CO-OP makes fool of itself over trans rights

Watch
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#61
Report 3 weeks ago
#61
(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.
Why should them being a razor company deny them freedom of speech?
0
reply
Pinkisk
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#62
Report 3 weeks ago
#62
(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.
This thread is like a totally one sided fight. You know you've scored a definite win when the most bias of those in favour of the far left on this forum admit to their side looking bad.
0
reply
Pinkisk
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#63
Report 3 weeks ago
#63
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Why should them being a razor company deny them freedom of speech?
Adverts are made to promote things. They are also made to associate certain things with certain people/groups/companies. Gillette's advert promoted and associated the beliefs of a certain political ideology, beliefs which may be construed as discrimination towards a group of people, to Gillette. Gillette then payed a huge cost for promoting and associating with these beliefs. They should have the right to express themselves freely even if this comes at the cost of alienating their client base, which are likewise entitled to express their dissent, by not supporting the company and what it stands for.
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#64
Report 3 weeks ago
#64
(Original post by Pinkisk)
They should have the right to express themselves freely even if this comes at the cost of alienating their client base, which are likewise entitled to express their dissent, by not supporting the company and what it stands for.
I entirely agree. I also consider it perfectly acceptable for someone to stop buying a paper like The Spectator, for the same reasons people stopped buying from Gillette. I consider neither of those things to be an attack on free speech.
0
reply
Pinkisk
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#65
Report 3 weeks ago
#65
(Original post by SHallowvale)
I entirely agree. I also consider it perfectly acceptable for someone to stop buying a paper like The Spectator, for the same reasons people stopped buying from Gillette. I consider neither of those things to be an attack on free speech.
I agree. Paying for things is often promoting and supporting those who own those things.

People should have the right to choose not to purchase things from a company and so support said company if they feel that said company is promoting ideas that are destructive and disagreeable with their own, but they should not be allowed to censor and censorship of opinions is modus operandi for leftist extremists. They engage in clearly organised efforts to shut people up en mass, preventing them from expressing their opinions, no matter how respectful and constructive those opinions may be. Leftist extremists have devoted entire organisations to these efforts, to censorship, to policing what people say and censoring everything, no matter how respectful and informed, that does not conform with leftist extremist dogma. I am referring here to organisations like the SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center).

People on the far left do not engage in debate to refute their opponents. They engage in totalitarian and authoritarian tactics, in censorship, in drowning people's voices out, in robbing people of their voices, in stalking and bullying, abusing those whom they disagree with in an effort to shut them up. This is incredibly cowardly. Below, I have cited a few examples of this cowardice:

Feminists banging horns and shouting and screaming in an effort to disrupt and drown out the voices of people attending a march for equality and men's rights in Australia:


Feminists blocking the entrance of a seminar about male suicide and attacking guests, preventing them from attending the event in Canada:


Feminists shouting, banging drums and disrupting a lecture by critic of contemporary feminism Prof Janice Fiamengo


Feminists shouting, banging drums and playing loud music outside a lecture critical of feminism at the University of Cambridge where guests were attacked and prevented from attending the lecture:



I can list another million such examples, but I think I have made my point.

People on the far left promote, protect and maintain their ideologies by authoritarian means, by intimidation, violence and censorship. This is seriously concerning as these people and their ideologies are highly institutionalised in many parts of the world. They weald a lot of power here in the West where they employ their authoritarian tactics in all levels of society to impose their opinions on others, promote and spread their ideas by force and not by conviction.
Last edited by Pinkisk; 3 weeks ago
1
reply
Ascend
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#66
Report 3 weeks ago
#66
(Original post by Drewski)
Nobody wins in this thread; everyone looks like a moron.
0
reply
Ascend
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#67
Report 3 weeks ago
#67
(Original post by generallee)
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.
Fair points. The Peterson situation is definitely a free speech issue and was among the preludes to the cancel culture the US and UK are going through.
0
reply
Iñigo de Loyola
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#68
Report 3 weeks ago
#68
(Original post by Napp)
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.
As per one of my favourite memes:
Image
0
reply
generallee
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#69
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#69
(Original post by SHallowvale)
I entirely agree. I also consider it perfectly acceptable for someone to stop buying a paper like The Spectator, for the same reasons people stopped buying from Gillette. I consider neither of those things to be an attack on free speech.
The (ill starred) campaign against the Spectator didn't attempt to get its readers to stop buying the magazine, or take out subscriptions. It sought to pressure a company to withdraw advertising revenue unless a certain editorial stance was taken. It was a form of not particularly subtle blackmail. Cease publishing articles we don't approve of or we will put you out of business. That makes it unequivocally a free speech issue. This quasi commie organisation sought to suborn the privileges of the journal's editor.

That is not how a free press works. That is the sort of thing that happens in Communist regimes in fact, not liberal democracies. Maybe that is a coincidence, maybe not. Thankfully Andrew Neil did what one should do to all blackmailers, called their bluff. And the company (which had been dragged into the whole controversy because some stupid junior employee got spooked by a trans activist with three hundred twitter followers from Stop Funding Hate, backed down. Wisely, since 30% of their customers are Conservative voters according to a You Gov survey.

The Gillette situation is not directly analgous. This was not about the freedom of the press, but about a stupidly woke advertising campaign for razor blades. Which prompted a backlash from customers who decided to buy their razor blades from competitor companies which are both cheaper and don't consider them toxic.

Whatever. Since (if I understand you correctly) you don't regard the Stop Funding Hate campaign against the Spectator as a free speech issue, I would ask you the following question. What exactly IS your definition of a free press?
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#70
Report 3 weeks ago
#70
(Original post by generallee)
The (ill starred) campaign against the Spectator didn't attempt to get its readers to stop buying the magazine, or take out subscriptions. It sought to pressure a company to withdraw advertising revenue unless a certain editorial stance was taken. It was a form of not particularly subtle blackmail. Cease publishing articles we don't approve of or we will put you out of business. That makes it unequivocally a free speech issue. This quasi commie organisation sought to suborn the privileges of the journal's editor.

That is not how a free press works. That is the sort of thing that happens in Communist regimes in fact, not liberal democracies. Maybe that is a coincidence, maybe not. Thankfully Andrew Neil did what one should do to all blackmailers, called their bluff. And the company (which had been dragged into the whole controversy because some stupid junior employee got spooked by a trans activist with three hundred twitter followers from Stop Funding Hate, backed down. Wisely, since 30% of their customers are Conservative voters according to a You Gov survey.

The Gillette situation is not directly analgous. This was not about the freedom of the press, but about a stupidly woke advertising campaign for razor blades. Which prompted a backlash from customers who decided to buy their razor blades from competitor companies which are both cheaper and don't consider them toxic.

Whatever. Since (if I understand you correctly) you don't regard the Stop Funding Hate campaign against the Spectator as a free speech issue, I would ask you the following question. What exactly IS your definition of a free press?
Free press: "a body of book publishers, news media, etc., not controlled or restricted by government censorship in political or ideological matters." Since the government was not involved in what Stop Funding Hate had tried to do, I would not consider this a free press issue.

The Spectator has the right to publish whatever it likes; what it does not have is the right to anyone else's money, nor should it have that right.
0
reply
Joleee
Badges: 19
#71
Report 3 weeks ago
#71
(Original post by generallee)
The (ill starred) campaign against the Spectator didn't attempt to get its readers to stop buying the magazine, or take out subscriptions. It sought to pressure a company to withdraw advertising revenue unless a certain editorial stance was taken. It was a form of not particularly subtle blackmail. Cease publishing articles we don't approve of or we will put you out of business. That makes it unequivocally a free speech issue. This quasi commie organisation sought to suborn the privileges of the journal's editor.

That is not how a free press works. That is the sort of thing that happens in Communist regimes in fact, not liberal democracies. Maybe that is a coincidence, maybe not. Thankfully Andrew Neil did what one should do to all blackmailers, called their bluff. And the company (which had been dragged into the whole controversy because some stupid junior employee got spooked by a trans activist with three hundred twitter followers from Stop Funding Hate, backed down. Wisely, since 30% of their customers are Conservative voters according to a You Gov survey.

The Gillette situation is not directly analgous. This was not about the freedom of the press, but about a stupidly woke advertising campaign for razor blades. Which prompted a backlash from customers who decided to buy their razor blades from competitor companies which are both cheaper and don't consider them toxic.

Whatever. Since (if I understand you correctly) you don't regard the Stop Funding Hate campaign against the Spectator as a free speech issue, I would ask you the following question. What exactly IS your definition of a free press?
it’s not a free speech issue because only the state is responsible for human rights. a private company like a grocery store has no responsibility to give another private company their advertising money and keep a private magazine in publication. it’s not my personal opinion; it’s contract law.

it makes no sense for The Spectator - a conservative magazine by brand - to adhere to the requests of Co-op. if it had it would lose its audience and therefore more advertisers. you act like this decision is based on morals or protest when really it’s just good business sense. Co-op advertising dollar isn’t nearly as important as losing brand power.
Last edited by Joleee; 3 weeks ago
1
reply
Captain Haddock
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#72
Report 3 weeks ago
#72
(Original post by generallee)
The (ill starred) campaign against the Spectator didn't attempt to get its readers to stop buying the magazine, or take out subscriptions. It sought to pressure a company to withdraw advertising revenue unless a certain editorial stance was taken. It was a form of not particularly subtle blackmail. Cease publishing articles we don't approve of or we will put you out of business. That makes it unequivocally a free speech issue. This quasi commie organisation sought to suborn the privileges of the journal's editor.

That is not how a free press works. That is the sort of thing that happens in Communist regimes in fact, not liberal democracies. Maybe that is a coincidence, maybe not. Thankfully Andrew Neil did what one should do to all blackmailers, called their bluff. And the company (which had been dragged into the whole controversy because some stupid junior employee got spooked by a trans activist with three hundred twitter followers from Stop Funding Hate, backed down. Wisely, since 30% of their customers are Conservative voters according to a You Gov survey.

The Gillette situation is not directly analgous. This was not about the freedom of the press, but about a stupidly woke advertising campaign for razor blades. Which prompted a backlash from customers who decided to buy their razor blades from competitor companies which are both cheaper and don't consider them toxic.

Whatever. Since (if I understand you correctly) you don't regard the Stop Funding Hate campaign against the Spectator as a free speech issue, I would ask you the following question. What exactly IS your definition of a free press?
Wait, which was it? A vicious attempt at corporate blackmail that the Co-op was forced to back down from, or a wayward social media intern acting on their own feelings? You can't really have both.
2
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#73
Report 3 weeks ago
#73
(Original post by Captain Haddock)
Wait, which was it? A vicious attempt at corporate blackmail that the Co-op was forced to back down from, or a wayward social media intern acting on their own feelings? You can't really have both.
That's quasi commie corporate blackmail, actually!
0
reply
Pinkisk
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#74
Report 3 weeks ago
#74
(Original post by Iñigo de Loyola)
As per one of my favourite memes:
Image
lol...This is nice. I think I might steal it.
0
reply
Iñigo de Loyola
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#75
Report 3 weeks ago
#75
(Original post by Pinkisk)
lol...This is nice. I think I might steal it.
I stole it myself so...
0
reply
generallee
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#76
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#76
(Original post by Captain Haddock)
Wait, which was it? A vicious attempt at corporate blackmail that the Co-op was forced to back down from, or a wayward social media intern acting on their own feelings? You can't really have both.
It was a wayward intern. The Co-op are not at fault here.
0
reply
generallee
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#77
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#77
(Original post by Joleee)
1. it’s not a free speech issue because only the state is responsible for human rights. a private company like a grocery store has no responsibility to give another private company their advertising money and keep a private magazine in publication. it’s not my personal opinion; it’s contract law.

2. it makes no sense for The Spectator - a conservative magazine by brand - to adhere to the requests of Co-op. if it had it would lose its audience and therefore more advertisers. you act like this decision is based on morals or protest when really it’s just good business sense. Co-op advertising dollar isn’t nearly as important as losing brand power.
1. You have lost me here, I am afraid. What is the connection between contract law and press freedom?

2. You have lost me here, too. I don't see what is the relevance of what you say here to my argument that Stop Funding Hate is attempting to undermine the freedom of the press?

(Original post by SHallowvale)
That's quasi commie corporate blackmail, actually!
Stop Funding Hate is a quasi commie organisation, not the Co-op.
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#78
Report 3 weeks ago
#78
(Original post by generallee)
Stop Funding Hate is a quasi commie organisation, not the Co-op.
What makes them a "commie" organisation?

"Attacks" on free speech are not by any means exclusive to communists / communism.
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#79
Report 3 weeks ago
#79
(Original post by generallee)
1. You have lost me here, I am afraid. What is the connection between contract law and press freedom?

2. You have lost me here, too. I don't see what is the relevance of what you say here to my argument that Stop Funding Hate is attempting to undermine the freedom of the press?
Unless Stop Funding Hate are trying to lobby the government into, say, making anti-trans journalism illegal then this has nothing to do with freedom of the press.
0
reply
generallee
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#80
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#80
(Original post by SHallowvale)
What makes them a "commie" organisation?

"Attacks" on free speech are not by any means exclusive to communists / communism.
I said "quasi commie." They are mostly hard line Corbynistas apparently. That makes sense, having failed to take over Her Majesty's Official Opposition they have to find something to fill their days.
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 (79)
21.7%
No (285)
78.3%

Watched Threads

View All