so... you're in favor of dictators not being challenged by those they attempt to exert power over?

Some of those people worked decades, even a lifetime to get themselves in to positions of power and to sometimes take advantage of that over others. And in the past that was fair game, even applauded in society. Now they find themselves being "held accountable" as you put it for something that was acceptable in the past and for which they worked their whole lives. If we had a culture change and for example we said anybody under 50 was expected to behave a certain way going forward, but those already over 50 would not be held to the same account then I think that would be fair - a new standard for the future, but respect for the past. Because some of those over 50 were operating their entire lives on the assumption that they could live a "mad men" lifestyle without accountability, which indeed the case when they were coming up. 

I weep for the rich and powerful.

I really do.

Some of those people worked decades, even a lifetime to get themselves in to positions of power and to sometimes take advantage of that over others. And in the past that was fair game, even applauded in society. Now they find themselves being "held accountable" as you put it for something that was acceptable in the past and for which they worked their whole lives. If we had a culture change and for example we said anybody under 50 was expected to behave a certain way going forward, but those already over 50 would not be held to the same account then I think that would be fair - a new standard for the future, but respect for the past. Because some of those over 50 were operating their entire lives on the assumption that they could live a "mad men" lifestyle without accountability, which indeed the case when they were coming up. 

"Some of those people worked decades, even a lifetime to get themselves in to positions of power and to sometimes take advantage of that over others. And in the past that was fair game, even applauded in society. "

this was the case with hitler and stalin, both popular and championed initially in their respective countries

I think what you mean is you want things to be open, transparent, simple and stable. Makes sense but you're getting it twisted and people here will eat you alive. :)

Not sure why we're reaching for Hitler here lol We're talking about powerful people in the past that could fix the tax system for their benefits, bribe themselves out of trouble, get off easy on charges, fire people, pay below minimum wages etc. Everyday stuff that was part of American society just a couple of decades ago.

And why is any of this good?

I didnt say the actions themselves are good, but I believe people that worked their way up the food chain should have the ability to exert their power in benefit of their own interests without retribution from a mob that hasn't done anything to get themselves in to a similar position of influence. You want to be like Bernie and actually work your way up and create change directly, then that's great. However a mob of people being outraged at everything and essentially shackling anybody with perceived privilege or power from being able to actually enjoy that influence is unfair to them. If you can afford to pay some politicians to fix the tax system in your favor, or chose to pay less than minimum wage or have the money to bribe your way out of trouble then you should be able to enjoy those benefits. If you want to change it, then get in to an equal position of power and change it directly instead of crying foul as part of a lazy mob that hasnt achieved anything themselves. IMO those with advantages should be able to fully enjoy them. If you dont like being paid less than min wage, made uncomfortable comments or jokes to, etc then get a new job. We dont need a rally for everything when you're in control of your own life.

1. Laura damaged her own image. Hogg brought that to the attention of her sponsors.
But I was looking at this from a different perspective. If the bully beating you up in school is sponsored by Nike and has nice Nike shoes that lets him catch up to you quicker, I think it serves him right to have those taken away from him.

As for her "admitting defeat", that was a rather self serving tweet. Rather than admitting that what she did was wrong, it was basically "I'm sorry you were offended by what I said" and "let me promote my show".
Both her attack and her apology were rather disingenuous. Yes, she called him 'very poised' on her show (which isn't that much of a compliment, but ok) before this movement started. And she wants props for that. How dumb does she think people are? Maybe that sort of reply flies with her general audience, but you don't need to be Sherlock Holmes to figure out why the only example she could think of where she complimented Hogg was before the movement began. Or that she's promoting her show in a supposed apology.

2. I know that no one says 'rightist'. The point was to have your arguments speak for themselves without generalizing opinions or positions unnecessarily with labels like that, in a discussion that's not about that. Was it an inherently conservative thing of Laura to out of the blue personally attack Hogg like that? No, it's an asshole thing to do.

3. Sponsors have withdrawn their advertisements time and time again without any influential person rallying people like this. That's not the only criteria for this to occur. I gave you an example with O'Riley.  Likewise, there have been many times where companies don't withdraw their sponsorship, in spite of public outcry. For a particularly relevant example, take the NRA boycott aimed at certain companies. Some of them withdrew their support, others like Amazon didn't.
Like I said, it was both because Laura did something stupid that brands don't want to be associated with, and because Hogg helped bring that attention to them.

4. If witnesses call the police on a murderer, I'm not going to solely blame the witnesses for him getting locked up.

5. Which is why I worded it as 'unprovoked' in her case.

6. I believe what you're referring to is what he said either on the day of, or the day after, his friends were gunned down in masses by a maniac and he luckily survived. Maybe you think it's fair game to criticize someone over what they say right after a situation like that, but I think most people would let that slide given the circumstances of the trauma. Especially if he doesn't repeat it again in the following months.
And I believe he specifically said that about the politicians who he believes vote against gun legislation because of NRA money. Not 'anyone who doesn't agree with him'. Unless I missed something.

7. She makes it really easy for herself to be criticized when her 'apology' was a self serving promotion for her show. And not a sincere one either.