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

[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.

[JamesWales]

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.

But Bob, your starting position is always one of a solid-far left position. Any attempt to row back from that towards the centre will inevitably be in one direction.

Start a topic in a balanced way and you will see me write the pro's and con's on it. Start off by ranting about the Tories and how everyone is racist when they aren't, and you'll see a push back.

You can read bmy first post on here, on page 1. Three posts in and Citizens Nephew is talking about Stormfront and how it's all racist. My response is about public services - it's far more balanced in tone and conclusion.

[the other bob wilson]

But Bob, your starting position is always one of a solid-far left position. Any attempt to row back from that towards the centre will inevitably be in one direction.

Start a topic in a balanced way and you will see me write the pro's and con's on it. Start off by ranting about the Tories and how everyone is racist when they aren't, and you'll see a push back.

You can read bmy first post on here, on page 1. Three posts in and Citizens Nephew is talking about Stormfront and how it's all racist. My response is about public services - it's far more balanced in tone and conclusion.

Far left? I’m not sure about that, but my point is that if you want political balance from your contributors on here, I’ll willingly admit that you’re very unlikely to get it from me. I come at things from a certain point of view and, despite your claims to the contrary, you come at them from the opposite side - you’re as one eyed as I am.

[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.

[JamesWales]

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.

No, I call it guff because you offer no evidence for your opinions, whereas I will typically back mine up.

You say it's racist (if so, report it as a hate crime)
You say it's only written for white men, when the majority of the Daily Mails readership aren't white men
You say I'm extreme for objecting to you labelling anyone who agrees with the article as being aligned with Stormfront (A KKK website!)
You say I'm lecturing, but I've raised issues of public services and suggested that a balanced diet of internet news is healthy
You say you are up against extreme right wing bias, when four of the top 6 news brands in the UK are left or left of centre.
https://pressgazette.co.uk/most-popu...ws-uk-monthly/

Basically, you are just saying stuff that isn't true and you are doing it in a totally divisive and inflamatory way. If you are going to throw crap around on the internet, you should at least be able to back it up.

[Citizen's Nephew]

If you are going to throw crap around on the internet, you should at least be able to back it up.

Is this the kind of thing you mean?:

How do you deal with a sanctimonious person?

When confronted by them, don't give them what they want. You may agree with them, disagree with them, kind of sympathize with them- just don't show it or say anything. Let your silence and inaction speak for itself. Because whether or not you agree or disagree, your reaction props them up, validates them.

[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!