To think Paperchase shouldn't have apologised?

[jenniferl1983]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42057493

Paperchase have apologised for a promotional giveaway that was featured in the Daily Mail. They were lobbied by the campaign group Stop Funding Hate and have now promised they ''won't ever do it again''.

AIBU to think they shouldn't have backed down so easily on the back of some social media messages? Businesses seem now to be so scared of causing a media furore that they now apologise for anything (see the 1 gender fluid man who got Topshop to change their dressing room policy).

This isn't an incident where someone has received appalling or dangerous service or been discriminated against, it's just a promotion in a newspaper. I don't understand the ott grovelling.

It's fairly simple as far as I'm concerned. I can spend my money where I like and I choose to spend it with businesses that behave ethically.
Anyone giving money to the Daily Mail is tacitly accepting the kind of hate speech and propaganda that the DM peddles. They're saying either that hate speech is just 'opinion' or that they don't really care where they advertise as long as they make money.
Advertising with the DM is an active choice on their part.
That's not the kind of company I want to give my money to and I don't.

I thought the DM was full of celebrity twaddle.
Hence I never read it.
You mean they are actually writing articles now - if bigotted?

We got Brexit when the Twitterati thought they ruled the world.

@BiglyBadgers

The link you posted doesn't tie in with your assertions.The 'abuse' was evenly spread across parties.

There are also issues such as classing 'fat bitch' as sexist when 'fat bastard' seems equally insulting and a direct equivalent. Interpretation of tweets also seems off. 'Poked with a dildo' doesn't strike me as a rape threat or sexual thread.

Besides which, Abbott is fucking useless. She doesn't (no one does) deserve racist abuse or direct threats but she certainly deserves more criticism that most cabinet or shadow cabinet members I can think of.

stupidity the assertion in the post I was responding to was that it is the left who carry out attacks on the right while the right are all nice and polite. This is so clearly not the case it's ridiculous and the article shows it. I don't care how useless you may feel Abbott is, and I don't think she is any more useless than Boris Johnson for example, she has been constantly singled out for abuse. Anyway, I don't want to sidetrack the thread and think I've made the point to anyone willing to listen.

[I] think I've made the point to anyone willing to listen.

I read hundreds of IB extended essays every year and this is appalling.

No, bigly. You've missed the point entirely.

Of course the abuse against Diane Abbott that was based on anything other than her incompetence was not ok. But it was not ONLY from the right side. Basically nobody thought she could do the job. And that's why it was a poor example in the first place.

The point is, there's a certain type of left winger who loves to tell others what to do and say, whilst claiming the moral high ground if anyone says something different. That's what has happened here, and it was absolutely rampant during the election. "If you disagree with me you're racist and sexist and all the -ists because I have the moral high ground". It gets people's backs up and it stifles discussion that might actually change the mind of someone who dislikes immigrants, for example. There are better ways to do it.

No, they were right to applogise. The DM is a hate-filled rag. It's not an opinion, it's a fact which can easily be proven!

I agree with Rebecca and made the point earlier that there is a long running thread about a 19 year old man saying he's a woman. "I AM a woman and you WILL refer to me as she and if you don't then YOU ARE TRANSPHOBIC AND A BIGOT".

Well OP - try spouting Daily Mail racist, xenophobic, sexist views to friends, family, at work. See if all smile and accept it. I presume you would feel able and just fine doing this, wouldn't you? In the name of freedom of speech it would be entirely acceptable, people will smile and nod en masse, even if they don't agree with you they won't protest. So, say as you please...

@berliozwooler

Easily proven yet you didn't.

I bet you don't prove it.

Life - some people do precisely that.

Even more surprisingly, some others AGREE with them.

That's why there are better ways of changing people's minds IMO. Discussion and listening to people's concerns so that you can debunk them is usually more effective than just telling them they are racist.

Of course some people are just racist twats!

No, they were right to applogise. The DM is a hate-filled rag. It's not an opinion, it's a fact which can easily be proven!

which they knew when they planned and launched the collaboration. Which is exactly why they should not have apologised, because they aren't slightly sorry.

@malcomTucker if you go on the Stop Funding Hate Facebook page you’ll see plenty of proof.

The Daily Mail labelled three High Court Judges as 'enemies of the people': possibly the most frightening headline on a national newspaper in decades. Oh no, wait, 'Crush the saboteurs' might just have had the edge on it. One of their columnists instigated a campaign against a harmless and popular schoolteacher which drove that teacher to suicide.
People politely requesting that companies take their business and their money elsewhere is a legitimate form of protest. The companies are, as PP have said, at liberty to ignore the requests on the grounds that their target market is not interested in the viewpoint that the Mail is a bad newspaper and a bad influence - and equally at liberty to decide that their target market will be more likely to shop with them if they pull their advertising and/or apologise. Companies pull advertising from media outlets for all sorts of reasons (the chief executive doesn't like the paper's lack of condemnation of gay marriage/the new media adviser reckons the public disapprove of the radio station's contentious new DJ/the presenter of the television programme sponsored by the company duffs up someone in what is widely reported as a racist assault...) They have always been at liberty to do this.
Yes, there have always been screaming arseholes on both the left and the right. But the right are rather more self-unaware than the left - moaning away about 'snowflakes' and safe spaces, yet absolutely crapping themselves with fury whenever there is any criticism of the institutions of white, male, wealthy power. Look at the shrieking, stamping rage of pro-Brexit voters every and any time anyone points out the obvious - that only 37% of the population actually voted to leave the EU, that quite a lot of those people now bitterly regret it and feel they were either mistaken or misled, and that it is an unmitigated fucking disaster.

To all the DM haters posters, I take it you'll be boycotting the remaining advertisers? Sainsbury's, M&S, Waitrose, Asda, M&S to name just a few?

Some people do choose to boycott as many advertisers as they can - or at least write to their head offices to complain. Again, this is their democratic right. If enough people object to a company's practices and refuse to do business there for the company to lose a great deal of money, the company may either change its practices - or be obliged to shut down. This, again, is democracy: if a company displeases its customers, they are at liberty to choose not to give it their money.

southeast, not possible to boycott all, but yes I sent my Nectar card back when they joined with the Mail. Some of us do what we can.

So, the consensus seems to be if you disagree with the DM's politics, it is right that Paperchase were forced to apologise?

Interesting that people are so wilfully misreading what is being said about this. Katyppp, it has been made clear that the issue is not whether people disagree with the Mail's politics, but that they disagree with the way it lies outright repeatedly in order to pursue an agenda which essentially is built on hatred of vulnerable people?

Do some people on this thread really want to stop people from writing to companies and asking them to stop doing something (eg. advertising in a paper)?

Seriously?

You think it is not right that people have the right to write/email a company and politely request X, Y, Z?

Because that is what you seem to be saying.

Such a tiny right - the right to put pen to paper; to tap a keyboard and press 'Send' - and you want to take it away?

That, my friend, is an authoritarian impulse.

It's actually rather scary.

"Some of us do what we can" - NOT aimed at a PP, but from what I see on social media, this seems to be aimed at back patting for things like refusing to have sky (but happily watching the football on sky in the pub ) and not using a nectar card but happily using a sparks card etc. Meanwhile what are they actually contributing or doing in a practical sense? It's just online preachiness.

the only person I know of IRL who has actually fostered a refugee is the mother of a FOAF who is also an avid daily mail reader. The only other person I know who reads the daily mail on a daily basis is my friend's mother - an Indian immigrant. She says she likes the gossip and the crossword! People aren't always so black and white...

I am told that the DM has a good gardening page. It has another function but you can get a better product on a cardboard roll in several pastel colours.

Boycott what you like; I grew up without Outspan and kept it out of my home until the end of apartheid. Just remember that the purpose of a boycott is to make you feel good, not to change anything. And it has to be an individual or at the highest a household decision; not the decision of the government or the council or your employer - even if you work for the council or the government. It was all wrong that some councils “forbade” their staff from going to apartheid-era South Africa unless they got permission to visit family. Too bloody East German.

Those that are defending the DM would you be as comfortable listening to their hate speech if we replaced what ever buzzword they are currently using i.e. immigrants, gypsies, feckless poor to white people and then all of it was coming out of the mouth of someone who had anything other than white skin and wasnt a christian but followed another faith?

I doubt the answer will be yes

I can't take the phrase 'hate speech' seriously. Either it's incitement or it's not. If it's not, I don't care.

thecatfromjapan
Do some people on this thread really want to stop people from writing to companies and asking them to stop doing something (eg. advertising in a paper)?
Because that is what you seem to be saying.

Really? Maybe I missed those posts. Who has said they want to stop people from writing to companies and asking them to stop doing something?

JustAnotherPoster00
Those that are defending the DM would you be as comfortable listening to their hate speech

What is your definition of hate speech?