CO-OP makes fool of itself over trans rights

Watch
Napp
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#41
Report 3 weeks ago
#41
I am truly shook that this thread degenrated into a specious attempt to brand The Spectator as not but a "far right rag" with neo-nazi leanings :rolleyes:.
What seems to be more disturbing is that people havent a clue what 'far right' or 'neo nazi' mean bar being a catch all insult for anyone who has the temerity to write something they object to.
0
reply
Pinkisk
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#42
Report 3 weeks ago
#42
(Original post by generallee)
It certainly was.

I am guessing it hasn't been a great day for "Alice" in the Co-Op's social media team. She is probably straight out of University and has her head filled with SJW bo11ocks so had no idea what she was messing with. Bless.

Welcome to the hard nosed world of business, Alice. It isn't like your gender studies seminars is it? And how about you ask your boss before getting your company involved in a culture war?

Edit: Here is her original, bone headed tweet if you missed it:

https://twitter.com/coopuk/status/1301481417583534080
It is very unusual for a company to respond in this way. Normally, they stick by these leftist extremists and scream discrimination if they don't get their way.

This is certainly a step in the right direction, promoting independence of the media. Sadly though, this story is the exception not the norm. These authoritarian tactics by leftist extremists like this Alice have been successfully employed against other major media platforms, platforms like YouTube, Google, Facebook, Twitter, Reddit etc. that have welcomed these leftist extremists with open arms and where these leftist extremists and their authoritarian dogmas now rain supreme.
Last edited by Pinkisk; 3 weeks ago
0
reply
Pinkisk
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#43
Report 3 weeks ago
#43
(Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
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.
This is interesting. You are a feminist are you not? You subscribe to an ideology that is full of misandrists, extremists and terrorists to whom your ideology provides apologia and platforms. The biggest icons of your ideology to whom your ideology has built monuments and after whom your ideology names its establishments, worked hand in hand with Hitler during the 30s and 40s. As such, by your own logic, you are all misandrists, extremists, terrorists and Nazis...You rely on generalisations when you attack others, this makes it easier for you to discredit them, but you are quick to criticise and dismiss generalisations when it comes to your own group of people as to protect your ideology, which suffers from the exact, same problems which you criticise in other groups of people.
Last edited by Pinkisk; 3 weeks ago
0
reply
Ascend
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#44
Report 3 weeks ago
#44
(Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
Liberals are right wing, that's why there's very little difference between classic liberalism and people like Jordan Peterson.
Oh dear, someone needs to inform people like Martha Nussbaum of this ground-breaking revelation.

Your rendering of the political compass is completely meaningless if you're going to lump liberals in with Golden Dawn. You may as well stop talking in terms of "right" and "left".
0
reply
Ascend
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#45
Report 3 weeks ago
#45
(Original post by Pinkisk)
You rely on crude generalisations when you attack others
Pot, meet kettle:

(Original post by Pinkisk)
You are a feminist are you not? You subscribe to an ideology that is full of misandrists, extremists and terrorists to whom your ideology provides apologia and platforms. The biggest icons of your ideology to whom your ideology has built monuments and after whom your ideology names its establishments, worked hand in hand with Hitler during the 30s and 40s.
0
reply
Ascend
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#46
Report 3 weeks ago
#46
(Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
Liberals are right wing, that's why there's very little difference between classic liberalism and people like Jordan Peterson.
(Original post by generallee)
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.
While this is disputed (excerpts below), lost in the discourse here is the broad and malleable ideological scope of liberalism.

---------------
The classical liberal tradition is a broad intellectual landscape without clear boundaries. Many distinct and even contradictory thinkers can be lumped under the classically liberal umbrella, but the intellectual tradition trends around some key ideas about human nature and human societies. The “classical liberalism” Peterson claims to offer to his audience can be found in more salient, concise, and consistent detail from past liberal thinkers like F.A. Hayek or Adam Smith. Moreover, much of what Peterson advocates in his lectures and books is in opposition to classical liberalism’s core tendencies, particularly Peterson’s belief that a lack of hierarchy and explicit rules results in chaos. After listening to Peterson’s lectures one comes away with the feeling that a lack of hierarchical order necessarily means that chaos abounds. This is a distinctly illiberal take if there ever was one.
(my emphasis)
Peterson seems to embody the worst strawman levelled against advocates of liberalism. Rather than viewing society as an aggregation of voluntarily associating individuals working together toward mutually advantageous ends, Peterson seems to view society through a lens of zero‐sum atomistic individualism. Peterson encourages his audience to look inward for a sense of purpose, whereas Smith and other liberals envision a harmonious society where individuals enrich themselves through meeting the needs and desires of others. This process of creating value for others through positive‐sum exchange is the backbone of any market economy, and a necessary ingredient for a society marked by liberal pluralism.
Peterson comes across as opposed to “new ideas.” For instance he is intransigent regarding the idea that the categories of “man” and “woman” are hazy or at the very least not immutable. He argues that even attempting to discuss these ideas are indicative of an authoritarian regime lurking beneath the surface. Conversely, liberal champion and scholar Deirdre McCloskey cites innovation and the production of new ideas, or the discovery of “new ways of doing things,” as the keys to the modern world. McCloskey, an outspoken liberal, former Marxist, widely respected economic historian, and transgender woman 2 has pointed to liberalizing ideas about gender and sexuality as signs of success as a result of the liberal order. Peterson decries egalitarian ideas, while McCloskey cites them as a success story of liberalism.
---------------

Interestingly, Stiff Little Fingers, your attempt to tar liberalism using Peterson (or any one ideologue or some form of guilt by association) is no different to what Pinkisk is attempting above wrt feminism and Marxism.
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#47
Report 3 weeks ago
#47
(Original post by Drewski)
I won buzzword bingo within 4 posts on this thread.
tldr: it's just another generallee thread
0
reply
harrysbar
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#48
Report 3 weeks ago
#48
(Original post by generallee)
You have to laugh.

A nasty little alt left organisation, Stop Funding Hate, is pressuring companies to withdraw advertising from publications it disagrees with. Effectively acting as censors, all part of the hard left culture war.

So they came after the Spectator for publishing a piece that some trans activist regarded as hate speech. The Co-Op's social media team said that they would investigate pulling any future ads.

Andrew Neil, the Spectator's Chairman said not to bother. The Co-Op is herewith banned from advertising in the Spectator in perpetuity, because it will never allow any company to use its commercial muscle to impinge on its editorial independence. Take that! And how do your customers feel about you now, sunshine?

The Co-Op didn't want to find out if there would be a customer backlash, and immediately gave in, saying the social media team did not represent company policy and they would love to advertise in the Spectator.

As I always say "get woke, go broke."

https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1301895984826519561
(Original post by generallee)
Welcome to the hard nosed world of business, Alice. It isn't like your gender studies seminars is it? And how about you ask your boss before getting your company involved in a culture war?

Edit: Here is her original, bone headed tweet if you missed it:

https://twitter.com/coopuk/status/1301481417583534080
(Original post by DiddyDec)
I went back to read the whole thread, I doubt Alice has a job anymore.
Alice may still have a job. My daughter works in social media for a big company and the reality is that they aren't allowed to send out anything without it first being approved by high up managers in head office. So Alice may have been the scapegoat but have "taken one for the team" rather than lost her job
1
reply
generallee
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#49
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#49
(Original post by Ascend)
While this is disputed (excerpts below), lost in the discourse here is the broad and malleable ideological scope of liberalism.

---------------

(my emphasis)


---------------

Interestingly, Stiff Little Fingers, your attempt to tar liberalism using Peterson (or any one ideologue or some form of guilt by association) is no different to what Pinkisk is attempting above wrt feminism and Marxism.
Sure, classical liberalism is of broad scope, but the issue that brought Peterson into prominence, worldwide fame indeed, was quintessentially liberal.

He was not prepared to be silenced on the issue of trans "rights" on freedom of speech grounds. He has a sincerely held view on the issue, and said that he was prepared to moderate his opinion on the grounds of politeness, but would not accept a legal or employer sanction in the matter. As an academic in a woke university that caused all hell to break loose, his opponents at the University of Toronto, tried to get him fired, found guilty of a hate crime ya de ya de ya. His lectures were picketed by woke activists, he was shouted down on campus.

The usual vicious nastiness of the left, to bend everyone to their political will. His dogged resistance to this and refusal to concede any ground found a nerve, others rallied round to his cause, and the rest is history.

Because of that bruising campaign and his unwillingness to just go with the wokey flow, because he chose a hill to die on, his name is now mostly mud, and he gets cancelled (disgracefully) by Cambridge, who ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Fighting for freedom of speech is perhaps the most important battle in the whole culture war. Everywhere in the west it is under threat, as most are coming to realise now, it is just that because he worked in the university sector where this all started, and under which grip it now is, Peterson was quicker to realise this than others. Now even lefties like J K Rowling get the point he was making although they would never be seen to publicly admit it.

A belief in freedom of speech is not right wing, it is one of the bedrocks of classical liberalism. All our other freedoms spring from it. The likes of stiff little fingers and other proponents of the cancel culture who seek to destroy it on the altar of preventing "hate speech" are profoundly illiberal.

They despise classical liberalism, as the poster cited above has more than illustrated on this thread.
0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#50
Report 3 weeks ago
#50
(Original post by SHallowvale)
tldr: it's just another generallee thread
Nobody wins in this thread; everyone looks like a moron.
1
reply
Iñigo de Loyola
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#51
Report 3 weeks ago
#51
(Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
Not sure why the Co-op was ever advertising in a far right rag like the spectator (literally wrote apologia for Golden Dawn, a neo nazi party, before anyone tries to dispute that) to start with? As the name suggests, it's supposed to be a cooperative, its very existence is an oppositon to the positions of the spectator.

Also, strange how people who claim to believe in the free market get so outraged by groups like stop funding hate, who organise as consumers to withdraw support for any organisation that funds bigotry with ad revenue (with the clear message that thats why).
The Spectator isn't far right just because Taki holds some er... interesting views about Greek politics. Similarly, the Guardian isn't a communist paper just because it has printed articles by Ash ”I'm literally a communist you idiot” Sarkar.*

I respect the right of extreme leftist groups to go around persuading people not to buy adverts in the Mail/Express/Speccie, I don't respect businesses that give in to woke mobs on Twitter. They have the right to do so in the same way Jeremy Corbyn has the right to invite terrorists to Parliament, but anyone who does either of those things loses my respect.

* edit: there's a Grauniad article here by Ash Sarkar essentially calling Sajid Javid a coconut with the traditional ”kindly buss me a pound if you read this” at the bottom. Does this mean that the Guardian is a racist, communist rag or does it mean that newspapers can print things they disagree with?
Last edited by Iñigo de Loyola; 3 weeks ago
2
reply
Iñigo de Loyola
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#52
Report 3 weeks ago
#52
(Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
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.
Image
”If you have ten anti-Semitic terrorists and one ex-leader of Labour at a wreath laying, you have eleven anti-Semitic terrorists”.
4
reply
generallee
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#53
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#53
(Original post by Drewski)
Nobody wins in this thread; everyone looks like a moron.
Au contraire. Andrew Neil comes out of it very well indeed as a heavyweight journalist with integrity who doesn't take any $hit.
1
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#54
Report 3 weeks ago
#54
(Original post by generallee)
Au contraire. Andrew Neil comes out of it very well indeed as a heavyweight journalist with integrity who doesn't take any $hit.
I wasn't aware Andrew Neil was a poster on TSR...
0
reply
generallee
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#55
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#55
(Original post by SHallowvale)
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...)
The point I think that has been missed is that Gillette aren't in the business of making political speeches and they don't need freedom of speech. They are a razor blade company.

If they had stuck to that rather than trying to tell their potential customers that their masculinity is toxic, they would be eight billion dollars to the good.

The exact same thing happened with SAS. They ran an ad campaign saying that there is no such thing as Swedish culture. The usual multiculti ********. It absolutely bombed with their (Swedish) customers and had to be ignominiously pulled.

Stick to running an airline, not running political campaigns. Get woke go broke.
0
reply
Iñigo de Loyola
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#56
Report 3 weeks ago
#56
(Original post by generallee)
The point I think that has been missed is that Gillette aren't in the business of making political speeches and they don't need freedom of speech. They are a razor blade company.

If they had stuck to that rather than trying to tell their potential customers that their masculinity is toxic, they would be eight billion dollars to the good.

The exact same thing happened with SAS. They ran an ad campaign saying that there is no such thing as Swedish culture. The usual multiculti bo11ocks. It absolutely bombed with their (Swedish) customers and had to be ignominiously pulled.

Stick to running an airline, not running political campaigns. Get woke go broke.
I have no problem with customers boycotting businesses for practices they don't like - that's gone on since the dawn of time. What I do have a problem with is hounding public figures for making light of woke ideology or being right of Karl Marx.

The first is boycotting, the second is cancel culture. Big difference.
0
reply
generallee
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#57
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#57
(Original post by Iñigo de Loyola)
The Spectator isn't far right just because Taki holds some er... interesting views about Greek politics. Similarly, the Guardian isn't a communist paper just because it has printed articles by Ash ”I'm literally a communist you idiot” Sarkar.

I respect the right of extreme leftist groups to go around persuading people not to buy adverts in the Mail/Express/Speccie, I don't respect businesses that give in to woke mobs on Twitter. They have the right to do so in the same way Jeremy Corbyn has the right to invite terrorists to Parliament, but anyone who does either of those things loses my respect.
Agreed.

I don't say Stop Funding Hate don't have a right to exist. Just that they are a hard left quasi revolutionary organisation who should be fought at every turn. Remorselessly. No-one should give in to them, ever.

They have a great name, I'll give them that. It is the same with Black Lives Matter. Who could disagree with that aim? Who wants to fund hatred? But people are beginning to see through BLM as American cities burn to the ground, and the same realisation needs to happen with Stop Funding Hate.
0
reply
generallee
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#58
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#58
(Original post by Iñigo de Loyola)
I have no problem with customers boycotting businesses for practices they don't like - that's gone on since the dawn of time. What I do have a problem with is hounding public figures for making light of woke ideology or being right of Karl Marx.

The first is boycotting, the second is cancel culture. Big difference.
Thank you. You have expressed the point better than I did.
0
reply
Iñigo de Loyola
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#59
Report 3 weeks ago
#59
(Original post by generallee)
Agreed.

I don't say Stop Funding Hate don't have a right to exist. Just that they are a hard left quasi revolutionary organisation who should be fought at every turn. Remorselessly. No-one should give in to them, ever.

They have a great name, I'll give them that. It is the same with Black Lives Matter. Who could disagree with that aim? Who wants to fund hatred? But people are beginning to see through BLM as American cities burn to the ground, and the same realisation needs to happen with Stop Funding Hate.
If the Woke think we should all support BLM because ”it just means you think black lives matter” and want us to support antifa because ”it's antifascist, are you a fascist?”, why don't they support the Democratic People's Republic of Korea? After all, it's got the words ”democratic” and ”people's” in its name so it must be a Good Thing.
0
reply
generallee
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#60
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#60
(Original post by Drewski)
I wasn't aware Andrew Neil was a poster on TSR...
And I wasn't aware that you were only talking about the posters on the thread rather than the subject matter!

What do you think about that? Since you are here?
0
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 (55)
20.52%
No (213)
79.48%

Watched Threads

View All