• Ace_of_spades@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The Guardian supported slavery. What’s your point? I don’t think any of the people working there now were involved with that.

    • Tenebris Nox@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      “Supported” isn’t correct (certainly not in the way that the Daily Mail supported Hitler and Moseley). The Manchester Guardian’s founder, John Taylor, drew on cotton investments based on slavery. This happened 200 years ago.

      People working at The Sun today have been involved in Page 3. Topless pics in The Sun ended 8 years ago.

      • Ace_of_spades@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        So the Guardian founder was actively involved in the slave trade? And the Guardian has benefitted directly from his involvement in slavery? All while painting themselves as bastions of morality?

        Makes topless photos seem kind of tame.

        • Tenebris Nox@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Not sure why I’m trying to defend The Guardian - which I actually think is not much better than the rest of the media (I do hope you support reparations to the descendants of the enslaved seeing that you are rightly appalled at common British investments a couple of centuries ago).

          I do think that trying to defend smutty pics of teens as tame while getting worked up about Huw Edwards allegedly paying for smutty pics of teens is contradictory, though.