Melanie Phillips' Quiz of the Day

[T_i_B]

http://themediablog.typepad.com/the-media-blog/2011/01/melanie-phillips-quiz-of-the-day.html

If you want to know what this relates to, you can read Mad Mel's nonsense here

http://istyosty.com/tmp/cache/88fc8b4882101bd82a14149dbbe752ac1a96a2cc.html

http://themediablog.typepad.com/the-media-blog/2011/01/daily-mail-says-penguins-will-make-kids-gay.html

[muriel_volestrangler]

1. It's some time since I'd read any Phillips; I'd forgotten how ill her bile can make you feel

She really has lost her sanity in that "male childcare is a homosexual plot" rant. But I also made the mistake of reading some of an earlier rant in a link, in which she condemns the Archbishop of Canterbury for saying that people in need should be helped. Apparently, his job is to curse the undeserving poor, including their children, and to call for all their benefits to be stopped. Mad Mel seems in control in that piece - she's just clearly expressing her hatred for people, rather than losing her mind about the Evil Gay Agenda.

[T_i_B]

2. Yes that piece attacking the Archbishop of Canterbury was pretty vile

But then can you really expect Melanie Phillips to have read the Sermon On The Mount?

The current rant is pretty bizzare, including claiming that

In geography, for example, they will be told to consider why homosexuals move from the ­countryside to cities. In maths, they will be taught ­statistics through census ­findings about the number of ­homosexuals in the population.

In science, they will be directed to ­animal species such as emperor ­penguins and sea horses, where the male takes a lead role in raising its young.

Does Mad Mel honestly belive that learning about Emperor Penguins is going to brainwash kids into becoming gay??? :crazy:

After reading this and Liz Jones article in the Fail on Sunday last week rubbernecking over the Jo Yeates murder I'm beginning to wonder if the Fail is deliberatly instructing its writers to write the most bizzarly idiotic drivel they possible can in order to cause a commotion on Twitter and thus gain more traffic on their own poxy website.

[T_i_B]

3. And on that point, an excellent blog post about Daily Fail trolling

http://enemiesofreason.co.uk/2011/01/25/mail-outrage-and-what-to-do-about-it/

I've said before that I think many columnists are just pro-trolls, or prolls, whose only function in life is to be contrarian, to provoke, to stir up anger and outrage - though in Melanie Phillips's case I think she really believes what she's saying; it's just that it happens to dovetail in with a particularly provocative viewpoint.

In getting annoyed by what someone like Phillips says, are we all just playing into the hands of the Mail, by giving them web traffic, by raising their profile, by constantly chattering about them? Well, partly, perhaps; but I don't think that means that we should just sit idly by and ignore people making terrifically unpleasant and provocative statements, even if we know they're only doing it to try and stir up a reaction. By using Istyosty, for example, people can link to the Mail and read it without giving them the traffic they love so much.

But not all chatter is good chatter. The Mail might superficially think it's doing a great job if it's attracting a mob with flaming torches over to something nasty said by Melanie Phillips, or whoever, but it's pretty corrosive to their brand. People will associate the Mail not with anything incisive or intelligent, or any of the good journalism they do; but with a rather nasty kind of columnist.

Sure, it might get you a few thousand clicks in the short term, but in the long term, your brand is going to be seriously compromised; if people are just going to remember the Mail as the likes of Littlejohn, Moir, Phillips and Jones, they're not going to want to buy the paper, or visit the website for anything other than masochism. The Mail don't 'win' by scoring loads of website hits from people who despise what they publish; that doesn't do them any good at all. It's advertising the brand as something low, cheap and unpleasant.

[nxylas]

4. What is it with homophobes and penguins?

Remember the frothing about Happy Feet and its evil gay penguin agenda?

[LeftishBrit]

5. And that rather sweet picture book, 'And Tango Makes Three'.

About a little penguin with two daddies, based on a real life story.

[LeftishBrit]

6. Melanie Phillips is vile

There are millions of examples, but here is a link to a nasty article from May 3rd, 2010:

http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=735

The British boot stamping on the face of Christian belief
Daily Mail, 3 May 2010

Terrifying as this may seem, the attempt to stamp out Christianity in Britain appears to be gathering pace....

It would appear that Christianity, the normative faith of this country on which its morality, values and civilisation are based, is effectively being turned into a crime.

the militant gay rights agenda represents an attack on the entire value system of our society by destroying the very idea that any sexual behaviour is (not) normal....'

[non sociopath skin]

7. George Orwell must be chuckling in his grave.

The Skin

[T_i_B]

8. As has been alluded to earlier in the thread

Mad Mel likes Christianity, right up until the the whole "love thy neighbour" stuff. I think she would prefer it if we were all like Stephen Green of Christian Voice.