I wasn't aware of the article before your post, but now that I've read it, I don't see anything controversial (much less "atrocious") in it. Care to elaborate?
I'm really not sure where the MRA or comments on women came from in my original comment.
The Guardian (And the BBC) used to my main source for international news, and cultural trends until about 2012ish. That's when they started heavily featuring columnists that put out articles similar to the one that I mentioned. I wrote a letter to an editor with a concern, it got ignored. I stopped taking them seriously (as a whole) and reading as a primary source.
If you don't agree with it you can disagree with it in the comments, write a letter to the editor, or stop reading.
But I like opinion pieces.
I'm not trying to 'slander' your character. Your complaint with the Guardian was literally about an article calling out Milo, a controversial bigot who, as was recently revealed by BuzzFeed, fraternises with Nazis for his own gain. This is a pattern I've seen recur among angry MRA/alt-right types - saying they got sick of news source because of something related to feminism.
If you're not MRA/alt-right then I'm sorry, but I'd suggest picking your examples more carefully.
I'm not sure why the editor owed you a reply either. You're free to not read it. It can't have meant that much to you as you didn't seem to fight it all that hard.
Or are you using 'fraternises' as 'contacted'? Milo is a journalist, they contact people. The Guardian also contacts nazis. It doesn't mean they are nazis.
Don't get me wrong, I despise those shitty people too, but I also have a bone to pick with the people who are, successfully, generalizing the behavior to men.
Haven't read the article, because I've seen numerous others from the news source. The issue I have with an article with a title like this: Why is it a bad thing to support Milo? Why is it "men who need to be called to fight"? (I don't care about reasons why you don't like Milo. I'm suggesting they're a person with different opinions, respect that)
TL;DR: It's been getting obnoxious that platforms have been used to push political stances. (Such as this) I see this as supressing the opposition and has caused a massive swing in action. (i.e. Trump is "magically" elected despite "predictions" saying otherwise, Brexit happens despite the upper class talking down and ignoring the larger population)
Wow, so you are complaining about, and asking questions to the author of, an article based purely on your perception of its title?
> I don't care about reasons why you don't like Milo. I'm suggesting they're a person with different opinions, respect that
Just a cursory search into who Milo is, what he says and does will show you he is a deeply, virulently intolerant person. And in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance [1].
> It's been getting obnoxious that platforms have been used to push political stances.
It's the personal opinion column of a journalist. I also don't see anything wrong with her "pushing political stances". Unbiased journalism is a myth. People who call for it are either looking for journalism they already agree with or stuff that is so mundanely unimportant that couldn't possibly contain any stance and therefore news value.
He's talking about The Guardian and how he doesn't read it anymore. He didn't attribute the author specifically. It doesn't matter whether it was the original author or Guardian's editors guilty of publishing the offensive content.
What is important and what the news should be covering: Why are people taking a liking to him. (And do so in an impartial way without trying to fill the article with 80% hit-pieces) What is he saying and doing is catching a lot of attention? Why are his speeches resonating? How is he in existence? (Is his actions/his character in response to others)
> the society must be intolerant of intolerance
Intolerant towards intolerant extreme actions, yes. In an open society, you must be aware that people have different stances and prejudices. Closed societies can't tolerate the "intolerance". (I.e. Some countries you can't criticize the government)
> "pushing political stances"
Given this stance: I should be given the right to have my stances published in the paper. I operate the "Church of Not Wearing Pants" it is a religious organization, the article is about how the government should respect our religious existence by making pants illegal. Should that be published? It's as equally absurd as calling for a protest for someone you don't like.
> Unbiased journalism
I agree with you 100% neutral journalism doesn't happen. My problem is that unchecked journalism has given us an extreme selection of what is presented and the bias is injected into the news story from the author themselves.
You mean exactly what they did [1] on many [2], many occasions?
> I operate the "Church of Not Wearing Pants" [...] should that be published? It's as equally absurd as calling for a protest for someone you don't like.
If the paper you send it to considers this newsworthy or something the public should consider, of course. If not, you have many other avenues available to you, including self publishing.
> My problem is that unchecked journalism has given us an extreme selection of what is presented and the bias is injected into the news story from the author themselves.
I'm not sure I understand what "unchecked journalism" is, but I don't see a problem here.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/06/my-travels-i...
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/13/donald-trump...
The article you started your rant with is an opinion piece and is clearly marked as such. It is not a news story.
It's called a newspaper.
The British press have never had the American obsession with pretending to be impartial. This has its advantages and disadvantages, but one implication is that it's very clear which party and what politics is supported by which paper.
French newspapers are more like what you describe, all the big ones pretend to be "neutral", whatever that means. Neutrality is a fool's errand IMO, people on your right are always going to say you're a leftist and vice-versa. I want my newspaper to be honest, that's the important part IMO.
Complaining about newspaper opinion sections being a platform for pushing political views... that's what they're there for, and why they've existed for hundreds of years before now. You haven't even read the article, so you've obviously arrived with an axe to grind and are just trying to find something that fits.
> Brexit happens despite the upper class talking down and ignoring the larger population
Yeah, no. Brexit is very popular with the upper class. They're going to make a lot of money from it.
The Brexiteers as the leading group like to style themselves (I prefer BeLeaver), are a bunch of the most priviledged upper class old boys of the most expensive schools in England. Boris the Clown went to Eton. Jacob Rees-Mogg got his nanny to deliver election leaflets...and also went to Eton. Farage himself is an ex stock-broker and also attended a top school. This arguement does not hold water
The authors point is that Brexit was supported by working class non metropolitan people more than remain was.
- For the first, Entrepreneurs In (my group) was obviously, well, entrepreneurs.
- For the second, everyone on both sides of the debate agrees that non-London folk won it for Brexit. You're literally the first person I've ever met that would dispute this.
a) that makes everyone outside London working class
b) that other cities didn't vote Leave
I see lots of landed gentry and farmers who were big on Leave (back then). Lots of Tory home counties types too. I don't think it is even slightly helpful to consider it a class issue.
b) Yes, London and other big cities voted remain.
I don't think landed gentry make a huge portion of the population. Farmers are generally considered to be working class.