You're 1001% right. 

I don't know what I was thinking. 

Goodbye.

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?

"Sure, just like rightism encourages white men to play the victim."

that's not true though, can you give an example?

""The atheist left is trying to take away your Christianity.""

i could only see this being valid if christianity was exclusively for white men... but its not... so what's your point?

"The left wants Islam to be taught in schools, and supports terrorism!""

these women are feminists:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbJONNIU0Cc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ev66F8U4L8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jWSDyJiIXg

i mean i could go on here but feminist advocacy for islam is pretty apparent to anyone who has been paying attention

i suppose the second component is whether its a violent religion or not

...well that seems pretty clear to me...

"There wasn't any big reason they didn't.  There are some societies that are matriarchal.  They didn't need any "advancements". "

birth control? the industrial revolution reducing the need for physical labor? you really don't understand how these technological advancements among others emancipated women?

can you name a matriarchal society not living out in the bush? you do understand that i'm framing this from the context of modern civilisation right?

"White people don't need to be feared and hated.  There are some on the left that sometimes go to those extremes, but they are a vocal minority."

i've been imagining the mainstream media calling for blacks to be wary of white policeman for all those weeks then

"This one is just wrong.  Transgenderism has nothing to do with not liking biology"

"There are people that are biologically XY that don't have a penis, and people that are biologically XX that do. "

there are people who have eight legs but we define a human as having 2 legs right?

a classification does not mean there will be no outliers

is your argument therefore that we should simply throw away all classifications since outliers happen across just about everything?

or is the more sensible path to acknowledge that in order to have classification a generalisation must be made?

"Biology is vastly more complicated than XY=penis, and XX=vagina. "

well i think when you consider that 99.92% of the time this is the case then we can safely make that assumption 

just like we can safely assume that human means 2 legs

That's not the sum of his argument on that, though. That's a complicated topic that can't be boiled down to one sentence. He's talked about it at length in many instances. He's worth watching in general even if you were turned off by a few vids.

Nah, nothing bullyish about this really. The OTs insistence on calling him a 'kid' is a thinly veiled attempt to diminish him even further. His marks, or college aspirations should have nothing to do with any of this at all. He was a victim of a shooting and it is his right to advocate against guns. This attack by a Republican is clearly aimed at destabilizing his advocacy. It is a smear campaign, therefore. Yes, he could have glossed over this, but ultimately here is a society that treats victims of violence with contempt. To call him a 'kid' is further proof that what he believes in is of far more importance to the OT, than realizing that he has the right to believe anything... including believing that the guns that almost killed him should be banned.

From a European ;)

Not sure you understand what plagiarism is. By definition, plagiarism is any appropriation, including of information, ideas, thoughts, and then passing it as your own work. Unless you were there to report this on your own, you got this information from somewhere. This somewhere is your source, despite having written this in its entirety on your own.

Are you sure about this? Being a victim of an attack is literally the best kind of experience one could have before talking about guns. Just like a sufferer of AIDS is the person to rely on about the experience of having AIDS. To diminish him by calling him a 'kid' is a blatant attempt to disregard his political opinions by falsely attempting to imply that his age belies a lack of understanding about the issue he is campaigning for. Experience is not a matter of age.

Now, it is true that the media is using him for its own anti-NRA propaganda. Which is also exactly why the pro-NRA seeks to portray him as a 'kid', who 'does not know' or who is part of some brainwashing liberal-democrat agenda (see: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5571375/Ted-Nugent-Florida-school-shooting-survivor-brainwashed.html) -- which in turn is also a form of propaganda. 

Here is the thing: This person is a survivor of a gun attack. His message is that "from personal experience, guns are bad". Your response to this is: "you are too young to have an opinion, grow some more". You throw his literal experience under the bus, only to then imply that his figurative 'experience' in the form of age is an important variable.

I have not been in a gun shooting, so I really have no clue. I trust that he does, and that's a sensible approach. I am not going to belittle him for his age, for his lack of education, or for failing to enter a top school. In fact, I am not going to belittle him at all. As a neutral observer from another continent, I watch American politics with much interest and amusement. It is clear to me that NRA and pro-gun activists seek to belittle him, yet you don't see it at the same time as you are doing it yourself.

On plagiarism: I am an academic, teaching at University. We could go on about this, but let me clarify that I am not accusing you of plagiarism here. You are clearly offering commentary on a series of news articles and wikipedia resources. Of course, this is not an academic setting and no one forces you to list every single resource you used... but let's not alter the meaning of the words here. The best course of practice is to list all primary and secondary source material used... but this is a forum so you are good to go as it is.

Let's be honest, both Hoggs and Ingram are completely unlikable characters.

Why do you hate women?

The word *sheeple* comes to mind (not just on the Hogg front, but the news woman too). Followers indeed.

I'm fully convinced at this point that social media has contributed more negative than positive and has caused humanity to actually DEvolve in some ways intellectually at least..