Evans Cycles stops advertising with Daily Mail, Sun and Daily Express

Zjtm231 wrote:

Never seen so much hate and bile on a road.cc story. Comments are simultaneously accusing some newspapers of the same thing that they are actually doing. Real narrow mindedness...

Not wanting to support a newspaper like The Sun (because it lied about Liverpool fans) and the Daily Mail (because it called a Corbyn vist to terrorism victims a pr stunt) and the Daily Express (because it's just crap) is not being narrow minded.

I'm happy for speech to be free as long as it's not illegal, it helps to identify the dickheads, as much as trying to defend the above excuses for journalism is equally an indicator of fuckwits.

HTH.

S13SFC wrote:

All three rags are read by morons/Little-Englanders/racist scumbags/combination of all three.

 

Anything that takes cash away from them can only be a good thing.

Wonderful, liberal attitude. 

You should be proud of your superiority...

S13SFC wrote:

All three rags are read by morons/Little-Englanders/racist scumbags/combination of all three.

Is that Emily Thornberry?  Didn't have you down as a cyclist  

Valbrona wrote:

So-called reputable businesses that join in social media campaigns organized by some kid in their bedroom ... make themselves look stupid.

I think Evans Cycles must be run by a bunch of silly-arses.

The Sun and The Daily Mail are the biggest selling newspapers in the UK. So, Mr Evans Cycles, perhaps you might like to consder sticking up a note on your websits saying orders are not welcome from readers of The Sun, Mail or Express?

Laughable way to run a business. Alienating customers ain't very clever.

I liked Evans Cycles before this, and this is Brilliant! The Sun, the Mail and the Express are disgusting shams and anyone with half a brain should boycott them.

srchar wrote:

SFH are an intolerant bunch of rather spiteful people who advocate press censorship.  They are total hypocrites; they complain about the political influence weileded by big business while simultaneously encouraging those big businesses to withdraw advertising from, let's remember, completely legal publications, with the aim of forcing those publications out of business. Not winning arguments, not changing the views of their readers - just putting widely-read newspapers out of business.

The Mail is a rag, the Sun not much better - in my opinion - but this will do absolutely nothing to win the hearts and minds of those publications' readers and is a pure publicity stunt by Evans and I shall not applaud.

this ^^^

As others have said, it's a win for the illiberal liberal

Valbrona wrote:

Not going to buy anything from that bunch of fucking Reds again.

As for commercial boycotts, well the Nazis were quite good at that.

NB The Daily Mail has the largest female demographic of any UK newspaper, at over 50% I believe.

Yes lets boycott that bloody commie for-profit private business.

N.B. The Daily Mail has the largest readership demographic of morons at 100%.

Kudos on Godwin's law btw.

Valbrona wrote:

As for commercial boycotts, well the Nazis were quite good at that.

I never knew Hitler didn't like the TV commercials and had the Nazi's boycott them... what horrible bastards.

leqin wrote:

Valbrona wrote:

As for commercial boycotts, well the Nazis were quite good at that.

I never knew Hitler didn't like the TV commercials and had the Nazi's boycott them... what horrible bastards.

And I thought all you kids learn at school these days is stuff about the holocaust and the Nazis.

What don't you understand about the term 'commercial boycotts'? After the Nazis organized boycotts of Jewish-owned businesses they started putting bricks through windows.

Perhaps bricks-through-windows will be the next step for Stop Funding Hate.

Seems to be a fair few Daily Hell readers on this website.

Valbrona wrote:

leqin wrote:

Valbrona wrote:

As for commercial boycotts, well the Nazis were quite good at that.

I never knew Hitler didn't like the TV commercials and had the Nazi's boycott them... what horrible bastards.

And I thought all you kids learn at school these days is stuff about the holocaust and the Nazis.

What don't you understand about the term 'commercial boycotts'? After the Nazis organized boycotts of Jewish-owned businesses they started putting bricks through windows.

Perhaps bricks-through-windows will be the next step for Stop Funding Hate.

You're all over the place - first you claim that Evans Cycles are communists, next you're equating an organisation protesting about hate speech with Nazis, before capping it all off with speculating about hypothetical violence. And as stupid reductionism seems to be your stock in trade, do you not see how the three "newspapers" in question share far more with the Nazis than the organisation protesting against them?

Incidentally not all commercial boycotts are the same - was the anti apartheid boycott of Barclays like the Nazis? What about the ongoing boycott of Nestle for accusations of child slavery in cocoa plantations, union busting, environmental destruction, water exploitation etc. etc? Is that like the Nazis? Personally, I boycott Amazon because of tax avoidance - am I a Nazi?

I've just written Nazi five times in a single comment, on a cycling website. Crazy.

jasecd wrote:

What about the ongoing boycott of Nestle for accusations of child slavery in cocoa plantations, union busting, environmental destruction, water exploitation etc. etc?

I thought we were boycotting Nestle for selling women in areas without safe drinking water formula milk which had to be made up with (unsafe) water and telling them it was better for their babies then breast milk. Damn, but I'm behind the times...

brooksby wrote:

jasecd wrote:

What about the ongoing boycott of Nestle for accusations of child slavery in cocoa plantations, union busting, environmental destruction, water exploitation etc. etc?

I thought we were boycotting Nestle for selling women in areas without safe drinking water formula milk which had to be made up with (unsafe) water and telling them it was better for their babies then breast milk. Damn, but I'm behind the times...

Wait - Nestlé are/were selling women?? I think that deserves more than just a boycott!

mdavidford wrote:

brooksby wrote:

jasecd wrote:

What about the ongoing boycott of Nestle for accusations of child slavery in cocoa plantations, union busting, environmental destruction, water exploitation etc. etc?

I thought we were boycotting Nestle for selling women in areas without safe drinking water formula milk which had to be made up with (unsafe) water and telling them it was better for their babies then breast milk. Damn, but I'm behind the times...

 

Wait - Nestlé are/were selling women?? I think that deserves more than just a boycott!

Sorry, yeah, that sentence got a bit convoluted.  They were selling formula milk to the women, not selling the women.   I think.  

brooksby wrote:

mdavidford wrote:

brooksby wrote:

jasecd wrote:

What about the ongoing boycott of Nestle for accusations of child slavery in cocoa plantations, union busting, environmental destruction, water exploitation etc. etc?

I thought we were boycotting Nestle for selling women in areas without safe drinking water formula milk which had to be made up with (unsafe) water and telling them it was better for their babies then breast milk. Damn, but I'm behind the times...

 

Wait - Nestlé are/were selling women?? I think that deserves more than just a boycott!

Sorry, yeah, that sentence got a bit convoluted.  They were selling formula milk to the women, not selling the women.   I think.  

If only someone would invent the comma...

Valbrona wrote:

leqin wrote:

Valbrona wrote:

As for commercial boycotts, well the Nazis were quite good at that.

I never knew Hitler didn't like the TV commercials and had the Nazi's boycott them... what horrible bastards.

And I thought all you kids learn at school these days is stuff about the holocaust and the Nazis.

What don't you understand about the term 'commercial boycotts'? After the Nazis organized boycotts of Jewish-owned businesses they started putting bricks through windows.

Perhaps bricks-through-windows will be the next step for Stop Funding Hate.

Meanwhile, trade sanction, divestment and boycotts can be used to good and successful effect in some cases - South Africa being one example. This can work st a local level too - eg when Greede King bought a pub nr a brewery in sussex, then refused to stock that breweies beers. A year ot two later Greene King caved in.

Kinda funny that you're giving the example of the Nazis when this is pretty much the sort of mindset the Wail etc are appealing to, at least in part.

Valbrona wrote:

leqin wrote:

Valbrona wrote:

As for commercial boycotts, well the Nazis were quite good at that.

I never knew Hitler didn't like the TV commercials and had the Nazi's boycott them... what horrible bastards.

And I thought all you kids learn at school these days is stuff about the holocaust and the Nazis.

What don't you understand about the term 'commercial boycotts'? After the Nazis organized boycotts of Jewish-owned businesses they started putting bricks through windows.

Perhaps bricks-through-windows will be the next step for Stop Funding Hate.

Classic bully-playing-the-victim stuff. See it all the time from the hard-right, but it never gets any less pathetic.

You do know what the Daily Mail was saying about Hitler back then, right? You know which side they were on, yes?

Unfortunately for you, we still have some elements of a democracy here and people have the right to take their business where they wish. Nobody is obliged to financially assist a paper that supported your beloved Nazis, however much you wish you could force them to do so.

Compulsory financial support for the political propaganda you favour - is that the next step for you, then? You going to throw bricks through windows of those who don't do as you say?

LOL at some of the comments here! 

Also some seem to be conflating Liberalism with left/ right wing continuum. It doesn't always follow that the right are illiberal and the left liberal. In fact judging by some of the comments here, the left are highly intolerant! but then we know that from many on the the left who voted remain and believe all leavers are racist lol..

As for this..

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Unfortunately for you, we still have some elements of a democracy

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Nobody is obliged to financially assist a paper that supported your beloved Nazis, however much you wish you could force them to do so.  

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

You going to throw bricks through windows of those who don't do as you say?

..whilst I don't sympathise with Valbrona's view, you've resorted to personal attacks by making out he/she has Nazi sympathies, so have lost the argument.

700c wrote:

LOL at some of the comments here! 

Also some seem to be conflating Liberalism with left/ right wing continuum. It doesn't always follow that the right are illiberal and the left liberal. In fact judging by some of the comments here, the left are highly intolerant! but then we know that from many on the the left who voted remain and believe all leavers are racist lol..

As for this..

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Unfortunately for you, we still have some elements of a democracy

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Nobody is obliged to financially assist a paper that supported your beloved Nazis, however much you wish you could force them to do so.  

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

You going to throw bricks through windows of those who don't do as you say?

..whilst I don't sympathise with Valbrona's view, you've resorted to personal attacks by making out he/she has Nazi sympathies, so have lost the argument.

 

 

You pretty clearly _do_ sympathise with Valbrona, as you selectively choose to get upset at an implication that he sympathises with Nazis while totally ignoring his association of others first with communists and then with Nazis.
(Despite the fact that _he's_ the one blatantly supporting a paper that historically published editorials praising Herr Hitler)

You carefully ignore the fact that he was the one to first invoke window-breaking. Why is that, I wonder? Why your selective blindness?

Your selectivity in choosing only to get sanctimonious about the retaliation but not the original slur tells me a lot.

Also I notice you completely fail to actually answer the points you quoted. Valbrona's whole argument was based on insisting its defacto wrong for people to choose who they do business with. Are you saying you agree with him on that or not? Get off the sanctimony fence and be open about what you are saying, at least be honestly wrong (your reluctance to admit to what side you are on suggests you are indeed a liberal - a type who tend to be on the side of the right while not admitting it)

Edit - Actually your whole comment seems desperately confused. Liberals are generally on the soft-right, though they tend to be a kind of right-winger who doesn't like admitting it.

And if anyone voted 'remain' while insisting leavers were all racists, it would be liberals. A good part of the actual left supported leave (pretty obviously Corbyn was ambivalent at best). Remain was first-and-foremost a cause of liberals.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

700c wrote:

LOL at some of the comments here! 

Also some seem to be conflating Liberalism with left/ right wing continuum. It doesn't always follow that the right are illiberal and the left liberal. In fact judging by some of the comments here, the left are highly intolerant! but then we know that from many on the the left who voted remain and believe all leavers are racist lol..

As for this..

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Unfortunately for you, we still have some elements of a democracy

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Nobody is obliged to financially assist a paper that supported your beloved Nazis, however much you wish you could force them to do so.  

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

You going to throw bricks through windows of those who don't do as you say?

..whilst I don't sympathise with Valbrona's view, you've resorted to personal attacks by making out he/she has Nazi sympathies, so have lost the argument.

 

 

You pretty clearly _do_ sympathise with Valbrona, as you selectively choose to get upset at an implication that he sympathises with Nazis while totally ignoring his association of others first with communists and then with Nazis. (Despite the fact that _he's_ the one blatantly supporting a paper that historically published editorials praising Herr Hitler) You carefully ignore the fact that he was the one to first invoke window-breaking. Why is that, I wonder? Why your selective blindness? Your selectivity in choosing only to get sanctimonious about the retaliation but not the original slur tells me a lot. Also I notice you completely fail to actually answer the points you quoted. Valbrona's whole argument was based on insisting its defacto wrong for people to choose who they do business with. Are you saying you agree with him on that or not? Get off the sanctimony fence and be open about what you are saying, at least be honestly wrong (your reluctance to admit to what side you are on suggests you are indeed a liberal - a type who tend to be on the side of the right while not admitting it) Edit - Actually your whole comment seems desperately confused. Liberals are generally on the soft-right, though they tend to be a kind of right-winger who doesn't like admitting it. And if anyone voted 'remain' while insisting leavers were all racists, it would be liberals. A good part of the actual left supported leave (pretty obviously Corbyn was ambivalent at best). Remain was first-and-foremost a cause of liberals.

LOL