Following a lengthy court case and analysis of the sort of sh*t they publish, a court has ruled that The Guardian will henceforth have to label much of their content as ‘elaborately stupid’ as opposed to ‘intelligent.’
The logic behind the ruling is that a lot of what they put out isn’t so much smart as it is complicatedly insipid/verbose – actual examples from the last few years including:
- George Osborne ruined my yoga retreat,
- Britain has spoken – and chosen a vicious, murdering bully as its national bird (referring to a f*cking robin),
- Is it okay for scientists to weep over climate change?
- There’s no reason to debate guacamole. It’s already gentrified beyond good taste,
- Wasps have stung me in the testicles – but I love them anyway,
- The avocado is overcado – post #eatclean it’s too everywhere to be aspirational,
- I dread the day my daughter’s poos get smaller,
- Bottling the smell of dead people won’t capture their essence,
- Just how ‘gay’ is anal play, really?
- Do you have to be middle-class to like rocket? (I think its horrible),
- I created the ISIS dildo flag at London Pride to start a dialogue, not get a laugh,
- How not to let kale ruin your marriage: a handy guide to greening your loved ones,
- Tea is a national disgrace,
- When it comes to sexual desirability, balls are often treated as an afterthought,
- How to eat croissants.
Although The Guardian argued that many of their readers enjoy the sort of stress-free lives that allow them to spend time worrying about whether or not the way they trim their pubic hair is sexist, the judge dismissed this argument as also being “bollocks.”
The problem is that although people should be free to worry about this sort of stupid sh*t, The Guardian unfortunately functions as the most prominent voice of left-wing thought in the UK, and so people end up associating this sort of over-wrought wiffle with all left-wingers – even though many of them have more important dilemmas than the choice between some sort of affair and a slightly more bitter variety of chard.
The Guardian did of course respond to the ruling.
And then they responded some more.
And then they carried on responding.
And at some point they’ll hopefully land on a point.
You can also support the site by clicking the image below and buying one of our books: