Interesting WWI piece in today's Guardian

BadFish · Jan 31, 2014

Buzzer said:
As I said and clearly from comments like this, it panders to their readers' egos. And in doing so, you'll swallow any old bullsh*t they tell you as long as you feel morally superior.

I think the point being made is the exact opposite of the one you suggest is clear here.

pastafarian · Jan 31, 2014

DavidinSouthampton said:
I do understand the tone of the article - and sorry I missed a "celebrate". And while I said I have some sympathy with what Simon Jenkins is saying, I do think he has gone over the top. I would just be anxious to maintain the difference between "celebrate" and "commemorate".

My grandfather was one of 10 children - five brothers and five sisters. Of the Brothers, 2 were (very) seriously wounded and one was killed. My wife and I found his name on the amazing monument in the Arras cemetery which carries the names of several thousand men who were buried as unidentified. It's an awe-inspiring place. I would not want to celebrate what they were part of. I would certainly want to commemorate it.

Me too,which is what i said post #3.

i suspect most people already do though which is why i cant agree with the article.

BadFish · Jan 31, 2014

pastafarian said:
Really cant agree with that article at all.

It is not about self congratulation and celebration it is about remembrance and commemoration.

The point of the article is surely that there is a possibility that things will cross the line from one to the other. Whether you think that is likely to happen or not it is surely a reasonable question to ask and a decent point of debate, don't you think?

soistes · Jan 31, 2014

Buzzer said:
As I said and clearly from comments like this, it panders to their readers' egos. And in doing so, you'll swallow any old bullsh*t they tell you as long as you feel morally superior.

Nonsense. It's nothing to do with morality or moral superiority at all. Having a higher reading age or level of education doesn't make someone morally "better" than someone else, and I've never suggested that, nor would I. The question of the reading age necessary to understand a piece of text is an empirical one, and there is well-tested software which you can use to score a text on its appropriateness for different reading ages. If you put a few average Guardian articles and Mail articles through such software, you will see the point I'm making.

Buzzer · Jan 31, 2014

DavidinSouthampton said:
What a load of cobblers. Why don't you bother taking any notice of other people's comments. How sad.

I am reading it. You’ve accused the Daily Mail of making things up for dubious moral purposes but say that you disagree with many things the Guardian prints but make no similar moral judgement on why they have written things you disagree with.

And from the mutual reach-around that you and the other Guardian readers are giving each other on this thread it’s clear that it makes you all feel superior to the average man. I really do applaud the Guardian in this sleight of hand so that you don't apply the same levels of scepticism to its articles as you do to ones by its rivals. Of course, it's helped by the fact that it writes them with the politics of its readers in mind. It's always difficult to appraise something objectively when you expect and want it to confirm your own political prejudices from the start.

keaton · Jan 31, 2014

pastafarian said:
Me too,which is what i said post #3.

i suspect most people already do though which is why i cant agree with the article.

I think by having all this at the centenary of the beginning of the war rather than at the end of war risks blurring the lines, but there's no way the Tories would let this vote winner pass them by

keaton · Jan 31, 2014

Buzzer said:
I am reading it. You’ve accused the Daily Mail of making things up for dubious moral purposes but say that you disagree with many things the Guardian prints but make no similar moral judgement on why they have written things you disagree with.

And from the mutual reach-around that you and the other Guardian readers are giving each other on this thread it’s clear that it makes you all feel superior to the average man. I really do applaud the Guardian in this sleight of hand so that you don't apply the same levels of scepticism to its articles as you do to ones by its rivals. Of course, it's helped by the fact that it writes them with the politics of its readers in mind. It's always difficult to appraise something objectively when you expect and want it to confirm your own political prejudices from the start.

Because you can disagree with an opinion/comment piece, that's the point of it, whereas the Mail presents opinions as facts and uses half-truths and lies to illustrate it.

pastafarian · Jan 31, 2014

BadFish said:
The point of the article is surely that there is a possibility that things will cross the line from one to the other. Whether you think that is likely to happen or not it is surely a reasonable question to ask and a decent point of debate, don't you think?

the point of the article is that in the authors opinion the line has been crossed already
just saying i do not agree with that standpoint

BadFish · Jan 31, 2014

Buzzer said:
I am reading it. You’ve accused the Daily Mail of making things up for dubious moral purposes but say that you disagree with many things the Guardian prints but make no similar moral judgement on why they have written things you disagree with.

And from the mutual reach-around that you and the other Guardian readers are giving each other on this thread it’s clear that it makes you all feel superior to the average man. I really do applaud the Guardian in this sleight of hand so that you don't apply the same levels of scepticism to its articles as you do to ones by its rivals. Of course, it's helped by the fact that it writes them with the politics of its readers in mind. It's always difficult to appraise something objectively when you expect and want it to confirm your own political prejudices from the start.

I don't think the Mail and the Guardian are comparable enough to make draw the conclusions you are drawing. You may be able to compare the Guardian and The Telegraph but trying to equate the Guardian with the Mail is just the desperate attempts of Mail readers to defend the indefensible .

pastafarian · Jan 31, 2014

keaton said:
I think by having all this at the centenary of the beginning of the war rather than at the end of war risks blurring the lines, but there's no way the Tories would let this vote winner pass them by

probably the worst comment i have ever read on NSC!.....you think the commemorations are about votes?

BadFish · Jan 31, 2014

pastafarian said:
the point of the article is that in the authors opinion the line has been crossed already
just saying i do not agree with that standpoint

Fair enough, I took the language of the tag line and the first paragraph (language like 'will be" and 'about to') to suggest that the author is concerned about what will happen rather than what has already happened. I grant you they have offered examples of what has already happened but i think they were put forward as precursors for what will happen on the anniversary of the war beginning and the other important anniversaries that will follow ("And there are four years of it still to come.")

Bold Seagull · Jan 31, 2014

pastafarian said:
the point of the article is that in the authors opinion the line has been crossed already
just saying i do not agree with that standpoint

At least we're getting back to discussing the subject of the article. I note Jeremy Paxman has also raised concerns and lambasted the PM for suggesting the celebrations should be like the Jubilee in similarly strong terms to Simon Jenkins.

There is no doubt in my mind that as a nation we still treat this as one of our victories, whereas as Paxman suggests, it should be considered a disaster.

In the reference to Dan Snow, I actually think some of his coverage, his writing and documentaries are well balanced, interesting and revealing. What I think Simon Jenkins misses, is that an awful lot could be learnt from this process especially if we seek to face the hard truths about our own culpability.

DavidinSouthampton · Jan 31, 2014

Buzzer said:
I am reading it. You’ve accused the Daily Mail of making things up for dubious moral purposes but say that you disagree with many things the Guardian prints but make no similar moral judgement on why they have written things you disagree with.

And from the mutual reach-around that you and the other Guardian readers are giving each other on this thread it’s clear that it makes you all feel superior to the average man. I really do applaud the Guardian in this sleight of hand so that you don't apply the same levels of scepticism to its articles as you do to ones by its rivals. Of course, it's helped by the fact that it writes them with the politics of its readers in mind. It's always difficult to appraise something objectively when you expect and want it to confirm your own political prejudices from the start.

There is a difference between the Mail fabricating stories and maliciously printing things which just aren't true, where the moral high-ground might come in to it, and reading things which you might disagree with but which are not based on lies. I can read the Times, the Independent and the Telegraph equally comfortably - am more likely to disagree with the stance taken or the opinions in the Telegraph, but would normally trust that it is not a tissue of lies and is just written by somebody who has a different political, economic or social take on things than I do.

I also read Private Eye, so am aware that it criticises the Guardian as well.

keaton · Jan 31, 2014

pastafarian said:
probably the worst comment i have ever read on NSC!.....you think the commemorations are about votes?

Why are we having so much stuff at the beginning of a war? Who commerorates the beginning of something?

Buzzer · Jan 31, 2014

soistes said:
Nonsense. It's nothing to do with morality or moral superiority at all. Having a higher reading age or level of education doesn't make someone morally "better" than someone else, and I've never suggested that, nor would I. The question of the reading age necessary to understand a piece of text is an empirical one, and there is well-tested software which you can use to score a text on its appropriateness for different reading ages. If you put a few average Guardian articles and Mail articles through such software, you will see the point I'm making.

Sorry but I don’t buy this argument. They’re both just daily newspapers, we’re not talking about the Lancet or Scientific American here, just populist newspapers.

So can I ask you to tell me what you think the relative average reading ages of the Mail and Guardian readers are and what is it that the Guardian writes that is intellectually beyond the reach of the average Mail reader. Could you give an example of such an article?

Buzzer · Jan 31, 2014

BadFish said:
I don't think the Mail and the Guardian are comparable enough to make draw the conclusions you are drawing. You may be able to compare the Guardian and The Telegraph but trying to equate the Guardian with the Mail is just the desperate attempts of Mail readers to defend the indefensible .

Oh do stop with the usual twattery about the big bad Daily Mail readers, please. I'm not and never have been a Mail reader. My first post in this thread mentioned its dubious integrity.

keaton · Jan 31, 2014

Buzzer said:
Sorry but I don’t buy this argument. They’re both just daily newspapers, we’re not talking about the Lancet or Scientific American here, just populist newspapers.

So can I ask you to tell me what you think the relative average reading ages of the Mail and Guardian readers are and what is it that the Guardian writes that is intellectually beyond the reach of the average Mail reader. Could you give an example of such an article?

I was taught in the Marxist hotbed of Dorothy Stringer, but they did go through the papers in a lesson and tell you the 'reading age' you would need to be able to understand them. It was something like The Sun/Mirror=10-12, The Mail=14, Times/Guardian = 16, Telegraph/Independent 18

BadFish · Jan 31, 2014

Buzzer said:
Oh do stop with the usual twattery about the big bad Daily Mail readers, please. I'm not and never have been a Mail reader. My first post in this thread mentioned its dubious integrity.

No one accused you of being a daily mail reader, calm down. I am just pointing out the folly of comparing the two as similar publications.

pastafarian · Jan 31, 2014

Bold Seagull said:
At least we're getting back to discussing the subject of the article. I note Jeremy Paxman has also raised concerns and lambasted the PM for suggesting the celebrations should be like the Jubilee in similarly strong terms to Simon Jenkins.

There is no doubt in my mind that as a nation we still treat this as one of our victories, whereas as Paxman suggests, it should be considered a disaster.

In the reference to Dan Snow, I actually think some of his coverage, his writing and documentaries are well balanced, interesting and revealing. What I think Simon Jenkins misses, is that an awful lot could be learnt from this process especially if we seek to face the hard truths about our own culpability.

cant disagree with anything you say, as time passes though sentiment seems to grow that there was no real victory,which is probably just as a correct way of looking at it as any other.When looking back from a distance like we do there were no real winners,but hindsight is a....... etc etc etc

Buzzer · Jan 31, 2014

BadFish said:
No one accused you of being a daily mail reader

Yes you did, you numpty. Right here:

BadFish said:
trying to equate the Guardian with the Mail is just the desperate attempts of Mail readers to defend the indefensible .

I'm the one equating the Mail with the Guardian in this thread - the one you wrote this in - ergo I'm the desperate Mail reader attempting to defend the indefensible.

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Interesting WWI piece in today's Guardian

Huge Member

Well-known member

Huge Member

Well-known member

Languidly Clinical

Big heart, hot blood and balls. Big balls

Big heart, hot blood and balls. Big balls

Well-known member

Huge Member

Well-known member

Huge Member

strong and stable with me, or...

Well-known member

Big heart, hot blood and balls. Big balls

Languidly Clinical

Languidly Clinical

Big heart, hot blood and balls. Big balls

Huge Member

Well-known member

Languidly Clinical

Share this page