The Sun, Mail, and Katie Hopkins

[ronaldo7]

I'm so happy for them.

https://t.co/rAgSSLeFJC

[lyonhibs]

Have they been collectively fired into the ****ing marina trench?

That's the only news concerning those 3 *****bags I wish to hear.

[hibsbollah]

Brilliant. They are instructed to pay massive damages to this family for smearing them as being from Al Qaeda, presumably because they were brown skinned and deserved it, then they are instructed to release a grovelling apology so they do it at 2am on twitter and then mysteriously delete it.

Its sick that the daily mail even exists.

[snooky]

Brilliant. They are instructed to pay massive damages to this family for smearing them as being from Al Qaeda, presumably because they were brown skinned and deserved it, then they are instructed to release a grovelling apology so they do it at 2am on twitter and then mysteriously delete it.
Its sick that the daily mail even exists.
Tip of the iceberg.

[One Day Soon]

Now here's a lack of moral compass.

The them-and-us politics of difference. THIS is what is rotting our society.

[danhibees1875]

She is one of seldom few people whom I have a real hatred for. The fact that plays right into her hands because she's only "famous" on account of being easily hated makes me hate her even more.

[beensaidbefore]

Tip of the iceberg.

Exactly. They don't produce the paper without a fairly sizeable readership.

How come they should have a readership of such size? Ignorance can't account for it alone, in the same way that being a guardian reader doesn't automatically make you a Saint.

Something drives people to buy into the narrative and until the matters concerned are discussed in a way where the moral highground is put to the side little progress will be made. Calling folk racist/narrow minded etc because they read the daily mail doesn't help the discussion move forward and is a prejudiced view in its own right, albeit a more modern and social acceptable form of discrimination.

[hibsbollah]

Calling folk racist/narrow minded etc because they read the daily mail doesn't help the discussion move forward and is a prejudiced view in its own right, albeit a more modern and social acceptable form of discrimination.

People have choices. If you choose to read a paper that is clearly all about fermenting hatred why would you be surprised at being called anything else? Anyway, its not really about name calling or stigmatising individuals for their reading choices, its about criticising the content.

[beensaidbefore]

People have choices. If you choose to read a paper that is clearly all about fermenting hatred why would you be surprised at being called anything else? Anyway, its not really about name calling or stigmatising individuals for their reading choices, its about criticising the content.

Iv never read it so not sure what it's like. My point was that unless we drop the name calling and people taking the moral high ground, when it comes to the contentious issues people are unwilling on both sides to begin to understand the other sides perspective.

Showing someone enough respect to listen to their point of view doesn't have to mean agreeing with their views. But giving people the opportunity to explain why they have formed their opinions, and questioning them to understand/enlighten them, and without name calling on either side, could lead to a far more productive outcome imo.

[hibsbollah]

Iv never read it so not sure what it's like. My point was that unless we drop the name calling and people taking the moral high ground, when it comes to the contentious issues people are unwilling on both sides to begin to understand the other sides perspective.

Showing someone enough respect to listen to their point of view doesn't have to mean agreeing with their views. But giving people the opportunity to explain why they have formed their opinions, and questioning them to understand/enlighten them, and without name calling on either side, could lead to a far more productive outcome imo.

I'm not sure what 'name calling' you are referring to. Examples? In my opinion the phrase 'taking the moral high ground' doesn't actually mean anything. Unless you mean 'someone giving their opinion about morality and ethics'. Jesus took the moral high ground I suppose.

Maybe you're talking about moral relativism, in which case I profoundly disagree with you. Sometimes an idea is so wrong, like the Daily Mail or anti semitism or radical jihad, for example, that I don't need to be 'enlightened' or benefit from sitting down together and discussing things, you just need to defeat the ideology.

[beensaidbefore]

I'm not sure what 'name calling' you are referring to. Examples? In my opinion the phrase 'taking the moral high ground' doesn't actually mean anything. Unless you mean 'someone giving their opinion about morality and ethics'. Jesus took the moral high ground I suppose.

Maybe you're talking about moral relativism, in which case I profoundly disagree with you. Sometimes an idea is so wrong, like the Daily Mail or anti semitism or radical jihad, for example, that I don't need to be 'enlightened' or benefit from sitting down together and discussing things, you just need to defeat the ideology.


Examples are lumping everyone who reads the daily mail into one category as either narrow minded or racist. That is a prejudiced view, regardless of how you dress it up.

As I said, I don read it, never have, but taking the stance that you are in the right so no need to even begin to understand the other points of view, is wrong and part of the overall problem imo.

You seem to be trying to start something with me, so I suggest you re-read the posts without your angry head. There are 2 sides to every story and regardless of whether you agree with the other side, they still have a belief which has been informed by something. I am advocating neither, but suggesting that name calling, regardless of by which 'side', detracts from the discussion.


Calling someone racist because they read the daily mail could be considered offensive, but then who cares what they think because they are racist and backward anyway. Is that more or less what you are getting at? If so, I see that as a problem

[hibsbollah]

Examples are lumping everyone who reads the daily mail into one category as either narrow minded or racist. That is a prejudiced view, regardless of how you dress it up.

As I said, I don read it, never have, but taking the stance that you are in the right so no need to even begin to understand the other points of view, is wrong and part of the overall problem imo.

You seem to be trying to start something with me, so I suggest you re-read the posts without your angry head. There are 2 sides to every story and regardless of whether you agree with the other side, they still have a belief which has been informed by something. I am advocating neither, but suggesting that name calling, regardless of by which 'side', detracts from the discussion.


Calling someone racist because they read the daily mail could be considered offensive, but then who cares what they think because they are racist and backward anyway. Is that more or less what you are getting at? If so, I see that as a problem

Where in my post could you possibly see any evidence of me being 'angry?'. I'm baffled. You need to evidence what you're saying or I can't engage with it :dunno:

[beensaidbefore]

Where in my post could you possibly see any evidence of me being 'angry?'. I'm baffled. You need to evidence what you're saying or I can't engage with it :dunno:

Perhaps I am picking you up wrong but it seems to me like you're spoiling a fight?

[hibsbollah]

Perhaps I am picking you up wrong but it seems to me like you're spoiling a fight?

You're picking up wrong.

[beensaidbefore]

You're picking up wrong.

Well perhaps you could look at my posts again. I am no way condoning the views of 'daily mail readers'. What I am suggesting is that unless there is a bit of willingness to understand why someone has formed an opinion then it descends in to name calling and the taking of the moral high ground. Seeing as you struggled with that earlier what I mean is someone who holds believes their view as morally superior. In this instance I took it from your earlier comments that you believed your stance to be morally superior than that of Dail mail readers. My issue is by lumping them together there is a certain amount of irony. What is different than saying all black people are this, all women are that, all daily mail readers are the next thing. Proof is what you asked for in an earlier post, and I'm not sure you can provide conclusive evidence to back that statement up, other than it being a popular belief.

I have tried to explain giving reasons why I think an open discussion free from name calling and point scoring is required. If you are not able/willing to discuss the matter rather than 1 line replies, then we probably best leave it here. It could be suggested though that your unwillingness is a bit closed minded. At least that is my opinion so you can like it or not.

[hibsbollah]

Well perhaps you could look at my posts again. I am no way condoning the views of 'daily mail readers'. What I am suggesting is that unless there is a bit of willingness to understand why someone has formed an opinion then it descends in to name calling and the taking of the moral high ground. Seeing as you struggled with that earlier what I mean is someone who holds believes their view as morally superior. In this instance I took it from your earlier comments that you believed your stance to be morally superior than that of Dail mail readers. My issue is by lumping them together there is a certain amount of irony. What is different than saying all black people are this, all women are that, all daily mail readers are the next thing. Proof is what you asked for in an earlier post, and I'm not sure you can provide conclusive evidence to back that statement up, other than it being a popular belief.

I have tried to explain giving reasons why I think an open discussion free from name calling and point scoring is required. If you are not able/willing to discuss the matter rather than 1 line replies, then we probably best leave it here. It could be suggested though that your unwillingness is a bit closed minded. At least that is my opinion so you can like it or not.

Whether or not you're deliberately misrepresentating what I've said and doing a bit of trolling or just don't get my point I have no idea. But it's a bit boring either way so I'm out of this one.

[beensaidbefore]

Whether or not you're deliberately misrepresentating what I've said and doing a bit of trolling or just don't get my point I have no idea. But it's a bit boring either way so I'm out of this one.

Me trolling? You replied to my post and have failed to address any of the points I have made. Have a word mate. Over and out.

[ronaldo7]

Well perhaps you could look at my posts again. I am no way condoning the views of 'daily mail readers'. What I am suggesting is that unless there is a bit of willingness to understand why someone has formed an opinion then it descends in to name calling and the taking of the moral high ground. Seeing as you struggled with that earlier what I mean is someone who holds believes their view as morally superior. In this instance I took it from your earlier comments that you believed your stance to be morally superior than that of Dail mail readers. My issue is by lumping them together there is a certain amount of irony. What is different than saying all black people are this, all women are that, all daily mail readers are the next thing. Proof is what you asked for in an earlier post, and I'm not sure you can provide conclusive evidence to back that statement up, other than it being a popular belief.

I have tried to explain giving reasons why I think an open discussion free from name calling and point scoring is required. If you are not able/willing to discuss the matter rather than 1 line replies, then we probably best leave it here. It could be suggested though that your unwillingness is a bit closed minded. At least that is my opinion so you can like it or not.

It looks like you're spoiling for a fight.:wink:

[snooky]

Katie wins.
Divide and conquer. :wink: