Stop Funding Hate - Pathetic!

[W.C.]

Somebody at Greenpeace must have stepped barefoot on a Lego brick as a child and never forgiven them.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

You wouldn't have a problem with being arrogant if you were as brilliant as I am.

I understand your point, but it's only the public reacting to right wing crap, and that's not really a bad thing. If someone decided the Times was next, people wouldn't agree and wouldn't support boycotts etc.

What we should be doing, is the same thing with FIFA sponsors, to get them to remove (or even reduce) their corruption.

Yeah, I can't really argue with that. I am just finding it difficult to see this debate away from the context of well off
people telling less well off people that they are stupid.

 

[highflyer]

[/B]
Absolutely, you are free to ignore them. However, this is hardly their intent, is it, and therein lies the predictable leftie hypocrisy. Whilst the apologists are telling us that it is their right to self-express, the intention, as you well know, is to try and close the papers down, as they don't agree with the luvvies. As to what is toxic . . .

No the intent is to see them damaged financially. If that happens, then it will do so because enough people expressed an opinion and the 'market' has reacted. Free markets and all that.

 

[Hastings gull]

Is there an unusually high number of right wingers on this forum or do they just shout louder? I think it might be the latter.

I find it odd how people who hold liberal views are branded left wing - it really isn't the same thing at all.

I find it difficult to understand how a movement that seeks to fight against hate speak and bigotry (ideals seemingly in the DNA of the DM) can come into so much criticism,This isn't an argument of free press - that's like using freedom of speech to defend racist and sexist language.

You must be too naïve for your own good, then. The intention is to drive out of business papers that express different views to those of the movement, all in the name of free speech, of course.

 

[The Clamp]

What ever happened to free speech and the right to think differently to the rest? On this day when the old soldiers march proudly up the High Street, surely the real values they were fighting for were freedom and tolerance.

Today,it seems that freedom of thought and expression is limited to those who follow the populist view promulgated by the media, whether that be normal or social media. Anyone thinking differently and retaining their views on traditional morals- whilst allowing others to have their opinion - is roundly denounced as the worst among men.

Is that really what our fathers fought and died for?

It could be argued they were fighting the likes of The Daily MAil, who sided with HItler and the Nazi party and who ran a hate campaign against the Jews. I would say our Soldiers were very much fighting the likes of The Daily Mail. How the MAil wasn't shut down after the war I don't know.

 

[Hastings gull]

No the intent is to see them damaged financially. If that happens, then it will do so because enough people expressed an opinion and the 'market' has reacted. Free markets and all that.

OK, pedant -the intention is to damage them financially and thus force their closure.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

OK, pedant -the intention is to damage them financially and thus force their closure.

TBF [MENTION=33872]highflyer[/MENTION] has a point. They are using the capitalist tool of finance to make their point. No tory or liberal should object to such tactics.

 

[The Clamp]

 

[highflyer]

You must be too naïve for your own good, then. The intention is to drive out of business papers that express different views to those of the movement, all in the name of free speech, of course.

If it were about expressing different views it would be targeting the Telegraph. It isn't. This is about hitting back at papers that lie. And spread hate. And use their power to undermine democracy. These papers exist to enhance the interests of their billionaire owners, not to provide an 'alternative viewpoint. To not understand that is to be naive.

 

[Hastings gull]

TBF [MENTION=33872]highflyer[/MENTION] has a point. They are using the capitalist tool of finance to make their point. No tory or liberal should object to such tactics.

But they are not making a point; this would be entirely different, as they would be fully entitled to make a point, as you put it. They are cynically using tactics specifically to force closure of a paper that does not share their views. It used to be called censorship - now, apparently, it is "making your point".

 

[The Merry Prankster]

Sounds like an admirable idea to me.

 

[Hastings gull]

If it were about expressing different views it would be targeting the Telegraph. It isn't. This is about hitting back at papers that lie. And spread hate. And use their power to undermine democracy. These papers exist to enhance the interests of their billionaire owners, not to provide an 'alternative viewpoint. To not understand that is to be naive.

You start by implying that it is not about expressing different views, and then launch into the predictable diatribe which totally undermines your initial comment.

 

[highflyer]

[/B]

You start by implying that it is not about expressing different views, and then launch into the predictable diatribe which totally undermines your initial comment.

Eh? Ok let me explain again. It's not about papers 'expressing different views'. It is about papers feeling they can do and say what they like, whether spreading lies, hacking phones of dead children or smearing anyone that calls them out or who does something they don't like, like, you know, making a legitimate legal judgement on the role of parliament vs government. Most of all it is about the fact that these are not part if the 'free press' they are the aggressively utilized mouthpieces of their billionaire owners.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

But they are not making a point; this would be entirely different, as they would be fully entitled to make a point, as you put it. They are cynically using tactics specifically to force closure of a paper that does not share their views. It used to be called censorship - now, apparently, it is "making your point".

Yes, that's capitalism...survival of the fittest, strength wins, use finance to get your own way...

 

[sydney]

View attachment 79371

ich bin ein naughty boy...!!

 

[Hastings gull]

Eh? Ok let me explain again. It's not about papers 'expressing different views'. It is about papers feeling they can do and say what they like, whether spreading lies, hacking phones of dead children or smearing anyone that calls them out or who does something they don't like, like, you know, making a legitimate legal judgement on the role of parliament vs government. Most of all it is about the fact that these are not part if the 'free press' they are the aggressively utilized mouthpieces of their billionaire owners.

So they may or may not be; but anyway you have clarified what it is all about superbly - it is that this group hates the fact that they are "aggressively used mouthpieces" as they see it, and thus they put pressure on advertisers in an attempt to close them down and silence them. And it is not about differing views. . .

 

[Hastings gull]

Yes, that's capitalism...survival of the fittest, strength wins, use finance to get your own way...

Yes, that's fine, and this can be the way of the world - just don't tell me that they are altruistic.

 

[highflyer]

Yes, that's fine, and this can be the way of the world - just don't tell me that they are altruistic.

Not altruistic? I very much doubt anyone is seeking to make money from this campaign. Quite the opposite I suspect.

 

[trueblue]

I can't be arsed to read all this thread - zoned out at the first mention of 'left wing liberals'. From the prevailing attitude of the past few months, I take it that anyone who is against racism, thinks women contribute equally (at the very least) to society and generally believes that the vast majority of people worldwide are fundamentally a) the same and b) good rather than evil is some sort of radical lunatic. It's odd because that's most people I know and yet I don't think many of them feel they're making a political stand - indeed many of them probably vote Tory and would be horrified to be described as 'left wing'. I thought they were just fundamentally sound human beings.

There are extremes on the left and the right. The ones who get my vote are those that don't seek to divide and conquer.

 

[Hastings gull]

Not altruistic? I very much doubt anyone is seeking to make money from this campaign. Quite the opposite I suspect.

This was in response to another poster. I have not claimed otherwise. I am sure that the group does not want money, just its selfish way of how it sees the world confirmed. I do accept that the DM and the Sun can be OTT at times, and that, for example, the bringing in of that judge's private life was irrelevant to the Brexit debate, but the fact that millions do read the three papers, shows that what they print by and large can resonate with what people think. Remind you of any past events this week? You might not like it, you will certainly disagree with what they print, as I do, but any attempt to close them down sets a very dangerous precedent, however much it is dressed up. Yes, all three get closed down, and then who or what will be next? Be very careful what you wish for.