Why the Guardian is going down the pan!

[Favelado]

the guardian's loyal opposition

I think my exasperation has gone up a further couple of notches since then. I read it every day but it's more like having a sore tooth I can't stop touching.

 

[butchersapron]

A giant of the victorian labour movement gets this treatment (presumably by the sub rather than the reviewer):

 

[brogdale]

A giant of the victorian labour movement gets this treatment (presumably by the sub rather than the reviewer):

View attachment 53948

Our old stoker.

 

[mauvais]

This is an excellent critique of capitalism:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/15/astrazeneca-shareholders-body-shop?CMP=fb_gu

Ahahaha.

 

[Dogsauce]

Anita Roddick did adverts for American Express, who had links with the fur trade. Body Shop can fuck off.

 

[Idris2002]

Anita Roddick did adverts for American Express, who had links with the fur trade. Body Shop can fuck off.

Also very anti-union.

 

[Lo Siento.]

Also very anti-union.

but nice companies don't need unions Idris.

 

[MAD-T-REX]

Can we include the Observer in this thread? Columnist says domestic violence against men is much less unacceptable than violence against women, because men are stronger and stuff: http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...nce-fight-assault-domestic-violence-men-women

I'm sure some fuckwit of an editor is thinking 'What a great debate we've started!' (or, more likely, 'This bullshit is generating a lot of clicks.')

 

[belboid]

Can we include the Observer in this thread? Columnist says domestic violence against men is much less unacceptable than violence against women, because men are stronger and stuff: http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...nce-fight-assault-domestic-violence-men-women

I'm sure some fuckwit of an editor is thinking 'What a great debate we've started!' (or, more likely, 'This bullshit is generating a lot of clicks.')

if you think the two things are the same, you're a brain dead fuckwit. Fuck off to the Mail forums

 

[MAD-T-REX]

Thanks for the reply, you belligerent asshole.

The columnist is a troll or an idiot for suggesting that the negative consequences of domestic abuse are inherently less serious for individual male victims. The fact that many more women are murdered by men than vice versa does not make every individual male more resilient to physical, mental or emotional injury.

Acknowledging the suffering of victims isn't a zero-sum game, you know - you can recognise the extent of violence against women without downplaying the suffering of individual men. Whether Jay-Z or any one else is put in fear by a violent act depends on the particular circumstances, not a pie chart of national abuse that shows most of it falls on women.

 

[belboid]

You're a brain dead cunt, deliberately misrepresenting the piece. Just fuck off.

 

[J Ed]

More nasty victim blaming from Barbara Ellen, I see that she has moved on from belittling people suffering from depression to victims of domestic violence.

 

[belboid]

More nasty victim blaming from Barbara Ellen, I see that she has moved on from belittling people suffering from depression to victims of domestic violence.

Victim blaming? Are you kidding? There isn't any.

 

[Idris2002]

Bellen's piece seems pretty reasonable to me.

 

[MAD-T-REX]

You're a brain dead cunt, deliberately misrepresenting the piece. Just fuck off.

Ho hum.

Victim blaming? Are you kidding? There isn't any.

Who knows what prompted Solange Knowles to lash out at her brother-in-law, Jay-Z, in a lift at the Met ball, held back by a bodyguard, while her sister, Beyoncé, passively observed? Was Solange drunk, frustrated about her career, sticking up for her sister – all or none of the above?

i.e. Jay-Z did or said something to Beyonce to provoke Solange Knowles.

Not many articles on domestic violence begin by pondering whether the victim had it coming.

 

[butchersapron]

Nor does that one.

 

[J Ed]

Victim blaming? Are you kidding? There isn't any.

There are no male victims of domestic violence who are abused by women? Clearly there are, and she is downplaying the seriousness of it, and is at the least coming very close to suggesting that in this case the victim had it coming because the perpetrator was drunk, frustrated or was angry about domestic issues.

 

[J Ed]

BTW, and this should be obvious, the relative size of two people in a relationship doesn't necessarily dictate the amount of violence one is capable or willing to dole out to the other. You can be a lot smaller than the other person and get away with a lot of violence because the larger person in a couple isn't willing to retaliate or is being controlled through emotional as well as physical abuse in the same way as the opposite can be the case.

I'm not saying that this is a typical situation but I don't think it's atypical enough to dismiss out of hand as Barbara Ellen does here.

 

[butchersapron]

This is the guardian being provocative rather than going down the pan.

 

[belboid]

Ho hum.


i.e. Jay-Z did or said something to Beyonce to provoke Solange Knowles.

Not many articles on domestic violence begin by pondering whether the victim had it coming.

And nor does that one, not even in the bit you quote. It's pretty bloody clear.

There are no male victims of domestic violence who are abused by women? Clearly there are, and she is downplaying the seriousness of it, and is at the least coming very close to suggesting that in this case the victim had it coming because the perpetrator was drunk, frustrated or was angry about domestic issues.

It downplays nothing, it clearly talks about the male victims of DA and suggests absolutely notching of the kind that the victim had it coming. And had it coming 'because the PERPETRATOR was drunk'? Do you seriously think she is arguing that it's okay to hit someone because you're drunk? Because that's is what you just said.

 

[J Ed]

It downplays nothing, it clearly talks about the male victims of DA and suggests absolutely notching of the kind that the victim had it coming. And had it coming 'because the PERPETRATOR was drunk'? Do you seriously think she is arguing that it's okay to hit someone because you're drunk? Because that's is what you just said.

It doesn't suggest that it's okay but it isn't exactly an outright condemnation to say the least, and she casually admits to doing it

What's more, women tend to be aware of this, if only subliminally. Some females might have periods in their life when they get "slap-happy", primarily when socialising, maybe when attention seeking, usually when drunk (guilty!).

In this article (certain forms) of domestic violence are something to be explained away as a bit naughty. Sort of like having a cheeky fag at school. Horrible, absolutely horrible.

 

[butchersapron]

It doesn't suggest that it's okay but it isn't exactly an outright condemnation to say the least, and she casually admits to doing it



In this article (certain forms) of domestic violence are something to be explained away as a bit naughty. Sort of like having a cheeky fag at school. Horrible, absolutely horrible.

She differentiates between DV and this nonsense. There are situations where that nonsense would constitute DV - not here. She also suggests that this sort of behavior is acceptable in women at certain stage when drunk - that is why it's a shit article - nothing to do with DV.

 

[belboid]

It doesn't suggest that it's okay but it isn't exactly an outright condemnation to say the least, and she casually admits to doing it

In this article (certain forms) of domestic violence are something to be explained away as a bit naughty. Sort of like having a cheeky fag at school. Horrible, absolutely horrible.

Utter nonsense. The following line shows you are wrong, women who do this become (rightly) 'ashamed, embarrassed or have belatedly realised they're disgusting dogs' It is no way supportive.

 

[belboid]

She differentiates between DV and this nonsense. There are situations where that nonsense would constitute DV - not here. She also suggests that this sort of behavior is acceptable in women at certain stage we drunk - that is why it's a shit article - nothing to do with DV.

she doesnt even say its acceptable - understandable maybe (only chance to hit back against a, usually, larger male), but still bloody stupid.

 

[butchersapron]

she doesnt even say its acceptable - understandable maybe (only chance to hit back against a, usually, larger male), but still bloody stupid.

She suggests that it's rite of passage - so something we all pass through. And stuff about it being "(only chance to hit back against a, usually, larger male)" just doesn't appear in what she wrote.

 

[J Ed]

Guardian lets convicted criminal defend other criminals http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/18/mep-member-european-parliament-vote

 

[CNT36]

I don't usually post on this thread, being resigned to the quiet subservience of the guardian class in the face of power. But this, this is an infomercial. Or a docuvertisement. Or some shite like that. It is about Renegade Professionals. And you need to read it. Because otherwise how will you respect these renegades who have risen among us? Or at least, how will you believe this horror was actually created by someone?

http://surface.theguardian.com/

Spoiler: it reads like a masterpiece from The Onion.

I hope you have entered the competition - http://surface.theguardian.com/vote/

 

[CNT36]

 

[butchersapron]

Ooh yeah, having some of that later.

 

[DotCommunist]

ronin of the pen