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

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.

And I never said that you said anything about gun control. My point is that Hogg is now a big figurehead in the gun control debate, particularly on the pro-gun control side of the discussion. His actions may have achieved something, which was to effectively convince sponsors to pull support from Ingraham. However, in the context of the gun control debate, his actions did not contribute to that whatsoever.

The reduction of said "troll" also brought attention to the "troll". The food, in this case, isn't the financial support from sponsors (not saying that the financial support doesn't count as "food", btw), but rather the attention. You can clearly see in this forum and everywhere else in the Internet that people are very divided on the ethics of Hogg's actions. For me personally, I don't really care since I'm not sympathetic to either person. Whether Hogg made a fair response doesn't detract from the fact that he could've easily taken much better decisions and make it about the gun control debate rather than about him. That was my overall thesis.