My mum is one of those that believes the Mail even over me. Even if I provide actual proof that the Mail is lying she'll simply make up a conspiracy to explain it - the Guardian wrote it, or the government had a hand in writing it or some other shite.

The scary thing she isn't anywhere near as reactionary as some of the more moronic fucktards that comment, so I can only imagine the conspiracies they make up.

I don't really understand why. The best answer I can come up with is it becomes a habit, an addiction. They want to read bad news so they can fulfil their addiction to being miserable - or an element related to it. Quite why they'd choose to be miserable I don't know.

They have no critical thinking abilities.

I disagree. They have the ability, they just choose not to use it.

Or they'll use it, but only within the confines of their beliefs. i.e. instead of thinking "is the mail right or wrong", they'll think "is the mail a bit right or very right"

In a story dating back to November on AIDS -

Is Jack playing 'crazy negative exageration' Top Trumps with The Hitch or something

'My 'OPEN SEWER' beats your 'MORAL SLUM' on crazy comparisons Mr Hitchens'

I posted this, as it is such a wank and Mail poster style reply (ie total sh1t, black/white argument). Fingers crossed they post it.

With regards to Mail readers being idiots:

I think the argument comes down to whether they read the Mail to confirm their own views (active consumer), or whether they hold those views because they read the Mail (passive consumer).

Mail readers can uncover certain truths, but they never uncover truths that would damage their (or the Mail's) worldview.

For example Littlejohn is regularly corrected for his shoddy under-researched articles, but only the minor points. So he issued a correction to his meat story, saying he didn't realise it was nicked all the time or sold in pubs. He also issued a correction about the road bridge that he said was a rail bridge. These examples show that when Mail readers see a mistake that they have access to the actual reality of, they will correct it. However, acknowledging these mistakes does not led them to question what else Littlejohn has got wrong.

For example, they correct Littlejohn in their droves for his meat story, yet at the same time they completely ignore his moronic paragraph on climate change in the same column. Here we see that truth is not objective, that Mail readers can recognise fact, but only when it does not conflict with their own worldview which they consider 'truth'.

This is why the negative ratings exist, they exist to reassure other Mail readers that the truthful comments are wrong, they do not have to consider them and alter their worldview as the comments are down-rated and therefore wrong. It is the mob mentality.

The Mail website uses comments as a way of reinforcing their worldview, through moderation and a rating system. Furthermore, it often acts as a join the dots exercise - the Mail skirt around a topic in a fairly neutral way, knowing full well that their readers can use the materials to produce comments that the Mail might not get away with, but that it fully supports. The Mail readers simply join the dots of the article and run with it in the comments section. I imagine that more Mail readers read the comments than the do the actual argument - hence why you sometimes read comments on an article that clearly show the commentator hasn't even read the article.

Pesumably Michael thinks it was the americans.

"I think Adrian Chiles needs to keep his mouth shut otherwise he will end up ruining his show."
Deb London


So that would turn the One Show into some sort of mime act. mmm Perhaps that would be an improvement.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1135435/Britain-faces-10-inches-snow-new-Arctic-weather-blows-in.html



Oh do fuck off.

To be fair, I would watch that. Or, even better, Christine Bleakley operates Chiles as some sort of ventriloquists doll.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1135490/Myspace-removes-90-000-sex-offenders--paedophiles-turning-Facebook-instead.html



I imagine the voice sounds like Christopher Lee in character as Saruman. (Geeks: have I spelt that right? I suspect not...)

As opposed to the Daily Mail's site, which grew organically in a woodland. Twat.

Good spelling on Saruman, now build me an army worthy of Mordor!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... l#comments



Twat.