Discussion of the more serious side of the Mail's agenda
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
 
By Kreuzberger
Membership Days Posts
#351309
shyamz wrote:The issue for me is less to do with the rights and wrongs of reporting about the rape comment (which fewer people would have known about had they not reported it at all) and more to do with which articles they allow comments to be submitted to and which ones they don't - when they know full well the kind of comments their readers make and that their mods are rarely -if ever- consistent in what they reject or delete and what they let through.
You'll hear no argument from me as to the generality of your point and the mail's sneerleading manipulation of its readership.

However, this entire thread is about identifying those instances where that manipulation manifests itself through the use of "Fury" in the headlines. My contention is that we are trivialising the mail's coverage of Rape Crisis' wholly correct stance by putting it up here for public ridicule. I would go as far as to say that, in doing so, we are displaying behaviour uncomfortably similar to those who we seek to call to book.

Incidentally, being a news outlet is all about disseminating information "which fewer people would have known about had they not reported it at all". That's what they do.
 
By Safe_Timber_Man
Membership Days Posts
#351310
It seems to me that in a lot of cases, this one included, the sincerity of the Mail is being called into question, not ridiculing the actual topic. Certainly not ridiculing the rape charities response.

Personally, I think you're trying really hard to take a moral high ground which doesn't even exist here.
 
By Kreuzberger
Membership Days Posts
#351313
Safe_Timber_Man wrote:It seems to me that in a lot of cases, this one included, the sincerity of the Mail is being called into question, not ridiculing the actual topic. Certainly not ridiculing the rape charities response.

Personally, I think you're trying really hard to take a moral high ground which doesn't even exist here.
Did you actually read Arnold's original post? He cites the source of the fury being Rape Crisis and, given the nature of this thread, we are invited to tut-tut. Arnold might like to clarify.

Thanks for your observations regarding moral high ground. I needed a good laugh.
 
By Safe_Timber_Man
Membership Days Posts
#351315
To be fair, judging by the opening few posts of this thread, there isn't really a set in stone theme of the thread. It can be used to highlight their use of outrage and fury in cases where it's massively overblown, such as fury and outrage over a fence being 2ft too high, for example. Or to highlight their insincerity in the use of the the words to try and garner a reaction or push an agenda, regardless of the actual case they're covering.

Either way, I don't think anyone is trivialising rape here or in danger of it. I can't speak for everyone, of course, but the replies I've seen so far don't appear to be doing that.
 
By Big Arnold
Membership Days Posts
#351325
From the Urban Dictionary
2. Arse Rape
Means getting ripped off big time.
"In New Zealand dairy products are expensive because Fonterra arse rape us", Electricty is expensive because power companies arse rape us"

3. Arse rape
To devour with speed and accuracy.
After drinking vodka and redbull all night, Susie arse raped a pizza, much to the amazement of Victoria!
It's an unpleasant metaphor that I wouldn't use. But I doubt he expected it to be reported worldwide, or that he was trivialising rape, or even thinking of the literal meaning. I think too much is being made of what was meant as a private conversation.
The spin bowler made the controversial remarks during a conversation with his brother Alec on Facebook just hours after crashing to the embarrassing defeat against the Aussies.
 
By Kreuzberger
Membership Days Posts
#351339
Andy McDandy wrote:Yes, but both definitions given above boil down to 'getting fucked (and not in a good way)'.
Indeed, and that is if we are to accept the Urban Dictionary as a credible arbiter of English usage. The OED paints a more brutal picture and one which is more readily understood by those of us who aren't quite as dahn wiv da kidz, have suffered rape or both.

Swan knows that, too. Perhaps that's why the rabidly right-wing Guardian has used words like "prompted outrage" in their report of Swan apologising for his comments which, according to him, were "Crass and thoughtless of me in the extreme."
By Inquisitor
Membership Days
#351387
Kreuzberger wrote:
shyamz wrote:The issue for me is less to do with the rights and wrongs of reporting about the rape comment (which fewer people would have known about had they not reported it at all) and more to do with which articles they allow comments to be submitted to and which ones they don't - when they know full well the kind of comments their readers make and that their mods are rarely -if ever- consistent in what they reject or delete and what they let through.
You'll hear no argument from me as to the generality of your point and the mail's sneerleading manipulation of its readership.

However, this entire thread is about identifying those instances where that manipulation manifests itself through the use of "Fury" in the headlines. My contention is that we are trivialising the mail's coverage of Rape Crisis' wholly correct stance by putting it up here for public ridicule. I would go as far as to say that, in doing so, we are displaying behaviour uncomfortably similar to those who we seek to call to book.

Incidentally, being a news outlet is all about disseminating information "which fewer people would have known about had they not reported it at all". That's what they do.
I agree.
By Big Rob
#351556
Not wanting to get to deep into this, it is necessary to point out that what makes one person feel uncomfortable may not make another person feel uncomfortable.

The line is drawn for me when other people are using their mouth to show how other people are unjustifiably inferior to them.

The problem with expecting others to watch their words, when they are not using those words in a deliberately derogatory manner, can be a short journey towards sanctimony.
  • 1
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 33
The Tories, Generally

Hot damn! It's the Soggy Bottom Boys!

Labour, Generally.

Also: I suspect the fan club probably wouldn't l[…]

Claire Fox

Can only see Rochdale and Wigan turnout in. Righ[…]

Euro Elections 2019

Rather amusing for all those Europe's going to fal[…]