# Should the Sun be Boycotted? (poll)



## Diana9 (Dec 7, 2014)

*Russell Brand Takes Down Rupert Murdoch (Again), Calls For A Boycott Of The Sun Newspaper*

*“They know if they attack me, the issues don't get discussed. The issues are big companies are avoiding tax while ordinary people are getting shafted. The Sun says it’s the paper of the people, your Sun, Britain’s Sun - but it isn’t.

"It’s the paper of corporate Britain, of corporate America; it’s the paper of crushing ordinary working people, of disparaging and criticising people when they’re suffering the most. Victimising us, turning ordinary working people against on another.

"It’s about exploitation of ordinary working people, creating sensationalism whilst ignoring the people it’s supposed to help."
*

*http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/201...working-people-boycott-the-sun_n_6278396.html*

**


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 7, 2014)

* Does the Sun really speak to more people than Russell Brand? *
The Sun has stepped up its attacks on Russell Brand in recent days but in many ways the comedian is now much more influential than the paper

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/dec/05/the-sun-speak-more-people-russell-brand


----------



## FNG (Dec 7, 2014)

you will probably find most people here have been boycotting the sun for years,for a variety of reasons.


----------



## BigTom (Dec 7, 2014)

#Jft96. Page 3. Phone hacking. right wing Tory paper.

Never buy the sun. Not too bothered about their hatchet job on brand, nature of celebrity culture innit.


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 7, 2014)

FNG said:


> you will probably find most people here have been boycotting the sun for years,for a variety of reasons.



Individuals boycotting is a good first step.  However, to have a greater impact, the next step is boycotting the stores that sell the Sun, until they take it off their shelves.  That would take some serious organizing.


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 7, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> Individuals boycotting is a good first step.  However, to have a greater impact, the next step is boycotting the stores that sell the Sun, until they take it off their shelves.  That would take some serious organizing.


Good luck with that


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 7, 2014)

I'm getting the hump after that YouTube clip - I resent Wolfie Smith instructing right-thinking people to do something they were already doing before Wolfie came along.


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 7, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Good luck with that



I can see how people are not ready for taking a more active roll in changing the system. Not yet anyway.  But it would be a good testing ground.  The Sun is small-fry in the larger scheme of things -- I'm sure sensible people don't take it seriously --  but you have to start somewhere.  Taking on companies like Monsanto are the bigger fish to fry.


----------



## BCBlues (Dec 7, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> I'm getting the hump after that YouTube clip - I resent Wolfie Smith instructing right-thinking people to do something they were already doing before Wolfie came along.



This.

Its not so long ago that Brand was strutting around with that other playground bully Jonathon Ross.
Ross has since wormed his way back into the establishment leaving Mr Roots Rock Rebel to look the pillock he is.

As for the sun picking on him, i wouldnt know, its just never been welcome in our household, maybe they deserve each other.


----------



## stethoscope (Dec 7, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> Individuals boycotting is a good first step.  However, to have a greater impact, the next step is boycotting the stores that sell the Sun, until they take it off their shelves.  That would take some serious organizing.



I'm the American who hasn't got a clue about what a lot of posters here are involved in/have been involved in over the years politically, but I'm going to tell them what they ought to be doing anyway.

Coz my mate Brand.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 7, 2014)

The Sun is already being boycotted by many people for just as many reasons. We didn't need another Brand-gate to correct our thinking.


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 7, 2014)

stethoscope said:


> I'm the American who hasn't got a clue about what a lot of posters here are involved in/have been involved in over the years politically, but I'm going to tell them what they ought to be doing anyway.
> 
> Coz my mate Brand.



Oh yes, Russell Brand shouldn't talk because he's "not one of us," he's a rich celebrity; Americans shouldn't talk because they're "not one of us" they're not British.  I never knew the British were so parochial in their thinking.

I've spent a few days on Urban and most of what I see, with some exceptions, are a snide bunch of little twits.

Not my cup of tea.


----------



## stethoscope (Dec 7, 2014)

Hows changing the US political system/media going for you?


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 7, 2014)

stethoscope said:


> Hows changing the US political system/media going for you?



Newsflash:  the problems are global.


----------



## stethoscope (Dec 7, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> Newsflash:  the problems of the world are global.



So boycotting the Sun now is hardly a pressing political issue then (not too mention you're well late to this cause - did you even care about the Sun until Brand?)

Vote Democrat?


----------



## likesfish (Dec 7, 2014)

If its the choice between brand or the sun its comrade Brand.
   He's the only person saying this stuff to more than a handful of people tht the general public have heard of.
 Yes he's an annoying rich berk.
 But he got that money through show buisness rather than inheriting or being a mouth piece for an even more disgusting regime.

Suns stick is he's a rich annoying berk
 Brands stick the sun is evil sexist corrupt and criminal all true.
 Go comrade Brand your not the hero the uk needs its the hero we've got


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 7, 2014)

"It has never been clearer that the country's best self is a global inheritance, its worst a parochial self-certainty." —Jedediah Purdy, _New York Times Book Review_, 22 Feb. 2009


----------



## youngian (Dec 7, 2014)

No one on here needs Brand to inform them the Sun are scum but it has reminded me how few mainstream celebs stick their necks out if you're old enough to remember Wham doing miners support gigs and Lenny Henry backing the Wapping dispute. His twattery and faults have been well aired on another thread but if his 3m Twitter followers are hanging onto his every word about Murdoch and the Sun I won't lose any sleep. The problem is when he gives a platform to his dubious friends like Alex Jones and Max Keiser he is an unbearable twat out of his depth.


----------



## stethoscope (Dec 7, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> "It has never been clearer that the country's best self is a global inheritance, its worst a parochial self-certainty." —Jedediah Purdy, _New York Times Book Review_, 22 Feb. 2009



Purdy, who is part of a 'radical centrist' think tank.

A 'radical centrist' I ask you?!


----------



## weepiper (Dec 7, 2014)

Wouldn't use The Sun to wipe my arse with. Don't need a Brand acolyte to tell me that.


----------



## youngian (Dec 7, 2014)

Does Gambit supply the coffee? (heck showing my age there)


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 7, 2014)

stethoscope said:


> Purdy, who is part of a 'radical centrist' think tank.
> 
> A 'radical centrist' I ask you?!



Is there something in the water that makes so many Urban members focus on the person rather than what is said?


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 7, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> Oh yes, Russell Brand shouldn't talk because he's "not one of us," he's a rich celebrity; Americans shouldn't talk because they're "not one of us" they're not British.  I never knew the British were so parochial in their thinking.
> 
> I've spent a few days on Urban and most of what I see, with some exceptions, are a snide bunch of little twits.
> 
> Not my cup of tea.



We are so shrunken in mind and spirit, so shrivelled with envy, we can not help ourselves. A dark and stunted life, to be sure. Oh, if only someone could save us! Release us from the under the stairs cupboard of our own making!


----------



## stethoscope (Dec 7, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> Is there something in the water that makes so many Urban members focus on the person rather than what is said?



Just regurgitating what someone says, without analysing that persons politics, is problematic.


----------



## emanymton (Dec 7, 2014)

Fucks sake coming on here and telling people to boycott the sun. 

Here's a tip in order to boycott something you have to be buying it in the first place.


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 7, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> Is there something in the water that makes so many Urban members focus on the person rather than what is said?



No, that'll be years of collective political experience and thinking about the role of the individual as substituting for the self-activity of the working class.


----------



## purenarcotic (Dec 7, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> Is there something in the water that makes so many Urban members focus on the person rather than what is said?



It's quite important to look at the person behind a statement.


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 7, 2014)

emanymton said:


> Fucks sake coming on here and telling people to boycott the sun.
> 
> Here's a tip in order to boycott something you have to be buying it in the first place.



It was a question, not an order, a question Russell Brand was asking.  He's British, is he not?  Oh right, he's a celebrity.  He should shut up. lol


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 7, 2014)

purenarcotic said:


> It's quite important to look at the person behind a statement.


in case you nearly end up sharing a platform with a nazi


----------



## Dogsauce (Dec 7, 2014)

Anyone in their right mind here hasn't put a penny Murdochs way for a good couple of decades, the more clued up will avoid his other businesses like Sky, Harper-Collins etc.  

The Sun's behaviour is nothing out of the ordinary, I'd rather they pick on Brand who has a platform to defend himself than they pick on immigrants, single mums and anyone on benefits who doesn't.


----------



## chilango (Dec 7, 2014)

Diana9 did you buy The Sun prior to their attacks on Brand?


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 7, 2014)

purenarcotic said:


> It's quite important to look at the person behind a statement.



I don't know and don't care who the person is.  Truth is stand alone.  Doesn't matter who says it. Agree or disagree with the statement.  

"Great minds _discuss ideas_; average minds _discuss_ events; _small minds discuss people_." - Eleanor Roosevelt

Got something to say about Eleanor?


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 7, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> Anyone in their right mind here hasn't put a penny Murdochs way for a good couple of decades



It seems a lot of people are buying the Sun, otherwise they wouldn't be in business.


----------



## stethoscope (Dec 7, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> I don't know and don't care who the person is.  Truth is stand alone.  Doesn't matter who says it. Agree or disagree with the statement



Christ thats naive


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 7, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> It seems a lot of people are buying the Sun, otherwise they wouldn't be in business.



Not where I live they aren't ...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...p-pride-edition-of-sun-newspaper-9531999.html


----------



## emanymton (Dec 7, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> Newsflash:  the problems are global.


I see so that problems are global, but we should act by boycotting something none us buy anyway. You on the other hand don't need to do anything.


----------



## weepiper (Dec 7, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> I don't know and don't care who the person is.  Truth is stand alone.  Doesn't matter who says it. Agree or disagree with the statement.
> 
> "Great minds _discuss ideas_; average minds _discuss_ events; _small minds discuss people_." - Eleanor Roosevelt
> 
> Got something to say about Eleanor?


The enemy of my enemy is my friend thing worked out so well with Osama Bin Laden, for example.


----------



## chilango (Dec 7, 2014)

chilango said:


> Diana9 did you buy The Sun prior to their attacks on Brand?



well Diana9 ?


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 7, 2014)

weepiper said:


> The enemy of my enemy is my friend thing worked out so well with Osama Bin Laden, for example.



You just made my point.  "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a true enough statement, as far as how nations and other entities align themselves.


----------



## newbie (Dec 7, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> Got something to say about Eleanor?


another celeb.  who is she, why does what she says matter?


----------



## Geri (Dec 7, 2014)

I would be surprised it there was anyone on here who bought it.


----------



## weepiper (Dec 7, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> You just made my point.  "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a true enough statement, as far as how nations and other entities align themselves.


I didn't make the point you think I made


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 7, 2014)

Shine your light in my small dark mind Diana!


----------



## Ax^ (Dec 7, 2014)

Can we still buy the daily mail?


----------



## JimW (Dec 7, 2014)

It's like a Monkees' cover, "I saw his Youtube rant, now I'm a believer."


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 7, 2014)

Ax^ said:


> Can we still buy the daily mail


only if there is a free DVD on the front and in any case you should probably just steal the DVD


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 7, 2014)

emanymton said:


> I see so that problems are global, but we should act by boycotting something none us buy anyway. You on the other hand don't need to do anything.



So what if you or I don't buy it.  Other people do.

You not buying something isn't a boycott, it's a preference.  I don't buy lots of things I don't like, that doesn't make it a boycott.  The point is to persuade other people not to buy it.  For that you have to be a lot more proactive.


----------



## purenarcotic (Dec 7, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> I don't know and don't care who the person is.  Truth is stand alone.  Doesn't matter who says it. Agree or disagree with the statement.
> 
> "Great minds _discuss ideas_; average minds _discuss_ events; _small minds discuss people_." - Eleanor Roosevelt
> 
> Got something to say about Eleanor?



Yes, actually.  But I won't bother, seeing as you won't pay any attention or engage in any kind of sensible discussion.


----------



## maomao (Dec 7, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> You not buying something isn't a boycott, it's a preference.


Actually, there have been organised boycotts of The Sun in this country for 25 years.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-17113382


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 7, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> So what if you or I don't buy it.  Other people do.
> 
> You not buying something isn't a boycott, it's a preference.  I don't buy lots of things I don't like, that doesn't make it a boycott.  The point is to persuade other people not to buy it.  For that you have to be a lot more proactive.



There's been a boycott of the Sun for 25 years following the Hillsborough disaster. Someone posted a link. Go educate yourself.

Eta, that's 2 links now.


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 7, 2014)

maomao said:


> Actually, there have been organised boycotts of The Sun in this country for 25 years.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-17113382



Obviously the boycotts were ineffective, since the Sun is still alive and thriving.


----------



## purenarcotic (Dec 7, 2014)

Oh FFS. 

Well, now you've come along and told us what to do then it's bound to work. 

Jesus.


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 7, 2014)

purenarcotic said:


> Yes, actually.  But I won't bother, seeing as you won't pay any attention or engage in any kind of sensible discussion.



Great, one less heckler to contend with. You've made my day!


----------



## newbie (Dec 7, 2014)

Geri said:


> I would be surprised it there was anyone on here who bought it.





Ax^ said:


> Can we still buy the daily mail?



first world dilemma: to fit in with day to day class and peers or with the norms on an internet forum 

Made easy because few people buy newsprint these days, but the Sun has a quarter of a million paywall subscribers, the Times/ST are now profitable, and the Mail's sidebar of hate is the most visited news site in the world.


----------



## Geri (Dec 7, 2014)

Most newspapers are full of stuff about people I've never heard of. Colleague picks me up a Metro most days and I go through it thinking "Who? who?"

Sometimes I quite like being old and out of touch.


----------



## newbie (Dec 7, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> There's been a boycott of the Sun for 25 years following the Hillsborough disaster. Someone posted a link. Go educate yourself.
> 
> Eta, that's 2 links now.


I was at Wapping when the horses charged, not bought Murdoch once since then


----------



## maomao (Dec 7, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> Obviously the boycotts were ineffective, since the Sun is still alive and thriving.


In the fifth largest city in our country it's almost impossible to buy it. The paper didn't even try to give away it's free world cup edition there. I'd call that pretty effective, the paper certainly felt it. I'd be surprised if Brand could even get a newspaper run out of a small town.


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 7, 2014)

purenarcotic said:


> Oh FFS.
> 
> Well, now you've come along and told us what to do then it's bound to work.
> 
> Jesus.



Sharing ideas is not a bad thing.  Not in my book.  I'm open to ideas.


----------



## emanymton (Dec 7, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> So what if you or I don't buy it.  Other people do.
> 
> You not buying something isn't a boycott, it's a preference.  I don't buy lots of things I don't like, that doesn't make it a boycott.  The point is to persuade other people not to buy it.  For that you have to be a lot more proactive.


The point is Diana that coming on here telling people The Sun is bad that we shouldn't buy it and should try and stop others buying it is, the use one of the world's more bizarre expressions, 'teaching your grandmother to suck eggs'. 

The fact that you have started this thread shows that you don't really get this place. 

Anyway I am going to stop being mean before I get accuse of bulling you. 

If Brand has resulted in you having something of a political awakening then that is a good thing. But I don't think Brand will lead you anywhere worth going, for all the reasons given on the other thread. My advice is stop thinking about Brand, start thinking about the issues. Maybe read some of the other threads on here and ask yourself what you and do to change things.


----------



## purenarcotic (Dec 7, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> Sharing ideas is not a bad thing.  Not in my book.  I'm open to ideas.



Yes so are lots of people.  You are not the first person to have discovered sharing ideas.  But part of sharing ideas is discussing them, thinking about it from others' perspectives etc.

Many people have attempted to engage in discussion as to why simply taking statements by people without investigating that person's politics / position is not the wisest move to make.  You have no interest in sharing or discussing ideas.  But carry on steamrollering through because you're making yourself look like a right tit.


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 7, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> Great, one less heckler to contend with. You've made my day!



Oh Diana, how forcefully you banish the nay sayers!


----------



## JimW (Dec 7, 2014)

emanymton said:


> ...My advice is stop thinking about Brand, start thinking about the issues...


As Eleanor Roosevelt was quoted saying by Diana, apparently missing the irony.


----------



## emanymton (Dec 7, 2014)

JimW said:


> As Eleanor Roosevelt was quoted saying by Diana, apparently missing the irony.


I must have missed that one


----------



## coley (Dec 7, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> Great, one less heckler to contend with. You've made my day!


Your quite easily pleased, aren't you?


----------



## JimW (Dec 7, 2014)

emanymton said:


> I must have missed that one


Even dead first ladies are talking about Russell Brand, our saviour walking amongst us!


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 7, 2014)

newbie said:


> another celeb.  who is she, why does what she says matter?



Wow.  

I'm sure you would want to be understood, but why would anything you say matter?  Who are you?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 7, 2014)

Shit troll is shit ...


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 7, 2014)

maomao said:


> In the fifth largest city in our country it's almost impossible to buy it. The paper didn't even try to give away it's free world cup edition there. I'd call that pretty effective, the paper certainly felt it. I'd be surprised if Brand could even get a newspaper run out of a small town.


remember this from the recentish past?


----------



## newbie (Dec 7, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> Wow.
> 
> I'm sure you would want to be understood, but why would anything you say matter?  Who are you?


I'm just an anonymous brit on a forum, nothing (or everything) I say matters.  But you quoted this Eleanor as though she has some sort of status, meaning, kudos, gravitas... as though she matters.  I'm asking you to explain why you think her words, trite as they are, have any relevance to us.


----------



## maomao (Dec 7, 2014)

You'll notice Diana9 that despite the reaction to your posts that no-one's voted to not boycott The Sun yet (you'll get some later, but single figures). If Brand had said that people should support the already existing boycotts of The Sun there'd be little to object to.


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 7, 2014)

newbie said:


> I'm just an anonymous brit on a forum, nothing (or everything) I say matters.  But you quoted this Eleanor as though she has some sort of status, meaning, kudos, gravitas... as though she matters.  I'm asking you to explain why you think her words, trite as they are, have any relevance to us.



When one quotes it is standard practice to attribute the quote to the person who said it.  Your prejudice against "celebrities" gets in the way of your taking in the thoughts being expressed.  You're too focused on people, and not enough on the ideas, as the quote said.


----------



## weltweit (Dec 7, 2014)

Russel Brand can get to fuck ...

I have never bought the Sun in the last 50 years!


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 7, 2014)

maomao said:


> You'll notice Diana9 that despite the reaction to your posts that no-one's voted to not boycott The Sun yet (you'll get some later, but single figures). If Brand had said that people should support the already existing boycotts of The Sun there'd be little to object to.



Brand didn't say anybody "should," nor did I.  He asked a question.  

But I get it.  You're already doing it, so you take offense when anybody brings up boycotting because you're already there. You've done your share.  Good for you.  You can sit back and rest on your laurels.

Meanwhile, the Sun is not hurting.  They're still in business.


----------



## newbie (Dec 7, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> When one quotes it is standard practice to attribute the quote to the person who said it.  Your prejudice against "celebrities" gets in the way of your taking in the thoughts being expressed.  You're too focused on people, and not enough on the ideas, as the quote said.


these people exist in a vacuum, they say something which is standalone, which does not express any overriding narrative, beit class, race, gender or politics?  Is that how it works?  Or could it be that they frame the discourse from their position of power? 

You are preaching the utterances of a member of the ruling class of your country at a bunch of peasants here who (frankly) know a lot more about the Sun than you do.  Why is the sneering of your heroine important to us?


----------



## maomao (Dec 7, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> Meanwhile, the Sun is not hurting. They're still in business.


Well I'll not buy it twice then! Or three times!

And you've taken a lot more offence than I have, I was being perfectly polite.


----------



## andysays (Dec 7, 2014)

BigTom said:


> #Jft96. Page 3. Phone hacking. right wing Tory paper.
> 
> Never buy the sun. Not too bothered about their hatchet job on brand, nature of celebrity culture innit.



You missed out union busting around the Wapping dispute which where it began for me because my dad was directly involved in that (but I'll forgive you).

Some of us have been boycotting not just the Sun but Murdoch and News International in general for three decades now, Diana9, and not just as isolated individuals or in response to calls from a celeb, but as on-going campaigns rooted in trade unions and communities.

You're welcome to join RB's lastest campaign, but recognise that you and he are a bit late to the party, so we don't need or appreciate you telling us what we should be doing or that we haven't been doing right until you came along to lead us.

Maybe, given your US location, you can tell us what you know about campaigns there to boycott or resist News International, Sky, Fox, etc which might be info that is new to at least some of us, though we already have our share of committed american posters who are likely involved in such things already.


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 7, 2014)

maomao said:


> Well I'll not buy it twice then! Or three times!
> 
> And you've taken a lot more offence than I have, I was being perfectly polite.



You can't offend me.  That would be silly.   I'm taking all this in like research, seeing patterns of mind, within group dynamics.

From what I've gathered so far, I find Urban is rather cliquish and mean-spirited.


----------



## Tankus (Dec 7, 2014)

Can't remember the last time I bought a newspaper.....got to be more than a decade ....and as soon as they go paywalled on line ..that's the end of that .....
No sky ......and when my big TV gives up the ghost ...its not getting replaced ..so no beeb eventually.


Brands a knob


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Dec 7, 2014)

emanymton said:


> The point is Diana that coming on here telling people The Sun is bad that we shouldn't buy it and should try and stop others buying it is, the use one of the world's more bizarre expressions, 'teaching your grandmother to suck eggs'.
> 
> The fact that you have started this thread shows that you don't really get this place.
> 
> ...




Thread title is a question .. not a direction or order....

Lots of people read this site....without comment. Is it not possible then that a fair discussion can exist without members assuming it is an order directed at them to do or not do something? 

The Sun is a rag and I wouldn't ever buy it for more reasons than Russel Brand can come up with....
So why are some members here taking a thread about the possibility of boycotting the Sun so personally? If it's worth boycotting then why react to a poster who is discussing even more reasons to boycot it?


----------



## emanymton (Dec 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Thread title is a question .. not a direction or order....
> 
> Lots of people read this site....without comment. Is it not possible then that a fair discussion can exist without members assuming it is an order directed at them to do or not do something?
> 
> ...



Because we are being asked to boycott the sun because they said something bad about Brand not for any of the other very good reasons for doing so. And frankly being shit to Brand hardly turns up on my radar of shit The Sun does. 

Because the whole thing is another example of Brand's involvement turning things into a celebrity focused media battle, because it makes it about him. His response should be that at least when you they attack him they have to a least mention the issues he is concerned about. 

Because a boycott of The Sun does nothing to actually help the campaigns he is supporting it just helps him. The Liverpool boycott was directly linked to a particular campaign. This is just Brand being Naffed off because they had a go at him.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Dec 7, 2014)

newbie said:


> these people exist in a vacuum, they say something which is standalone, which does not express any overriding narrative, beit class, race, gender or politics?  Is that how it works?  Or could it be that they frame the discourse from their position of power?
> 
> You are preaching the utterances of a member of the ruling class of your country at a bunch of peasants here who (frankly) know a lot more about the Sun than you do.  Why is the sneering of your heroine important to us?



You may need to revisit the work of Eleanor Roosevelt. ..especially her human rights and feminist literature and activism. She was a political activist in her own rite.


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 7, 2014)

andysays said:


> You missed out union busting around the Wapping dispute which where it began for me because my dad was directly involved in that (but I'll forgive you).
> 
> Some of us have been boycotting not just the Sun but Murdoch and News International in general for three decades now, Diana9, and not just as isolated individuals or in response to calls from a celeb, but as on-going campaigns rooted in trade unions and communities.
> 
> ...



Why do you feel the need to prove yourself?  No one has questioned your bonafides. 

If you really want to know about US boycotts, they're largely as ineffective as they apparently are in Great Britain, for if the goal is to hurt the company's bottom-line, enough to a) force them to change their behavior or b) put them out of business, it's obviously not working.  If the boycotts are large enough to make some noise they might get some media attention, which is soon dropped and forgotten.  I don't suppose the media has written about Urban's boycott's have they?

So the question is, what would be effective?  Would boycotting the merchants who sell the paper have more of an impact?  I've been looking at the history of boycotts.  The American colonists were the first to organize massive boycotts.   And that was in the days when they didn't have technology and lived at great distances.  How did they do it?  One of their tactics was to force the merchants to stop buying British goods.  Unbeknownst to most, the colonists were avid consumers.  They shopped like crazy, so it was a great sacrifice for them to stop buying.  That's one problem we face today.  People can't seem to stop buying junk they don't need.  The idea of doing something for the common good doesn't register with them.  They're addicted.  The colonists were, too, but somewhere along the line they got it, they became extremely vigilant, and came up with amazingly creative ways to make it work.  

That's the thing.  How to find what works.  If you want to explore that question, I'm in.  If you're satisfied with what you're doing, that's fine too. But if you and/or others want to waste my time, and yours, taking cheap shots, then I'm out of here.


----------



## chilango (Dec 7, 2014)

Let's also not forget that this "boycott" is being urged by someone who doesn't read The Sun towards people who also don't read The Sun.

Seems a little ill conceived IMHO.


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Thread title is a question .. not a direction or order....
> 
> Lots of people read this site....without comment. Is it not possible then that a fair discussion can exist without members assuming it is an order directed at them to do or not do something?
> 
> ...



Politics.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Dec 7, 2014)

emanymton said:


> Because we are being asked to boycott the sun because they said something bad about Brand not for any of the other very good reasons for doing so. And frankly being shit to Brand hardly turns up on my radar of shit The Sun does.
> 
> Because the whole thing is another example of Brand's involvement turning things into a celebrity focused media battle, because it makes it about him. His response should be that at least when you they attack him they have to a least mention the issues he is concerned about.
> 
> Because a boycott of The Sun does nothing to actually help the campaigns he is supporting it just helps him. The Liverpool boycott was directly linked to a particular campaign. This is just Brand being Naffed off because they had a go at him.




The Sun has always been a shitty rag.
No harm in highlighting that. 
If it gets people talking about what a crap newspaper it is and puts more people off buying  it then that's got to be a positive. 
Personally I wouldn't have an interest in Brand or his beef...but anything that damages the sales of a rag like The Sun gets a thumbsup from me.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Dec 7, 2014)

chilango said:


> Let's also not forget that this "boycott" is being urged by someone who doesn't read The Sun towards people who also don't read The Sun.
> 
> Seems a little ill conceived IMHO.




You're assuming that only a small group of people read this site...all of whom already boycot the sun.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Dec 7, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> Why do you feel the need to prove yourself?  No one has questioned your bonafides.
> 
> If you really want to know about US boycotts, they're largely as ineffective as they apparently are in Great Britain, for if the goal is to hurt the company's bottom-line, enough to a) force them to change their behavior or b) put them out of business, it's obviously not working.  If the boycotts are large enough to make some noise they might get some media attention, which is soon dropped and forgotten.  I don't suppose the media has written about Urban's boycott's have they?
> 
> ...




I think you'll find the Irish were the first in there with boycotting 
Land league...rent shit...Parnell etc.

Pretty much experts at it tbh


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 7, 2014)

I think the huffington post with its unwaged/free content model that essentially thieves off young workers should probably be boycotted. As should AOL who own the huffington post and anything to do with Tim Armstrong. Brand and Diane seem to think different though.


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 7, 2014)

What is this focus on Brand for anyway? Surely he is just a verbose irrelevance in the grand scheme of things? He's not going to change anything is he?


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 7, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> I'm taking all this in like research, seeing patterns of mind, within group dynamics.



Then you'll see how projecting our own capacities into a fantasy of a leader celeb depletes us, individually and collectively, of our ability to act upon our world in ways that increase control over our own lives.


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 7, 2014)

emanymton said:


> Because we are being asked to boycott the sun because they said something bad about Brand not for any of the other very good reasons for doing so. And frankly being shit to Brand hardly turns up on my radar of shit The Sun does.
> 
> Because the whole thing is another example of Brand's involvement turning things into a celebrity focused media battle, because it makes it about him. His response should be that at least when you they attack him they have to a least mention the issues he is concerned about.
> 
> Because a boycott of The Sun does nothing to actually help the campaigns he is supporting it just helps him. The Liverpool boycott was directly linked to a particular campaign. This is just Brand being Naffed off because they had a go at him.



You're making it about him.  I haven't seen people so obsessed with making it about him.  It's not a boycott about Brand, it's a boycott about a paper using Brand to distract from the community he was championing, and all you're doing is reinforcing their methods by making it all about him.  They want you to say "Shut up Brand."  Why, because he's speaking of a problem they don't want people to think about.  They don't want people to know people are organizing locally, lest other communities get the idea they can do it too.  Housing is obviously a huge problem in Great Britain, that affects the poor.  So it's an important issue. Why vilify the person who has the means to bring it to public attention.


----------



## chilango (Dec 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> You're assuming that only a small group of people read this site...all of whom already boycot the sun.



Yes. I am assuming that.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 7, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> You're making it about him.  I haven't seen people so obsessed with making it about him.  It's not a boycott about Brand, it's a boycott about a paper using Brand to distract from the community he was championing, and all you're doing is reinforcing their methods by making it all about him.  They want you to say "Shut up Brand."  Why, because he's speaking of a problem they don't want people to think about.  They don't want people to know people are organizing locally, lest other communities get the idea they can do it too.  Housing is obviously a huge problem in Great Britain, that affects the poor.  So it's an important issue. Why vilify the person who has the means to bring it to public attention.


All you have talked about since you've been here is Brand. You are playing your allotted role here. You are a key part of the circulation of celebrity here. Refuse that role and talk about something else. Search for the hero inside yourself.


----------



## SikhWarrioR (Dec 7, 2014)

In more than forty years of working life I have never bought the sun newspaper [or anything else connected to rupert murdoch including the times or sky TV] being the son of a coalminer is one reason why amongst many


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 7, 2014)

chilango said:


> Yes. I am assuming that.



Be interesting to see who on Urban does actually buy the Sun (and who will admit to it)


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 7, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> All you have talked about since you've been here is Brand. You are playing your allotted role here. You are a key part of the circulation of celebrity here. Refuse that role and talk about something else. Search for the hero inside yourself.



Strawman argument.


----------



## maomao (Dec 7, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> Strawman argument.


#

Mostly people use Strawman incorrectly to refer to a misrepresentation. That's not even close. Could you expand on how that post fits any definition of 'a strawman argument'.?


----------



## Sweet FA (Dec 7, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> Strawman argument.


Christ, I can't decide whether Diana9's more Wells or Vodka in how she posts.

Anyway Diana9, why aren't you putting this effort into local issues in the US? Seems weird to be patronising activists thousands of miles away when you clearly have no understanding of local conditions/history (e.g. The Sun boycott). Isn't there a boycott of something you could be getting behind where you are?


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 7, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> Then you'll see how projecting our own capacities into a fantasy of a leader celeb depletes us, individually and collectively, of our ability to act upon our world in ways that increase control over our own lives.



I consider Brand a spokesperson, not a leader.  I know he would agree and has in fact said so himself.  

Can't see how using his bullhorn depletes you or prevents you from increasing control over your own life.  The women in East London don't seem feel that way.  Quite the opposite, they're grateful for his help, because he has helped them.


----------



## maomao (Dec 7, 2014)

Sweet FA said:


> Christ, I can't decide whether Diana9's more Wells or Vodka in how she posts.?



Wells, like many people, consistently used 'Strawman' incorrectly to refer to a misrepresentation. Diana9 just threw it out there really oddly like it was some sort of trump card or something.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 7, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> I consider Brand a spokesperson, not a leader.  I know he would agree and has in fact said so himself.
> 
> Can't see how using his bullhorn depletes you or prevents you from increasing control over your own life.  The women in East London don't seem feel that way.  Quite the opposite, they're grateful for his help, because he has helped them.


Then you cannot see one of the key ways that power works in a media-saturated age. It worked in a similar way but on a smaller scale when Brand rang up an old age pensioner live on air to laugh at him and mock him because brand had sex with his grandaughter.


----------



## moochedit (Dec 7, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> However, to have a greater impact, the next step is boycotting the stores that sell the Sun, until they take it off their shelves.



i'm not travelling all the way to liverpool to do my shopping.


----------



## Diana9 (Dec 7, 2014)

I've tired of this.

It's not possible to have a civil conversation on this forum.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 7, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> I've tired of this.
> 
> It's not possible to have a civil conversation on this forum.


Of course it is. There's one going on right now in this thread. It concerns ownership of struggles and how celeb culture undermines the chances of effective local ownership whilst injecting divisive posion (followers of the leader vs naughty dissenters) into the relationships those struggles are based in or produce. It's ok to disagree with you. It doesn't render differing positions irrational or motivated by malevolence or stupidity.


----------



## Ax^ (Dec 7, 2014)

Had their not been a bigger issue going on in the states this week aside from if Russell Brand has a big flat in London. 

Something about cops killing black people


----------



## Mungy (Dec 7, 2014)

i have boycotted the sun for many years and indeed boycott anything to do with murdock wherever possible. unfortunately i suspect the cunt has his grubby fingers in some of the pies i like.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 7, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Of course it is. There's one going on right now in this thread. It concerns ownership of struggles and how celeb culture undermines the chances of effective local ownership whilst injecting divisive posion (followers of the leader/naughty dissenter) into the relationships those struggles are based in or produce. It's ok to disagree with you. It doesn't render differing positions irrational or motivated by malevolence or stupidity.



Yep. That's why I figure our new chum is a shit troll rather than someone seriously trying to engage in conversation.

Well that and the glib dismissal of evidence, bogus 'strawman' claims and so on ...


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 7, 2014)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Yep. That's why I figure our new chum is a shit troll rather than someone seriously trying to engage in conversation.
> 
> Well that and the glib dismissal of evidence, bogus 'strawman' claims and so on ...


It would be a lot easier if she were just a troll but i really don't thinks she is follwoing her posts on the other longer Brand thread. Which is worse really. Imagine that sort of enemy-identifying approach being introduced to local campaigns - recipe for disaster.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 7, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> It would be a lot easier if she were just a troll but i really don't thinks she is follwoing her posts on the other longer Brand thread. Which is worse really. Imagine that sort of enemy-identifying approach being introduced to local campaigns - recipe for disaster.



Ah OK, I'm afraid I gave that one a miss.


----------



## Flavour (Dec 7, 2014)

For fuck's sake Diana9 shut the fuck up you fucking pompous, patronizing piece of shit. You're a fucking arsehole and you don't get it at ALL. FUCK OFF.

1. nobody here buys the sun anyway, you fucking muppet
2. we don't give a shit what the sun says about brand
3. you can't even buy or boycott the sun cos you're in sunny california - the most superficial place in the world
4. you keep quoting things without saying if you agree with them or analyse them AT ALL
5. this means you're a fucking sheep cos you can't speak for yourself but you just quote people who you think are important and worth listening to, like Brand, and fucking Eleanor Roosevelt for christ's sake.
6. you haven't talked about any fucking ideas
7. you are asking us to boycott shops that sell the sun, and frankly, that means every corner shop (you might call it a bodega or something) in the fucking country outside Liverpool
8. you have ignored the fact that there is already a big boycott of the sun
9. you only give a shit cos fucking Saint Brand talked about on fucking trews
10. you do this fucking weak bullshit thing where anyone who disagrees with you is snide, or a bully, or small-minded.

YOU ARE SMALL MINDED

FUCK OFF

READ A BETTER BOOK

AND TELL US WHAT YOU ARE DOING TO IMPROVE YOUR COMMUNITY APART FROM POSTING ON HERE AND MAKING A PROPER KNOB OF YOURSELF

Solidarity with everyone who actually does things!


----------



## chilango (Dec 7, 2014)

there you go Diana9 that's a more typical example of "civil conversation" round here.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 7, 2014)

Great thread. Can I join in? 
I don't buy the S*n because it tells despicable lies about dead and dying football fans, amongst its other crimes. 

As for Brand, he's a misogynist bully and conspiracy loonspud who doesn't check whether the people he promotes are Nazis or rapists. 

He may accidentally be on the right side sometimes, but only because he's hijacked someone else's limelight. 

I don't give a toss about the publicity seeking cock.


----------



## Ax^ (Dec 7, 2014)

monology need a little something to give it a better finish




like this maybe








*shakes fist at Sky*


----------



## pogofish (Dec 7, 2014)

Flavour said:


> For fuck's sake Diana9 shut the fuck up you fucking pompous, patronizing piece of shit. You're a fucking arsehole and you don't get it at ALL. FUCK OFF.



The language in its posts also reminds me strongly of another somewhat pompous poster we saw the back of a good while ago.


----------



## likesfish (Dec 7, 2014)

Buy the sun for freebies sometimes but still think its shit


----------



## gosub (Dec 7, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> You're making it about him.  I haven't seen people so obsessed with making it about him.  It's not a boycott about Brand, it's a boycott about a paper using Brand to distract from the community he was championing, and all you're doing is reinforcing their methods by making it all about him.  They want you to say "Shut up Brand."  Why, because he's speaking of a problem they don't want people to think about.  They don't want people to know people are organizing locally, lest other communities get the idea they can do it too.  Housing is obviously a huge problem in Great Britain, that affects the poor.  So it's an important issue. Why vilify the person who has the means to bring it to public attention.



I'm not vilifying him, but I doubt the residents of New Era consider waging war against one of the world's largest media companies a priority. they have issues closer to home.  It smacks of egotism by Brand


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 7, 2014)

I'm boycotting the sun this winter. Big yellow round hot bastard. Giving the people skin cancer. Fuck you, sun!


----------



## Santino (Dec 7, 2014)

pogofish said:


> The language in its posts also reminds me strongly of another somewhat pompous poster we saw the back of a good while ago.


Is there any reason to use the dehumanising pronoun 'it'?


----------



## pogofish (Dec 7, 2014)

Santino said:


> Is there any reason to use the dehumanising pronoun 'it'?



Yes.


----------



## Santino (Dec 7, 2014)

pogofish said:


> Yes.


Is it because you think people should be dehumanised? Not murderers or tyrants, but some idiot or troll on a message board?


----------



## SovietArmy (Dec 7, 2014)

I did not follow that much this treat.  Boycott what boycott simple don't read same story with Daily Mail or Sun.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 7, 2014)

I don't read any newspapers anyway. But yes boycott the sun because of Hillsborough etc not because they said something bad about saint russell


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 7, 2014)

pogofish said:


> The language in its posts also reminds me strongly of another somewhat pompous poster we saw the back of a good while ago.



'It'? Come on, the poster is an idiot but there's no need for that.


----------



## Santino (Dec 7, 2014)

I can't remember anyone using 'it' to refer to a poster with a male username or persona.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Dec 7, 2014)

I can think of better reasons to boycott it - as I have since being a teenager in the '70s - 
page 3 
sexism 
racism (in the '80s - dont know about now as I haven't read it in deacades)
homophobia (in '80s - as above)
Blaming Aids victims for their own illness (in '80s  - as above)
War mongering / jingoistic patriotism (in '80s  - as above)
Insulting greiving people in Liverpool
It has been involved in some of the worst journalistic practices
illegal activities /spying on people
its bad/illegal practices have upset /ruined ordinary innocent people
Its owned by Murdoch
Insulting peoples intelligence (it has a 'reading age' of 8yrs )


Really don't give a fuck about what it says about Brand, he's big enough and rich enough, with enough PR and lawyers to fight them.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 7, 2014)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Be interesting to see who on Urban does actually buy the Sun (and who will admit to it)



Trev Hagl was forever finding copies on the bus that he'd duly read.


----------



## gosub (Dec 7, 2014)

Will read of found on bus or pub /cafe has a copy.   Have never bought, do have times subscription though


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Dec 7, 2014)

Santino said:


> I can't remember anyone using 'it' to refer to a poster with a male username or persona.



Happened me a few months back. Pretty nasty ...


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Dec 7, 2014)

chilango said:


> Yes. I am assuming that.



But according to editor traffic runs to thousands and thousands of hits daily..so do you think these are all bots? Or Members? Or could it be that the urban51 threads have reached  further than Brixton and the relatively small group of posters on here?


----------



## rekil (Dec 7, 2014)

JimW said:


> It's like a Monkees' cover, "I saw his Youtube rant, now I'm a believer."


Take the last train to Cranksville
And I'll meet you at the station
You can be here by four thirty
Unless the jews do another false flag bombing


----------



## harpo (Dec 7, 2014)

Fuck Brand.  I'm a Scouser and it hasn't been anywhere near me for years.  I don't pick it up on the bus, I don't glance at it over shoulders and when one came, unbidden, in my house recently due to a publicity drive, I used it to pick up next doors cat shit off the back garden.


----------



## chilango (Dec 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> But according to editor traffic runs to thousands and thousands of hits daily..so do you think these are all bots? Or Members? Or could it be that the urban51 threads have reached  further than Brixton and the relatively small group of posters on here?



You're right of course. These "unknown unknowns" could be thousands of Sun buyers reading the threads and challenging their ideas because of it.

However, I'm instead going trust my experience of over decade on here without ever seeing any evidence of these people and put my money on the sustained anti-Sun feeling of the over-wheeling majority of posters who've engaged with the numerous Murdoch/Sun threads over the years.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Dec 7, 2014)

harpo said:


> Fuck Brand.  I'm a Scouser and it hasn't been anywhere near me for years.  I don't pick it up on the bus, I don't glance at it over shoulders and when one came, unbidden, in my house recently due to a publicity drive, I used it to pick up next doors cat shit off the back garden.



did you then post it back to them?


----------



## harpo (Dec 7, 2014)

Puddy_Tat said:


> did you then post it back to them?


Should've.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 7, 2014)

Santino said:


> I can't remember anyone using 'it' to refer to a poster with a male username or persona.



I have , towards Nazi apologists but I don't think Diane is, just someone who really likes Russell Brand


----------



## pogofish (Dec 7, 2014)

Santino said:


> I can't remember anyone using 'it' to refer to a poster with a male username or persona.



If it is an aspect of the poster I remember, it has had at least two other identies - one at least male.  Hence the it - nothing to do with dehumanising, just gender-neutral.

Also used it on at least one other discussion where the subject was sensitive and maybe unwise to comfirm the subject's gender, one way ot the other.


----------



## Santino (Dec 7, 2014)

pogofish said:


> If it is an aspect of the poster I remember, it has had at least two other identies - one at least male.  Hence the it - nothing to do with dehumanising, just gender-neutral.


It's very clearly dehumanising. Using it doesn't win you any arguments, it makes you look like a cunt.


----------



## pogofish (Dec 7, 2014)

Santino said:


> It's very clearly dehumanising. Using it doesn't win you any arguments, it makes you look like a cunt.



Why do you think I'm trying to win any arguments? 

And since when did your "humanity" depend on being any particular gender?


----------



## Santino (Dec 7, 2014)

pogofish said:


> Why do you think I'm trying to win any arguments?
> 
> And since when did your "humanity" depend on being any particular gender?


'It' is a word used to refer to inanimate objects, animals, abstract concepts, not people. If you want to refer to a person without mentioning their gender, you can use 'they'. Stop being disingenuous.


----------



## pogofish (Dec 7, 2014)

Santino said:


> 'It' is a word used to refer to inanimate objects, animals, abstract concepts, not people. If you want to refer to a person without mentioning their gender, you can use 'they'. Stop being disingenuous.



Why don't you stop shitstirring where there is nothing to stir?


----------



## Santino (Dec 7, 2014)

pogofish said:


> Why don't you stop shitstirring where there is nothing to stir?


So you'll stop referring to people as 'it'?


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> But according to editor traffic runs to thousands and thousands of hits daily..so do you think these are all bots? Or Members? Or could it be that the urban51 threads have reached  further than Brixton and the relatively small group of posters on here?



When editor mentions lots of hits (or 'page impressions' is the term he likes to use) he usually means the website.


----------



## newbie (Dec 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> You may need to revisit the work of Eleanor Roosevelt. ..especially her human rights and feminist literature and activism. She was a political activist in her own rite.


so?  the sneery little soundbite was quoted because she's a top celeb and we're supposed to listen to her..."_Got something to say about Eleanor_?"...  

This isn't just some mundane, run of the mill, activist, she's important, so this is important because what she says matters.

except, fwiw, wikiquotes  reckons



> *Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people.*
> 
> There are many published incidents of this as an anonymous proverb since at least 1948, and as a statement of Eleanor Roosevelt since at least 1992, but without any citation of an original source. It is also often attributed to Admiral Hyman G. Rickover, but though Rickover quoted this, he did not claim to be the author of it; in "The World of the Uneducated" in _The Saturday Evening Post_ (28 November 1959), he prefaces it with "As the unknown sage puts it..."
> Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, and little minds discuss people.
> ...



so chances are she nicked it anyway, well, she didn't because she died 30 years before it was attributed to her, it was nicked on her behalf.  But don't let that get in the way of looking up to important people.


----------



## FNG (Dec 7, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> only if there is a free DVD on the front and in any case you should probably just steal the DVD



 I did that, turned out all it contained  was a copy of Russell Brand reading out loud the entire contents of todays sun

 FML


----------



## ska invita (Dec 7, 2014)

i think the thing that wound me up the most that ive read in the sun was richard littlejohn on the eve of the iraq war (the last one) claiming if he was any younger he'd sign up and go and fight, and that if anyone reading was 18 or over thats exactly what they should do.

i know hes basically a shock jock but fuck me how i wished someone wouldve parachuted him into fallujah


----------



## Favelado (Dec 7, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> Obviously the boycotts were ineffective, since the Sun is still alive and thriving.



The Merseyside boycott led to over a _billion_ copies worth of lost sales in its first 20 years.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Dec 7, 2014)

So Brand is the current Goldstien eh? Replacing Laura Penny, Owain Jones, the cooking woman and whiney from the Guardian. Booo grrr you orrible rotter etcetera. 

Watched two of his shows, reminds me of a coked up Max Keyser. Says a lot of things I agree with but Jesus there is a right wiff about some others. 
 their cereal bars. 

And my boycott of the Sun is about as complete as my boycott of Westlife CDs.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Dec 7, 2014)

newbie said:


> so?  the sneery little soundbite was quoted because she's a top celeb and we're supposed to listen to her..."_Got something to say about Eleanor_?"...
> 
> This isn't just some mundane, run of the mill, activist, she's important, so this is important because what she says matters.
> 
> ...




Really?
You think Eleanor Roosevelt was a celebrity?
Please just read a bit about the woman. She was very active in the sufrage movement. She was very involved in and chaired the committee that approved the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. She was an advocate of equality all her life.

"Where, after all, do universal human rights begin? In small places, close to home - so close and so small that they cannot be seen on any maps of the world. Yet they are the world of the individual person; the neighborhood he lives in; the school or college he attends; the factory, farm, or office where he works. Such are the places where every man, woman, and child seeks equal justice, equal opportunity, equal dignity without discrimination. Unless these rights have meaning there, they have little meaning anywhere. Without concerted citizen action to uphold them close to home, we shall look in vain for progress in the larger world."

She was no shallow celebrity....and her thoughts and words are worth more than your pithy denegration.


----------



## Flavour (Dec 7, 2014)

that's all very nice bubbles but she didn't say the thing wot Diana said she did so it's all null and void really.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Dec 7, 2014)

newbie said:


> so?  the sneery little soundbite was quoted because she's a top celeb and we're supposed to listen to her..."_Got something to say about Eleanor_?"...
> 
> This isn't just some mundane, run of the mill, activist, she's important, so this is important because what she says matters.
> 
> ...



As for the quote...goes back to Socrates really..
"Strong minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, weak minds discuss people."

... but Eleanor paraphrased it well...


----------



## Flavour (Dec 7, 2014)

DO YOU KNOW WHAT A SOURCED FUCKING QUOTE IS


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Dec 7, 2014)

Flavour said:


> DO YOU KNOW WHAT A SOURCED FUCKING QUOTE IS



FUCK OFF SHOUTY MOUTH TIT!!!
SOURCE THAT


----------



## Flavour (Dec 7, 2014)

that'll be no, then. no source for socrates, nor eleanor roosevelt, cos they never fuckin' said those things. so bog off.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Really?
> You think Eleanor Roosevelt was a celebrity?
> Please just read a bit about the woman. She was very active in the sufrage movement. She was very involved in and chaired the committee that approved the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. She was an advocate of equality all her life.
> 
> ...


What's she doing marrying a racist killer then?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Dec 7, 2014)

Flavour said:


> that'll be no, then. no source for socrates, nor eleanor roosevelt, cos they never fuckin' said those things. so bog off.



Buckle didnt say it either...btw..
He said....
" Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas.”

Socrates is closest...well ...really it's Plato quoting Socrates...


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Buckle didnt say it either...btw..
> He said....
> " Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas.”
> 
> Socrates is closest...well ...really it's Plato quoting Socrates...



_...and their widescreen tvs.
_
That's about the size of that nonsense.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Dec 7, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> What's she doing marrying a racist killer then?



The real question would be why didn't she divorce him.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Dec 7, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> _...and their widescreen tvs.
> _
> That's about the size of that nonsense.




Tell it to the authors ... luv ...  they're long dead and a rotting ...


----------



## gamerunknown (Dec 7, 2014)

Guthrie said:
			
		

> Shook hands with Joseph Stalin, says: "There's a man I like!"
> This world was lucky to see him born.



Cringe.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Tell it to the authors ... luv ...  they're long dead and a rotting ...


Oh right, and there was me thinking a paraphrase of their thoughts was offered on this very thread this very day to smear people who don't agree with a particular position of another poster and then applauded by a few others. Silly old me. I must be in one of the _lower races _they talk about.


----------



## maomao (Dec 7, 2014)

pogofish said:


> If it is an aspect of the poster I remember, it has had at least two other identies - one at least male.  Hence the it - nothing to do with dehumanising, just gender-neutral.
> 
> Also used it on at least one other discussion where the subject was sensitive and maybe unwise to comfirm the subject's gender, one way ot the other.


Name names or it's just another case of you making shit up in order to give the impression that you have privileged knowledge on something.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 7, 2014)

Pasties, bingo and curtain twitching.


----------



## BigTom (Dec 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Tell it to the authors ... luv ...  they're long dead and a rotting ...


If you decide to quote someone, like what they've said is meaningful, you can't just back off of criticism of that quote like that, very poor.
Shit thing too. Most people I know like to talk about all of them, I don't know how you talk about ideas without talking about people either


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Dec 7, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Oh right, and there was me thinking a paraphrase of their thoughts was offered on this very thread this very day to smear people who don't agree with a particular position of another poster and then applauded by a few others. Silly old me. I must be in one of the _lower races _they talk about.



I'm not responsible for any of that.
And I think everyone who has posted so far ( less the 2 in the poll )has the same position regarding boycotting the Sun...


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Dec 7, 2014)

BigTom said:


> If you decide to quote someone, like what they've said is meaningful, you can't just back off of criticism of that quote like that, very poor.
> Shit thing too. Most people I know like to talk about all of them, I don't know how you talk about ideas without talking about people either



What?


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> As for the quote...goes back to Socrates really..
> "Strong minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, weak minds discuss people."



People who talk about football generally cover all three. A lot of 'great' minds consider it a game for oiks.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Dec 7, 2014)

Being really old, I remember last week, when then issue was the New Era Estate and not Brand or The Sun.


----------



## danny la rouge (Dec 7, 2014)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Being really old, I remember last week, when then issue was the New Era Estate and not Brand or The Sun.


Exactly.


----------



## BigTom (Dec 7, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> What?


You posted up that Socrates quote like you thought it had meaningful import, then when butchers criticised what the quote said you just shrugged and said he should talk to Socrates, but you should either stand by the quote/argue for it or accept the criticism of it, it's your words too once you quote them.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Dec 7, 2014)

BigTom said:


> If you decide to quote someone, like what they've said is meaningful, you can't just back off of criticism of that quote like that, very poor.
> Shit thing too. Most people I know like to talk about all of them, I don't know how you talk about ideas without talking about people either





BigTom said:


> You posted up that Socrates quote like you thought it had meaningful import, then when butchers criticised what the quote said you just shrugged and said he should talk to Socrates, but you should either stand by the quote/argue for it or accept the criticism of it, it's your words too once you quote them.



No... you need to read back a few pages.
I was merely showing that the quote attributed to eleanor Roosevelt was much older than discussed in this thread.  ... that it is attributed to socrates...


----------



## BigTom (Dec 7, 2014)

Oh, ok, I've read the thread in bits across the day and didn't connect the two.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 7, 2014)

stethoscope said:


> I'm the American who hasn't got a clue about what a lot of posters here are involved in/have been involved in over the years politically, but I'm going to tell them what they ought to be doing anyway.
> 
> Coz my mate Brand.



good to see the spirit of internationalism and fraternity burning bright


----------



## FNG (Dec 8, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> Individuals boycotting is a good first step.  However, to have a greater impact, the next step is boycotting the stores that sell the Sun, until they take it off their shelves.  That would take some serious organizing.


 No the next step is stop acting like a Tipper Gore wannabe, its smaller mom and pop stores that will suffer the worst from an ecconomic boycott whilst larger stores like Walmart can shoulder the loss and reap the dividend.


----------



## stethoscope (Dec 8, 2014)

cantsin said:


> good to see the spirit of internationalism and fraternity burning bright



Fair point, it should have said US


----------



## newbie (Dec 8, 2014)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Really?
> You think Eleanor Roosevelt was a celebrity?
> Please just read a bit about the woman. She was very active in the sufrage movement. She was very involved in and chaired the committee that approved the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. She was an advocate of equality all her life.
> 
> ...


yes, she was a celebrity, famous for being famous, which allowed her to do what she did.  Her fame sprang from marrrying the right husband.  

A bit of clicking around does not reveal any activism or advocacy until well after her husband had become a prominent politician. Whatever she was doing at the time was irrelevant because she wasn't prominent enough to bother noticing, even despite her birth into the ruling political class- her dad's brother was pres when she was growing up.  But then, bingo, husband became president so she became important, a proper celeb, and therefor whatever she did mattered.  

Her words and actions mattered because of who she was, whereas before they didn't.  That's the nature of celebrity.  Because she mattered she eclipsed all the people who actually said the stuff, actually did the stuff, actually made the conditions in which she could apply her celebrity leverage.  She's remembered whereas the E15 Mums and New Era resident of the day are forgotten.

So sure, she made her contribution, she showed she wasn't 'shallow' by using her celebrity status for more than wearing hats and declaring shopping malls open, and for that she's now an icon.  She was introduced into this thread to provide the definitive last word on the notion _"Truth is stand alone. Doesn't matter who says it"_ precicely because of who she was, how great a celebrity, how far beyond challenge or reproach... _"Got something to say about Eleanor?"_


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Dec 8, 2014)

Fair enough. .I get your point...but should she have refrained from activism because she was "famous"? Should she have stayed away from the sufrage movement because her name was known? Should she have refused to chair the commission on human rights because of her husband? 
You see you'll find she was an activist before she became famous....just that she was an unknown which does not and should not detract from her activism. She was of course one of many and yes, she became famous by default and so her activism is linked to her name and position. But none of this detracts from the work she did. 
It's a double edged sword though isn't it? If she remained an unknown fighting for women's rights then would she be famous? Dunno... I get that you think her status as wife of a president was what made her famous but you have to give her credit for the work she did and she probably wanted to do all her life. Someone else may well have done a better job..who knows... but someone else did not happen and history isn't about ifs and buts. You can't retrospectively detract from the good work someone did because you believe a better person didn't get to do it? 
If you get me?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 8, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> Sharing ideas is not a bad thing.  Not in my book.  I'm open to ideas.



Did you write that with no sense of irony?

If so then you've got a real problem.

If not then it was an ok joke.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 8, 2014)

Americans don't get irony so you'll have to rephrase.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 8, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> You can't offend me.  That would be silly.   I'm taking all this in like research, seeing patterns of mind, within group dynamics.
> 
> From what I've gathered so far, I find Urban is rather cliquish and mean-spirited.



I think what you're finding is that the politics forums of U75 are populated in no small part by people who have personally boycotted the Sun for a long long time; it shouldn't be a surprise that your by turns ill informed, patronising and hectoring injunctions don't go down to well. You should try opening your mind up to some of those ideas that you claim to be so keen on...go on give it a go.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## andysays (Dec 8, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Americans don't get irony so you'll have to rephrase.



How about a nice graphic?


----------



## friedaweed (Dec 8, 2014)

LOLS


----------



## gosub (Dec 8, 2014)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Being really old, I remember last week, when then issue was the New Era Estate and not Brand or The Sun.




Indeed.   New Era are going to find it harder to get press attention now. Brand is behaving exactly how the press want him to


----------



## bemused (Dec 8, 2014)

I can't remember last time I read the Sun, I'm not for or against it and if their website wasn't behind a paywall I'd read it - I read the daily mail online as one of my guilty pleasures. I can't remember actually reading a newspaper in an age.


Didn't Brand take a fat cheque of well known corporate tax 'optimiser' Comcast for film roles last year?


----------



## Coolfonz (Dec 10, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> Obviously the boycotts were ineffective, since the Sun is still alive and thriving.


How has its circulation gone in the last twenty years? Or ten even?

Edited to add: oh i didnt read to the end of the thread, she appears to have gone.


----------



## friedaweed (Dec 10, 2014)

Coolfonz said:


> How has its circulation gone in the last twenty years? Or ten even?
> 
> Edited to add: oh i didnt read to the end of the thread, *she appears to have gone*.


Last seen wandering around Liverpool trying to find someone who'd bought one in the last 25 years


----------



## campanula (Dec 10, 2014)

Diana9 said:


> Housing is obviously a huge problem in Great Britain, that affects the poor.  So it's an important issue. Why vilify the person who has the means to bring it to public attention.



Still, it's good that this has now been brought to our attention - we never really noticed stuff like this before (Brand) ...but now we are educated and enlightened.


----------



## Spirit Of Slade (Dec 11, 2014)

They are trying to give away copies of the Sun at my local newsagents.

Very pleased that most people wouldn't even take a copy for free!

Used to love it, grown to despise it. But then I despise all national newspapers...ALL of them, none of them are in touch with normal people.


----------



## Pingu (Dec 11, 2014)

there was a prog by alexi sayle a few years back that showed people refusing free copies of the sun in liverpool and a shopkeeper burning the stack he had been given (probably staged but the feeling was/is there)

we have friends that were at Hillsborough and the sun hasn't been "nice" to the breed of dog we rescue so for those reasons we wont buy it. When Moog made national TV as part of the stuff she did with the PDSA and Katie got an award at the Guild Hall for the work she did with troops with PTSD the sun wanted to run stories on them, we refused. I felt a bit sorry for the guy at the guild hall as he was obviously a junior hack and possibly wasn't even born when hillsborough happened but the look on his face when he said what paper he worked for and we said that we were not prepared to speak to him was priceless.


----------



## youngian (Jul 23, 2015)

And another advantage of living in London Mr Liddle is that cunts like you don't want to move in next door


----------



## BigMoaner (Jul 23, 2015)

youngian said:


> And another advantage of living in London Mr Liddle is that cunts like you don't want to move in next door



he's got a point about how hideous the practice is and one in 20 is shocking. the rest is shite.


----------



## youngian (Jul 23, 2015)

Its good that prominent anti FGM campaigner Rod Liddle uses his media profile to bring this issue to our attention. Liddle will not rest while injustice thrives.


----------



## Sparkle Motion (Jul 26, 2015)

I would prefer to see the Sun left on our canteen table instead of the Express and Star someone always leaves behind. Just cannot understand why you would pay money for them.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 26, 2015)

Sparkle Motion said:


> I would prefer to see the Sun left on our canteen table instead of the Express and Star someone always leaves behind. Just cannot understand why you would pay money for them.


Some excellent reportage on spycops & Met graft (former) and Hillsborough (latter).


----------



## isvicthere? (Jul 27, 2015)

youngian said:


> Its good that prominent anti FGM campaigner Rod Liddle uses his media profile to bring this issue to our attention. Liddle will not rest while injustice thrives.


----------



## Sea Star (Jul 27, 2015)

I have never bought the sun, nor read it. When I was a kid my dad used to bring it home on days when he couldn't find the Mirror. I always read the Mirror, never even touched the Sun. I knew it was poison even then!


----------



## Sea Star (Jul 27, 2015)

Red Cat said:


> There's been a boycott of the Sun for 25 years following the Hillsborough disaster. Someone posted a link. Go educate yourself.
> 
> Eta, that's 2 links now.


I remember a campaign to boycott the sun during the print strike in 1986 and I already hadn't bought the sun ever so I just continued. ditto the Times.


----------



## 19sixtysix (Jul 27, 2015)

AuntiStella said:


> I remember a campaign to boycott the sun during the print strike in 1986 and I already hadn't bought the sun ever so I just continued. ditto the Times.



Exactly. I've never bought Murdoch shit. My boycott includes sky tv, times, sun since I was at school and I left in 84.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 27, 2015)

I used to buy the sun regular as a teen, passed a bus journey. Never treated it as more serious that viz (by far the better read). These days if I have forgot to bring a book I'll get the 30p 'I' which is basically all yhe shit that didn't make the main paper. I read it while wearing a face like I've got a mouthful of fermented urine. Always remember to bring your own literature to travel with.


----------



## Celyn (Jul 27, 2015)

19sixtysix said:


> Exactly. I've never bought Murdoch shit. My boycott includes sky tv, times, sun since I was at school and I left in 84.



How about books from HarperCollins?


----------



## charliez (Aug 1, 2015)

The Sun is simply sensationalist shite of the highest order but that's all part of having a free press.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 1, 2015)

Astonishing view.

2nd wind is it?


----------



## gimesumtruf (Aug 2, 2015)

Should have been strangled at birth, but who knew then how much poison one Murdoch could possess.
Took me one issue and I have never bought it since, lots of blokes bought it for the sports at first.


----------



## coley (Aug 3, 2015)

gimesumtruf said:


> Should have been strangled at birth, but who knew then how much poison one Murdoch could possess.
> Took me one issue and I have never bought it since, lots of blokes bought it for the sports at first.


Should have strangled Murdoch at birth.
Depressing how many Sun readers there are in the UK, but apparently many in OZ feel the same way! It's about time he went on a sailing trip


----------



## charliez (Aug 3, 2015)

The recent Royals Nazi salute story was quite funny


----------



## RoyReed (Aug 4, 2015)

I haven't bought (or read) the Sun since the broadsheet version went under in 1969. I won't have anything to do with that cunt Murdoch.


----------



## shaman75 (Aug 7, 2015)

It should be shoplifted and burned on site to protect the children.


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Aug 12, 2015)

I bought a copy of the Sun recently. My dog needed something to piss on and I couldn't think of a finer recipient.


----------



## SikhWarrioR (Aug 13, 2015)

Bob_the_lost said:


> I bought a copy of the Sun recently. My dog needed something to piss on and I couldn't think of a finer recipient.



You actually paid money for a copy of the sun................Dont people leave the sun on buses, trains or tubes in your part of the world, Your dog must have been desperate


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Aug 13, 2015)

SikhWarrioR said:


> You actually paid money for a copy of the sun................Dont people leave the sun on buses, trains or tubes in your part of the world, Your dog must have been desperate


I could have bought a train ticket, or taken a bus somewhere, or gone to London and hopped on the tube. Much more efficient than going 100m to a corner shop.


----------



## Dandred (Aug 13, 2015)

Who actually buys the Sun? If the Guardian and Independent are middle class, does that make the Sun a working class paper?


----------



## gimesumtruf (Aug 13, 2015)

I will be seen as racist or nationalistic but I think British newspapers should be owned by British people.


----------



## Casually Red (Aug 13, 2015)

coley said:


> Should have strangled Murdoch at birth.



He looks like he was but survived


----------

