Disciplined for refusing to hand out literature on homosexuality

cleanbluesky · 1 Sep 2006 at 12:18

Sleepy said:
Your argument is flawed, a group with a common interest need not face prejudice to still have common ground requiring political activism.

Was it not your argument that the existence of political pressure groups and pride marches demonstrates the existence of prejudice?

MookJong · 1 Sep 2006 at 12:21

cleanbluesky said:
How can Daily Mail readers be considered any more static and less amorphous than any other media consumer? Yahoo is my homepage, does that mean that my opinions are exclusive and constant with other who share that homepage?

It's a good point, but Yahoo doesn't have the recognisable history of printing stories that are tainted in a certain light.

Visage · 1 Sep 2006 at 12:22

cleanbluesky said:
Was it not your argument that the existence of political pressure groups and pride marches demonstrates the existence of prejudice?

Not necessarily currently existing prejudice.

cleanbluesky · 1 Sep 2006 at 12:25

MookJong said:
It's a good point, but Yahoo doesn't have the recognisable history of printing stories that are tainted in a certain light.

Every tabloid has that history, and there is yet to be any proof that paper readership invariably and exclusively forms people's opinions. I do not dismiss those that I disagree with as reading whatever left wing publication, and I don't see the value of doing so. Most papers are biased and sensational

Sleepy · 1 Sep 2006 at 12:28

cleanbluesky said:
How can Daily Mail readers be considered any more static and less amorphous than any other media consumer? Yahoo is my homepage, does that mean that my opinions are exclusive and constant with other who share that homepage?

Cos the Daily Mail, like any other newspaper, is not a neutral news source. The paper has an ideology it promotes, legitimately. A lot of the op eds are broadly in agreement with certain values the paper agrees with, thus to believe that its readership also agrees at least in part, with those values is justifiable. It does not however imply strict uniforimity.

Sleepy · 1 Sep 2006 at 12:29

Samtheman1k said:
I'd be interested to see what the FBU have to say about this...they seem of gone very quiet over the issue...

Oh yes. Nothing on their web site over this issue.

Sleepy · 1 Sep 2006 at 12:31

cleanbluesky said:
Was it not your argument that the existence of political pressure groups and pride marches demonstrates the existence of prejudice?

No. What makes you think that?

MookJong · 1 Sep 2006 at 12:32

cleanbluesky said:
Every tabloid has that history, and there is yet to be any proof that paper readership invariably and exclusively forms people's opinions. I do not dismiss those that I disagree with as reading whatever left wing publication, and I don't see the value of doing so. Most papers are biased and sensational

It's a complicated one this and probably needs it's own thread. My theory is there are three types of reader:

1. People who read a publication because it re-enforces their already established view of the world.

2. People who read a publication to learn about the world and then take on those views as their own.

3. People who read a publication but have no fixed views and keep an open mind.

I guess the phrase should be "You sound like the Daily Mail" not "You sound like a Daily Mail reader"

fozzybear · 1 Sep 2006 at 12:34

VIRII said:
Gay people are statistically more likely to spontaneously combust than any other demographic.

...due to friction on the bum-hole.

Don't you just love the religious and the homosexual community? They both have huge chips on their shoulders. Thank god i'm neither!

Visage · 1 Sep 2006 at 12:37

fozzybear said:
...due to friction on the bum-hole.

Don't you just love the religious and the homosexual community? They both have huge chips on their shoulders. Thank god i'm neither!

Indeed. Its a fine line.

On the one hand, no-one wants to rub the gays up the wrong way, but on the other I'm not so keen on bashing the bishop.

MookJong · 1 Sep 2006 at 12:40

fozzybear said:
Thank god i'm neither!

Thought you weren't religious?

MookJong · 1 Sep 2006 at 12:40

Double (post) trouble

fozzybear · 1 Sep 2006 at 12:44

MookJong said:
Thought you weren't religious?

It was tongue in cheek!

Spie · 1 Sep 2006 at 12:45

A load of fags and lycra must have presented a serious fire risk. I don't think the event should have been allowed.

The_TailGunner · 1 Sep 2006 at 12:46

Spie said:
A load of fags and lycra must have presented a serious fire risk. I don't think the event should have been allowed.

b'dumm tssshhhh!

Borris · 1 Sep 2006 at 12:46

Spie said:
A load of fags and lycra must have presented a serious fire risk. I don't think the event should have been allowed.

You seem to be missing the point entirely.

Visage · 1 Sep 2006 at 12:46

Spie said:
A load of fags and lycra must have presented a serious fire risk. I don't think the event should have been allowed.

Some of them were probably nig-nogs too.....

Spie · 1 Sep 2006 at 12:46

Borris said:
You seem to be missing the point entirely.

You don't say.

AJUK · 1 Sep 2006 at 12:47

Visage said:
Some of them were probably nig-nogs too.....

Even more reason to refuse to attend then.

Borris · 1 Sep 2006 at 12:49

Spie said:
You don't say.

I'm lost in a feedback loop of sarcasm and misdirection.

Say what?

Disciplined for refusing to hand out literature on homosexuality

Godfather

Godfather