There's a huge new migrant issue unfolding. So why isn't there any real debate about THIS one?

[NYCBlue]

If you post a link to the Daily Mail, you pretty much kill any desire for discourse. I didn't even click on the link.

[Citizen's Nephew]

If you post a link to the Daily Mail, you pretty much kill any desire for discourse. I didn't even click on the link.

Sensible post/advice. There's been a load of these types of threads lately. I was weak. You are an inspiration

[North Cardiff Blue]

If you post a link to the Daily Mail, you pretty much kill any desire for discourse. I didn't even click on the link.

Personally I'll glance at all articles on my feed microsoft edge, which will be all papers, sky sports, BBC, all sorts mostly open sport, theres good and bad in all, but I like to have an open mind.

I don't agree with everyones point of view but i'll often read them and form my own opinion, which isn't as black and white as most peoples these days.

[Citizen's Nephew]

Personally I'll glance at all articles on my feed microsoft edge, which will be all papers, sky sports, BBC, all sorts mostly open sport, theres good and bad in all, but I like to have an open mind.

I don't agree with everyones point of view but i'll often read them and form my own opinion, which isn't as black and white as most peoples these days.

I used to use these aggregate newsfeeds but there were just too many hideous pieces from writers and publications I had little respect for so I stopped. Apple News I switched off and if your using Microsoft Edge, I'm not kidding, it's like falling down the rabbit-hole.

I went for the jugular earlier and for that I apologise. In my defence I was left unsupervised without coffee.

[North Cardiff Blue]

I used to use these aggregate newsfeeds but there were just too many hideous pieces from writers and publications I had little respect for so I stopped. Apple News I switched off and if your using Microsoft Edge, I'm not kidding, it's like falling down the rabbit-hole.

I went for the jugular earlier and for that I apologise. In my defence I was left unsupervised without coffee.

No problem reply how you like

I use edge just for news feed, half hour in the morning really just to see whats happening in sport and whatever else comes up.

I'm not a socialist so i'll read from the guardian to the daily mail, I don't get upset if someone writes something that I disagree with, I understand that the country is divided and most people on here will have a paddy if you link something from a paper they don't like.

[JamesWales]

If you post a link to the Daily Mail, you pretty much kill any desire for discourse. I didn't even click on the link.

We get a lot of this, but I don't agree with that mindset. How do you make sure you get a good cross section of opinions if you don't read them? How do you know what the article is about if you don't click on the link? How do you make sure you aren't in an echo chamber and that your arguments are capable of changing? If nothing else, how do you know how to win arguments against those who disagree if you don't read what they are reading? Who was it who said "Know your enemy"?

[Divine Wright]

We get a lot of this, but I don't agree with that mindset. How do you make sure you get a good cross section of opinions if you don't read them? How do you know what the article is about if you don't click on the link? How do you make sure you aren't in an echo chamber and that your arguments are capable of changing? If nothing else, how do you know how to win arguments against those who disagree if you don't read what they are reading? Who was it who said "Know your enemy"?

You are wasting you time trying to glean anything from the Daily Mail and trying to win arguments against people who read it. I mean that.

Have you ever gained any insights or had any success in either of these objectives?

Anyhow, you don't need read the Daily Mail to understand the basic mindset of someone who is xenophobic. They are scared of things they perceive as being different....in the best case scenario. Worst case, they are bullies and enjoy the power.

[JamesWales]

You are wasting you time trying to glean anything from the Daily Mail and trying to win arguments against people who read it. I mean that.

Have you ever gained any insights or had any success in either of these objectives?

Anyhow, you don't need read the Daily Mail to understand the basic mindset of someone who is xenophobic. They are scared of things they perceive as being different....in the best case scenario. Worst case, they are bullies and enjoy the power.

I find the most narrow minded people to be those who either only read the Daily Mail, or those who insist upon never reading it. Most balanced people will read things from across the spectrum.

There are some topics, certain newspapers will just never report on, and that polite society wish would go away, so it's important that others do.

More generally, the opinion pieces I take with a pinch of salt, and there's a clear agenda, but I do find they will illustrate articles better and dig into things a bit more thoroughly than some other newspapers or websites tbh.

[Citizen's Nephew]

I find the most narrow minded people to be those who either only read the Daily Mail, or those who insist upon never reading it. Most balanced people will read things from across the spectrum.

There are some topics, certain newspapers will just never report on, and that polite society wish would go away, so it's important that others do.

More generally, the opinion pieces I take with a pinch of salt, and there's a clear agenda, but I do find they will illustrate articles better and dig into things a bit more thoroughly than some other newspapers or websites tbh.

I've said to you before that if you didn't display such sanctimony and smugness with this insistence that you are balanced I'd have (and I'm sure others would) have greater respect and enjoy debating with you. But jeez it drives me insane.

And I know you're full of sh*t when you say you'll listen to the Osmonds in equal measure. Nobody would do that

Lunch was vegan, fair-trade and delicious btw.

[JamesWales]

I've said to you before that if you didn't display such sanctimony and smugness with this insistence that you are balanced I'd have (and I'm sure others would) have greater respect and enjoy debating with you. But jeez it drives me insane.

And I know you're full of sh*t when you say you'll listen to the Osmonds in equal measure. Nobody would do that

Lunch was vegan, fair-trade and delicious btw.

But you are anything but balanced. Most of the stuff you write is solidly left-wing. So criticising them is only going to be in one direction, in much the same way that a centrist person will always criticise someone like Jeremy Corbyn from only one direction.

If it drives you insane, then stop writing such extreme stuff. In this thread alone, you have mentioned Stormfront, and suggested people who like the article should hang out with them. Then you've labelled the article racist and said it was a white guy who wrote it for white guys.

That's inflammatory stuff, and it's right that people pull you up on it. If you don't like it, then don't write such unhinged guff in the first place.

[the other bob wilson]

But you are anything but balanced. Most of the stuff you write is solidly left-wing. So criticising them is only going to be in one direction, in much the same way that a centrist person will always criticise someone like Jeremy Corbyn from only one direction.

If it drives you insane, then stop writing such extreme stuff. In this thread alone, you have mentioned Stormfront, and suggested people who like the article should hang out with them. Then you've labelled the article racist and said it was a white guy who wrote it for white guys.

That's inflammatory stuff, and it's right that people pull you up on it. If you don't like it, then don't write such unhinged guff in the first place.

You make this great thing about being balanced, but I can honestly say that I could comfortably count the number of times I’ve been surprised by a political opinion of yours on the fingers of one hand - you’re exactly the same as many of us on here in that your political opinions aren’t balanced they’re predictable.

[Citizen's Nephew]

But you are anything but balanced. Most of the stuff you write is solidly left-wing. So criticising them is only going to be in one direction, in much the same way that a centrist person will always criticise someone like Jeremy Corbyn from only one direction.

If it drives you insane, then stop writing such extreme stuff. In this thread alone, you have mentioned Stormfront, and suggested people who like the article should hang out with them. Then you've labelled the article racist and said it was a white guy who wrote it for white guys.

That's inflammatory stuff, and it's right that people pull you up on it. If you don't like it, then don't write such unhinged guff in the first place.

It's meant to be inflammatory. Someone has to point this stuff out as we're up against extreme right wing bias, and yeah, it's written by a white guy for white guys. I regard your stance as extreme too (you'll be aghast at that I'm sure). There you go again, calling my posts unhinged guff. That's not debate and you know it, it's a superior attitude and shows you have the inability to demonstrate any humility when someone is actually engaging with you. It's lecturing - talking down to people. As I said before, sanctimonious. It's a shame.

[Eric the Half a Bee]

I find the most narrow minded people to be those who either only read the Daily Mail, or those who insist upon never reading it. Most balanced people will read things from across the spectrum.

Given that the Daily Mail is frequently the newspaper that is fined most often every year for deliberately publishing bullshit, I think I'll give it a miss. Funnily enough the other worst offenders are The Sun and The Express.

[blue matt]

I find the most narrow minded people to be those who either only read the Daily Mail, or those who insist upon never reading it. Most balanced people will read things from across the spectrum.

.

You know the CCMB rules, you must have realised one rather high on the list is that you cant list a DM article, The Left simple refuse to believe anything the DM say, yes of course it could be a hard fact, but its in the DM, thus inadmissible on CCMB , its just the way it is

[the other bob wilson]

You know the CCMB rules, you must have realised one rather high on the list is that you cant list a DM article, The Left simple refuse to believe anything the DM say, yes of course it could be a hard fact, but its in the DM, thus inadmissible on CCMB , its just the way it is

I don’t know if it’s still the case, but there was definitely a time recently when Wikipedia would not accept something appearing in the Daily Mail as a reliable reference to be used on their site. No other mainstream “newspaper” was treated in this way.

For myself, I think their sports coverage is good (For example, transfer speculation in the Mail is more reliable than in most other papers I find), but, as far as life in the “real world” goes, forget it.

[North Cardiff Blue]

I don’t know if it’s still the case, but there was definitely a time recently when Wikipedia would not accept something appearing in the Daily Mail as a reliable reference to be used on their site. No other mainstream “newspaper” was treated in this way.

For myself, I think their sports coverage is good (For example, transfer speculation in the Mail is more reliable than in most other papers I find), but, as far as life in the “real world” goes, forget it.

Agreed I find the football pretty good!

[North Cardiff Blue]

You know the CCMB rules, you must have realised one rather high on the list is that you cant list a DM article, The Left simple refuse to believe anything the DM say, yes of course it could be a hard fact, but its in the DM, thus inadmissible on CCMB , its just the way it is

Thats childish, there is a good and bad reporting in every paper!