It's time to fuck the Daily Mail.
People like me have been waiting for years for the perfect opportunity to properly kick the Daily Nazi into touch. Thanks to the widespread coverage of the Jan Moir disaster, that time has come.
Enough people have had it brought to their attention. The Mail is a sick, nasty, deranged fascist rag and ought to be shunned, ignored, boycotted and publicly reviled.
What is fascinating about the Moir scandal is the fact that it has taken a 'femail' section throwaway piece to really get people onto their case. I've known about that paper's weird suburban nastiness of donkey's years. Of course I do - whilst growing up, all my mates' parents had it on their coffee tables.
I am delighted M&S have withdrawn (albeit possibly temporarily) their advertising for the Mail Online. I hope it stays that way.
It is time for the George Orwell approach to injustice and social evil - boycott. Ironic, as this has traditionally been a right wing method favoured by the small minded Mail and its equally teeny minded bigoted readership.
So get the word out to all you know - don't buy the Mail and don't have anything to do with its sponsors.
Game on.
Saturday, 17 October 2009
There's never been a better time to fuck the Mail
Posted by John Demetriou at 16:59
Labels: daily mail bullshit, I hate the daily mail with every inch of my body and every hidden corner of my soul, time to fuck the daily mail
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
36 comments:
So what did your parents read then? The Daily Mail might well be a concoction of the worst kind of tory biases, but you don't have to read it. And that goes for it's readers too.
So fair enough, scream boycott the Mail all you want, but I can and do make my own mind up about these things.
What happens if someone on the internet decides this blog is a nasty, vile piece of shit and asks me to boycott it. Do you think I'll do it because someone asked me to or do you think I'll make up my own mind?
Libertarians do their own thing, they don't try and force other people to do it too. Geddit?
Fair comment, but all I'm doing is drawing attention to a cause I believe worth fighting for.
Boycotting equals free choice. That's the point. Orwell was a socialist libertarian. He didn't believe in forcing people into collectivist thought. That's why he fought for the anarchists in the Spanish Civil War.
If you want to read the Mail, fair play, do as you wish.
But I have the right to say 'have a butchers at this...what a bunch of cunts they are. My advice is, give them the swerve'.
I fail to see how my position contradicts libertarian principles.
Oh, and my parents read the Torygraph. If they read the Mail, I'd slag them off for it,but I wouldn't steal their copy from them and stick it in the bin, even though that's the only place for it bar my arsehole.
Listen, everybody, the Libertarians are instructing us what not to read!
Look, dick head, I'm not 'instructing' anyone to do jack shit.
What is wrong with you? Are you somehow mentally deficient? Or are you being a cheeky cunt for the sake of it?
READ WHAT YOU WANT. I merely advocate boycott as the best way of dealing with this nasty, pernicious, hateful, horrid authoritarian menace to society.
You can ignore my advice, because it's a free country, but I'm allowed to have a say on the matter too.
Are you saying Libertarians should sit back and allow authoritarian media outlets to take a stroll though the park without comment?
Fucking weirdo.
The Mail makes the occasional mistake, but it is a great paper. And today it gave me a DVD of the Graduate for free! That's not bad, is it? Cut the paper some slack.
Bill,
Today's DVD giveaway from the Mail kind of sums them up as no better than Toynbee or The Sun for me!
Apparently the death of a gay man proves that all gays are 'sleazy' and the nuclear family is the correct way to be (but lets endorse the right of dissatisified middle class women to fuck their teenage daughters boyfriends). I have no idea if I'm right or not, but I bet there was a moral outrage at the Mail when that film was first released.
I don't read the Daily Mail (Any more. I did for quite a few years as I wanted a tabloid sized tory paper and the Express was worse ;)), but just looking at the splash every day confirms it as still deserving of The Daily Hate moniker.
I'm still wary of anyone recommending a boycott of anything. I prefer to think that people should make up their own minds. A better way of wording this post by JD might have been along the lines of 'Fuck this, I'm boycotting the Mail and as far as I'm concerned anyone who posts on my site in their defence is a cunt who I will not reply to'. His reply to my original point cleared up my own problem.
I've always thought that the concept of asking for a boycott is presumptious.
And JD, if your cause is to point out scaremongering and intolerance dressed up as the moral highground then I'm right behind you. I just disagree with the phrasing...
As to your point about wiping your arse with the Mail, all I can say is you can't have grown up with Izal bogroll, cause the thought of wiping my hoop with newsprint makes it blink.
Your observations about the Mail's content are not new, it has been nicknamed the "Daily Heil" (and similar) for a couple of decades at least. There is already a widespread de facto boycott of the paper. There are many people, myself included, who will never ever buy the Mail.
However, there is something very distasteful about the way that everyone is ganging up to vent their righteous indignation against the Mail. One journalist writes one article, questioning the special status our society accords to a fashionable minority group. Said minority group freaks out and launches a campaign to denounce the journalist and their paper. Then people, liberal people who should know better than to oppress free speech, all leap on board -- because it's the Mail, and we all know that the Mail and its readers are responsible for all the evils of this world. Quick, everyone, kick the scapegoat! Ban this filth!
The whole thing stinks. We live in a world where everyone should be afraid to speak their mind, in case someone takes offence and crowds are mobilised against them using Twitter.
I've said something similar before - if you don't like it, don't buy it.
Hey, someone talks crap, is it your problem?
Think, for a moment (& before you flame), what the libertarian view, on this, is.
Now, this I don't understand
As a Libertarian, my view is do what you want as long as it does not adversly affect others.
Yet you guys are going after the Daily Mail and their advertisers because they adversly affected your lives....er....how exactly?
Can you say censorship? You want to dictate to the Daily Mail what they can and cannot print. Let alone simply just not buy it or read it, you want to CHANGE it into something YOU would like.
You are not Libertarians, are you?
Fuck off OH.
Freedom of speech is just wrong.
Fuck sakes.
Im rapidly tiring of the incessant "Im more libertarian than you" pissing contest.
When asked about my political views ive alway reflexively answered Im a libertarian. Well because (among other things) I think some people are beyond redemption and should be strung up, apparently Im not libertarian enough for some and I can just fuck off.
Just like youre getting it in the neck now for (shock, horror) calling a boycott.
Remind me, are you calling for a boycott or forcing us at gunpoint to join your radical crusade?
Fuck it. From now on if asked about my political views, I'll just say that im a libertarian leaning cunt.
Well said Shmo, the sentiments for a rapidly increasing number.
Holby. Shall we look up the definitions of boycott and censor?
The Mail has the right to say what it wants, when it does everyone else has the right to disagree. At no point has John said that the Mail should be censored, he has said that the Mail can say what it likes but by buying it and disagreeing you are in fact endorsing it.
Much like voting Tory to get rid of Labour even though you don't agree with their views.
What is the common argument against censorship? Simple: if you don't like it, don't buy it/read it/listen to it.
That is precisely what John has said here. Don't like the Mail and its message? Don't buy it, in fact make a point not to buy it and send a message to those that fund it.
There is nothing unlibertarian about that in the fucking slightest.
In turn the Mail is fundamentally against libertarianism. It wants more regulation, it wants more regulation of your moral fibre, it is a state-capitalist, pro-censorship, racist, homophobic, moralist piece of shit. So as a libertarian yes, it does offend me. It stands for the exact opposite to me, but that doesn't mean it should be censored.
It does mean it should be shunned, ignored, boycotted.
And I would point out the blindingly obvious, John has not made anyone do anything
The Gately issue allows the Mail to be exposed for exactly what it is, something that most people are oblivious to because they get taken in by the pictures of fluffy kittens and free DVDs.
Oh look, Iain Dale pulls the homophobe card, mentioning the Mail AND Gately.
You guys have some serious catching up to do to get with the fucking pogramme. You are being used like ..er.. the bitches of a homosexual Tory wannabee MP media whore.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2009/oct/17/my-week-iain-dale?showallcomments=true
But we have to keep warning people about all teh gays and their deviant lifestyles!
Holby, you have totally fucking lost me.
Dale is a cunt. And?
I wrote about the whole Moir thing on Friday afternoon http://www.boatangdemetriou.com/2009/10/mail-and-jan-moir-go-to-town-on-gately.html and my position really hasn't got anything to do with Dale, mainly because I see no reason why it would.
Are you saying that the Moir article wasn't homophobic?
Thank you Mr B for defending my piece and saying what I would have said, had I been around this arvo on the blog.
Old Holborn has revealed himself as a closet Mail reading bigot. His comments about Dale are homophobic, and I think there's scant between he and the authoritarian arseholes we rail against daily.
The only difference being, the Mail doesn't like swearing and OH says cunt alot.
the cunt.
John Demetriou said "The only difference being, the Mail doesn't like swearing and OH says cunt alot."
Not quite fair, this one. Paul Dacre, the editor of the Daily Mail, swears like there's no tomorrow, according to most media sources. Morning staff meetings at the Mail HQ are known as "The Vagina Monologues" because of Dacre's habit of calling just about everyone at the meeting a "cunt".
Honest to God, I'm not making this up...
Oh absolutely. I meant the 'Mail' as in, the copy in the paper, doesn't feature swearing. But yeah, Dacre is a hypocritical tosser.
Not a million miles away from Old Holborn, really. A bloke who couldn't give a shit about his fellow man, yet makes out like he's all about freedom and liberty.
Selfish fucking fat fucking fucker.
For a while, there, I'd thought this post might be one of the few that wasn't about blogging, or bloggers, or libertarians-who-aren't-really, or Old Holborn being fat.
But no, you got there in the end, in the comments section.
Hat-tip to predictability!!
Why should I do what you twats say? Your authoritarian command "So get the word out to all you know - don't buy the Mail and don't have anything to do with its sponsors." is the same brand of vindictiveness that any other bunch of power-hungry loons has.
I'm off out to buy the mail for the 2nd time in my life, just for you.
CF.
I'm not fat.
OH:
Yeah? I'll be the judge of that, on Nov. 5th
CF, there is only one person here who brought up blogging and being libertarian. Maybe you should read.
Dukest. READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE YOU DUMB FUCK.
Fuck sake
Jesus Christ, it's just the Daily Mail, for fuck's sake.
When you say things like 'The Mail is a sick, nasty, deranged fascist rag and ought to be shunned, ignored, boycotted and publicly reviled' Paul Dacre gets such a powerful erection he almost faints.
Oh and by the way, does anyone remember when Stephen Fry and Charlie Brooker used to be funny?
John Demetriou said "Dacre is a hypocritical tosser. Not a million miles away from Old Holborn, really. A bloke who couldn't give a shit about his fellow man, yet makes out like he's all about freedom and liberty."
Perhaps they are the same person?
"don't buy the Mail and don't have anything to do with its sponsors."
But if I don't buy it, how will I know who their sponsors are?
Please JD, guide me onto the true path of libertarian wisdom by solving this conundrum for me.
Send me an invite to your next book burning why don't you.
For the last and millionth fucking time.
Boycott does not mean censor, or ban, or burn, or destroy, or refuse the right to speech, or restrict their platform.
It's like debating with fucking morons sometimes.
Yes, it is.
"It's like debating with fucking morons sometimes."
Good strapline for you boys. You should put that on the header of the blog, on the blue floaty thing.
Err, I thought you were a Libertarian? Maybe I'm lost.
Yes, I read the article, I quoted the specific part of the article I disagreed with (right at the end, I don't read backwards).
I disagreed with you, that gives you the right to call me a dumb fuck?
If you don't want comments, do a Kerry.
a new website has been set up to boycott the Daily Mail advertisers http://www.BoycottDailyMail.com
Sign the petition to ask the goverment to make the "Press Complaints Commission a Public Body" http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/makePCCPublic/
Post a Comment