By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Teeqoz on 02 April 2018
Edit Thread
Aura7541 said:
Teeqoz said:

I never said anyone was right because they won. Not sure where you're getting that from. I said both sides had fair points and that it was fair game, though Ingraham felt the most impact. Ingraham clearly went looking for a conflict, but she just didn't expect to lose. That does not at all equate to sanctioning bullying and mental and social torture.

He provided an avenue (calling her sponsors) for people that disliked her course of action (making an unprovoked personal attack against a 17 year old mass-shooting survivor, which is bound to attract negative public attention, because when you think about it, that's a pretty twisted thing to do) to make their voices heard. It seems to me like she hurt herself professionally.

To me it's irrelevant wether he's a high school student or not. His actions should be judged based on their own merits, not based on how old he is, and I don't see anything wrong with his actions in this case.

Hogg didn't really accomplish anything in the context of advancing the gun control vs 2nd amendment debate. All he did was gather his followers to convince Ingraham's sponsors to pull financial support in response to her mocking of his whining. Okay, great. How does that have to do with the debate surrounding gun control and the right to bear arms? How did his actions contribute to the topic? None, if not very little, if you ask me.

There's a common saying on the Internet that goes by "Don't feed the trolls". He also had the ample opportunity to take the high ground and go something like, "Hey, Laura. How about we drop the personal attacks and stick to the debate about gun control?" However, he didn't, which hurts his image.

Bwah what. I never said anything about gun control. Though I realize the kid has become a publically outspoken figure in support of gun control, I had never heard of him before I saw this thread, and I'm not sure which side to stand on in the US gun control debate. The way I see it, something is deeply flawed in relation to gun violence in America, but I strongly doubt it's as simple as restricting guns (though some added regulations do seem fairly obvious).

As for not feeding the trolls, what he effectively did was... reduce said "troll"'s access to food from other sources. If you catch my analogy. Considering what Ingraham started, I think calling it out is a perfectly fair response.