The Guardian

roberty

Veganic said:

roberty said:

Veganic said:

roberty said:

They've had to sack a lot of staff including journalists due to lost revenue. A paywall would fuck their mission. So they don't have many options

Gary Younge has this to say about identity politics, no doubt it will twist a few white man's knickers

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/05/no-shock-powerful-hate-identity-politics

@roberty ;;

I have read that a few times and I am struggling to find a coherent point that doesn't rely on me already agreeing with what is said and more importantly what is not said.
Have you read it?
What do you think he is saying?

I'm struggling to find a coherent point in what you're saying tbh 

My main point is that I don't know what the argument is in the article. 

The rest is not a point as such, just a plea for some assistance in understanding the article that you have kindly offered up for comment.

So can you pick out his main argument(s) for me so I can re-read it and make some sense of it please? 

(Assuming you are not just being weird and you understood me very well but wanted to make me feel inferior with a snide reply - apologies for even thinking this might happen on the internet if it is not the case.)

Ah sorry that was a bit snarky, internet tone

There is a perception among some that identity politics are a threat (eg "men are under attack from feminism")

Men are also a group of people so the above concern is also a form of identity politics

Why should men corner the market on victimhood in this situation 

The reason he makes this point is because he believes there is a disproportionate amount of media coverage on the percieved threat of identity politics when compared to reporting on for example the gender wage gap. He illustrates this with examples

Chalky

Veganic said:

roberty said:

Veganic said:

roberty said:

They've had to sack a lot of staff including journalists due to lost revenue. A paywall would fuck their mission. So they don't have many options

Gary Younge has this to say about identity politics, no doubt it will twist a few white man's knickers

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/05/no-shock-powerful-hate-identity-politics

@roberty ;

I have read that a few times and I am struggling to find a coherent point that doesn't rely on me already agreeing with what is said and more importantly what is not said.
Have you read it?
What do you think he is saying?

I'm struggling to find a coherent point in what you're saying tbh 

My main point is that I don't know what the argument is in the article. 

The rest is not a point as such, just a plea for some assistance in understanding the article that you have kindly offered up for comment.

So can you pick out his main argument(s) for me so I can re-read it and make some sense of it please? 

(Assuming you are not just being weird and you understood me very well but wanted to make me feel inferior with a snide reply - apologies for even thinking this might happen on the internet if it is not the case.)

Gary Younge is saying:
"Identity Politics" is a meaningless phrase now.
Identity selection is arbitrary on the part of the individual.
Those who are against Identity politics are against political change.
Historically, Identity politics has led to women getting the vote and race relations law improvements in the US.

So to be against Identity Politics is bad. Except that its meaningless and arbitrary....

I agree - incoherent article.

roberty

Chalky said:

Veganic said:

roberty said:

Veganic said:

roberty said:

They've had to sack a lot of staff including journalists due to lost revenue. A paywall would fuck their mission. So they don't have many options

Gary Younge has this to say about identity politics, no doubt it will twist a few white man's knickers

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/05/no-shock-powerful-hate-identity-politics

@roberty ;

I have read that a few times and I am struggling to find a coherent point that doesn't rely on me already agreeing with what is said and more importantly what is not said.
Have you read it?
What do you think he is saying?

I'm struggling to find a coherent point in what you're saying tbh 

My main point is that I don't know what the argument is in the article. 

The rest is not a point as such, just a plea for some assistance in understanding the article that you have kindly offered up for comment.

So can you pick out his main argument(s) for me so I can re-read it and make some sense of it please? 

(Assuming you are not just being weird and you understood me very well but wanted to make me feel inferior with a snide reply - apologies for even thinking this might happen on the internet if it is not the case.)

Gary Younge is saying:
"Identity Politics" is a meaningless phrase now.
Identity selection is arbitrary on the part of the individual.
Those who are against Identity politics are against political change.
Historically, Identity politics has led to women getting the vote and race relations law improvements in the US.

So to be against Identity Politics is bad. Except that its meaningless and arbitrary....

I agree - incoherent article.

He means identity politics as it is currently branded (ie to exclude the privileged) is meaningless. Any push back against it is also a form of identity politics

Gagaryn

Veganic said:

roberty said:

Veganic said:

roberty said:

They've had to sack a lot of staff including journalists due to lost revenue. A paywall would fuck their mission. So they don't have many options

Gary Younge has this to say about identity politics, no doubt it will twist a few white man's knickers

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/05/no-shock-powerful-hate-identity-politics

@roberty ;

I have read that a few times and I am struggling to find a coherent point that doesn't rely on me already agreeing with what is said and more importantly what is not said.
Have you read it?
What do you think he is saying?

I'm struggling to find a coherent point in what you're saying tbh 

My main point is that I don't know what the argument is in the article. 

The rest is not a point as such, just a plea for some assistance in understanding the article that you have kindly offered up for comment.

So can you pick out his main argument(s) for me so I can re-read it and make some sense of it please? 

(Assuming you are not just being weird and you understood me very well but wanted to make me feel inferior with a snide reply - apologies for even thinking this might happen on the internet if it is not the case.)

I think you are misunderstanding the purpose of opinion pieces - which this is.

Veganic

Gagaryn said:

Veganic said:

Edited cos no one needs to see all this ags8n.

So can you pick out his main argument(s) for me so I can re-read it and make some sense of it please? 

I think you are misunderstanding the purpose of opinion pieces - which this is.

Oh, probably. What is the purpose of them? 

Just googled the definition of opinion:
A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof.

Well if that's it what a waste of time reading any opinion piece is then.  I will stick to books from now on.

Thanks @Gagaryn for disabusing me of whatever it was I thought.

robgilmo

I dont read newpapers, but if I did , and if I had to pay for it, I would read Viz, because the stories in Viz wont artificially change my opinions on the world , opinions being printed that are usually based on extreme political views with a view to causing shock so the reader feels like they need to buy the same ''news'' the next day to see if anything else just as shocking as yesterdays news has happened. 

TheBigDipper

I just read Gary Youngs opinion piece. I don't think it's very well written, nor are his points that well made. Sometimes you can read an opinion piece and decide if you agree or disagree with the writer. This time, I'm not sure what I'd be agreeing or disagreeing with.

But it's made me think a bit about the general area of concern. Maybe that's a good thing and it's served a purpose in that way?

roberty

Politics + internet = instant handbags

FIGHT ME

Blueingreen

You’d probably need to write a longer piece than Younge’s to fully tease out all its absurdities and logical fallacies. It perfectly encapsulates why I wouldn’t contribute financially to the paper. 

Garthy

smogmonster said:

It is not surprising that the Guardian's sales are falling as its editorial stance has moved to the right as much of its traditional readership has moved in the opposite direction.

It now seems aimed more at wealthy Clinton supporting liberals in the US particularly since Viner became editor a couple of years ago. Today's Guardian is a mish mash of all kinds of identity politics coupled with virulent Russophobia. IMO it was never that left wing but now it has clearly moved over to the other side as in many respects its coverage of international events is now often more hawkish than the traditional right wing press.

Added to an obvious anti Corbyn bias it is an agenda designed to alienate a large part of its traditional left of centre readership in the UK who find it irrelevant or downright offensive. In fact in certain sectors of the left there is a growing campaign to actively boycott the Guardian.

Short of a Kim Jong il style propaganda campaign, they couldn't be any more pro-Corbyn. The rest of your post is just nonsense.

Heartfeltdawn

Garthy said:

Short of a Kim Jong il style propaganda campaign, they couldn't be any more pro-Corbyn. The rest of your post is just nonsense.

erm...

https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&vertical=default&q=#boycotttheguardian&src=typd


I think a quick scan of the Twitter profiles will show plenty of JC4PM titles in there. The Corbynistas generally regard the Graun as being at the same level as the BBC. 

randella

The Guardian has softened a bit on Corbyn - before the last election it was basically calling for his head on a plate. Notably, Owen Jones did a 180 the following day. 

Heartfeltdawn

Sadly he didn't do it in the manner of The Exorcist. A vomiting Owen shouting "Tony Blair sucks cocks in hell" would be far more entertaining than the majority of his writing. 

Garthy

Heartfeltdawn said:

Garthy said:

Short of a Kim Jong il style propaganda campaign, they couldn't be any more pro-Corbyn. The rest of your post is just nonsense.

erm...

https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&vertical=default&q=#boycotttheguardian&src=typd


I think a quick scan of the Twitter profiles will show plenty of JC4PM titles in there. The Corbynistas generally regard the Graun as being at the same level as the BBC. 

And some cunts think the earth is flat.

Heartfeltdawn

Garthy said:

Heartfeltdawn said:

Garthy said:

Short of a Kim Jong il style propaganda campaign, they couldn't be any more pro-Corbyn. The rest of your post is just nonsense.

erm...

https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&vertical=default&q=#boycotttheguardian&src=typd


I think a quick scan of the Twitter profiles will show plenty of JC4PM titles in there. The Corbynistas generally regard the Graun as being at the same level as the BBC. 

And some cunts think the earth is flat.

Flat earthers ignore scientific evidence and pronounce the world is flat. 

You say the Graun kisses Corbyn's ass. If it did, then the COrbynistas wouldn't have started the #boycottheguardian hashtag, an effort which follwos on from #bbcswitchoff. 

So could the Graun be more pro-Corbyn? Fuck yes. It's not the Canary or the Squawkbox. 

smogmonster

Garthy said:

smogmonster said:

It is not surprising that the Guardian's sales are falling as its editorial stance has moved to the right as much of its traditional readership has moved in the opposite direction.

It now seems aimed more at wealthy Clinton supporting liberals in the US particularly since Viner became editor a couple of years ago. Today's Guardian is a mish mash of all kinds of identity politics coupled with virulent Russophobia. IMO it was never that left wing but now it has clearly moved over to the other side as in many respects its coverage of international events is now often more hawkish than the traditional right wing press.

Added to an obvious anti Corbyn bias it is an agenda designed to alienate a large part of its traditional left of centre readership in the UK who find it irrelevant or downright offensive. In fact in certain sectors of the left there is a growing campaign to actively boycott the Guardian.

Short of a Kim Jong il style propaganda campaign, they couldn't be any more pro-Corbyn. The rest of your post is just nonsense.

Hmm...Clearly someone whose idea of content analysis amounts to masturbating over page 3 in the Daily Sport.

viz

robgilmo said:

I dont read newpapers, but if I did , and if I had to pay for it, I would read Viz

Wiz

randella

Heartfeltdawn said:

Garthy said:

Heartfeltdawn said:

Garthy said:

Short of a Kim Jong il style propaganda campaign, they couldn't be any more pro-Corbyn. The rest of your post is just nonsense.

erm...

https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&vertical=default&q=#boycotttheguardian&src=typd


I think a quick scan of the Twitter profiles will show plenty of JC4PM titles in there. The Corbynistas generally regard the Graun as being at the same level as the BBC. 

And some cunts think the earth is flat.

Flat earthers ignore scientific evidence and pronounce the world is flat. 

You say the Graun kisses Corbyn's ass. If it did, then the COrbynistas wouldn't have started the #boycottheguardian hashtag, an effort which follwos on from #bbcswitchoff. 

So could the Graun be more pro-Corbyn? Fuck yes. It's not the Canary or the Squawkbox. 

This morning’s Observer has a big, bold op-ed from one T. May. There’s also a separate article outlining T. May’s latest plan, linking to said op-ed in which the latest plan is explained in detail.

That Twitter feed is going to have a fucking field-day. 

Heartfeltdawn

Already on it. The Observer is being roundly denounced and trashed by all my favourite Londoncentric Marxists. 

Garthy

smogmonster said:

Garthy said:

smogmonster said:

It is not surprising that the Guardian's sales are falling as its editorial stance has moved to the right as much of its traditional readership has moved in the opposite direction.

It now seems aimed more at wealthy Clinton supporting liberals in the US particularly since Viner became editor a couple of years ago. Today's Guardian is a mish mash of all kinds of identity politics coupled with virulent Russophobia. IMO it was never that left wing but now it has clearly moved over to the other side as in many respects its coverage of international events is now often more hawkish than the traditional right wing press.

Added to an obvious anti Corbyn bias it is an agenda designed to alienate a large part of its traditional left of centre readership in the UK who find it irrelevant or downright offensive. In fact in certain sectors of the left there is a growing campaign to actively boycott the Guardian.

Short of a Kim Jong il style propaganda campaign, they couldn't be any more pro-Corbyn. The rest of your post is just nonsense.

Hmm...Clearly someone whose idea of content analysis amounts to masturbating over page 3 in the Daily Sport.

Well if you’re going to knock one out over a pair of tits, it may as well be Jenny, 24 from Coventry than Jeremy and John, or is it Diane that gets you hard in the morning?