4 ms·

Using a low information mob to attack the people who advertise at the same places the people you hate are posting material - is a shitty tactic. It has no rese

Using a low information mob to attack the people who advertise at the same places the people you hate are posting material - is a shitty tactic. It has no resemblance of discourse. It’s just intimidation. Edit: thought experiment... you really think you’d have the same opinion if some alt-right group was using this tactic to shut out people you agree with?

danso 9y ago
So instead of making a “thought experiment”, why don’t you actually cite a case similar to what’s happening to Laura Ingraham? In the case of the NRA’s sponsors being boycotted, you must be fucking kidding or forgot what happened to Delta, or that the NRA is still doing fine. It seems you are just as low-information as the mobs you deride.
- SlowRobotAhead 9y ago
  Wait... you’re saying this isn’t a problem because only one side is manipulating public outrage and not both sides? And that “bad tactics” are OK if they don’t deliver a killing blow? Dude, be honest. You are only OK with targeting advertisers because it lines up with your beliefs instead of allowing all speech and just making better arguments against those who you disagree. Oh, surely this could never turn around on you!
  - danso 9y ago
    No, I'm saying what the boycotts you cited weren't a problem. The NRA's right to free speech was not meaningfully harmed because it had many, many other members willing to stand up and continue paying dues (and ironically, it was Delta who was punished by legislators for backing out of its partnership with the NRA). Laura Ingraham is being boycotted because she decided to tweet a childish insult against one of the Parkland shooting victims. You realize that dozens of prominent media personalities have pushed back against the Parkland survivors, right? Why haven't they been boycotted too if boycotting was as simple and easy as you suggest? I'm arguing against your position because it seems to lack knowledge of how complicated real world discourse is. The First Amendment bars the government from banning speech; this gives citizens the responsibility to police themselves and corporations. But you're arguing for that to be taken away so that there is basically citizens have no legal recourse against speech they dislike? So how are any boycotts justifiable? If you were more aware of how things actually worked, you would easily be able to cite boycotts that have gone against left-leaning people. I'll help you: Remember Kathy Griffin? [0] [0] http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/the-conversation/sd-cnn-drops-kathy-griffin-over-trump-beheading-image-20170531-htmlstory.html http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/the-conversation... Numerous left-leaning celebrities, as well as personalities on CNN, have ripped into Trump. If what you fear was actually the reality, you would have no problem citing successful boycotts against left-leaning celebrities.

danso 9y ago

So instead of making a “thought experiment”, why don’t you actually cite a case similar to what’s happening to Laura Ingraham? In the case of the NRA’s sponsors being boycotted, you must be fucking kidding or forgot what happened to Delta, or that the NRA is still doing fine. It seems you are just as low-information as the mobs you deride.

SlowRobotAhead 9y ago
Wait... you’re saying this isn’t a problem because only one side is manipulating public outrage and not both sides? And that “bad tactics” are OK if they don’t deliver a killing blow? Dude, be honest. You are only OK with targeting advertisers because it lines up with your beliefs instead of allowing all speech and just making better arguments against those who you disagree. Oh, surely this could never turn around on you!
- danso 9y ago
  No, I'm saying what the boycotts you cited weren't a problem. The NRA's right to free speech was not meaningfully harmed because it had many, many other members willing to stand up and continue paying dues (and ironically, it was Delta who was punished by legislators for backing out of its partnership with the NRA). Laura Ingraham is being boycotted because she decided to tweet a childish insult against one of the Parkland shooting victims. You realize that dozens of prominent media personalities have pushed back against the Parkland survivors, right? Why haven't they been boycotted too if boycotting was as simple and easy as you suggest? I'm arguing against your position because it seems to lack knowledge of how complicated real world discourse is. The First Amendment bars the government from banning speech; this gives citizens the responsibility to police themselves and corporations. But you're arguing for that to be taken away so that there is basically citizens have no legal recourse against speech they dislike? So how are any boycotts justifiable? If you were more aware of how things actually worked, you would easily be able to cite boycotts that have gone against left-leaning people. I'll help you: Remember Kathy Griffin? [0] [0] http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/the-conversation/sd-cnn-drops-kathy-griffin-over-trump-beheading-image-20170531-htmlstory.html http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/the-conversation... Numerous left-leaning celebrities, as well as personalities on CNN, have ripped into Trump. If what you fear was actually the reality, you would have no problem citing successful boycotts against left-leaning celebrities.