Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
on the grounds that it's state interference, are also the same papers who have made the least effort to hold government to account.
Coupled with a strengthening of the law protecting whistleblowers, Private Eye's investigations will not be affected by these proposals, in the same way that, say, the Mail, or Sun, or Express's celebrity gossip and attacking/muckraking of average people will be.
i assume it is hilarious.
brendan o'neill 2: THE BLOODENING
into phone tapping and encouraging police corruption. It's good to see those responsible being able to draw a left/right political bullshit pile over it all. Not.
Repeat after me.
Actually this. Almost.
that the government turned down their proposal for self-regulation which was basically as toothless as the PCC is now.
since its creation.
FUCK THE PRESS
WHAT'S YOUR FUCKING POINT SPACECUNT YOU HAVEN'T GIVEN AN EXAMPLE FUCK YOU
CUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUNT CUNTCUNTCUNT CUUUUUUUUNT CUNTYCUNT
that you won't defend it
rings amusingly true in the context of the DiS Social board:
"Fundamentally, the Left today, unlike the radicals of the past, has no faith whatsoever in ordinary people, in humanity itself, and thus it constantly turns to the state and asks it to fix the alleged problems blighting society or giving Leftists a headache. The reason modern Leftists want state interference in the press is because they don’t trust the people, the rabble, the little folk, to be able to read and see things and rationally make up their minds about what is good and bad, right and wrong."
not to mention that given the nature of the ruling party I don't think many people here would be in favour of state involvement in the press.
when talking about things like marriage tax allowance, food vouchers etc etc.
Everyone believes that the state is, at its best, able to shape behavior and patterns of activity. What's your point, spaceman?
There are plenty of things 'the Right' (in as much as there is a 'the Left') want to see the state interfere in along those lines, most keenly they want to make sure poor people can claim as few benefits as possible because they view them as the worst parts of society.
SOME OF the Right do, not all. Some probably have right-wing views that don't extend to benefit-seekers. Strange but true.
Just looking to provide a dehomogenised portrayal of a highly varied & arguably nebulously-defined group of cunts
around both 'the Left' and 'the Right' and the general point that by using such a broad term you either have to accept it's referring to a stereotypical subset or it renders your argument void in any case.
what the paragraph is saying.
where it appears the guy seems to have forgotten that the basis of any socialist / Marxist state really has to be TOTAL state interference.
Really he seems to be getting confused about what 'the Left' is, which isn't entirely surprising. The Left in this country has always been highly in favour of state interference.
As a nation both on the left and on the right we tended to value our press freedoms but (as I pointed out above) the things that have led to people being fucked off are not left/right issues.
had no faith whatsoever in ordinary people, in humanity itself, nor trusted the people, the rabble, the little folk, to be able to read and see things and rationally make up their minds about what is good and bad, right and wrong?
I think it's unsurprising when history shows us that, by and large, people are shockingly easily led by propaganda.
In fact, to see these questions as individual agency operating in a vacuum is fucked up.
You are talking about a person/child already knee deep in complex social/cultural pressures before they are even old enough to give a shit
the massed billions of huge commercial empires, professional expertise of thousands, and an entire lumbering socio-political mechanism of control and influence.
Fair fight? -
hate all of that bullshit ' just don't buy the paper' ' Dacre thanks you...' smug ballbaggery.
I've mentioned before on here that lots of the most left-leaning posters seem to have a high level of disdain for people in general.
I mean, are you talking about references to 'Daily Mail readers' or 'the poor'? I can imagine there's lots of dislike of the former, not necessarily a lot of the latter. I'm not sure that's a high level of disdain for people in general since liking the DM pretty much makes you a misanthrope.
I think not giving examples is in line with the article that originally started this debate.
Please continue building your man made of straw.
and your shiteating smuggery
And now I feel bad because I like Raanraals.
You've been a real cunt lately.
Obviously as a centrist, i just say fuck all and divert things with TITS TALK.
put up or shut up
But might it not be more along the lines of them wanting to concentrate their energies on fixing the blatantly loaded dice, rather than simply saying:
' shut your moaning and roll the fucking dice, I mean, if you could just be a bit more like me, you could succeed and be happy.'
- This message brought to you by XL Loaded Dice and Casino Enterprises, backwards rationalising its ways into the nations heart since 1979.
It's not based on the idea that fundamentally everyone's a really nice person and bad people just didn't get the love/support they needed.
It's that there are a lot of utter cunts out there that make life miserable for those of us who ARE fundamentally nice, and if we could just stop being governed by a number of those utter cunts and prevent society from letting utter cunts have so much sway over our daily lives, everything would be a lot better.
I'm pointing out that a lot of the leftists on here come across as thinking vast swathes of humanity are either stupid, evil or both.
Asking for the dignity of a fairer playing field doesn't mean you are suggesting people can't compete... on the contrary, it suggest that they might thrive in a more equitable environment.
where there are none?
Maybe that is because your thinking is focused in that direction?
Maybe you think the poor are stupid?
As will some of the non-poor.
your angle on this is really odd.
I'm referring to the apparent attitude of some left-leaning posters on DiS based on their contributions to threads on the Social board.
or politics, or press freedoms or psychology or something.
but it is just ad-hominem?
Neither you nor I are likely to catch a glimpse of it. The vertigo caused can make the viewer come across like a bit of a tawt.
Is this what you were lookng for? (pretty crrrrringe article, ha):
'most left-leaning posters seem to have a high level of disdain for people in general.'
And NOW, I am going to the pub.
I have utmost faith in individuals basic nature.
However I am also convinced of the absolute ability of unscrupulous means to lead them astray, as a mass, from the truth or from them understanding what needs to be done for their long term benefit.
This is due to the power of rhetoric and the fact that the public themselves are not a low and unremittingly devious as some. Also they find it hard to believe that their leaders are suprisingly unable, becausse they have faith in their leaders......in simpler less complex societies this may not be so, but cause and effect of public actions on other areas of societies and other societies are now many times removed.
I definitely wouldn't count you as someone who thinks most people are stupid and/or evil.
and I have the utmost faith in the people to make their own minds up given the information at hand. the information which you and your cunt press selectively offer in the hope of misleading (at best) the people
hence state interference in favour of press FAIRNESS & COMPREHENSIVENESS would be an indisputably good stop-gap before we fucking ditch the private press entirely & rely on each other for news
Don't fancy reading it if so.
and what the public are interested in are two different things.
go fuck yourself!
rather than reflecting my own opinions on the situation. Still, don't let that in anyway dampen the enthusiasm of your inner self-righteous piss-stain judgements.
You've successfully got all the usual suspects coming out in hives up there^ without even trying, and your ruin it by trading shots with *him*? Really?
argh. He pushes my buttons. MY BUTTONS.
Hark to the tale of xylo
and the lowness he didst feel
his rizla skin it doth wear thin
he'll hurt for years and years and years. :(
Only to be expected. I'm almost flattered to have moved I, Xylopwn to verse. "Jeepers, what a tizz! I must perchance compose an epigram, else I shall be quite undone! Tiddle-de-pom! Naturally 'pon the auspicious Topic of my Delightful Self." Well if it's your thin skin you're worried about, perhaps try not to find the gaps in my own armour, for while by direct fire I'm tickled, I take unkindly to backhanded asides. So here you go: you're a snivelling, pathetic dweeb whose way of dealing with his personal issues is to be a frankly disgusting prick when his fragile bijou of self-regard is troubled by the slightest zephyr. You can sling your self-indulgent justifications into whatever orifice you drag your stanzas from; you can shove your passive-aggressive carnival of mediocrity down
Right, think I've calmed down now. Still fucking posting it. Why not? I probably need a ban. Oh but there's still time to a-ban-don! Woe is me, tiddle-de-blee! Mercy 'pon Lou-i, dungeon-master of sa-ti-ree! Observe how, hex'd by ad-ver-sar-ee, I fall to rhyme so plea-sant-lee! CUNTCUNTCUNTCUNTCUNTCUNTCUNTCUNTCUNT
BRENDAN O'NEILL AND XYLOPWN ARE CUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUNTS
I don't think a flounce warrants a ban. But I do think you need some fresh air.
Despite the pushing at my personal life. I'm sure he has more to say but tbh he's doing himself more damage than I could.
I WOZ BEAN SATIRICAW
Hope you're better between the sticks, maaan.
If this is the level of rage you can work yourself into when someone points out your love affair with the sound of your own voice, I can't help but wonder how that manifests in real life. Mildly scary.
Hence is outrage about me claiming to be 'satiricaw'.
Reading up^ I don't feel angry at all really. A couple of years ago I'd be firing up the CAPS LOCK. But meh?
So it's all relative. Besides, it was a cheery 'fuck yourself'
Give me a sauce recommendation thread, anyday
here's how we do it in Sweden
A press ombudsman whose office is independent of state apparatus
A law which expressly forbids political interference in what can or can't be published
All complaints to the ombudsman are thusly made by individual members of the public or groups or organisations/businesses/companies etc.
seems to be working alright - in fact there is FAR less party political influence in Swedish journalism than in the UK and I'd argue a far greater freedom of speech (which means that cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed get published & websites like Pirate Bay stay up - they are covered by publishing rules)
whether this is a workable template for the UK to follow or not is a matter of opinion I guess but I just cannot understand how it's become an argument about Government regulation and choking of the free press when it's EASY to set up independently of undue Government or industry interference
people are so down on "politics" threads.
Freedom of the press is not an end unto itself.
It is a tool which can benefit humans. It can either more humans or benefit a few.
The influence of the press can vary, sometimes it needs more freedom, sometimes it needs tpo be regulated when it develops negative traits (from the pov of humans) Of course this could be said to be difficult to be objective, which is correct.
Currently the press is overwhelmingly dominated by commercial interests. Commercial interest in shifting units may find it better to skew or omit or practice undesirable methods. The press is dominated by the desire to shift units. It is sometimes easier to shift units by pandering to unhealthy aspects of human societorial practice and nature.
This is what is currently happening and is what the regulation is seeking to rectify to a degree.
A mirror of this occurred when Mary Whitehouse and her ilk were realised to be just guardians of a childish understanding of obscenity, they objected to everything without taking context into account and thus would ban stuff that had artistic merit or would help human understanding.....the problem is that we then threw out the baby with the bathwater and allowed any low shit into/onto the telly....including the most purile and damaging marketing and adverts that by their bad science actually harm knowledge and understanding......standards should have been kept, because IT IS A PRIVILAGE that should carry a responsibility to have been able to beam subliminal need creation into peoples minds.
As it is the visual image and the comic newspapers have helped to dumb down the democratic electorate to Attention deficit sufferers, who will only agree to swallow one liner sized bits of info. Such an electorate is doomed to be dumb.
Sure in the past not everyone was wonderfully informed, the point is that with modern tech and decemination of training and learning resorces, this society COULD have been knowledgable and aware, but they've been damaged.
The press can be a bad and harmful thing as well as a good thing.
Perhas the lefties are recognising it as being harmful to a degree where it needs correction.
The s stands for silly