Laura Ingraham vs David Hogg

[Underseer]

I'm not up to speed on even the basics regarding the need for and flow of money regarding television shows as being discussed, but there is an apparent need to secure substantial advertising funds from sponsors, but if the successful continuation of a show depends in large part on securing those apparently much needed funds, and if successful people don't want to compromise in the sharing of their thoughts without their world crumbling down around them, they might want to put some better thought to their exposure to having a sponsorship makeup that can stand tough alongside them.

Like a marketing mix idea, there cannot be a whopsided squeamishness of sponsorship for continued success without having to self-impose a serious curtail to the expression of one's thoughts and views--again, without putting your financial world at grave risk.

Otherwise, free speech can be mighty expensive.

Oh no! A conservative had to face actual consequences for attacking a child survivor of a mass shooting? What is this country coming to? What next? Are we going to start criticizing people for protesting funerals? Where do we draw the line?

Sorry, I can't do this parody thing anymore.

Look, freedom of speech does not include freedom from criticism. Freedom from criticism is the opposite of freedom of speech.

Advertisers are not required to pay to publicly support moral cripples who make them look bad and could cost them business. I don't know why you think "free speech" would include that.

 

[Ford]

One of the things lost in this back and forth is that part of the reason Ingraham lost this round is because she's rooted in the right wing talk radio tradition of Rush, Hannity, and others who have phone screeners.

The job of the phone screener is to find someone among the callers who is wholly unable to spar with the host. They comb through the callers and find a "libtard" who can barely string two sentences together, put them on the air for a few minutes, and once the host demolishes the poor caller the show goes on to declare victory. It is a controlled environment, and people like Ingraham, Rush, and Hannity don't often come in contact with anyone who can challenge them and win.

Hogg would never have made it past the phone screener.

That's why he bothers them so much. He's articulate, educated, and confrontational. Things which these right wing hosts are not trained to deal with. Laura's problem is that she tried to spar with this kid outside of the tightly controlled arena of her show.

 

[fast]

People talk, and when they do, others either do nothing, talk, act, or both.

If I say, "your momma is fat," then as far as talking goes, you can exercise your right to free speech either by saying nothing or saying something (like, "yeah, well, your momma is ugly"), but talk is just talk--where tires simply meet, gather and converse on pavement. If you look in at the tweets, what you see is essentially limited to speech acts. That's great: say what you want to say, good, bad, or ugly and be thankful you live in a society where you may.

Others out there reading also have the same opportunity to exercise their right to talk. They can do that by keeping their mouths shut (or fingers still), but then again, like anyone else, they can spew about until their hearts are content; either way, that's of a nature limited to the exercise of free speech. More the merrier. Exercise your rights, baby. Say what you feel inside. Let it out honey. I'm fine with all that.

There are those, however, that go beyond (way beyond) simply talking. They act. It's their right; they can do that. If you don't like me calling you names and choose to 'vote with your feet' and no longer buy candy from me or those that like, support, or sponsor me, that's your prerogative, but it's a completely different situation where tires no longer meet the pavement. That's the exercise of a very different right. That's not truly speech...that's motivated action with intention. All well and fine, but not to be conflated and dressed in linguistic cosmetics.

These people willing to stop spending money with the sponsors are not just talkers but doers. They say (say) they believe in free speech, and they speak about their defense of it, but look at their actions that show a different glimpse of what's in their heart. They reveal what they hold inside by how they act. They SHOW you by what they DO. This is now beyond speech and also goes to explain why I have qualms with the flag burning issue. When you can feel the flames when up close and personal to what they're purportedly saying, I find the act more in line with physical action than I do verbiage and word play, but I digress.

If you truly wanted to encourage people to EXERCISE their right to speak (be what they say you like or not), then any actions that culminate as a backlash to actions, that's a horse of another color, but if you hear what a person says and respond not in kind but with action, then a more careful review of motive is in order.

It seems to me that pain, hurt, and suffering is what the liberal wants. If a TV host were to spew vile that you find inappropriate, you may want it to stop, and one thing to do is speak your mind, but if your logic, reason, and rationale doesn't ease the flow of public verbal filth, you might want to choose not words but actions TO shut them up. Some major financial pains might stop them from sucking eggs, so to speak.

Battle it out with words, but if that doesn't work, the greater the amount of suffering and pain the better, right? Destruction of any kind will do, but financial ruin is so tasty and lures many as a much better approach to shutting people up doesn't it? Oh but wait, is THAT what you seek? Do you do everything in your power through action (such as encouraging and engaging in boycotts) to see them suffer--just because they spew some vile in word form? Yeah, not exactly encouraging for people (with something to lose) to be so candid and open. By "you", I don't mean it literally.

If you (generically speaking) genuinely think for some ungodly reason that the companies sponsoring the show give a damn about some teen survivor, then by all means, say what you want, and say it in deliuded detail. Tell us how you feel inside. I (me) won't try to have you destroyed financially. I would NOT want you to feel like your entire life's cumulative wealth hangs in the balance. I might not like what you say, but just as a responsible gun owner would do, I'd keep my weapon of choice holstered. I believe in free speech, and so I'm not going to do everything in my power that fosters the possibility of shutting you up.

Spread your thoughts. What do you have to lose? But, people, smart people, who have managed to amass something worth protecting (and that's dollars, not people), they also have to be smart enough to hide what others can so freely share. Want to keep your job, better walk the line. Wanna keep your business afloat, watch what you say to who. In politics, lie your ass off to every extent possible just for a chance to survive--orange haired billionnares excluded of course. Wow, Trump is impressive!!!

If you insult my mom, what expectation do you have that I will 'buy candy from you'? If you earn your income selling candy, maybe don't insult the customers. And then go on to blame them that they are censoring your speech.

aa

But IS THAT censoring speech? I am arguing that it's not. We are supposed to agree on that darn it. The entirety of what I wrote depends on you seeing the divide I'm making. I have no more expectations that you'll buy my candy than the victim of her senseless comments will compel him to support her. I'm not defending her. I'm criticizing her. But, not for her insensibilities. Perhaps I should, but that's not my angle. I'm criticizing her for not preemptively setting up support that aligns with her callousness. Her downfall would have been shielded had she not accepted sponsorship from just anybody.

One can't always openly speak up about how one truly feels without pushback potentially far more severe than any protection from fines and jail time afforded to us from the right to free speech. Don't we really agree on what I've been saying?

When the unibomber booby traps his home and gives you his key and says welcome and make yourself at home, be cautious. Exercising your rights to free speech can be alarmingly stupid. I'm afraid you're not gonna buy my candy after all, but then again, I never truly expected otherwise.

 

[fast]

I'm not up to speed on even the basics regarding the need for and flow of money regarding television shows as being discussed, but there is an apparent need to secure substantial advertising funds from sponsors, but if the successful continuation of a show depends in large part on securing those apparently much needed funds, and if successful people don't want to compromise in the sharing of their thoughts without their world crumbling down around them, they might want to put some better thought to their exposure to having a sponsorship makeup that can stand tough alongside them.

Like a marketing mix idea, there cannot be a whopsided squeamishness of sponsorship for continued success without having to self-impose a serious curtail to the expression of one's thoughts and views--again, without putting your financial world at grave risk.

Otherwise, free speech can be mighty expensive.

Oh no! A conservative had to face actual consequences for attacking a child survivor of a mass shooting? What is this country coming to? What next? Are we going to start criticizing people for protesting funerals? Where do we draw the line?

Sorry, I can't do this parody thing anymore.

Look, freedom of speech does not include freedom from criticism. Freedom from criticism is the opposite of freedom of speech.

Advertisers are not required to pay to publicly support moral cripples who make them look bad and could cost them business. I don't know why you think "free speech" would include that.

If I were talking to you, I would of used smaller words.

Would you nominate me poster of the year please?

Just joshin' wid ya.

Of course she faced consequences, but then again, that should of been expected. However, it's not entirely based on what she said but rather the loyalty of her sponsorship. If you supremely oppose homosexuality and want to openly express your views, ya might wanna have an Ace in the hole for when it comes time to face consequences--like not having your livelyhood depend on others with pro homosexual views.

Please, somebody get it. My carrying on is not as far gone as it might seem at first glance.

 

[JohnG]

I'm not up to speed on even the basics regarding the need for and flow of money regarding television shows as being discussed, but there is an apparent need to secure substantial advertising funds from sponsors, but if the successful continuation of a show depends in large part on securing those apparently much needed funds, and if successful people don't want to compromise in the sharing of their thoughts without their world crumbling down around them, they might want to put some better thought to their exposure to having a sponsorship makeup that can stand tough alongside them.

Like a marketing mix idea, there cannot be a whopsided squeamishness of sponsorship for continued success without having to self-impose a serious curtail to the expression of one's thoughts and views--again, without putting your financial world at grave risk.

Otherwise, free speech can be mighty expensive.

Oh no! A conservative had to face actual consequences for attacking a child survivor of a mass shooting? What is this country coming to? What next? Are we going to start criticizing people for protesting funerals? Where do we draw the line?

Sorry, I can't do this parody thing anymore.

Look, freedom of speech does not include freedom from criticism. Freedom from criticism is the opposite of freedom of speech.

Advertisers are not required to pay to publicly support moral cripples who make them look bad and could cost them business. I don't know why you think "free speech" would include that.

If I were talking to you, I would of used smaller words.

Would you nominate me poster of the year please?

Just joshin' wid ya.

Of course she faced consequences, but then again, that should of been expected. However, it's not entirely based on what she said but rather the loyalty of her sponsorship. If you supremely oppose homosexuality and want to openly express your views, ya might wanna have an Ace in the hole for when it comes time to face consequences--like not having your livelyhood depend on others with pro homosexual views.

Please, somebody get it. My carrying on is not as far gone as it might seem at first glance.

I'm following you, And I get that free speech can be a slippery slope in certain situations. It doesn't help that in the US corporations are people in the sense that they can exercise free speech by financially backing a political party. It brings money into the equation and contradicts the whole idea IMO.

That said, I strongly believe in consequences for those who personally attack others, even if just return verbal fire, but one has to expect a punch in the face from time to time.

Laura just got punched.

 

[repoman]

Corporations are people that can't die.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But wait, there's more!

Meanwhile, a website called Hoggwatch.com has emerged that features content exclusively related to Hogg, the New York Daily News reported. The site is linked to conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and pushes false ideas that Hogg is an actor paid by left-wing organizations to turn Americans against the Second Amendment, the Daily News said. Many of the articles are written by Mike Adams, the founder of Natural News, a “bombastic” website that seeks to debunk widely accepted scientific theories, the Daily News added.

Hoggwatch. Because they can't just debate him, they have to destroy him.

Looks like Alex Jones wants to make Hogg a rich person.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Ingraham probably expected some pushback, it's part of the whole right wing radio method. Be controversial, in the long term it builds a loyal following. What she didn't expect was that Hogg's counter attack would be so deeply effective as cutting her show's income in half. Frankly, I am a bit surprised at how effective Hogg's boycott was. Immediate and deep cuts to her show's advertising income.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Ingraham probably expected some pushback, it's part of the whole right wing radio method. Be controversial, in the long term it builds a loyal following. What she didn't expect was that Hogg's counter attack would be so deeply effective as cutting her show's income in half. Frankly, I am a bit surprised at how effective Hogg's boycott was. Immediate and deep cuts to her show's advertising income.

I don't know. After the Trump election, I think these people are getting drunk on power and influence. They think they can say anything and their base will love it and there will be negligible consequences.

Also, Fox gets the money, it isn't as if the advertisers aren't sponsoring Fox News. How many disgraced people on that channel (from top on down) need to leave before advertisers stop advertising on that damn propaganda station?

 

[ideologyhunter]

Remember that Fat Bastard himself felt entitled to call Chuck Todd a "sleepy-eyed son of a bitch" at a rally -- last month -- on camera -- as our President.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

People talk, and when they do, others either do nothing, talk, act, or both.

If I say, "your momma is fat," then as far as talking goes, you can exercise your right to free speech either by saying nothing or saying something (like, "yeah, well, your momma is ugly"), but talk is just talk--where tires simply meet, gather and converse on pavement. If you look in at the tweets, what you see is essentially limited to speech acts. That's great: say what you want to say, good, bad, or ugly and be thankful you live in a society where you may.

Others out there reading also have the same opportunity to exercise their right to talk. They can do that by keeping their mouths shut (or fingers still), but then again, like anyone else, they can spew about until their hearts are content; either way, that's of a nature limited to the exercise of free speech. More the merrier. Exercise your rights, baby. Say what you feel inside. Let it out honey. I'm fine with all that.

There are those, however, that go beyond (way beyond) simply talking. They act. It's their right; they can do that. If you don't like me calling you names and choose to 'vote with your feet' and no longer buy candy from me or those that like, support, or sponsor me, that's your prerogative, but it's a completely different situation where tires no longer meet the pavement. That's the exercise of a very different right. That's not truly speech...that's motivated action with intention. All well and fine, but not to be conflated and dressed in linguistic cosmetics.

These people willing to stop spending money with the sponsors are not just talkers but doers. They say (say) they believe in free speech, and they speak about their defense of it, but look at their actions that show a different glimpse of what's in their heart. They reveal what they hold inside by how they act. They SHOW you by what they DO. This is now beyond speech and also goes to explain why I have qualms with the flag burning issue. When you can feel the flames when up close and personal to what they're purportedly saying, I find the act more in line with physical action than I do verbiage and word play, but I digress.

If you truly wanted to encourage people to EXERCISE their right to speak (be what they say you like or not), then any actions that culminate as a backlash to actions, that's a horse of another color, but if you hear what a person says and respond not in kind but with action, then a more careful review of motive is in order.

It seems to me that pain, hurt, and suffering is what the liberal wants. If a TV host were to spew vile that you find inappropriate, you may want it to stop, and one thing to do is speak your mind, but if your logic, reason, and rationale doesn't ease the flow of public verbal filth, you might want to choose not words but actions TO shut them up. Some major financial pains might stop them from sucking eggs, so to speak.

Battle it out with words, but if that doesn't work, the greater the amount of suffering and pain the better, right? Destruction of any kind will do, but financial ruin is so tasty and lures many as a much better approach to shutting people up doesn't it? Oh but wait, is THAT what you seek? Do you do everything in your power through action (such as encouraging and engaging in boycotts) to see them suffer--just because they spew some vile in word form? Yeah, not exactly encouraging for people (with something to lose) to be so candid and open. By "you", I don't mean it literally.

If you (generically speaking) genuinely think for some ungodly reason that the companies sponsoring the show give a damn about some teen survivor, then by all means, say what you want, and say it in deliuded detail. Tell us how you feel inside. I (me) won't try to have you destroyed financially. I would NOT want you to feel like your entire life's cumulative wealth hangs in the balance. I might not like what you say, but just as a responsible gun owner would do, I'd keep my weapon of choice holstered. I believe in free speech, and so I'm not going to do everything in my power that fosters the possibility of shutting you up.

Spread your thoughts. What do you have to lose? But, people, smart people, who have managed to amass something worth protecting (and that's dollars, not people), they also have to be smart enough to hide what others can so freely share. Want to keep your job, better walk the line. Wanna keep your business afloat, watch what you say to who. In politics, lie your ass off to every extent possible just for a chance to survive--orange haired billionnares excluded of course. Wow, Trump is impressive!!!

If you insult my mom, what expectation do you have that I will 'buy candy from you'? If you earn your income selling candy, maybe don't insult the customers. And then go on to blame them that they are censoring your speech.

aa

But IS THAT censoring speech? I am arguing that it's not. We are supposed to agree on that darn it. The entirety of what I wrote depends on you seeing the divide I'm making. I have no more expectations that you'll buy my candy than the victim of her senseless comments will compel him to support her. I'm not defending her. I'm criticizing her. But, not for her insensibilities. Perhaps I should, but that's not my angle. I'm criticizing her for not preemptively setting up support that aligns with her callousness. Her downfall would have been shielded had she not accepted sponsorship from just anybody.

One can't always openly speak up about how one truly feels without pushback potentially far more severe than any protection from fines and jail time afforded to us from the right to free speech. Don't we really agree on what I've been saying?

When the unibomber booby traps his home and gives you his key and says welcome and make yourself at home, be cautious. Exercising your rights to free speech can be alarmingly stupid. I'm afraid you're not gonna buy my candy after all, but then again, I never truly expected otherwise.

If that is your only point I agree with it - and it is perhaps better stated in conciseness rather than verbosity. Because I wonder about statements like "It seems to me that pain, hurt, and suffering is what the liberal wants", or an entire diatribe about how we are all seemingly complicit in the downfall of a wealthy mouthpiece when we choose to act rather than speak. These are nonsensical and do not convey the points you were apparently attempting to make all along.

aa

 

[fast]

If that is your only point I agree with it -

I wouldn't go so far as to say it's my ONLY point. It's complex in that one truth people readily accept doesn't negate other truths not as well accepted.

and it is perhaps better stated in conciseness rather than verbosity. Because I wonder about statements like "It seems to me that pain, hurt, and suffering is what the liberal wants",

What do people want when they can't get what they want?

I wanted a drivers license, and I didn't want to take any test to get one, yet there I was being asked what I wanted: to take the test. I don't think pain, hurt, and suffering is what's in the hearts of liberals, but let them not get what they want and the very thing they seek and become excited over even ... is what?

If a person fails in some way, some are rather quicker than others to have entire livelihoods stricken from them. It's as if great consequences should be expected for otherwise lesser acts. That's what happens when people "make a mountain out of a molehill." It extremism.

She made a distasteful comment. No harmfully physical attack with scarring detectable by machines. How many millions of dollars should the ramifications be? It depends on what kind of person you are.

or an entire diatribe about how we are all seemingly complicit in the downfall of a wealthy mouthpiece when we choose to act rather than speak.

When a child opens his mouth and spills filth at grandma's house, there is or is not going to be an aftermath of substantial proportions ... it depends not on the child but the character of the adults.

Complicit, eh. I've tried to steer clear of using words like "blame." I've preferred a more neutral causal feel. The people making the decisions to not buy from Bayer can look back and blame the host for the words she chose to use, but we can't flip flop about and talk of expectations when the decision squarely rests on the people acting as they do, just as which grandmothers of the world will choose a course of action over others when dealing with a child's misbehavior.

 

[Arctish]

If a person fails in some way, some are rather quicker than others to have entire livelihoods stricken from them. It's as if great consequences should be expected for otherwise lesser acts. That's what happens when people "make a mountain out of a molehill." It extremism.

She made a distasteful comment. No harmfully physical attack with scarring detectable by machines. How many millions of dollars should the ramifications be? It depends on what kind of person you are.

We as individuals don't get to set a dollar amount on the ramifications when a public figure acts in a way we find so distasteful we are motivated to object. We can only control the tiny bit of the economy tied to our own paychecks. But when a lot of people are objecting to the same thing, there are cumulative effects.

In this case, the people objecting to Ingraham mocking a teenager on Twitter are the same people businesses like Wayfair, Ruby Tuesday, Hulu, TripAdvisor, Expedia, etc. want to court and retain as customers. Given the choice between Ingraham and their customer base, those businesses made the smart choice.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Why is it that everyone needs to be accountable for their actions and what they say... except conservatives?

 

[fast]

If a person fails in some way, some are rather quicker than others to have entire livelihoods stricken from them. It's as if great consequences should be expected for otherwise lesser acts. That's what happens when people "make a mountain out of a molehill." It extremism.

She made a distasteful comment. No harmfully physical attack with scarring detectable by machines. How many millions of dollars should the ramifications be? It depends on what kind of person you are.

We as individuals don't get to set a dollar amount on the ramifications when a public figure acts in a way we find so distasteful we are motivated to object. We can only control the tiny bit of the economy tied to our own paychecks. But when a lot of people are objecting to the same thing, there are cumulative effects.

In this case, the people objecting to Ingraham mocking a teenager on Twitter are the same people businesses like Wayfair, Ruby Tuesday, Hulu, TripAdvisor, Expedia, etc. want to court and retain as customers. Given the choice between Ingraham and their customer base, those businesses made the smart choice.

I don't readily see anything here to disagree with. Yes, you control your dollars, and no, I don't expect you to loyally patronize a company that continues to financially support a talk show with a host that freely speaks her mind. I do (and perhaps I shouldn't say blame but rather) find a causal effect with you being apart of discouraging free speech by using dollars instead of words as a means of effecting change. I do not mean to pass value judgement, but be aware that you (not the host) is apart of this particular causal effect.

Let's try this. If Hank walks into a bar and says to Victor, "damn your girl got some ass on her," I won't be a bit surprised if Hank drops Victor right where he stands. If a host says, teenage survivors of mass school shooting are alive only because they cowered behind desks," I won't be a bit surprised if you alter your spending habits. Okay, so am I blaming anyone? Not really blaming here, but when I voice a minor nuance, it SOUNDS like I am blaming.

If Hank could have controlled his emotions and dealt with things differently, and if you could have refrained from being rash, the consequences of Victor speaking his mind and the consequences of the host speaking her mind would have been different--just like a cop turning a blind eye to a traffic offense will not lead to a speeder getting a ticket. And no, I'm not saying that I expect Hank not to defend his girl, you not to cause pain and hurt in what little way you can, or for the cop not to do his job.

Because there are two and not one aspect to this so-called cause and effect relationship between words of one and subsequent actions of others, I'm pointing out the duality that it isn't just the hosts mouth but also the actions of those that discourage free speech through action. And again, blame is not in play here.

But, in recognizing that people of a certain bent chooses to play their part in the financial destruction of others that openly speak their mind, the loophole for vile hosts is to recognize the part others play in their downfall. That's where I was going with the homosexual example. Be mindful of the kind of support you secure. That's the path when finances are dependent on others. Don't rely on the unreliable. That (again) is not in any way to say I have high expectations of people to show restraint in their retaliation. It's to show that there needs to be a better alignment between the hosts message and the sponsors customer base, for the causal aspect worthy of highlight is between the dollars you and yours can effect change to and the dollars she will no longer secure.

I can yell at a hammer all day. My thumb will not hurt because of it.

I can talk shit about Betsy all day, and my face will be fine.

If I talk shit about Hanks girl, well, that's another matter. He's a doer.

And so am I. So, no blame. Just tracing the causal connections. Liberals tend to discourage the exercise of free speech with actions that cause financial pains. Do I expect otherwise? Nope. Sure don't.

 

[Arctish]

If a person fails in some way, some are rather quicker than others to have entire livelihoods stricken from them. It's as if great consequences should be expected for otherwise lesser acts. That's what happens when people "make a mountain out of a molehill." It extremism.

She made a distasteful comment. No harmfully physical attack with scarring detectable by machines. How many millions of dollars should the ramifications be? It depends on what kind of person you are.

We as individuals don't get to set a dollar amount on the ramifications when a public figure acts in a way we find so distasteful we are motivated to object. We can only control the tiny bit of the economy tied to our own paychecks. But when a lot of people are objecting to the same thing, there are cumulative effects.

In this case, the people objecting to Ingraham mocking a teenager on Twitter are the same people businesses like Wayfair, Ruby Tuesday, Hulu, TripAdvisor, Expedia, etc. want to court and retain as customers. Given the choice between Ingraham and their customer base, those businesses made the smart choice.

I don't readily see anything here to disagree with. Yes, you control your dollars, and no, I don't expect you to loyally patronize a company that continues to financially support a talk show with a host that freely speaks her mind. I do (and perhaps I shouldn't say blame but rather) find a causal effect with you being apart of discouraging free speech by using dollars instead of words as a means of effecting change. I do not mean to pass value judgement, but be aware that you (not the host) is apart of this particular causal effect.

Let's try this. If Hank walks into a bar and says to Victor, "damn your girl got some ass on her," I won't be a bit surprised if Hank drops Victor right where he stands. If a host says, teenage survivors of mass school shooting are alive only because they cowered behind desks," I won't be a bit surprised if you alter your spending habits. Okay, so am I blaming anyone? Not really blaming here, but when I voice a minor nuance, it SOUNDS like I am blaming.

If Hank could have controlled his emotions and dealt with things differently, and if you could have refrained from being rash, the consequences of Victor speaking his mind and the consequences of the host speaking her mind would have been different--just like a cop turning a blind eye to a traffic offense will not lead to a speeder getting a ticket. And no, I'm not saying that I expect Hank not to defend his girl, you not to cause pain and hurt in what little way you can, or for the cop not to do his job.

Because there are two and not one aspect to this so-called cause and effect relationship between words of one and subsequent actions of others, I'm pointing out the duality that it isn't just the hosts mouth but also the actions of those that discourage free speech through action. And again, blame is not in play here.

But, in recognizing that people of a certain bent chooses to play their part in the financial destruction of others that openly speak their mind, the loophole for vile hosts is to recognize the part others play in their downfall. That's where I was going with the homosexual example. Be mindful of the kind of support you secure. That's the path when finances are dependent on others. Don't rely on the unreliable. That (again) is not in any way to say I have high expectations of people to show restraint in their retaliation. It's to show that there needs to be a better alignment between the hosts message and the sponsors customer base, for the causal aspect worthy of highlight is between the dollars you and yours can effect change to and the dollars she will no longer secure.

I can yell at a hammer all day. My thumb will not hurt because of it.

I can talk shit about Betsy all day, and my face will be fine.

If I talk shit about Hanks girl, well, that's another matter. He's a doer.

And so am I. So, no blame. Just tracing the causal connections. Liberals tend to discourage the exercise of free speech with actions that cause financial pains. Do I expect otherwise? Nope. Sure don't.

You keep talking about liberals. 'Let the market decide' isn't a liberal mantra. It's a Free Market Libertarian principle.

The Market decided that Ingraham crossed a line. The Market decided that advertising on her show risked driving away customers, so it decided to take its money elsewhere. Liberals didn't impose that consequence. The Market did.

You want unpopular ideas and controversial speech to get the same air time as the stuff that gets the most 'likes'? Take The Market out of the equation. Start with defending net neutrality. If we lose net neutrality, then it's Market Forces ftw.

Sure, defending net neutrality is a liberal cause, but what's wrong with that? Some of the best ideas this nation has ever had were promoted by liberals.

 

[lpetrich]

Why is it that everyone needs to be accountable for their actions and what they say... except conservatives?

Movement conservatives also seem to think that they alone have the right to call themselves victims. They wail about an alleged cult of victimhood, even as they wail about what victims they are.

I've composed this picture: Laura Ingraham and the Alien Pizza Bats of ST:TOS "Operation: Annihilate!"

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Why is it that everyone needs to be accountable for their actions and what they say... except conservatives?

Movement conservatives also seem to think that they alone have the right to call themselves victims. They wail about an alleged cult of victimhood, even as they wail about what victims they are.

I've composed this picture: Laura Ingraham and the Alien Pizza Bats of ST:TOS "Operation: Annihilate!"

Being victims, accountability, being ‘offended’.

 

[Underseer]

Why should advertisers be forced to associate themselves with individuals that could cost them lots of business? How would that make everyone "more free"?

Freedom of speech means anyone can say what they want.

It does not mean FOX News owes you a platform. It does not mean FOX News advertisers owe you a platform. Freedom of speech does not mean you can force any channel, newspaper, or advertiser to provide you with a platform for your views, and freedom of speech sure as fuck doesn't mean freedom from criticism or freedom from consequences. Just as you are free to say what you want, we are free to respond to what you say.

It's that last part that angers right wingers so much.

 

[Underseer]

I don't readily see anything here to disagree with. Yes, you control your dollars, and no, I don't expect you to loyally patronize a company that continues to financially support a talk show with a host that freely speaks her mind. I do (and perhaps I shouldn't say blame but rather) find a causal effect with you being apart of discouraging free speech by using dollars instead of words as a means of effecting change. I do not mean to pass value judgement, but be aware that you (not the host) is apart of this particular causal effect.

Let's try this. If Hank walks into a bar and says to Victor, "damn your girl got some ass on her," I won't be a bit surprised if Hank drops Victor right where he stands. If a host says, teenage survivors of mass school shooting are alive only because they cowered behind desks," I won't be a bit surprised if you alter your spending habits. Okay, so am I blaming anyone? Not really blaming here, but when I voice a minor nuance, it SOUNDS like I am blaming.

If Hank could have controlled his emotions and dealt with things differently, and if you could have refrained from being rash, the consequences of Victor speaking his mind and the consequences of the host speaking her mind would have been different--just like a cop turning a blind eye to a traffic offense will not lead to a speeder getting a ticket. And no, I'm not saying that I expect Hank not to defend his girl, you not to cause pain and hurt in what little way you can, or for the cop not to do his job.

Because there are two and not one aspect to this so-called cause and effect relationship between words of one and subsequent actions of others, I'm pointing out the duality that it isn't just the hosts mouth but also the actions of those that discourage free speech through action. And again, blame is not in play here.

But, in recognizing that people of a certain bent chooses to play their part in the financial destruction of others that openly speak their mind, the loophole for vile hosts is to recognize the part others play in their downfall. That's where I was going with the homosexual example. Be mindful of the kind of support you secure. That's the path when finances are dependent on others. Don't rely on the unreliable. That (again) is not in any way to say I have high expectations of people to show restraint in their retaliation. It's to show that there needs to be a better alignment between the hosts message and the sponsors customer base, for the causal aspect worthy of highlight is between the dollars you and yours can effect change to and the dollars she will no longer secure.

I can yell at a hammer all day. My thumb will not hurt because of it.

I can talk shit about Betsy all day, and my face will be fine.

If I talk shit about Hanks girl, well, that's another matter. He's a doer.

And so am I. So, no blame. Just tracing the causal connections. Liberals tend to discourage the exercise of free speech with actions that cause financial pains. Do I expect otherwise? Nope. Sure don't.

You keep talking about liberals. 'Let the market decide' isn't a liberal mantra. It's a Free Market Libertarian principle.

The Market decided that Ingraham crossed a line. The Market decided that advertising on her show risked driving away customers, so it decided to take its money elsewhere. Liberals didn't impose that consequence. The Market did.

You want unpopular ideas and controversial speech to get the same air time as the stuff that gets the most 'likes'? Take The Market out of the equation. Start with defending net neutrality. If we lose net neutrality, then it's Market Forces ftw.

Sure, defending net neutrality is a liberal cause, but what's wrong with that? Some of the best ideas this nation has ever had were promoted by liberals.

Somehow, conservatives (especially white supremacists) got the idea into their heads that freedom of speech means freedom from criticism, but only for them.

- - - Updated - - -

Whoops. I apologize for using the politically incorrect term "white supremacist." We are now supposed to call them alt-right free speech advocates identitarians.