That's another thing we agree on. TWICE IN ONE DAY??

Oh no! The LHC is going to be switched on on the 10th and we've just damned it to causing the end of the world!

I'm not worried. The Daily Mail says everything will be fine.

It does? O.o Oh gods, I'm worried now.

The Daily Mail?

Enlighten me, please.

A tabloid "newspaper" and I use newspaper in the loosest sense of the word :P

The Daily Mail (while admittedly being quite annoying sometimes) is a good paper.

Not when the Times and/or the Telegraph are on offer

im with david on this one. its a good newspaper.

But I also like mocking it because I don't agree with some of its stances.

i dont think you need to. its juts newspaper.

The Daily Mail, often mocked as the Daily Hate Mail, is renowned for being a tabloid that pretends to be a real newspaper (rather than, say, the Daily "Diana" Express or The "TITTIES!" Sun), and mongering sensationalist hate against everything and anything.

Wikipedia wrote:The Daily Mail considers itself to be the voice of Middle England speaking up for "small-c" conservative values against what it sees as a liberal establishment. It generally takes an anti-EU, anti-mass immigration, anti-abortion view, based around what it describes as "traditional values", and is correspondingly pro-family, pro-capitalism (though not always supportive of its aftereffects), and pro-monarchy, as well as, in some cases, advocating stricter punishments for crime. It also often calls for lower levels of taxation. The paper is generally critical of the BBC, which it argues is biased to the left.

I always find bashing the BBC hilarious because right-wingers accuse it of being left-biased and left-wingers accuse it of being right-biased. Guess that makes it pretty even handed, huh?
See the Daily Mail Headline Generator, guaranteed to produce headlines equal in stance, grammar, and downright ridiculousness to the real Daily Mail.

You only hate it because you're a communist :)

Although, its anti-abortion and anti GM stance does annoy me, as does its obsession with celebrities' physical appearance..

I'm not a communist. Communism is state-enforced collectivism, or a very left-wing economy score and a very *high* authoritarianism score. I believe in voluntary collectivism, which is very left-wing economics and very libertarian - the opposite of communism's high authoritarianism.

And it doesn't work.

By the way, what is collectivism? Is it where everyone gets the same amount of money etc?

"Collectivism is a term used to describe any moral, political, or social outlook, that stresses human interdependence and the importance of a collective, rather than the importance of separate individuals. Collectivists focus on community and society, and seek to give priority to group goals over individual goals. The philosophical underpinnings of collectivism are for some related to holism or organicism - the view that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts/pieces. Specifically, a society as a whole can be seen as having more meaning or value than the separate individuals that make up that society."

My particular view is Collectivist Anarchism.

Like the peasants from The Holy Grail? =D

Sentynel wrote:"Collectivism is a term used to describe any moral, political, or social outlook, that stresses human interdependence and the importance of a collective, rather than the importance of separate individuals. Collectivists focus on community and society, and seek to give priority to group goals over individual goals. The philosophical underpinnings of collectivism are for some related to holism or organicism - the view that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts/pieces. Specifically, a society as a whole can be seen as having more meaning or value than the separate individuals that make up that society."

Like that's ever going to happen voluntarily.

meh, in practice it would end up being just like communism.

I don't believe you could just switch a society like ours to anarchist collectivism, no. You'd have to change society very, very slowly, or ideally start a new one and allow people who like the idea to join and slowly grow the society. Neither way would be easy, but you can't force this society to change because force requires leaders and leaders defeat the whole point of anarchism.
Realistically, I am never going to see an anarchist collectivist society in my lifetime, but that doesn't stop me believing that it's the best possible society or that moving in its direction is a bad thing.