NightlyPoe said:
I've had issues with LeBron James for awhile myself. He's joined in on jump the gun protests for people such as Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown. There is not enough accountability for that whole movement's reliance on "we know how those people are" and ignoring evidence. It's basically the crux of Mayella Ewell's charge against Tom Robinson. In any case, calling out James or Kimmel and attacking their credibility is perfectly acceptable behavior from a commentator. It is not bullying. I'm not sure how having life experience makes one's regrets over their past behavior suspect. I would hope all of us have learned lessons that way at one point or another. As for her apology to Hogg, frankly, I don't believe it was necessary in the first place. It really doesn't matter to me whether it was sincere or not. If anything, by acknowledging she was in the wrong, she tossed some chum into the water. As for the question of who is being bullied, it's certainly Ingraham. Hogg is attacking people personally all the time. He's attacking Ingraham professionally, which is much worse, not better. And the inclusion of outrage mobs denying people the ability to work is something we should all be taking seriously as a problem in this country.
|
Why are insults and personal attacks a better method of discourse? Why is it better to insult James, Durant, Kimmel and Hogg? To hold them accountable? For what? Isn't Ingraham currently being held accountable for her actions? Why is it wrong in her case?
Am I going about this discussion with you the wrong way? Should I be personally attacking you? Would you prefer that?
