Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Conversation >

Daily Mail Article o' the Day: A Headsick and Rage Spin-Off

Page: 1 2(3)4

13:51 / 13.11.07

I'm joining a new species.

Our Lady Has Left the Building

14:12 / 13.11.07

Take me with you...

All Acting Regiment

14:18 / 13.11.07

Outrage as young women post drunken pictures on Facebook. Daily Mail saves nation's moral fibre by re-printing tons of them. Commenters suggest that these pictures show how unreasonable it is for young women to complain when they are raped.

14:34 / 13.11.07

In the end though, it's all Speak Your Branes fodder; there's - and I can't believe I'm saying this - some perfectly nice and reasonable responses to this latest piece of fetid poison.

And there's: 'Shameful - and plays into the hands of Islam.'

How?!

Amazing.

Glenn Close But No Cigar

14:40 / 13.11.07

Shameful - and plays into the hands of Islam

Well, if the What should we rename Barbelith discussion is still a live one, I think that we have our answer right there.

All Acting Regiment

14:44 / 13.11.07

What do you mean, Glenn?

Glenn Close But No Cigar

14:54 / 13.11.07

That Shameful - and plays into the hands of Islam would be a fine new name for Barbelith. Because it is, and does.

All Acting Regiment

15:08 / 13.11.07

I can see very little evidence for either of those assertions, Glenn, nor that there is any such substantial entity as 'Islam', with hands, to be played into.

Your artwork, on the other hand, is quite acheived, but ought to be posted in the Creation.

Regrettable Juvenilia

15:12 / 13.11.07

Glenn is carrying on with a private joke amusing only to him, AAR, in which he compares himself to the television show Last of the Summer Wine immediately after someone challenges something he says. The implication then being that he is not serious, but the overall effect being mystification - thus he avoids having to back up the things he says, without actually retracting them.

I don't know about anyone else, but I think perhaps it's time for him to go.

Glenn Close But No Cigar

15:58 / 13.11.07

I can see very little evidence for either of those assertions, Glenn, nor that there is any such substantial entity as 'Islam', with hands, to be played into.

AAR, the thing is I totally agree with you. As Petey / Flyboy points out, I wasn't being serious, or only so far as it might be fun to name the site after the kind of wild, right wing assertion that might be thrown at it by madmen, with their madbrains. Sort of like the original Fauves (no, not Grant Morrison's band!).

I don't know about anyone else, but I think perhaps it's time for him to go

I don't know about anyone else either, Petey/Flyboy, but you are of course welcome to begin a banning discussion thread. I should point out though that the LOTSW thing isn't a private joke, nor any sort of joke really, and certainly not one I find funny. Think of it rather as a cilice.

All Acting Regiment

16:02 / 13.11.07

See the thing is, Glenn, I have a hard time keeping track of who's who on here, and not being aware of who you are exactly or where else you've posted, it's very easy to see that there post as trolling. So maybe don't do it?

Less searchable M0rd4nt

20:27 / 13.11.07

This is painful to watch. Moreso even than the Howard and Marina subplot.

Glenn, I honestly don't think of you as a troll, and I can't imagine you're enjoying this kind of exchange. Can you see that the tack you're taking is causing some of the friction you're experiencing? It's clear that you get something out of being on the board and you want to contribute, but seem from where I'm standing to have got into some very negative patterns which you just keep on repeating. Can you think of a better way you could approach your interactions here?

01:23 / 14.11.07

I wonder about this thread in the first place. What's the point of posting links to material that's a)already widely available, b)obviously quite deliberately contrarian, in the sense of it being designed to get the rag that published it talked about, and c)liable to cause even more inchoate rage on a board that, as far as its remaining members go, is largely in an angry place as it is? The Daily Mail is a ridiculous paper; it's perhaps worth discussing because it's widely read, but not, I'd suggest, if said discussion is going to piss off everyone to the extent that it seems to be doing at the moment.

Really, wouldn't the next step be to start linking to threads on Stormfront about immigration, say? I suppose everyone could totally lose their shit then, in grand style.

Glenn Close But No Cigar

09:25 / 14.11.07

Perhaps we should re-name the thread "A place to look for things to be offended by"?

All Acting Regiment

09:29 / 14.11.07

Well, there is that argument, AG, and I appreciate it, but I also like to know what exactly gets said in that paper and how it's received - because I honestly don't know that many people who read it and I guess I like to keep up with the viewpoints in order to be able to combat them. I'm saure it's not fit for anywhere but the silliest part of the Conversation.

10:31 / 14.11.07

Fair enough. I could, and probably should, have put the above less, erm, robustly. Apologies for any further annoyance caused.

ONLY NICE THINGS

10:37 / 14.11.07

The discussion doesn't appear to be pissing people off, though, granny. If anything, there is a mutual restatement of community through the identification of opposing forces. The only thing that has pissed people off in this thread of late has been Glenn Medeiros/He of Stable Beef/Zahir's contribution to it, which response has of course been the fruit of a conspiracy of long-standing posters with massive power issues, etc.

Glenn Close But No Cigar

11:46 / 14.11.07

It's not long standing posters, Haus, it's high-profile posters. Do try to keep up, old chum!

To be honest, I'm at a bit of a loss as to why anybody would take my suggestion that Barbelith should be renamed Shameful - and plays into the hands of Islam seriously. I'm not usually one for shouting 'Oy, Greyface!', but really.

AG' does have a point - to which I'd add that while there's an argument to be made for monitoring the Mail's many horrors, there's also an element of (at worst) aiming one's shotgun into a barrel full of fish, and patting oneself on the back when the pellet-pocked aqueous vertebrates bob to the surface. It's not quite a "Hitler: What a Jerk!" or "Nuts Magazine's Message Boards: Blow me if they're not full of misogynist twits!" threas, but it's close.

ONLY NICE THINGS

12:22 / 14.11.07

Back on ignore, then. Somebody beep me when Zahir steps up the harassment to the point where a banning thread is useful or necessary. Low-level unpleasantness diluted in large amounts of inconsequentiality and occasional suggestions on how the board should be run (into the ground, generally) - a little bit of Modzero, a little bit of Paranoidwriter, a smidge of John the Exploding Boy - will probably continue until flameout.

14:16 / 14.11.07

The discussion doesn't appear to be pissing people off, though, granny. If anything, there is a mutual restatement of community through the identification of opposing forces.

Sure, but in a way that raises the temperature generally, perhaps? Which would be all well and good, I suppose, if it didn't seem to play directly into the hands of the type of hack who writes this stuff in the first place. It's designed to 'get people talking', it has no other function (The Mail would presumably, and correctly, be up in arms if UK law was actually changed along the lines of the suggestions it's published, above) so while on the one hand it won't go away if us guys just ignore it, on the other I don't see the percentage in giving this sort of writing (which, roughly speaking, is equivalent to the work of a sly toddler who's realised he or she can earn a decent living by doing terrible things to the nursery wall) any more exposure than it's already getting, at least if it's going to be taken seriously.

Regrettable Juvenilia

09:34 / 15.11.07

I have to say that I agree with AG, although possibly for different reasons. It just seems symptomatic but also unhelpful that Barbelith has a whole thread devoted to URGH FUCK The Daily Mail, when there's already an URGH FUCK thread, but has next to nothing about actual political activism or engagement or even more sophisticated discussion at the moment. There's such a thing as burn out, and it feels like this thread is going to contribute towards it without doing much that's actually... good?

By the way, Glenn, I never said anything about banning.

Glenn Close But No Cigar

10:43 / 15.11.07

By the way, Glenn, I never said anything about banning.

Ah, so when you wrote

I don't know about anyone else, but I think perhaps it's time for him to go.

you meant I should toddle off of my own accord? Or something else?

On more important matters, I very much agree with your call for more threads on actual political activism or engagement and more sophisticated discussion. If you start some of these, I for one would be very happy to contribute to them. It's not all Last of the Summer Wine and fighting with Haus 'round GM's way, y'know.

23:15 / 15.11.07

D'you know, apparently the Mail's founder had a policy of gving readers a 'daily hate'? Tells you everything you need to know about the paper, really. Founded on the most negative human emotions available.

09:51 / 28.11.07

Armed officers spied on 'sexy mums' at Gatwick, claims policewoman they called 'Whoopsy'

Pretty straightforward case about a woman working with the armed police at Gatwick Airport who had to endure sexual harressment. Some of the comments even sympathise with the poor Woman. Others, however....

"She was taunted about her boobs, what boobs?"

- Lana, Maidenhead

I can only presume that in Maidenhead 'Lana' is a typical boys name, otherwise the comment warrents double-headsick.

But my personal favourite...

"Grow up! She is supposed to be doing a big girls job in the big bad world. What if a terrorist said "Nice T***" woould she crumble and have a good cry? Its time women stopped exploiting the politically correct stupidity we have allowed oourselves to be mired in."

- David Fahn, London England

A thoughtful, intelligent, well balenced argument. Thanks David, you're a gem.

09:56 / 28.11.07

From a while ago, but has anyone else noticed that the daily mail are now running a school?

Frightening, yes?

10:57 / 28.11.07

Fucking hell. Thank you Princess, you've ruined my day.

13:03 / 30.11.07

Not really a Daily Mail article but this is irritating my brain like it's been removed, rubbed with salty wire wool and put back backwards:

Is PC making us more racist?

Short answer: NO!

Long answer: Huge list of unprintable expletives.

I wouldn't normally stumble across this kind of thing but I'm waiting for an email and I keep absent-mindedly going to the yahoo front page and seeing this stupid, stupid link.

13:21 / 30.11.07

Actually, don't read that. Don't read any of the responses. It will just drive you insane. What's the thought equivalent of Non-euclidean architecture?

All Acting Regiment

13:57 / 30.11.07

'Is PC amking us more racist?'

Ah-ah-ah! Scroll back!

'Is PC?'

Not really, no.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

15:40 / 30.11.07

There's clearly a joke in there somewhere about how it's not PC, it's Mac (the Daily Mail cartoonist), but frankly life's too short.

Our Lady Has Left the Building

07:08 / 09.12.07

I haven't even got as far as the Daily Mail yet...

Nick Cohen: The Tate gave the Turner Prize to Mark Wallinger, Mark Wallinger did a piece of work about Brian Haw, Brian Haw has shared platforms with George Galloway, George Galloway praised Saddam Hussein, therefore the Tate supports Saddam's gassing of the Kurds.

Brendan O'Neill: Brighton and Hove refusing to allow reggae by homophobic artists to be played in it's environs is miles worse than the fact that LGBs regularly get beaten up or killed in Jamaica. I've also invented a new word, 'homophobia-phobia', which I'm going to use to suggest that all LGB people are racist.

Fuck the Guardian and Observer quite frankly.

All Acting Regiment

09:07 / 09.12.07

Fuck's sake. Has it not occured to him that the people, LGBT or otherwise, who oppose homphobic idiot singers might not all be white?

Closed for Business Time

11:49 / 09.12.07

Is there such a thing as a concerted campaign-like effort to get Brendan O'Neill, Frank Furedi, Fiona Fox, Martin Durkin, Mick Hume and the rest of the Living Marxism crew to shut the fuck up and stop pretending they're not a bunch of corporate laissez-faire shitswallowers? Can I join pretty please?

All Acting Regiment

12:57 / 09.12.07

Can we have links to show us the annoyance?

Regrettable Juvenilia

10:15 / 10.12.07

Brighton and Hove refusing to allow reggae by homophobic artists to be played in it's environs

Fortunately, this isn't what they've done: the policy refers to "music, live or recorded, allegedly inciting hatred on religious, racial or sexuality grounds". See here. A ban on music made by homophobic artists would be even more unworkable, arbitrary and misjudged than the actual policy. As it is, the policy still seems pretty confused:

Councillor Dee Simson: "It must be stressed this small section of the policy is more about giving guidance to licensees and is likely to be used rarely, if at all.

"It is not a case of licensing officers going out and checking lyrics."

And she said it was "not a specific ban" and needed to be "kept in perspective" because there were very few performers whose work fell into the categories.

If nobody is checking the lyrics, how on earth will the policy will be applied? There also appears to be a disconnect between the general wording and the explicit references to "murder music"/homophobic dancehall. Combine these two issues and you get a fairly obvious potential problem: that if a genre has already been singled out, but nobody is going to be checking the lyrics... well, you do the math. O'Neil is an idiot, but I still think the policy is well-meant but erroneous.

Page: 1 2(3)4