‘These comments have been moderated in advance’

Bearing the title of this post in mind, imagine what kind of comments didn’t make it through on this article: ‘Cameron to host No.10 party for gay celebrities in bid to woo ‘pink vote’‘:

Gay 1Gay 2Gay 3Gay 4

And in the red corner:

Gay 5

Not surprisingly only one comment has passed moderation on this article: ‘‘Immigrants are making our country dumber’: Anger as board member of Germany’s central bank cites ‘ample statistics‘.

8 thoughts on “‘These comments have been moderated in advance’”

  1. The Daily Mail readers have never, ever heard of prioritising. The PM, as part of the job, is given a bunch of things and has to do them. Your average DM reader probably has one very minor very menial task to do each day and they can’t understand why the world doesn’t do what they do.

    Unfortunately, being a DM reader is a largely incurable disease and there is only one option. Lobotomies are cheap and effective and the readers can then be gainfully employed as bollards or speed bumps.

    And, for any hard of thinking types, that was a joke.

  2. Eugh. Between this and everything on the front page of the Express today I may well just stick my head in an oven.

    I will try to tell myself that Mail commenters are just an angry, vocal minority who love the carthsis of getting angry at mythical bogeymen and slinging around shit like frustrated monkeys. Except not as cool as monkeys.

  3. I love the circular logic most of these twats employ. For instance, mention one of their jump off points (such as immigration, etc) and they’ll do the following:

    What? Immigrants are allowed to XYZ? If a white English person tried to XYZ they’d get arrested! It’s so unfair! Should you only be allowed to XYZ depending on your [tenuous reference to white skin colour]

    What makes ceskyanglican (who, depressingly, I share a county with) so funny is he managed to go full circle in about two sentences

    Let’s say, yes, it’s discriminatory to throw a party for one sexuality only.

    It sets a precedent. Then, for instance, if six gay people were hanging out, they would need to invite a heterosexual otherwise it would be discriminatory.

    That would mean, that everytime Ceskyanglican is hanging out with his heterosexual friends, they would be required by law to invite a gay person along as well.

    Something tells me he wouldn’t like his much. You’d be partying with people purely because of their sexuality rather then because you want to, the very thing that annoyed him so much in the first place.

  4. If straight people ever had a struggle in history to be accepted by society then pride marches for straight people would be acceptable. But they haven’t.

    People fail to see that the point of things like this is to symbolise the lengths that society have progressed to accepting something that was once cruelly hated. This same argument applies to DC hosting an event for openly gay celebs.

    Sadly the DM and its readers fail to see this as they’ve never actually had any trouble being white middle classed perfection that for the past 100s of years have not been challenged, discriminated against or otherwise.

    As much as I love this blog, I might just give up anything related to the DM as it is incredibly depressing to think that there are people out there that think like this. Isn’t the DM one of the top 3 newspapers? >.<

  5. That’s exactly the point G, but it doesn’t seem to be one these Mail readers can grasp. It’s not equivalent to have a ‘straight pride’ parade or some such, because straight people have not historically suffered from prejudice or discrimination, nor do they now. This absolutely makes a difference.

    It’s similarly blind to say, as one commentor does, that “sexuality shouldn’t be an issue. it should be a private matter”, because unfortunately it can still be a cause for problems. Until there’s real equality it will remain an issue: the same holds true for feminism, racism, etc.

    To say nothing of the vaguely old fashioned nature of sexuality being something which has to be private, or not spoken of. That is not a given.

    The Mail has the second highest daily circulation after the Sun, and apparently is the most visited newspaper website (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/abcs). Sigh.

Comments are closed.