By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Is David Hogg just a bully now? Uses followers to go on personal vendetta.

 

David Hoggs personal vendetta is...

Justified. I support it. 44 57.89%
 
Unjustified. I don't support it. 26 34.21%
 
I'm unsure. 1 1.32%
 
Other, comments... 5 6.58%
 
Total:76
Teeqoz on 02 April 2018
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.



Around the Network
o_O.Q on 02 April 2018
sethnintendo said:
Hey now... Russian bots are supporting Ingraham. So there is that.

bots? as in robots?



Rab on 02 April 2018
contestgamer said:
ClassicGamingWizzz said:
This kid is scaring the shit out of some "adults", hit them in the pocket and they calm the fuck down like that stupid hypocrite Laura

Dont worry, the adults in the room will win in the end. They wont change a damn thing about gun laws that matters, so in a few weeks Hoggs can go back to class having achieved nothing but 15 minutes of fame.

Your living in lala land if you think that



contestgamer on 02 April 2018
Rab said:
contestgamer said:

Dont worry, the adults in the room will win in the end. They wont change a damn thing about gun laws that matters, so in a few weeks Hoggs can go back to class having achieved nothing but 15 minutes of fame.

Your living in lala land if you think that

It's been this way since the founding of this country, there's no reason to think that anything will change when it comes to gun laws. if you believe that in the absence of any past evidence then you're the one in la la land. In fact the NRA makes more money when these shootings happen and they'll keep buying all the politicians as they have in the past, so if you think free speech will trump hard dollars then i got a bridge to sell you.



numberwang on 02 April 2018

Schools are now starting to ban assault backpacks, mandatory clear ones instead.

TFW when you marched against rights and you lose rights.

https://www.local10.com/news/parkland-school-shooting/clear-backpacks-handed-out-to-students-at-marjory-stoneman-douglas-high-school



Around the Network
contestgamer on 02 April 2018
numberwang said:

Schools are now starting to ban assault backpacks, mandatory clear ones instead.

TFW when you marched against rights and you lose rights.

https://www.local10.com/news/parkland-school-shooting/clear-backpacks-handed-out-to-students-at-marjory-stoneman-douglas-high-school

Privacy for a school backpack lol 



fielding88 on 02 April 2018
NightlyPoe said:
Teeqoz said:


I hardly see what makes him a bully, but both sides have some fair points. So all in all, it's fair game. Of course it sucks to be on the losing side (as Ingraham is in this case), but that's reality for you. I'm sure if a large group of people contacted those advertisers in support of Ingraham, that could change the outcome, but that wasn't the case.

You don't see how using social power to hurt someone professionally for a minor offense makes one a bully?

Let's not forget what Ingraham did back in 1984. I'll quote: 

...she secretly recorded a confidential support group for gay students, and published a transcript in The Dartmouth Review—complete with the names of the students at the meeting, students who were in the closet, back in the day when being outed could mean getting rejected for jobs and attacked by drunken frat boys.

Thoughts?



Last edited by fielding88 - on 02 April 2018

 I have a gaming channel! Come watch me be bad at games :)


Rab on 02 April 2018
contestgamer said:
Rab said:

Your living in lala land if you think that

It's been this way since the founding of this country, there's no reason to think that anything will change when it comes to gun laws. if you believe that in the absence of any past evidence then you're the one in la la land. In fact the NRA makes more money when these shootings happen and they'll keep buying all the politicians as they have in the past, so if you think free speech will trump hard dollars then i got a bridge to sell you.

Just because it was that way in the past it will always be that way? Yeah sure.. The US history is littered with social change, I can see this change is already happening, this is just the beginning, time to wake up and smell the coffee  



Aura7541 on 02 April 2018
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.



contestgamer on 02 April 2018
Rab said:
contestgamer said:

It's been this way since the founding of this country, there's no reason to think that anything will change when it comes to gun laws. if you believe that in the absence of any past evidence then you're the one in la la land. In fact the NRA makes more money when these shootings happen and they'll keep buying all the politicians as they have in the past, so if you think free speech will trump hard dollars then i got a bridge to sell you.

Just because it was that way in the past it will always be that way? Yeah sure.. The US history is littered with social change, I can see this change is already happening, this is just the beginning, time to wake up and smell the coffee  

Corporate power will always win, good luck enacting tough gun laws. By the time you do (if you do) we'll have mass at-home 3D printing and it'll be irrelevant anyway. You wont win either way.