Something more about the freedom of expression

Hello all

I hope you all are having a wonderful week end?

May I take the liberty of posting an interesting link? It is an article who discusses the looks of various people and among others, Andy Murray.

It is not a politically correct article but it is humorous and fun. It is written by a lady, so no chauvinism is attached this time, am I right?

Does it mean the press those days is freer that ehrm ehrm......blogs?


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1246586/Why-does-Britain-ugliest-men-world.html

Well done, you've managed to spot and exemplify the difference between humorous and vindictive.

Jubbahey wrote:Well done, you've managed to spot and exemplify the difference between humorous and vindictive.

I don't know why you supply the oxygen

Jubbahey wrote:Well done, you've managed to spot and exemplify the difference between humorous and vindictive.

Yes, happy you got suddenly 50 yrs younger!

My point is: if this article were written by anyone in the forum a fair share of posters would have called him/her wum.

The other one is: if it were written by a male a fair someone would have accused him of chauvinism.

So: prejudices inevitably limit freedom of expression.

On the other hand:

The article is valuable because talks something different, from a slightly provocative point of view, making in this way the brains of the reader pulse a bit above average.

Instead by saying: Nadal is great, Federer is a god, Murray is an hero Tsonga is a dream , like implicitly stated in the 99 % of the comments I don't add a new point of view, I rather repeat something already known and consequently the brains pulse will not be challenged........

I see a link between this article and the article entitled "Nadal to skip all UK tournaments to not lose money?" - which discusses the amount of taxation players should or shouldn't be paying when playing in tournaments held in Britain.

In this article we have a link to an article published in the British Daily Mail "news"paper written by someone who appears to be a "celebrity/fashion" journalist, with the subject matter being a comparison of fashion, beauty and sophistication of "public/celebrity" figures in Britain and elsewhere in the continent. Andy Murray and Steven Gerrard are viewed in the article as "celebrity figures / figures in the public eye" who are perhaps somewhat lacking in fashion and sophistication compared to say their more continental counterpart.

The link between this article and the tax related article - is that it all stems from the celebritisation of sporting figures which increases / is associated with the "market value" of these figures.

Liz Jones didn't get much support for her stupid article.......most people saying Andy is better looking than Rafa.....which he cetainly is in the photo she chose, as her example

And Liz Jones is not a DIVA herself s why writing all this c..p?

Uglyness cannot be defined as beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder but on the other hand, do we all not know that daily mail is a tabloid? What else can you expect from journalists who only know one type of journalism- cheap!

Hey girls let's chill out a minute please, the Daily Mail is my fav paper!

Also didn t really mean to get into a beauty contest writing the above, but rather talking about freedom of expression.

No off topic thanks!

Im not sure I understand the purpose of this thread?

polished_man wrote:Hey girls let's chill out a minute please, the Daily Mail is my fav paper!

Also didn t really mean to get into a beauty contest writing the above, but rather talking about freedom of expression.

No off topic thanks!

Sometimes I can't help but wonder what a great moderator i would make.....

TP, are you stalking me ?

If so, kindly stop it.

My point, and it is not to encourage whatever you deem unnecessary, is that the article in question is heavily biased, from a glam mag style paper that epitomises "exclusiveness" and sets out to demonise typecast stars.

Its a kind of bandwagoning I have seen in the entertainments industry for over 30 yrs. Critics banding together under one umbrella to wield their power more affectively. Having the influence to close a west end show was at its height in the 80's and many shows were undeserving of the fierce criticism that was showered upon them.

I see the same thing happening to Murray because one paper took up the crusade to place him in the pillory, many others followed suit.

It also shows just how an uninformed media can influence those who read their nonsense and form an opinion based on the here say of a few individuals. In the above link, all I can see is a rather disgruntled woman who has some kind of jealous agenda by picking out a group of people who are not in the list of "handsome" and use them as a general example of how our British males look and act.

I can think of quite a few "ugly" frenchmen on the tennis circuit and some who haven't a clue what wine to drink with fish. Not all of them are gastronomes with Adonis looks, but I dont use them as examples of all Frenchman.

I am not stalking you Jubbahey - what paranoia! I would have said the same thing to anyone answering a mischevious post when they are someone who, by their own admission finds them difficult. Perhaps you don't have children - but for the parents amongst us, I am sure we have all learned that attention, even condemnatory, rewards bad behaviour precisely by giving time.

Actually I think the OP makes a valid point about freedom of expression in that should we allow ourselves less than the tabloids? But it was still an article written to rile people like you, and you bite just as the OP and I knew you would - that's my only point. We could all have left this post alone and then it would very soon fall to the bottom of the page. Everyone responding is validating Liz whatever her name is by writing it, and the OP for bringing it to your attention.

I also think you give the Daily Wail far too much credit personally - this is a throwaway article in the femail section of the 'newspaper' (beloved of outraged of surburbia and Jeremy Vine) from one female correspondent's point of view. She picked a very odd photo to demonstrate her preferences, I must say.

time please wrote:I am not stalking you Jubbahey - what paranoia! I would have said the same thing to anyone answering a mischevious post when they are someone who, by their own admission finds them difficult. Perhaps you don't have children - but for the parents amongst us, I am sure we have all learned that attention, even condemnatory, rewards bad behaviour precisely by giving time.

Actually I think the OP makes a valid point about freedom of expression in that should we allow ourselves less than the tabloids? But it was still an article written to rile people like you, and you bite just as the OP and I knew you would - that's my only point. We could all have left this post alone and then it would very soon fall to the bottom of the page. Everyone responding is validating Liz whatever her name is by writing it, and the OP for bringing it to your attention.

I also think you give the Daily Wail far too much credit personally - this is a throwaway article in the femail section of the 'newspaper' (beloved of outraged of surburbia and Jeremy Vine) from one female correspondent's point of view. She picked a very odd photo to demonstrate her preferences, I must say.

Actually the article wasn’t thought to rile Jub. who has a great avatar, credit to him, is rejuvenated, and frankly post so little on the site that I had totally forgotten about his existence.

This article was written with a genuine and honest purpose to explain how prejudices can create an hostile environment to freedom of expression, and that, as a consequence, those who intend to excercise their right to express themselves, their own opinion sincerely and without compromise, are often pointed out as you say as mischievous and behaving badly.

Now I consider myself too much of a gentlemen to return the insults and will let them drop without animosity.

But would love to remark that: the content of the article in the link is not the main topic of this article. It is just an example to demonstrate how it is easy to engage in abusive behaviour towards other posters while communicating in a forum, where the relative anonymity provides a sort of "impunity" for all the possible misbehaviours.

This sort of anonimity in turn, paradoxically, instead of helping people to express themselves freely, acts as a barrier to the freedom of expression, because those who don't want to be aligned with the consensus, and who prefers instead to express original ideas, are often aggressively fingered out and sidelined.

I bet if you had read the article by accident and not because of the link (p_m sponsored) your reaction would have been different. And that, if you had met the journalist by person and discussed a similar topic light-heartedly, probably your reaction would have been a further different one?

And finally if you had met, me P_M, by person you would have never said I am a bad boy

lol polished man - I am very touched that you are too much of a gentleman to 'return the insults' I did say you were mischevious and I certainly don't believe you had malicious intent - that's quite a significant difference, I am sure you will agree. BTW, you won't convince me that there wasn't a little bit of mischevious intent, along with your purely altruistic motive, of course

You do make a valid point about freedom of expression which I did acknowledge - but I don't think you picked the best article to demonstrate this; there must be tons of others that could really get the argumentative juices flowing about what limits of self expression posters will allow from other posters.

I am really sad to hear you say that the Daily Mail is your favourite paper because you don't sound judgemental enough at all for me to believe that this can be so

This is a weird thread...

lydian wrote:This is a weird thread...

yes it is isn't it. Enough of the cooking sherry for me!

time please wrote:
I am really sad to hear you say that the Daily Mail is your favourite paper because you don't sound judgemental enough at all for me to believe that this can be so

The daily mail is a magnificent paper. It has a very good crosswords section and comes free in most of the airports. The Guardian is also very good, especially to light up the fireplace. It always gives me a special feeling, when I fall asleep in front of a burning guardian......