I had almost forgotten about those boycotts. They were pretty forgettable. It’s almost like conservatives have no power as consumers with liberals having a monopoly on affluence and productivity. Those boycotts were worth less than a degree from Trump University.
Well, they can boycott everyone and everything including David Hogg’s dad and spend all of whatever little disposable income that they have at Chik-Fil-A, Joanne’s Fabrics, Hobby Lobby and GoldLine, for all I care. No one would notice. Maybe they should stop whining and crying and fondling their guns and grow up and get better jobs or something so they have some economic power of their own to throw around.
And, as an aside, whenever I see conservatives skulking around at some protest, I always try to support unity by letting them know that I’m a big 2nd Amendment supporter myself. They never seem reassured, though.
I think it is fair to say that if the opposition is large enough to organize an economically meaningful boycott, then hedge guy was not going to win the election anyway. For every person who meaningfully boycotts (i.e. would have eaten at the restaurant, but now won’t), there are likely a dozen who would just vote for the other guy.
You can feel free to call for a boycott of Hogg’s parents (he hasn’t insulted you or anyone else, but whatever), and anyone who agrees with you can join you! It won’t be very many people, I reckon, but you can try, and the most I’ll do is say, “Wow, what a pointless, stupid thing to do, you’re probably not invited to any party I’m hosting any time soon.”
Laura Ingraham makes several times what my boss makes per year every single month providing what I can only call propaganda for a news network that makes our country a worse place day by day. She’s not going to starve in the street if it turns out that bullying a teenager in a petty, mean-spirited way is a step too far for advertisers.
Okay. Now define “malicious”. No, really, what does this even mean? Malicious has a clear legal definition - “An act done maliciously is one that is wrongful and performed willfully or intentionally, and without legal justification.” Well, there’s nothing wrongful about what Hogg is doing - he’s entirely justified in saying, “Wow, Laura Ingraham is a terrible person, we should demand she stop getting a huge national platform to spout her awful bullshit.” That’s his opinion, and one I personally share. And the legal justification is the first amendment. So what do you mean by “malicious”? Is it just not okay to call for a boycott if the person in question hasn’t done something illegal? What if it’s something grossly immoral but not illegal?
If you don’t think what she said to him was petty and mean, nothing I can say will convince you…and if you don’t know what she said by now what the hell are you basing any of your opinions on??
“David Hogg Rejected By Four Colleges To Which He Applied and whines about it. (Dinged by UCLA with a 4.1 GPA…totally predictable given acceptance rates.)”
Notice how she takes a personal issue in the life of a teenager (which, understandably, he was upset about), calls him out as whining about it, and elevates that personal issue to the level of “national news”? Petty and mean-spirited.
That’s it? Hogg was so offended by that tweet that he called for a boycott? It’s a statement of fact. Hogg is a slightly above average student and thinks he can get into an elite university? I call white privilege on this one. In fact, I think the subtext of his anger is “why don’t you reject one of those 5.0 GPA 1600 SAT Asians and let me in instead.” Hogg simply isn’t qualified for admission into an elite university.
LAZombie, I’ve noticed that you’ve utterly ignored all the obvious criticisms of your plan that it violates the 1st Amendment. Care to address those? To sum up:
The offending part is a national “news” personality focusing on a perfectly reasonable reaction from a teenager and calling it “whining”, solely motivated by her tribe’s disagreements with said teenager’s opinions.
No, that is not it. Ingraham has been dickish for years. Decades, even. The shit stacks up. This might seem trivial, but a small thing can be all it takes to topple a towering stack. She was ripe for the calling-out.
Where the hell does this come from? Projection much?
David Hogg hasn’t been complaining he wasn’t accepted into elite universities. He applied to multiple schools, some accepted him some didn’t.
It’s Laura Inagraham who decided to make what is the normal experience of highschoolers applying to colleges national issue national ridicule.
Laura Inagraham has been an awful person for decades. It’s about time someone responded to her bullying. Now all the right wing snow flakes are upset one of her victims fought back and has the sufficient support to hit her where it hurts. Advertisers don’t want to be affiliated with awful people.
Maybe she should have considered her victim more carefully, it’s kinda embarrassing to be shown up by someone a fraction of her age.