. What a waste of dead trees.
    I read it online like most people i know. Are there dead trees involved in that?

    No just dead minds! :D

    Which august journal should hold the attention of those with live minds?

    I'd suggest a balanced view rather than anything too leftie eg Guardian or too right wing eg Mail.

    Personally I read The Times, it's not perfect but best of the bunch in my opinion. Others may differ as is their want.

    Would suggest The Times' obsession with private schools is very much not balanced.

    Like I said it's not perfect but best of bunch imo.
  • rolf_f
    rolf_f Posts: 16,015
    SurferCyclist wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    SurferCyclist wrote:
    hopkinb wrote:
    SurferCyclist wrote:
    Tangled Metal wrote:
    SurferCyclist wrote:
    The Guardian. What a waste of dead trees.
    I read it online like most people i know. Are there dead trees involved in that?

    No just dead minds! :D

    Which august journal should hold the attention of those with live minds?

    I'd suggest a balanced view rather than anything too leftie eg Guardian or too right wing eg Mail.

    Personally I read The Times, it's not perfect but best of the bunch in my opinion. Others may differ as is their want.

    Would suggest The Times' obsession with private schools is very much not balanced.

    Like I said it's not perfect but best of bunch imo.

    I dunno. I think the readerships minds are a bit dead for me.
    Faster than a tent.......
  • tangled_metal
    tangled_metal Posts: 4,021
    It's becoming more daily mail territory than guardian these days. Perhaps torygraph is a happy medium for everyone to be happy? Or let's just whine about remoaners and the evil union like the daily Expressm does all the time. Is there any other news than Brexit? The Express doesn't think so.

    Or let's become a fully fledged Tory and say things like their MPs say. That would get even a drill mc thinking they'd get locked up. (One for the urban kids that reference). Does anyone find it acceptable for an mp to say about their party leader and PM that they'd stick the knife in and twist. Or the knives are getting heated. Or "she's dead. We're going to chop her up into bits." That last one was widely attributed to Osborne. Nice lot aren't they!

    https://youtu.be/uYPP7enGvcU

    It's a mad, bad world out there snowflake. When politicians need banning more than our home growth rap MCs! Toughen up or stop reading the vile rags like guardian, torygraph and daily mail.

    Now I'm off to listen to a few classics. NWA's f*k da police, will calm this snowflake down nicely. The good old days, ah that's better.
  • robert88
    robert88 Posts: 2,696
    Nah, the Times is just Murdoch pretending to be intellectual.

    The FT is best.

    One of the youngest rags, founded in the 40s by Brendan Bracken out of two struggling titles, for people interested in money obviously.

    And let's be honest, the rich thrive on the envy of the poor. They should be grateful for all they can get.
  • surfercyclist
    surfercyclist Posts: 894
    Looool seems like there's a few Guardian readers here after all. Calm down chaps, try not to get all red faced and sweaty.

    Life is too short. 8)

Categories