Today I bring you a case study in dealing with wokescolds.

What we now have is the UK’s The Spectator magazine hitting back against the Co-op retailer after Co-op dramatically announced they were pulling ads from the magazine after someone complained about the magazine’s content.

It all started when a Twitter user wrote to Co-op on Twitter, while referring to a tweet by the “Stop Funding Hate” group which alleged The Spectator to be a “magazine notorious for transphobia & ‘anti-Muslim propaganda.’”

Stop Funding Hate is a group dedicated to getting advertisers to pull away from publications that they deem to be “hateful.”

Co-op went on to declare that they would boycott advertising on The Spectator.

This did not sit well with the magazine, with its executive chairman Andrew Neil canceling them back by tweeting, “No need to bother, Co-op. As of today you are henceforth banned from advertising in The Spectator, in perpetuity. We will not have companies like yours use their financial might to try to influence our editorial content, which is entirely a matter for the editor.”

The Spectator had also responded on the issue by tweeting that advertisers cannot work their way to influencing the content that gets published in the magazine. “Sorry to lose the Co-op, but The Spectator cannot work with advertisers who seek to use their commercial clout to stifle debate.”

Perhaps Co-op hadn’t expected to receive pushback from the magazine and from readers who are tired of cancelation campaigns online and ended up responding sheepishly by writing: “That’s escalated quickly and we want to set the record straight. The tweet sent yesterday was incorrect and does not reflect our advertising position.”

Don't prostrate, retaliate. Nothing gets rid of a bully faster than a punch in the teeth.