Stop Funding Hate

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, Facecloth said:

People might not be looking to be offending, they might be looking for story that backs up their view point. That headline would do that.

 

And I didn't ignore I quoted Strokes and referred to Carl's post.

Was I right?

[Jimothy]

Just now, Webbo said:

Was I right?

No Carl was.

[Webbo]

Just now, Facecloth said:

No Carl was.

The population didn't go up by 239,00?

[Strokes]

3 minutes ago, FireFox said:

If supporters of the Daily Mail don't want to fund Lego and other companies that outright disagree with the Daily Mail, then they are allowed to do so. They are allowed to campaign about it too if they want.

I know but thanks for the endorsement.

[Carl the Llama]

Just now, Webbo said:

It was clear to anyone who wasn't looking to be offended what it meant. It was posted as an example of a lie and it wasn't. If that's your only argument I win. 

Yep you win Webs.  I have no retort to your point save for the very clearly explained retort I've been making these past few comments only for you to somehow try diverting the argument each time and completely ignore the point being made,  I'll get you your gold star sticker.  Make sure you show it to your friends to prove what a reasonable debate winner you are.

 

 

Ok it's not a sticker you'll have to print it off and show it to your friends instead.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

There's no limit to the amount of pages a paper can have. If there were people queuing up to advertise in their paper they'd just add extra pages. Alternative sources don't just appear from thin air.

 

Has that satisfied your point?

Not really. I'm asking about the acceptability of this campaign when compared with standard business practice elsewhere, in the past and in the future, because the similarities seem apparent, as FireFox and I have indicated. If you feel this particular situation doesn't match up with that, I'd be interested in hearing why.

[Carl the Llama]

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

The population didn't go up by 239,00?

Yes, that is what we were debating.

 

Have another non-sticker, I've got loads.

[Strokes]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I think that is perfectly acceptable. Would you say that the action by the lobby groups is acceptable for the same reason?

 

Yes. Me too. Though I have got some roundabout answers between here and there.

Oh yeah I don't have a problem with the lobbying, it's a bit pathetic imo.

I think lego are a disgrace for allowing itself to be drawn into the argument. It could have just stopped and removed itself without insulting the readership.

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Sorry that previous reply wasn't meant to quote this.

 

my reply to the shoe shop thing is, no it's not the same. The shoe shop isn't delivering news, a message or any information. So of course it's not affecting freedom of speech.

Delivering the news and information is a business like any other right? Unless of course it is a state run outlet, and even that is subject to public if not market opinion.

 

Honestly not seeing a false equivalence here.

[Webbo]

Just now, leicsmac said:

Not really. I'm asking about the acceptability of this campaign when compared with standard business practice elsewhere, in the past and in the future, because the similarities seem apparent, as FireFox and I have indicated. If you feel this particular situation doesn't match up with that, I'd be interested in hearing why.

If lego choose not to advertise with the Mail because they don't want to be associated with them, fair enough, although they were happy enough with them last week. If they are succumbing to pressure from an unrepresentative minority then I believe that's an attack on free speech. Nobody is forced to read or buy any paper, why try to put them out of business?

[Webbo]

5 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Yes, that is what we were debating.

 

Have another non-sticker, I've got loads.

Yes it didn't or yes it did?

[FireFox]

6 minutes ago, Webbo said:

There's no limit to the amount of pages a paper can have. If there were people queuing up to advertise in their paper they'd just add extra pages. Alternative sources don't just appear from thin air.

 

Has that satisfied your point?

Let's say a certain newspaper receives a majority of their funding by advertising products for companies Z, Y, and Z. This newspaper starts being more and more hateful, or at least a group of people view it as hateful, and this group is vocal about it. These people then tell companies X, Y, and Z that by advertising with this newspaper, it hurts their public image and ultimately their bottom line. These companies agree and stop funding this newspaper. The newspaper goes out of business.

 

Is this really a suppression of free speech?

If I try to start a newspaper that is very hateful (but doesn't lie, only exaggerates or whatever), but I cannot receive funding, then is my freedom of speech being suppressed?

 

4 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Sorry that previous reply wasn't meant to quote this.

 

my reply to the shoe shop thing is, no it's not the same. The shoe shop isn't delivering news, a message or any information. So of course it's not affecting freedom of speech.

But it's affecting this companies ability to advertise their products. They can't say, "we sell the best shoes"... or at least their message won't be distributed to as many people.

[Strokes]

Just now, leicsmac said:

Delivering the news and information is a business like any other right? Unless of course it is a state run outlet, and even that is subject to public if not market opinion.

 

Honestly not seeing a false equivalence here.

It's an attempt to stifle/quell/change/eliminate (take your pick)  the message it's delivering no?

which is why it's different to this.

maybe if we're attempting to stop the publication of the Quran because we don't like message/hate it delivers and lobbying printing firms refusing to buy other books it prints. Maybe then I could draw a comparison.

change Quran for the bible if it makes you feel uncomfortable

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Webbo said:

If lego choose not to advertise with the Mail because they don't want to be associated with them, fair enough, although they were happy enough with them last week. If they are succumbing to pressure from an unrepresentative minority then I believe that's an attack on free speech. Nobody is forced to read or buy any paper, why try to put them out of business?

Again, unrepresentative minorities have pressured businesses into action before. I'm not sure this situation is different, but I'd be interested in hearing your reasoning why. Like I said, I see no false equivalence here and I'd like to hear from people that do.

[Strokes]

2 minutes ago, FireFox said:

Let's say a certain newspaper receives a majority of their funding by advertising products for companies Z, Y, and Z. This newspaper starts being more and more hateful, or at least a group of people view it as hateful, and this group is vocal about it. These people then tell companies X, Y, and Z that by advertising with this newspaper, it hurts their public image and ultimately their bottom line. These companies agree and stop funding this newspaper. The newspaper goes out of business.

 

Is this really a suppression of free speech?

If I try to start a newspaper that is very hateful (but doesn't lie, only exaggerates or whatever), but I cannot receive funding, then is my freedom of speech being suppressed?

 

But it's affecting this companies ability to advertise their products. They can't say, "we sell the best shoes"... or at least their message won't be distributed to as many people.

If they are made in a sweatshop, they will never be the best shoes.

[Carl the Llama]

Just now, Webbo said:

Yes it didn't or yes it did?

 Bless you. The point really has gone straight over your head, hasn't it?  Was the headline a lie Webbo?  Did immigration (the flow of people into the country) rise by 20%?  Would somebody who only read the headline as they walked past a newsagents understand that when they say immigration they don't actually mean immigration but the difference between immigration and emigration? Will Sally ever be reunited with her long lost lover?  All this and more in the next episode of Foxestalk! 

 

(In case you can't tell I'm fed up of this debate but thoroughly enjoying myself.)

[FireFox]

5 minutes ago, Webbo said:

If lego choose not to advertise with the Mail because they don't want to be associated with them, fair enough, although they were happy enough with them last week. If they are succumbing to pressure from an unrepresentative minority then I believe that's an attack on free speech. Nobody is forced to read or buy any paper, why try to put them out of business?

Lego isn't forced to associate itself with any newspaper, why can't they listen to and agree with this group of people? Who are the "unrepresentative" of? Lego? Well Lego is agreeing with their campaign.

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

Again, unrepresentative minorities have pressured businesses into action before. I'm not sure this situation is different, but I'd be interested in hearing your reasoning why. Like I said, I see no false equivalence here and I'd like to hear from people that do.

I really don't know what you want me to say that I haven't said already. Trying to put newspapers out of business just because you don't like what they print is wrong. I'm not campaigning against the Guardian or the Mirror and they print bollox too.

[Webbo]

2 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

 Bless you. The point really has gone straight over your head, hasn't it?  Was the headline a lie Webbo?  Did immigration (the flow of people into the country) rise by 20%?  Would somebody who only read the headline as they walked past a newsagents understand that when they say immigration they don't actually mean immigration but the difference between immigration and emigration? Will Sally ever be reunited with her long lost lover?  All this and more in the next episode of Foxestalk! 

 

(In case you can't tell I'm fed up of this debate but thoroughly enjoying myself.)

I'm enjoying it too.

[Strokes]

Just now, Carl the Llama said:

 Bless you. The point really has gone straight over your head, hasn't it?  Was the headline a lie Webbo?  Did immigration (the flow of people into the country) rise by 20%?  Would somebody who only read the headline as they walked past a newsagents understand that when they say immigration they don't actually mean immigration but the difference between immigration and emigration? Will Sally ever be reunited with her long lost lover?  All this and more in the next episode of Foxestalk! 

 

(In case you can't tell I'm fed up of this debate but thoroughly enjoying myself.)

The thing is the end result is the same, we have 20% more people added to the country in than we did the previous year of which is a strain on services. So I'm not sure really what difference it makes tbh

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Strokes said:

It's an attempt to stifle/quell/change/eliminate (take your pick)  the message it's delivering no?

which is why it's different to this.

maybe if we're attempting to stop the publication of the Quran because we don't like message/hate it delivers and lobbying printing firms refusing to buy other books it prints. Maybe then I could draw a comparison.

change Quran for the bible if it makes you feel uncomfortable

FWIW I'd be ok with people lobbying printing companies that print books they don't like too. Again, if there's enough demand, the work will never go out of business and the message will never fail to be heard. Market forces tend to prevail, at least in most countries.

[Webbo]

2 minutes ago, FireFox said:

Lego isn't forced to associate itself with any newspaper, why can't they listen to and agree with this group of people? Who are the "unrepresentative" of? Lego? Well Lego is agreeing with their campaign.

Well Lego were happy enough a week ago. Do you think pressure groups should be allowed to decide what you're allowed to read?

[FireFox]

Just now, Webbo said:

I really don't know what you want me to say that I haven't said already. Trying to put newspapers out of business just because you don't like what they print is wrong. I'm not campaigning against the Guardian or the Mirror and they print bollox too.

If these newspapers go out of business over this, then that is their own fault. It isn't a suppression of free speech.

 

If I try to start a (hateful) newspaper, and because of certain groups campaigning against it, I don't receive funding, then okay. I can still blog about my views, I just don't have the funding to spread my views in print to millions.

 

3 minutes ago, Strokes said:

If they are made in a sweatshop, they will never be the best shoes.

Well, they are just exaggerating about them being the best shoes.

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I really don't know what you want me to say that I haven't said already. Trying to put newspapers out of business just because you don't like what they print is wrong. I'm not campaigning against the Guardian or the Mirror and they print bollox too.

Fair enough. I'd direct you to my reply to Strokes.

[Strokes]

Just now, leicsmac said:

FWIW I'd be ok with people lobbying printing companies that print books they don't like too. Again, if there's enough demand, the work will never go out of business and the message will never fail to be heard. Market forces tend to prevail, at least in most countries.

It'd be quite ironic if the daily mail led that campaign though.