In a recent post at Jihad Watch relaying a report from the UK paper, the Daily Mail, about the Meryl Streep rant, Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch vented his opinion about that paper:
"The Daily Mail, the worst paper in the Western world..."
In the comments section (nearly 100 now), two commenters evidently from the UK dared to disagree with Spencer and risked their necks by going further to chide him for his intemperate over-generalization:
Off topic but why is Spencer so committed to the idea that The
Daily Mail is so bad? Sure, it’s terrible but there’s much worse! Maybe
he just read it once and assumed that no tabloid could go lower. Hate to
be the bearer of bad news but in the UK there’re far, far worse rags.
Spencer should check out the Guardian sometime if he really feels like
being depressed. Whilst still awful, The Mail is far more centrist and
balanced than The Guardian, which knows no limits in terms of it’s
mind-bending propaganda. Seriously, I think the Guardian is in financial
trouble owing to its trenchant bias. Even the left have started to go
off it. It’s rotten to the core.
Exactly what I was about to write! Spencer makes some foolish
comments when he’s on unfamiliar territory. The DM is probably the most
anti-Islam of all UK newspapers, BBC, Guardian the opposite. Wise up, Mr
Spencer!
If you think Spencer is foolish, why are you posting here?…It’s bad form to insult the host…
The reflex reaction of "duh swami" implies that one cannot criticize Robert Spencer and still support in general terms (with critical caveats here and there) his work and mission. This reflects an uncouth betrayal of Western reason, one of the virtues we are supposed to be defending: the freedom to disagree and the intellectual discrimination to tell the difference between an attack and a reasonable disagreement. But it's a typical reaction from the Jihad Watch Syhcophants Society.
