Stop Funding Hate

[Carl the Llama]

Just now, Strokes said:

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

Ah, a cogent response at long last.  The difference my good man is that one portrayal ("IMMIGRATION SOARS 20%") conjures mental images of swathes of foreigners swarming into the country far beyond the previous flow of people and inciting fear of being overrun by 'the others', whereas the more accurate portrayal ("EMIGRATION PLUMMETS") asks the more potent question of why less people are able/willing to leave the country and doesn't deliberately aim to stoke quite so much resentment.

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, Carl the Llama said:

Ah, a cogent response at long last.  The difference my good man is that one portrayal ("IMMIGRATION SOARS 20%") conjures mental images of swathes of foreigners swarming into the country far beyond the previous flow of people and inciting fear of being overrun by 'the others', whereas the more accurate portrayal ("EMIGRATION PLUMMETS") asks the more potent question of why less people are able/willing to leave the country and doesn't deliberately aim to stoke quite so much resentment.

How did you know that emigration plummeted?

[FireFox]

14 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Well Lego were happy enough a week ago.

 

Do you think pressure groups should be allowed to decide what you're allowed to read?

Lego and others are allowed to change their mind. They are allowed to listen to groups of people who only recently brought up these concerns to a wider audience (because of the whole "openly gay judge" thing? which isn't a lie at all.. but don't deny it is spreading hate). Lego are allowed to be worried about their bottom line.

 

Pressure groups aren't deciding what I'm allowed to read. They are pressuring companies to not associate with other companies. If the newspaper loses funding, then they can search for funding from others. If the newspaper goes out of business, then it's their own fault. They are a business and this is how the free market works.

 

So if I then can't read this newspaper, it is indirectly because of the pressure groups, yes, but they aren't deciding, the free market it.

[Carl the Llama]

Just now, Webbo said:

How did you know that emigration plummeted?

Because I looked at the graph you quoted. x

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, Carl the Llama said:

Because I looked at the graph you quoted. x

So the information was all in the article?

[Finnaldo]

1 minute 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.

 

You could argue that publishing an article which says we should 'send gunboats instead of lifeboats' is wrong but the Daily Mail do it anyway, and people are reacting accordingly. 

 

And we've said numerous times, the point isn't to put them out to business, but continuing to publish a narrow-minded and extremely bias newspaper will send them down that road.

 

If I didn't want to go work tomorrow, I could stay at home. If I did though, I could fully expect my boss to ring me up and tell me to get on Jobsite. Do I deserve it? Yes, because I would know that I'd lose my job. Should the Daily Mail go out of business if it continues to publish papers that rarely pass the press regulations standards and creates a reaction of pressure groups trying to cease funding until it steps up into a proper standard of journalism? Yes, because they should realise that anti-journalistic shite that's being heavily criticised could conceivably lead to closure.

 

I already told you the difference between the Guardian and Mail in an earlier post. 

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, Carl the Llama said:

Ah, a cogent response at long last.  The difference my good man is that one portrayal ("IMMIGRATION SOARS 20%") conjures mental images of swathes of foreigners swarming into the country far beyond the previous flow of people and inciting fear of being overrun by 'the others', whereas the more accurate portrayal ("EMIGRATION PLUMMETS") asks the more potent question of why less people are able/willing to leave the country and doesn't deliberately aim to stoke quite so much resentment.

But to be clear because people won't bugger off, we are still lumbered with an additional 20% and if immigration had reduced, as promised that figure could be much lower. 

So we can agree the tories ineptitude to fulfil a manifesto pledge, is worth an article at least? If not the cheeky headline?

[Webbo]

2 minutes ago, Finnaldo said:

 

You could argue that publishing an article which says we should 'send gunboats instead of lifeboats' is wrong but the Daily Mail do it anyway, and people are reacting accordingly. 

 

And we've said numerous times, the point isn't to put them out to business, but continuing to publish a narrow-minded and extremely bias newspaper will send them down that road.

 

If I didn't want to go work tomorrow, I could stay at home. If I did though, I could fully expect my boss to ring me up and tell me to get on Jobsite. Do I deserve it? Yes, because I would know that I'd lose my job. Should the Daily Mail go out of business if it continues to publish papers that rarely pass the press regulations standards and creates a reaction of pressure groups trying to cease funding until it steps up into a proper standard of journalism? Yes, because they should realise that anti-journalistic shite that's being heavily criticised could conceivably lead to closure.

 

I already told you the difference between the Guardian and Mail in an earlier post. 

You're very naive if you think this is an attempt to raise standards. You don't like the Mail, don't buy it. 

[Carl the Llama]

Just now, Webbo said:

So the information was all in the article?

Is the debate about the contents of the article?  I only know about the graph because you quoted it and proceeded to completely misread the word "net migration" as "immigration".  I only know about there being more truthful words because you were kind enough to quote them.

 

Was the headline truthful?  Did immigration rise 20%?  Are more people likely to read the article or the headline?

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, Carl the Llama said:

Is the debate about the contents of the article?  I only know about the graph because you quoted it and proceeded to completely misread the word "net migration" as "immigration".  I only know about there being more truthful words because you were kind enough to quote them.

 

Was the headline truthful?  Did immigration rise 20%?  Are more people likely to read the article or the headline?

Yes and yes. You could argue that it would have been more technically correct to put net into the headline but it's a very weak argument.

[Finnaldo]

2 minutes ago, Webbo said:

You're very naive if you think this is an attempt to raise standards. You don't like the Mail, don't buy it. 

 

I don't buy it. I still get laboured with the faux-facts from headline readers, delivered by the Mail.

[Webbo]

2 minutes ago, Finnaldo said:

 

I don't buy it. I still get laboured with the faux-facts from headline readers, delivered by the Mail.

Good for you, why do you want to force others to not buy it either?

[Carl the Llama]

5 minutes ago, Strokes said:

But to be clear because people won't bugger off, we are still lumbered with an additional 20% and if immigration had reduced, as promised that figure could be much lower. 

So we can agree the tories ineptitude to fulfil a manifesto pledge, is worth an article at least? If not the cheeky headline?

Now that's a better analysis of the article.  Unfortunately the headline wasn't "TORIES' INEPTITUDE TO FULFIL A MANIFESTO PLEDGE".  Nobody would have taken issue with that.

 

2 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Yes and yes. You could argue that it would have been more technically correct to put net into the headline but it's a very weak argument.

 NO!

[leicsmac]

10 minutes ago, FireFox said:

Lego and others are allowed to change their mind. They are allowed to listen to groups of people who only recently brought up these concerns to a wider audience (because of the whole "openly gay judge" thing? which isn't a lie at all.. but don't deny it is spreading hate). Lego are allowed to be worried about their bottom line.

 

Pressure groups aren't deciding what I'm allowed to read. They are pressuring companies to not associate with other companies. If the newspaper loses funding, then they can search for funding from others. If the newspaper goes out of business, then it's their own fault. They are a business and this is how the free market works.

 

So if I then can't read this newspaper, it is indirectly because of the pressure groups, yes, but they aren't deciding, the free market it.

Again, this.

[FireFox]

5 minutes ago, Webbo said:

You're very naive if you think this is an attempt to raise standards. You don't like the Mail, don't buy it. 

Companies don't like the Mail's message, they don't need to advertise with the Mail.

 

Or, companies don't want to be associated with the Mail because it might hurt their bottom line (because of a pressure group), these companies don't need to associate with the Mail. This is how freedom of speech and the free market works.

 

Anyway... it's clear Webbo and others won't change how they view this, so I'll be done arguing.

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, Carl the Llama said:

Now that's a better analysis of the article.  Unfortunately the headline wasn't "TORIES' INEPTITUDE TO FULFIL A MANIFESTO PLEDGE".  Nobody would have taken issue with that.

 

 NO!

You're special too x

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, FireFox said:

Companies don't like the Mail's message, they don't need to advertise with the Mail.

 

Or, companies don't want to be associated with the Mail because it might hurt their bottom line (because of a pressure group), these companies don't need to associate with the Mail. This is how freedom of speech and the free market works.

 

Anyway... it's clear Webbo and others won't change how they view this, so I'll be done arguing.

Fair dos. This argument became pointless around 6 hours ago. Some people believe in free speech some don't. It's an imperfect world.

[Finnaldo]

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

Good for you, why do you want to force other to not buy it either?

 

Why do you want people to think immigration soared by 20% when, in accurate terms, emigration fell?

[Strokes]

Just now, Carl the Llama said:

Now that's a better analysis of the article.  Unfortunately the headline wasn't "TORIES' INEPTITUDE TO FULFIL A MANIFESTO PLEDGE".  Nobody would have taken issue with that.

 

 NO!

It's hardly inciting hate though is it? The end result is the same, the information is in the article and there is a rise in immigration. It's a bit naughty at best and it's to sell papers not peddle hate imo.

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, Finnaldo said:

 

Why do you want people to think immigration soared by 20% when, in accurate terms, emigration fell?

I'm bored with this now, read the article.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

Fair dos. This argument became pointless around 6 hours ago. Some people believe in free speech some don't. It's an imperfect world.

And clearly how free speech is defined is a pretty hotly debated topic, too.

[FireFox]

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

Fair dos. This argument became pointless around 6 hours ago. Some people believe in free speech some don't. It's an imperfect world.

Some people have differing opinions on what free speech is. It's a great world where we have the freedom of speech to argue about it.

[Strokes]

Just now, leicsmac said:

And clearly how free speech is defined is a pretty hotly debated topic, too.

And how hate is defined.

[bovril]

Ffs I want a sticker too.

[Strokes]

Just now, bovril said:

Ffs I want a sticker too.

Webbo has two, it's not fair.