No reasonable person could possibly believe the nonsense published by the Mail Online and Daily Mail

[Metaphor]

No, they're not.

The first claim is certainly true.

The second is true in its context, but is slightly exaggerated for humorous effect by extending it to the entirety of the first claim, when it was in fact made only with regard to a specific instance of the first claim.

Both are false.

You have offered no evidence for the claim that no reasonable person could believe what is published by the Daily Mail. In fact, I am certain that the Daily Mail publishes thousands of facts every day that it is entirely reasonable to believe (and therefore a reasonable person should believe them).

The second is also false. You claimed that The Daily Mail said no reasonable person would believe what it publishes. But in fact the Daily Mail said no reasonable person would make one particular interpretation of a headline. This is also true. The proof, bilby, is this. I am sure you regard yourself as a reasonable person, and I am also sure that you did not think for a moment that the Daily Mail was making a claim that white people could not possibly enter or exist in certain towns. I am also certain you think no reasonable person could think that was a reasonable understanding of the headline in question.

Your uneducated guesses backed by your uninformed opinion isn't "proof", even if it really really feels to you that it is.

I guessed at nothing. If you see an error in my reasoning, point it out.

Do you see yourself as unreasonable? Do you think that the Daily Mail calling a place a 'no go' zone for white people meant that white people could not enter or exist there? Do you think another reasonable person could have thought that?

 

[laughing dog]

If a mod changes the OP title to “More on the strange death of British journalism” , the title complaints would disappear.

I didn't even complain. I said it was false.

You complain it is false.

I said it was false. If you want to say that's a complaint, that's fair. I regard it as a calling out, not a complaint.

But since you made a point of it, my thread titles - this week in X, the strange death of X, etc - are obvious figurative language and obviously from a particular perspective.

I will have to remember that “figurative language” is an excuse for false titles.

Why would you try to remember that? I did not say figurative language was an "excuse" for false titles.

Sure Jan. That’s why you used it to justify your false titles

 

[Metaphor]

If a mod changes the OP title to “More on the strange death of British journalism” , the title complaints would disappear.

I didn't even complain. I said it was false.

You complain it is false.

I said it was false. If you want to say that's a complaint, that's fair. I regard it as a calling out, not a complaint.

But since you made a point of it, my thread titles - this week in X, the strange death of X, etc - are obvious figurative language and obviously from a particular perspective.

I will have to remember that “figurative language” is an excuse for false titles.

Why would you try to remember that? I did not say figurative language was an "excuse" for false titles.

Sure Jan. That’s why you used it to justify your false titles

Non. I've not made a false thread title, so I don't need to 'justify' anything.

bilby, however, made a false thread title (for this thread), and followed it with a false representation of what the Daily Mail argued. It is falsity all the way down.

 

[laughing dog]

If a mod changes the OP title to “More on the strange death of British journalism” , the title complaints would disappear.

I didn't even complain. I said it was false.

You complain it is false.

I said it was false. If you want to say that's a complaint, that's fair. I regard it as a calling out, not a complaint.

But since you made a point of it, my thread titles - this week in X, the strange death of X, etc - are obvious figurative language and obviously from a particular perspective.

I will have to remember that “figurative language” is an excuse for false titles.

Why would you try to remember that? I did not say figurative language was an "excuse" for false titles.

Sure Jan. That’s why you used it to justify your false titles

Non. I've not made a false thread title, so I don't need to 'justify' anything.

You are only fooling yourself.

 

[Metaphor]

If a mod changes the OP title to “More on the strange death of British journalism” , the title complaints would disappear.

I didn't even complain. I said it was false.

You complain it is false.

I said it was false. If you want to say that's a complaint, that's fair. I regard it as a calling out, not a complaint.

But since you made a point of it, my thread titles - this week in X, the strange death of X, etc - are obvious figurative language and obviously from a particular perspective.

I will have to remember that “figurative language” is an excuse for false titles.

Why would you try to remember that? I did not say figurative language was an "excuse" for false titles.

Sure Jan. That’s why you used it to justify your false titles

Non. I've not made a false thread title, so I don't need to 'justify' anything.

You are only fooling yourself.

That's an interesting claim from somebody who is complaining about me, while he posts in a thread with a false title, followed up by a false claim in the OP, a false claim resting on a false premise and an invalid argument, and stays completely silent on that point.

Who do you think you are fooling?

 

[laughing dog]

If a mod changes the OP title to “More on the strange death of British journalism” , the title complaints would disappear.

I didn't even complain. I said it was false.

You complain it is false.

I said it was false. If you want to say that's a complaint, that's fair. I regard it as a calling out, not a complaint.

But since you made a point of it, my thread titles - this week in X, the strange death of X, etc - are obvious figurative language and obviously from a particular perspective.

I will have to remember that “figurative language” is an excuse for false titles.

Why would you try to remember that? I did not say figurative language was an "excuse" for false titles.

Sure Jan. That’s why you used it to justify your false titles

Non. I've not made a false thread title, so I don't need to 'justify' anything.

You are only fooling yourself.

That's an interesting claim from somebody who is complaining about me, while he posts in a thread with a false title, followed up by a false claim in the OP, a false claim resting on a false premise and an invalid argument, and stays completely silent on that point.

Who do you think you are fooling?

I am not fooling anyone because I am not engaging in pedantry to justify my double standards. But your flailing “No u” is duly noted,

BTW, if you bothered to actually read responses, bilby gave an explanation that deflates your assertions.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Metaphor is an expert on falseNot recalling people using Rachel Maddow as a source of news on this board.Maybe not, but blogs like Truthout and DailyKos have been used as a source a lot. Which is even worse.According to mediabiasfactcheck.com, Truthout and DailyKos both rateas 'Mixed - non-vetted content and a few failed fact check and misleading claims' for 'factual reporting'.

I don't know what falseNot is. Was it meant to be two sentences, one of them unfinished?

I, for one, am rather tired of left-leaning people on this board refusing to engage with any particular thread (or rejecting a particular claim on a thread they are engaging in) by simply stating the source is 'biased'. Recently, ZiprHead refused to consider anything published on Quilllette, because he didn't like the claim being made (that there was no epidemic of trans murders). He refused to critique the facts or in any way prove them false. And he also pointed to a 'fact checking website', as if this justified his stance, as if I a neutral third party had any reason to regard the fact checking website as the supreme arbiter of truth and Quillette as a purveyor of only falsehoods.

It's not that they are purveyors of only falsehoods. Rather, it's that they often purvey falsehoods and thus their statements are not a credible indication of the truth. If it is true there will be a more trustworthy site reporting on it.

 

[Metaphor]

Metaphor is an expert on falseNot recalling people using Rachel Maddow as a source of news on this board.Maybe not, but blogs like Truthout and DailyKos have been used as a source a lot. Which is even worse.According to mediabiasfactcheck.com, Truthout and DailyKos both rateas 'Mixed - non-vetted content and a few failed fact check and misleading claims' for 'factual reporting'.

I don't know what falseNot is. Was it meant to be two sentences, one of them unfinished?

I, for one, am rather tired of left-leaning people on this board refusing to engage with any particular thread (or rejecting a particular claim on a thread they are engaging in) by simply stating the source is 'biased'. Recently, ZiprHead refused to consider anything published on Quilllette, because he didn't like the claim being made (that there was no epidemic of trans murders). He refused to critique the facts or in any way prove them false. And he also pointed to a 'fact checking website', as if this justified his stance, as if I a neutral third party had any reason to regard the fact checking website as the supreme arbiter of truth and Quillette as a purveyor of only falsehoods.

It's not that they are purveyors of only falsehoods. Rather, it's that they often purvey falsehoods and thus their statements are not a credible indication of the truth. If it is true there will be a more trustworthy site reporting on it.

Non. bilby did not show that they had purveyed any falsehoods. The case that bilby linked was about an article headline. I already know article headlines are often complete clickbait. But, worse, bilby made the false claim that the Daily Mail said it was not to be trusted. The Daily Mail did not say this, not even about their headlines, let alone the facts printed in their articles.

This thread's title is false, the OP makes false claims, and uses fallacious reasoning.

 

[Jarhyn]

...at least, not according to the Mail Online, whose lawyers attempted to use this as a defence in the IPSO hearing against them for publishing an article referring to “British towns that are no-go areas for white people”

No. Your thread title is false, and the sentence above is false.

A quote from The Guardian article below:

According to Ipso, Mail Online claimed it “considered it to be ‘extremely unlikely that reasonable readers would have taken the impression from the headline that entire towns in Britain are […] entirely inaccessible to white people’”.

Mail Online is correct. It is extremely unlikely that reasonable readers would believe, from the headline alone, that entire towns are inaccessible to white people.

Mail Online did not say what you claimed in your thread title. In any case, even if it had said

"Our headlines are complete sensationalist nonsense unsupported by the facts relayed in the body of the text", your thread title would still be incorrect.

Notice that the dispute was not about any of the facts relayed in the article content--only the impression implied by the headline was challenged.

I wonder if the various posters here who have cited this (and similar) claims from the Mail Online and Daily Mail in such threads as the 'Europe Submits Voluntarily' mega-thread, have grounds to sue the Mail for defamation, as it appears to me that the Mail is explicitly saying that they were unreasonable to take the Mail seriously.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...t-over-town-being-no-go-area-for-white-people

Seriously, when your sources start explicitly saying that you would have to be crazy to believe them, it's well past time to stop using them as sources.

That is false. The source said one particular interpretation of its headline is an unreasonable thing to believe, and they are correct. Neither the source, nor the press standards authority, disputed the facts relayed in the body of the text.

So, the most significant part about an article, the core and front claim, is false? I don't see much of a distinction there, nor much of an idemnification of the behavior. Their claim is that nobody would believe what they printed at the top of an article in bold text.

 

[Metaphor]

If a mod changes the OP title to “More on the strange death of British journalism” , the title complaints would disappear.

I didn't even complain. I said it was false.

You complain it is false.

I said it was false. If you want to say that's a complaint, that's fair. I regard it as a calling out, not a complaint.

But since you made a point of it, my thread titles - this week in X, the strange death of X, etc - are obvious figurative language and obviously from a particular perspective.

I will have to remember that “figurative language” is an excuse for false titles.

Why would you try to remember that? I did not say figurative language was an "excuse" for false titles.

Sure Jan. That’s why you used it to justify your false titles

Non. I've not made a false thread title, so I don't need to 'justify' anything.

You are only fooling yourself.

That's an interesting claim from somebody who is complaining about me, while he posts in a thread with a false title, followed up by a false claim in the OP, a false claim resting on a false premise and an invalid argument, and stays completely silent on that point.

Who do you think you are fooling?

I am not fooling anyone because I am not engaging in pedantry to justify my double standards. But your flailing “No u” is duly noted,

I am not engaging in pedantry of any kind, laughing dog. bilby made a false thread title and he followed up with false claims in his OP.

BTW, if you bothered to actually read responses, bilby gave an explanation that deflates your assertions.

bilby explained nothing. bilby's title is false and the 'reasoning' he has in his OP is a false premise followed by fallacious reasoning to reach a false conclusion.

For those playing along at home:
* The Daily Mail made a claim that no reasonable person could believe that a headline that said certain places were 'no go' zones for white people was a claim that no white person could enter or exist there. The Daily Mail's claim is true. The people whingeing about me pointing this out cannot point to a reasonable person who believes the implication falsely ascribed to the headline.

* bilby made a false claim that the Daily Mail said no reasonable person could believe what it publishes. The Daily Mail did not say this nor is it an implication of what it said. Indeed, the Daily Mail said only that one particular interpretation of its headline was unreasonable to believe. And the ruling itself said that the text of the article did not support what the Daily Mail is claiming is an unreasonable interpretation of its headline. The ruling itself did not dispute any of the facts in the body of the article in question.

* The strongest possible claim bilby could make (and it would still be false for the reasons described above) was that 'The Daily Mail's headlines cannot be interpreted as literal fact'.

 

[Metaphor]

...at least, not according to the Mail Online, whose lawyers attempted to use this as a defence in the IPSO hearing against them for publishing an article referring to “British towns that are no-go areas for white people”

No. Your thread title is false, and the sentence above is false.

A quote from The Guardian article below:

According to Ipso, Mail Online claimed it “considered it to be ‘extremely unlikely that reasonable readers would have taken the impression from the headline that entire towns in Britain are […] entirely inaccessible to white people’”.

Mail Online is correct. It is extremely unlikely that reasonable readers would believe, from the headline alone, that entire towns are inaccessible to white people.

Mail Online did not say what you claimed in your thread title. In any case, even if it had said

"Our headlines are complete sensationalist nonsense unsupported by the facts relayed in the body of the text", your thread title would still be incorrect.

Notice that the dispute was not about any of the facts relayed in the article content--only the impression implied by the headline was challenged.

I wonder if the various posters here who have cited this (and similar) claims from the Mail Online and Daily Mail in such threads as the 'Europe Submits Voluntarily' mega-thread, have grounds to sue the Mail for defamation, as it appears to me that the Mail is explicitly saying that they were unreasonable to take the Mail seriously.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...t-over-town-being-no-go-area-for-white-people

Seriously, when your sources start explicitly saying that you would have to be crazy to believe them, it's well past time to stop using them as sources.

That is false. The source said one particular interpretation of its headline is an unreasonable thing to believe, and they are correct. Neither the source, nor the press standards authority, disputed the facts relayed in the body of the text.

So, the most significant part about an article, the core and front claim, is false?

No. There was nothing false about it. It was not false because believing a 'no go' zone for white people means they cannot enter or exist there is an unreasonable interpretation of the headline.

I don't see much of a distinction there, nor much of an idemnification of the behavior. Their claim is that nobody would believe what they printed at the top of an article in bold text.

That is not their fucking claim. Their claim was that no reasonable person (not 'nobody') would believe a particular interpretation of the headline. But also, I (and most reasonable people) already don't trust headlines. I just don't care. It's all clickbait. I care about the facts claimed in the body of an article, and I have the confidence in my own reason to separate those facts from the clickbait headline.

Here's a test, Jarhyn. Do you do you believe that every reasonable person thinks the headline 'British towns that are no-go areas for white people' is a claim that no white people could enter or exist there? Also, do you believe bilby's fallacious reasoning that, even if the Daily Mail admitted to a false headline (which it did not) that you cannot trust anything written by the Daily Mail?

 

[Jarhyn]

...at least, not according to the Mail Online, whose lawyers attempted to use this as a defence in the IPSO hearing against them for publishing an article referring to “British towns that are no-go areas for white people”

No. Your thread title is false, and the sentence above is false.

A quote from The Guardian article below:

According to Ipso, Mail Online claimed it “considered it to be ‘extremely unlikely that reasonable readers would have taken the impression from the headline that entire towns in Britain are […] entirely inaccessible to white people’”.

Mail Online is correct. It is extremely unlikely that reasonable readers would believe, from the headline alone, that entire towns are inaccessible to white people.

Mail Online did not say what you claimed in your thread title. In any case, even if it had said

"Our headlines are complete sensationalist nonsense unsupported by the facts relayed in the body of the text", your thread title would still be incorrect.

Notice that the dispute was not about any of the facts relayed in the article content--only the impression implied by the headline was challenged.

I wonder if the various posters here who have cited this (and similar) claims from the Mail Online and Daily Mail in such threads as the 'Europe Submits Voluntarily' mega-thread, have grounds to sue the Mail for defamation, as it appears to me that the Mail is explicitly saying that they were unreasonable to take the Mail seriously.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...t-over-town-being-no-go-area-for-white-people

Seriously, when your sources start explicitly saying that you would have to be crazy to believe them, it's well past time to stop using them as sources.

That is false. The source said one particular interpretation of its headline is an unreasonable thing to believe, and they are correct. Neither the source, nor the press standards authority, disputed the facts relayed in the body of the text.

So, the most significant part about an article, the core and front claim, is false?

No. There was nothing false about it. It was not false because believing a 'no go' zone for white people means they cannot enter or exist there is an unreasonable interpretation of the headline.

I don't see much of a distinction there, nor much of an idemnification of the behavior. Their claim is that nobody would believe what they printed at the top of an article in bold text.

That is not their fucking claim. Their claim was that no reasonable person (not 'nobody') would believe a particular interpretation of the headline.

Here's a test, Jarhyn. Do you do you believe that every reasonable person thinks the headline 'British towns that are no-go areas for white people' is a claim that no white people could enter or exist there?

Yes. Because there are towns, in the country where I live, that are absolutely "no-go zones for black people, that no black people may enter nor exist there without facing extreme danger."

In fact, any person living in or even reasonably aware of (or, knowing the US, envious of the people who live in) such a place might believe that, and fear of such a place where they are excluded the way they exclude others.

 

[Metaphor]

...at least, not according to the Mail Online, whose lawyers attempted to use this as a defence in the IPSO hearing against them for publishing an article referring to “British towns that are no-go areas for white people”

No. Your thread title is false, and the sentence above is false.

A quote from The Guardian article below:

According to Ipso, Mail Online claimed it “considered it to be ‘extremely unlikely that reasonable readers would have taken the impression from the headline that entire towns in Britain are […] entirely inaccessible to white people’”.

Mail Online is correct. It is extremely unlikely that reasonable readers would believe, from the headline alone, that entire towns are inaccessible to white people.

Mail Online did not say what you claimed in your thread title. In any case, even if it had said

"Our headlines are complete sensationalist nonsense unsupported by the facts relayed in the body of the text", your thread title would still be incorrect.

Notice that the dispute was not about any of the facts relayed in the article content--only the impression implied by the headline was challenged.

I wonder if the various posters here who have cited this (and similar) claims from the Mail Online and Daily Mail in such threads as the 'Europe Submits Voluntarily' mega-thread, have grounds to sue the Mail for defamation, as it appears to me that the Mail is explicitly saying that they were unreasonable to take the Mail seriously.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...t-over-town-being-no-go-area-for-white-people

Seriously, when your sources start explicitly saying that you would have to be crazy to believe them, it's well past time to stop using them as sources.

That is false. The source said one particular interpretation of its headline is an unreasonable thing to believe, and they are correct. Neither the source, nor the press standards authority, disputed the facts relayed in the body of the text.

So, the most significant part about an article, the core and front claim, is false?

No. There was nothing false about it. It was not false because believing a 'no go' zone for white people means they cannot enter or exist there is an unreasonable interpretation of the headline.

I don't see much of a distinction there, nor much of an idemnification of the behavior. Their claim is that nobody would believe what they printed at the top of an article in bold text.

That is not their fucking claim. Their claim was that no reasonable person (not 'nobody') would believe a particular interpretation of the headline.

Here's a test, Jarhyn. Do you do you believe that every reasonable person thinks the headline 'British towns that are no-go areas for white people' is a claim that no white people could enter or exist there?

Yes. Because there are towns, in the country where I live, that are absolutely "no-go zones for black people, that no black people may enter nor exist there without facing extreme danger."

So, you've defined a 'no go' zone as somewhere where it is extremely dangerous for somebody to enter? Is that correct? That is not the same thing as saying you cannot enter or exist there. Nor does it mean it is unreasonable for a reasonable person to have a different interpretation of what a 'no go' zone is.

In fact, any person living in or even reasonably aware of (or, knowing the US, envious of the people who live in) such a place might believe that, and fear of such a place where they are excluded the way they exclude others.

The claim was about no go zones in the UK, not the US. No reasonable person would think that US cultural hegemony ought apply in the UK.

 

[Jarhyn]

a reasonable person

Nice goalpost shift here. The daily mail argued that NO reasonable person would interpret it as anything but nonsense.

That SOME 'reasonable people' would interpret it differently does not matter.

in the UK, not the US

And yet here you are slurping up this media in AU.

It doesn't matter where the event is. It matters where the reader is, and I do not believe for a moment that such towns do not exist in the UK with regards to their own minorities anyway.

The transparent intent of The Daily Mail is to make the readers fear of a turned table by their manufactured enemies, but you really seem to want to avoid talking about that.

That The Daily Mail abuse's headlines to deliver such false sentiments of fear to their readers' hearts is, I guess, just fine for you?

 

[Metaphor]

a reasonable person

Nice goalpost shift here. The daily mail argued that NO reasonable person would interpret it as anything but nonsense.

It is not a goalpost shift. The Daily Mail is correct. No reasonable person would interpret the headline to mean that white people cannot enter or exist in the 'no go' zone.

That SOME 'reasonable people' would interpret it differently does not matter.

in the UK, not the US

And yet here you are slurping up this media in AU.

What media? iidb?

It doesn't matter where the event is. It matters where the reader is, and I do not believe for a moment that such towns do not exist in the UK with regards to their own minorities anyway.

Of course it matters where the event is. Of course, somebody from the United States might just be such an American chauvinist that they think it doesn't matter where the event is, because everywhere is the United States.

The transparent intent of The Daily Mail is to make the readers fear of a turned table by their manufactured enemies, but you really seem to want to avoid talking about that.

I want to talk about bilby's false claim in his thread title, followed by another false claim in his OP, and his fallacious reasoning used to arrive at the false claims.

That The Daily Mail abuse's headlines to deliver such false sentiments of fear to their readers' hearts is, I guess, just fine for you?

The Daily Mail's headlines are completely irrelevant to me, as are, in fact, the headlines from any article by any publication.

However, I will not let you get away with saying the headline in question delivered a false sentiment. It did not. I don't even consider the particular headline in question to deliver a 'false sentiment', because there is no well-accepted meaning of what a 'no go zone' could mea. However, even if it did deliver a false sentiment, which it did not, that is irrelevant. bilby made multiple false claims, and he ought be called out for them. Here are two of the false claims he made:

* That no reasonable person could trust anything published by the Daily Mail.
* That the Daily Mail admitted nobody could trust anything it published.

Both are false and unsupported. The strongest possible claim bilby could have made (which would still be false) was that no person could trust a Daily Mail headline.

 

[Jarhyn]

It is not a goalpost shift. The Daily Mail is correct. No reasonable person would interpret the headline to mean that white people cannot enter or exist in the 'no go' zone

Oh, you're right, you just made an outright claim refuted by the very thing you were replying to, after you cut out pertinent text.

You claim that no reasonable person, despite reasonable persons living in such no-go zones for black people (or other minorities depending on where you live, some of which could very well exist in the UK) would read "no-go zones for white people" and fear someone had inverted their behavior.

To believe that it is unreasonable for such a person to believe others elsewhere had done it is silliness at best.

 

[laughing dog]

If a mod changes the OP title to “More on the strange death of British journalism” , the title complaints would disappear.

I didn't even complain. I said it was false.

You complain it is false.

I said it was false. If you want to say that's a complaint, that's fair. I regard it as a calling out, not a complaint.

But since you made a point of it, my thread titles - this week in X, the strange death of X, etc - are obvious figurative language and obviously from a particular perspective.

I will have to remember that “figurative language” is an excuse for false titles.

Why would you try to remember that? I did not say figurative language was an "excuse" for false titles.

Sure Jan. That’s why you used it to justify your false titles

Non. I've not made a false thread title, so I don't need to 'justify' anything.

You are only fooling yourself.

That's an interesting claim from somebody who is complaining about me, while he posts in a thread with a false title, followed up by a false claim in the OP, a false claim resting on a false premise and an invalid argument, and stays completely silent on that point.

Who do you think you are fooling?

I am not fooling anyone because I am not engaging in pedantry to justify my double standards. But your flailing “No u” is duly noted,

I am not engaging in pedantry of any kind, laughing dog. bilby made a false thread title and he followed up with false claims in his OP.

BTW, if you bothered to actually read responses, bilby gave an explanation that deflates your assertions.

bilby explained nothing. bilby's title is false and the 'reasoning' he has in his OP is a false premise followed by fallacious reasoning to reach a false conclusion.

For those playing along at home:
* The Daily Mail made a claim that no reasonable person could believe that a headline that said certain places were 'no go' zones for white people was a claim that no white person could enter or exist there. The Daily Mail's claim is true. The people whingeing about me pointing this out cannot point to a reasonable person who believes the implication falsely ascribed to the headline.

* bilby made a false claim that the Daily Mail said no reasonable person could believe what it publishes. The Daily Mail did not say this nor is it an implication of what it said. Indeed, the Daily Mail said only that one particular interpretation of its headline was unreasonable to believe. And the ruling itself said that the text of the article did not support what the Daily Mail is claiming is an unreasonable interpretation of its headline. The ruling itself did not dispute any of the facts in the body of the article in question.

* The strongest possible claim bilby could make (and it would still be false for the reasons described above) was that 'The Daily Mail's headlines cannot be interpreted as literal fact'.

While I respect your demonstrated expertise (via OPs and responses) in providing misleading and/or false OP titles and for making false claims employing "figurative language" in your "reasoning" and claims, you are simply mistaken in this instance.

 

[Metaphor]

It is not a goalpost shift. The Daily Mail is correct. No reasonable person would interpret the headline to mean that white people cannot enter or exist in the 'no go' zone

Oh, you're right, you just made an outright claim refuted by the very thing you were replying to, after you cut out pert

You claim that no reasonable person, despite reasonable persons living in such no-go zones for black people (or other minorities depending on where you live, some of which could very well exist in the UK) would read "no-go zones for white people" and fear someone had inverted their behavior.

The Daily Mail said it would be ‘extremely unlikely that reasonable readers would have taken the impression from the headline that entire towns in Britain are […] entirely inaccessible to white people’”.

The Daily Mail is correct. In fact, I don't think even unreasonable people would generally think that from this headline.

You yourself defined a 'no go zone' as somewhere it was 'extremely dangerous' to enter or exist, and on that definition, The Daily Mail article headline was also correct. It described areas that white people were targeted qua white people.

To believe that it is unreasonable for such a person to believe others elsewhere had done it is silliness at best.

Even if, hypothetically, the contents of the article did not support the wording of the headline, bilby's thread title and argument are still false. The Daily Mail did not say its contents could not be trusted. In fact, the Daily Mail said the opposite. It said that it was extremely unlikely that reasonable people could interpret its headline in a false way.

Nobody, including Ipso, said anything against the content of the article. Now, reasonable people recognise a clickbait headline and reasonable people read the contents of the article they are about to promote as supporting their position.

Once again: even if it was reasonable to interpret that headline in the most extreme way possible (which it is not), bilby's statements are false. The Daily Mail did not say its contents could not be trusted and nobody disputed the actual contents of the articles.

 

[Metaphor]

While I respect your demonstrated expertise (via OPs and responses) in providing misleading and/or false OP titles and for making false claims employing "figurative language" in your "reasoning" and claims, you are simply mistaken in this instance.

I am not. bilby made false claims. The strongest possible case bilby had was that the Daily Mail had a headline, of which a reasonable interpretation of said headline was not supported by the facts in the body of the text.

Daily Mail never said its contents couldn't be trusted. That's bilby's first falsehood.

Ipso never made a finding that the contents of the article could not be trusted, that's bilby's second falsehood.

And bilby using this to justify refusing to engage with any content from the Daily Mail isn't a falsehood, but it is very telling.