There are three moderators in the thread below, none of them have taken any action over this, so I assume that means the view of these moderators is "This is fine".
Top answer with 12 is user David K: "I don't see any problems with Kate's use of hyperbole in this situation."
Bottom answer with -8 and two delete flags is mine: "Be Nice. Of course you can't compare people to Nazis and paedophiles".
Are you then all happy with this as the official line:
- Workplace Stack Exchange Moderators say "It's Officially Fine to compare Daily Mail readers to Nazis and paedophiles"?
You are the moderators. If it's unacceptable you have the tools. Comment sought.
Original question follows
In this question:
In the top-rated answer, the user compares readers of the Daily Mail to Nazis and paedophiles. Specifically she is saying the Daily Mail is not as bad as a hypothetical newspaper for paedophiles and not as bad as a Nazi newspaper. So she is correct in the most literal sense.
However even raising the comparison is invidious and it seems to me should be beyond the pale, unless there was some substantial - and substantiated - justification for why the comparison is a reasonable one to draw.
Here's the paragraph:
The fact is there is very clearly a line, even if we don't all agree where it's drawn. In the US, few people would be comfortable with an openly Communist newspaper kicking around the lunchroom. In Germany, a Nazi one would be illegal. If NAMBLA were to publish a paper that didn't have any pictures, just espoused their opinions on how kids should be allowed to have sex with adults (their typical phrasing), again that would not be welcome in a workplace. While any individual (especially one who hasn't read the DM) might not think the DM was "over the line", the fact remains that a line exists, and that employees can do something about an employer providing material that is over that line.
Again, as a purely literal matter this is correct, but making such an invidious comparison inevitably brings the question into the mind of the reader, creating a mental association.
In other words: It is an unjustifiable innuendo.
"The fact is there is very clearly a line, even if we don't all agree where it's drawn. Nazis and paedophiles are not welcome, for example. While any individual (especially people who haven't met her) might not think Jane Doe is personally are "over the line", the fact remains that the line exists, and employees can do something about people who are over the line"
I've flagged this for the attention of moderators but so far it hasn't come to anyone's attention.
I also have made an edit to remove the comparison, which was approved, but the user has chosen to revert that edit.
For background, the Daily Mail is a soft-right tabloid read by the white-collar working and middle classes, and is the second highest selling newspaper in Britain, the first being another soft-right tabloid, The Sun, which is a more blue-collar working-class readership. It can be found in the lobbies of most multinational corporations and hotels, as well as bars and pubs, and is given away on aeroplanes.
It is a mainstream newspaper.
Naturally I don't read it myself because I am far too sophisticated and clever, but everybody has a say, because that's democracy, or so I am told.