CO-OP makes fool of itself over trans rights

Watch
Ascend
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#21
Report 3 weeks ago
#21
(Original post by generallee)
Get woke, go broke.
So you should have no problem with any of this, then. Win-win, right?
0
reply
generallee
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#22
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#22
(Original post by SHallowvale)
I forgot to ask, but do you endorse what happened to Gillette?
Do I endorse what?

There is nothing to endorse. Gillette gratuitously insulted their customers by accusing them of "toxic masculinity." (Whatever the fcuck that is by the way). Those customers decided that they wanted to buy razor blades from (cheaper) competitors who didn't insult them.

Their target demographic, quite amazingly, decided in large numbers that they wanted to buy their shaving goods from a company that sells good, reliable, cheap blades rather than trying to be a vehicle for social justice. And did so, hurting Gillette's profits.

Who saw that coming?
1
reply
Ascend
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#23
Report 3 weeks ago
#23
(Original post by SHallowvale)
How exactly does a free market of ideas work, anyway?
I've yet to see a convincing argument for this flawed analogy to the economic model.
0
reply
generallee
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#24
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#24
(Original post by Ascend)
So you should have no problem with any of this, then. Win-win, right?
No.

This is one battle won, but the war is being lost.

In a few years the people on this website will be running things and then God help us.
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#25
Report 3 weeks ago
#25
(Original post by generallee)
Do I endorse what?

There is nothing to endorse. Gillette gratuitously insulted their customers by accusing them of "toxic masculinity." (Whatever the fcuck that is by the way). Those customers decided that they wanted to buy razor blades from (cheaper) competitors who didn't insult them.

Their target demographic, quite amazingly, decided in large numbers that they wanted to buy their shaving goods from a company that sells good, reliable, cheap blades rather than trying to be a vehicle for social justice. And did so, hurting Gillette's profits.


Who saw that coming?
Right, so I assume you supported the boycott?
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#26
Report 3 weeks ago
#26
(Original post by Ascend)
I've yet to see a convincing argument for this flawed analogy to the economic model.
Oh? I had asked because I was genuinely curious, more than anything else.
0
reply
Ascend
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#27
Report 3 weeks ago
#27
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Oh? I had asked because I was genuinely curious, more than anything else.
Here's a good critique and why the two "marketplaces" (of trade and ideas) are not only different but often in tension with one another, as you have highlighted on the last page:

The Illusion of a “Marketplace of Ideas” and the Right to Truth

The classic accounts of a “marketplace of ideas” omit the crucial, even determinative modern relationship between speech and advertising. In his passionate dissenting opinion in Abrams v. United States, for example, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes argued that “The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out.” Recent interpretations of Holmes’s dissent emphasize his conception of the marketplace of ideas as “a much-needed counterweight, both conceptual and rhetorical, to illiberal attitudes about authority and change on which the censorial mentality thrives.”40 Yet even these updated arguments leave out the interaction between the supposed marketplace of ideas and the advertising and data markets.

When an idea is tied to an advertisement (particularly when the product belongs to an aftermarket), it becomes more difficult to differentiate between the world of ideas and that of products. Moreover, the diversity of sources alone does not necessarily ensure a free and diverse information environment. As Matthew Gentzkow and Jesse Shapiro point out, “there is no compelling reason to equate the number of independent sources with the number of firms. Adding competitors will have little value if they all have access to the same sources or reprint the same wire stories.”41 However we conceive the role of the sources, the generation of news alone does not ensure a diverse information environment if it fails to reach the public.42

Competition no longer takes place between diverse ideas but rather between diverse products and comparatively homogeneous ideas. Advertised goods compete over consumer attention and the retention of consumer data. In that competition news is only a vehicle which, if controlled and cogently boxed in, can yield optimal economic outcomes.
And how the classical liberal defenders of free expression are misquoted/interpreted by modern neoliberals and libertarians:

The metaphor of the “marketplace of ideas” is usually traced back to John Milton’s Areopagitica, although he never used the term “marketplace” and some researchers contend that his words have been misinterpreted.7 “Let [truth] and falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter?” Milton admonished.8 Based on Milton’s work, neoclassical researchers have maintained that only a diversity of sources competing on a level playing field can ensure an open information market.9 Free markets for speech are commonly thought to be the most efficient way to achieve this goal. The theory posits that markets with large numbers of participants are particularly effective at aggregating information and coping with the limits of perception, thus solving problems related to uncertainty and cognitive limits.10 But just as in any other market, trade in ideas may be subject to distortion due to a number of conditions, not least bounded rationality and cognitive limitations. An adequate discussion of freedom of speech and of the press must take account of these distortions.
Moreover, information sources frequently have an innate bias explained by an intellectual, political, or market affiliation, which may benefit the information source both in its relationships upstream (e.g., with a political party) and on the demand side. In this vein, many outlets are blamed or simply recognized for pursuing ideological agendas.13 Instead of diminishing the significance of Mill’s proposition, however, this antagonism ends up reinforcing it. The presence of antagonistic sources supposedly recreates an adversarial system in which the jury—the readers, and society as a whole—ultimately decides the truth of the case.14 As Frederick Schauer put it, “just as Adam Smith’s ‘invisible hand’ will ensure that the best products emerge from free competition, so too will an invisible hand ensure that the best ideas emerge when all opinions are permitted freely to compete.”15 But what if the jury (consumers) has a cognitive limitation or an ideological bias, facilitated by the very same societal structure (the market, and platforms created by market actors) that it is called to judge?
0
reply
Ascend
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#28
Report 3 weeks ago
#28
(Original post by generallee)
No.

This is one battle won, but the war is being lost.

In a few years the people on this website will be running things and then God help us.
Well then you have just contradicted the "go woke, get broke" line of thought and essentially justifiied SHallowvale's scepticism.
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#29
Report 3 weeks ago
#29
(Original post by Ascend)
Here's a good critique and why the two "marketplaces" (of trade and ideas) are not only different but often in tension with one another, as you have highlighted on the last page:

The Illusion of a “Marketplace of Ideas” and the Right to Truth

And how the classical liberal defenders of free expression are misquoted/interpreted by modern neoliberals and libertarians:
This is an interesting take on it, thank you!
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#30
Report 3 weeks ago
#30
(Original post by Ascend)
Well then you have just contradicted the "go woke, get broke" line of thought and essentially justifiied SHallowvale's scepticism.
Indeed. OP is against Stop Funding Hate's attempted boycott of The Spectator, calling it an attack on free speech. On that basis, the boycott on Gillette would also have been an attack on free speech yet OP seems to have supported this?

(Although I might have misinterpreted what you've said, here...)
0
reply
generallee
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#31
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#31
(Original post by Ascend)
Well then you have just contradicted the "go woke, get broke" line of thought and essentially justifiied SHallowvale's scepticism.
In the short term no, long term probably yes.

Who knows? In the long term we are all dead, as Keynes famously said.
0
reply
DiddyDec
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#32
Report 3 weeks ago
#32
(Original post by generallee)
I read the Spectator (although my subscription did recently lapse)
Use a paywall blocker

https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-chrome
0
reply
londonmyst
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#33
Report 3 weeks ago
#33
(Original post by generallee)
No.

This is one battle won, but the war is being lost.

In a few years the people on this website will be running things and then God help us.
I disagree with both assertions.
Most British people are reasonable; with little or zero appetite for appeasing aggressive sjw's, toxic snowflakes or any type of dogma fanatic.

The majority of TSR users use the site for advice with ucas applications or to chat about casual issues and do not have any political aspirations.
Of the few that do have political ambitions, only a very small proportion will be able to make the necessary influential contacts.
Even fewer will have enough talent or be capable of appealing to a sufficiently large support base to be considered a viable potential candidate.
Plenty of the current users of this site won't be running anything over the next few years except: sink & bath taps, the engines of their motor vehicles or dozens of social media fake news/trolling accounts.
3
reply
DiddyDec
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#34
Report 3 weeks ago
#34
(Original post by generallee)
In a few years the people on this website will be running things and then God help us.
This site has changed a lot in the past 7 years. When I first joined I was considered a far right radical, now I am accused of being a leftie snowflake. My views haven't changed that much.

I think we will be alright, can't be much worse than the current leadership.
0
reply
Stiff Little Fingers
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#35
Report 3 weeks ago
#35
(Original post by DiddyDec)
An opinion I disagree with. I don't feel the need to label things I disagree with as far right.
It's not about mere disagreement - the spectator is a magazine that describes neo Nazis as "patriots" and has suggested that the underappreciated heroes of D-Day were the Wermacht. If literal nazi apologia and celebration doesn't count as far right, what does?


(Original post by generallee)
I read the Spectator (although my subscription did recently lapse) and I must say I was a little mystified by the reference.

So I looked it up.

Imagine my surprise that this manufactured outrage from the left is for an article published 12 years ago by the (admittedly rather weird) Greek social commentator, Taki. In which he was (mildly) approving of the Fascist Golden Dawn.

One (admittedly highly reprehensible) article out of dozens every week, for nearly two hundred years.

Yeah, the Speccy is "far right" alright. Good call.

:rolleyes:
Ok, we'll move to 2018 and the same writer being allowed to write about how the Wermacht were heroic on D-Day. If you have one Nazi and nine people at a table, and those 9 don't force the Nazi away, you have 10 Nazis, and if you platform Nazi apologia then you are Nazi sympathisers.

(Original post by Ascend)
So, which is it? Or are liberals now far right?
Liberals are right wing, that's why there's very little difference between classic liberalism and people like Jordan Peterson.
1
reply
DiddyDec
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#36
Report 3 weeks ago
#36
(Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
It's not about mere disagreement - the spectator is a magazine that describes neo Nazis as "patriots" and has suggested that the underappreciated heroes of D-Day were the Wermacht. If literal nazi apologia and celebration doesn't count as far right, what does?
The Spectator did not describe them as such, a single journalist did. The editor of The Spectator even said he did not agree with the article however he supports the right to freedom of expression regardless of whether he agrees with the sentiments expressed.

I don't support censorship of views that I don't agree with, if I did I would be campaigning for you to be banned :lol:
0
reply
CoolCavy
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#37
Report 3 weeks ago
#37
I'm more incensed over the capitalisation of 'Co-op' tbh
3
reply
generallee
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#38
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#38
(Original post by Ascend)
Here's a good critique and why the two "marketplaces" (of trade and ideas) are not only different but often in tension with one another, as you have highlighted on the last page:

The Illusion of a “Marketplace of Ideas” and the Right to Truth






And how the classical liberal defenders of free expression are misquoted/interpreted by modern neoliberals and libertarians:
That is an interesting article, although I must admit to having only sped read it.

On the basis of this skimming the surface, I basically agree. The internet, and its algorithms have been something of a poisoned chalice. Yes there is an instant dissemination of thought and ideas that is unheard of in human history. No it hasn't led to a true market place of ideas. Quite the opposite.
1
reply
generallee
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#39
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#39
(Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
It's not about mere disagreement - the spectator is a magazine that describes neo Nazis as "patriots" and has suggested that the underappreciated heroes of D-Day were the Wermacht. If literal nazi apologia and celebration doesn't count as far right, what does?



Ok, we'll move to 2018 and the same writer being allowed to write about how the Wermacht were heroic on D-Day. If you have one Nazi and nine people at a table, and those 9 don't force the Nazi away, you have 10 Nazis, and if you platform Nazi apologia then you are Nazi sympathisers.


Liberals are right wing, that's why there's very little difference between classic liberalism and people like Jordan Peterson.
To your first point, why shouldn't we describe some of the the individual soldiers in the Wehrmact (there is an h) who fought in Normandy as heroic? They were in some instances, as were some of the soldiers in the doomed Sixth Army in Stalingrad. There is no nuance in your lefty SJW world, you are so crude, so simplistic. A conscript who fought bravely in an Infantry battalion for his country in Normandy is the same moral being as a war criminal who committed atrocities at Oradour sur Glane with the Second SS Panzer Division. You can't see the difference. Both Nazis. Both equally bad.

To your second, yes Jordan Peterson is a classical Liberal. As am I. You call us "right wing" but that is just your meaningless label.
1
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#40
Report 3 weeks ago
#40
I won buzzword bingo within 4 posts on this thread.
1
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are you confident you could find support for your mental health if you needed it in COVID-19?

Yes (79)
21.7%
No (285)
78.3%

Watched Threads

View All