Ebola

I agree the second article is trite and shite but tell me what's wrong with the first one?
 
Using such a disease to play politics . That's not to deny that idiots like Limburger are too but it is descending to their level. The race issue thrown in (and I won't disagree that it has a point) but also selectively slamming republicans over this issue and Africa when it's hardly a secret that bush threw more resources at aids in Africa than any other president or anyone anywhere in truth. He knows that too, which makes it worse. The second article is a disgrace agreed . Amazed such stuff could be published and it is close to race hate
 
Last edited:
It's not reportage right enough, it's a comment piece.

The right-wing figures he quotes are the ones who are disgusting because they really did say such things.
 
I'm amazed no enterprising terrorist has thought to send suicide deadly disease carriers over here to spend 2 weeks travelling on the London underground
 
So it is here.
Reading the reassurements on here and reading the government spokespersons guarantees put me into a kind of comfort zone. Looks like I was lulled into a false sense of security. :blink:

The O.P.'s question at the beginning of this thread was if there was "a need for concern".
Too damn right there is, it seems !
 
simmo said:
I heard the following line in a film the other night.

"He's not a person, he's a Daily Mail reader".
Click to expand...
I think you'll find that it news on other media besides the Daily Mail. The Scottish nurse; headlines on TV and most newspapers.

I read the following line in a post on this thread the other day:
"Ebola is a pile of wank. Stop reading the Daily Mail, it's clearly causing issues for you".
Why do assume that we all get our newsfeed exclusively from the Daily Mail ?
 
icebreaker said:
I think you'll find that it news on other media besides the Daily Mail. The Scottish nurse; headlines on TV and most newspapers.

I read the following line in a post on this thread the other day:
"Ebola is a pile of wank. Stop reading the Daily Mail, it's clearly causing issues for you".
Why do assume that we all get our newsfeed exclusively from the Daily Mail ?
Click to expand...

Because Simmo is a fool
 
Last edited:
The Daily Mail has become more and more of the gold standard for inhumane, nasty, and cruel minded people, so it's increasingly used as a 'catch all' insult to describe such people - that was until the Sun employed Katie Hopkins. The Mail has quite deliberately set out to cultivate this kind of a following though

The bottom line is papers like the Mail have lost the ability to report the news (it happens too fast for them now). In order to remain relevant therefore they need to find another avenue to exploit. Instead, the Mail have seemingly elected to try and manage the emotional reactions of the unthinking majority by offending their moral indignation through the selective and questionable reporting of what are often quite old stories, in the hope of inflaming a reaction and provoking a subsequent behaviour (a vote in the direction they approve of). They basically appeal to a base instinct in some people and realise that this can be exploited if they paint their reader as the righteous innocent victim and the target as an abuser. It's often about subtly promoting division and hate

I should say, I'd actually be surprised if katie Hopkins could get away with some her bile were Rebekah Brookes still signing the cheques. I expect the Sun will have to drop her her soon. I did note someone trying to negotiate a swap with the Scots incidentally - Hopkins for Ebola.
 
Warbler said:
The Daily Mail has become more and more of the gold standard for inhumane, nasty, and cruel minded people, so it's increasingly used as a 'catch all' insult to describe such people - that was until the Sun employed Katie Hopkins. The Mail has quite deliberately set out to cultivate this kind of a following though
Click to expand...
Yes, but why is the "Daily Mail Reader" accusation flung out at every juncture in a debate? It's really a camouflaged insult -- a stock, lazy one at that.
It's an insult of resort and default that is creeping in even on this forum.
The Ebola development -- the Scottish nurse -- is headline news everywhere, ffs, not just in the Daily Mail.
 
icebreaker said:
The Ebola development -- the Scottish nurse -- is headline news everywhere, ffs, not just in the Daily Mail.
Click to expand...

True, but the only people who are that bothered about it (any more so than they were about, say, the nurses in the US who brought it to their homes), are Daily Mail readers and Katie Hopkins. It is therefore not an assumption, it is a deduction. Unless of course Harry is Katie Hopkins, but they probably wouldn't let her anywhere near little kiddies in case she polluted them with her rascist way of thinking, so he can't be.

PS Being called a Daily Mail reader is only an insult if you believe that the nazi filth they espouse is something bad. Ergo, Daily Mail readers should actually be quite pleased at being called Daily Mail readers, since they're all for jackboot sensationalism.
 
Last edited:
The Daily Mail has set out to appeal to this kind of reader though and cultivate them, they, and their apologists, can hardly be surprised that their name has now been taken to be used as a wrap around for a cruel and uncaring individual who needn't think too hard but is consumed instead by hate fro everything they don't recognise as being themselves. The 'Guardian reader' is also used as a catch all phrase equally, indeed, I've even heard it used on this forum! - shock (mock reflected superiority of TH of course).
 
Warbler said:
The 'Guardian reader' is also used as a catch all phrase equally, indeed, I've even heard it used on this forum! - shock (mock reflected superiority of TH of course).
Click to expand...

Quite - although one doesn't hear Guardian readers squealing like burning Jews about being called Guardian readers. Which rather suggests that Daily Mail readers, in being insulted by being called Daily Mail readers are actually quite aware of the inherent inhumanity and/or stupidity of their position, and just don't like having it pointed out to them.
 
simmo said:
Daily Mail readers, in being insulted by being called Daily Mail readers are actually quite aware of the inherent inhumanity and/or stupidity of their position, and just don't like having it pointed out to them.
Click to expand...
But don't you see -- this is exactly what I am railing against !

I am NOT a Daily Mail reader, and you are presumptuous in assuming that I am ( along with all the attendant extreme-Rightist views "associated" with being one).
This Ebola story is reportage, not interpretation or analysis. I don't know what the Daily Mail has got to do with the topic.
 
Last edited:
icebreaker said:
I am NOT a Daily Mail reader, and you are presumptuous in assuming that I am ( along with all the attendant extreme-Rightist views "associated" with being one).
Click to expand...

Fly with the crows and you'll get shot with them. It's a story - it's not a matter for the attempts at mass hysteria that are reflected in this thread and certain "news" publications. (You also shouldn't confuse reportage with interpretation - I have first hand experience of how the Daily Mail and The Sun report facts.)
 
Maybe Sir Bob can get the Davies brothers and a few of the boys together to do a fund raising song for Ebola victims. Could use the Lola tune with revamped lyrics, or just change Lola to Ebola. Wouldn't make much sense but doesn't matter as it's for a worthy cause. All together now.. E B O L A

 
Headline in a paper this morning

"why did they allow Ebola nurse to go home?"

daily mirror. It's bollocks that it's only the mail spreading "scare" stories
 
simmo said:
Quite - although one doesn't hear Guardian readers squealing like burning Jews about being called Guardian readers. Which rather suggests that Daily Mail readers, in being insulted by being called Daily Mail readers are actually quite aware of the inherent inhumanity and/or stupidity of their position, and just don't like having it pointed out to them.
Click to expand...

because half the forum seems to be guardian readers. It's about half the total readership of that dying paper, which even though a broadsheet, is not shirt of divisive articles itself, as I have had fun pointing out. Especially true with race and Israel (often the same thing in that world)and class, which is an obsession there.

i just hope this wonderfully caring nurse recovers.
 
I agree sincerely with your last sentence, Clive.


Going by your posts you seem to spend quite a bit of your time on the Guardian site. Just keeping your eye on the enemy is it?
 
It's good entertainment. In truth you do get the occasional good piece there, I like Jonathan freedland. And one shouldn't always just read stuff you agree with. But you do get some very strange stuff.

i actually get the observer, which admittedly doesn't have any sinister writers like seamus milne. Rawnsley is superb on politics and nick Cohen is always decent. Will Hutton is a terrible writer though and muddled.
 
Back
Top