W.C.
New member
- Oct 31, 2011
- 4,927
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Stop Funding Hate - Pathetic!
- Thread starter Big G
- Start date
Neville's Breakfast
Well-known member
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
Well-known member
- Jan 21, 2016
- 2,434
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
Well-known member
- Nov 23, 2013
- 4,635
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.
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
Well-known member
- Nov 23, 2013
- 4,635
OK, pedant -the intention is to damage them financially and thus force their closure.
Neville's Breakfast
Well-known member
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.
highflyer
Well-known member
- Jan 21, 2016
- 2,434
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
Well-known member
- Nov 23, 2013
- 4,635
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
Pactum serva
Sounds like an admirable idea to me.
Hastings gull
Well-known member
- Nov 23, 2013
- 4,635
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
Well-known member
- Jan 21, 2016
- 2,434
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
Well-known member
Yes, that's capitalism...survival of the fittest, strength wins, use finance to get your own way...
sydney
tinky ****in winky
ich bin ein naughty boy...!!
Hastings gull
Well-known member
- Nov 23, 2013
- 4,635
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
Well-known member
- Nov 23, 2013
- 4,635
Yes, that's fine, and this can be the way of the world - just don't tell me that they are altruistic.
highflyer
Well-known member
- Jan 21, 2016
- 2,434
Not altruistic? I very much doubt anyone is seeking to make money from this campaign. Quite the opposite I suspect.
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.
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
Well-known member
- Nov 23, 2013
- 4,635
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.