CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Boycott Boycotters- I Stand With Laura Ingraham
Laura Ingraham
Here's a list of advertisers who have pulled ads from Laura Ingraham's program simply because she mocked David Hogg's lament over 4 university rejections. David Hogg is one of the primary spokesmen for the Stoneman Douglas Highschool shooting and gun banning advocate.
What many don't realize, most of these complaints are generated by a few people using thousands of sock/fake accounts to give the appearance of a lot of pe
Here's a list of advertisers who have pulled ads from Laura Ingraham's program simply because she MOCKED David Hogg..
The above companies and others are now on my boycott list for going along with the faux-rage the left employs to silence and censor those who have OPINIONS they disagree with.
Hello H:
You're right... She shouldn't be boycotted for her OPINIONS. She should be boycotted because she MOCKED him.
Pretty sad Excon when a guy who acts demon possessed and goes on giant F bomb rants is your hero. So far your list of heroes are noted Jew killers and haters, Communists, and an F bomb child. At least you can now die in peace. I couldn't live with myself personally.
Mocking does not boycott equate. Is he an untouchable now because of the tragedy? He is now a political operative being used and funded by the left and, therefore, fair game. "Mocking" is mild compared to what the left hurls in the right's direction and you don't see the right always trying to boycott, ban, and silence the opposition.
and you don't see the right always trying to boycott, ban, and silence the opposition.
You sir, are the very definition of a liar.
The right spends 90 percent of each day harassing left wing posters and trying to have them banned. I have personally been banned from this very site several times because of it.
The fact of the matter is that you are utterly ruthless liars.
That's an opinion apparently NOT shared by her advertisers..
Certainly, they're NOT required to follow the lead of a 17 year old, unless, of course, they AGREE with him.. Is that on the KID or the CEO's, who one presumes are adults??
I think her advertisers made a mistake. They got caught up in the heat of the moment, were probably bombarded by fake complaints and panicked. They don't realize how the left works. This faux outrage is ginned up by a few, with numerous fake/sock accounts, and they flood their target's mailboxes. After all is said and done, I think they'll realize the error of their ways.
The advertisers are pulling out because they are afraid that their products may sell less if they don't. They're afraid of the political and sales implications of appearing passive to Hogg's public call for boycott. The advertisers, no doubt, like the rest of us, sympathize with the dead and injured from the gun tragedy, but in the end they are withdrawing sponsorship from Ingraham for mainly business reasons, guaranteed.
The sponsors who've pulled out may find that boycotts can harm both ways.
The advertisers are pulling out because they are afraid that their products may sell less if they don't.
Hello Mundy:
Ok. I'll buy that. I certainly don't think the advertisers agree POLITICALLY with Hogg.. Where I think they find agreement, is that their image will be damaged if a person who REPRESENTS their products MOCKS a child.
And, that's what Ingraham did.. Look. This isn't about her politics.. It's about her manners.
You're also right that it might backfire on them too..
The boycott is not justified. Hogg has become a prominent spokesman for his cause, and L. Ingraham displayed a lapse in judgement for mocking him during these tragic times, but that doesn't mean Hogg now is justified in acting like an untouchable with an inflated sense of entitlement who has the right to slash and burn anyone who mildly mocks him. His sense of entitlement over university admission reminds me of Hillary's sense of entitlement over being elected. The left believes it deserves to have power and get exactly what it wants. If well-known leftists are foiled in their ambitions, some get get very nasty in a public way. Nasty is what we've got here now.
Ingraham displayed a lapse in judgement for mocking him during these tragic times.
No, she did him a favor. Ingragam did not humor him, patronize him, etc. She is the first person I saw treat that little boy like an adult.
A real man would suck it up and would never complain about rejection in public. Certainly any man who complained about a personal disappointment in the midst of acting like a self-righteous ass would be mocked.
Oh....pardon the mistake.....I'm rather tuned out right now...
No worries.
I did not mean to sound like I was scolding or nitpicking. I just figured that you are not familiar with minor personalities in the US media (based on the flag you use as an icon.)
It is kind of like me thinking that Mitchel and Webb is a men's clothiers, or Phil Jupitus is a classics professor at Oxford. It can only sound wrong once you know who they are, and few people outside of Britain would have any idea.
Laura Ingraham did Hogg a favor his family and friends were apparently unwilling to do for him. Hogg should be grateful to her. People should have been making fun of him before this.
Hogg is a sheltered and ignorant little boy who is apparently not smart enough or mature enough to recognize that he is just an ignorant little boy trying to play an adult's game in an adult's world. It is not his fault. He cannot help that he is young and sheltered, but the only remedy is to be treated like an adult.
From all the coverage I saw, Ingraham was the ONLY person to do so.
Lesson: People who are ignorant of their subject matter, unable to apply logic to the few things they do know, and spout off loudly and publicly will be mocked, especially if they don a mantle of self-righteousness.
Part of reality is people making fun anybody who says stupid things in public, and Hogg said many stupid things in public.
Hogg is somehow unaware of how ridiculous (worthy of ridicule) it is to complain about his school requiring clear backpacks in light of the charges of murder he levels at the NRA and gun owners. Sillier still is that he says the school's requirement is a First Amendment violation, partly because it is more appropriate to cite them as Fourth Amendment violations, and partly because his opposition to Second Amendment rights indicates he does not particularly understand what Constitutional mechanisms combine to protect all rights.
His main message boils down to "I want and Oompa Loompa, and I want it now! Anyone who tells me it is a bad idea to give me an Oompa Loompa is an evil person!" His self-righteous rants clearly indicate that he believes the government has magic powers to give him the Oompa Loompa of complete safety without having to address practical issues, legal limitations, or risks of unintended consequences.
If this were not childish enough, he seems to be unaware of how ridiculous it is to complain publicly about being rejected by top tier universities when he has been demanding that everybody else stop what they are doing so that they can implement his unrealistic solutions.
Somebody should have made fun of him earlier so that he would have spent less time acting foolish in public. Someday he is going to watch footage of his teenage self, and groan in embarrassment.
Somebody should have made fun of him earlier so that he would have spent less time acting foolish in public. Someday he is going to watch footage of his teenage self, and groan in embarrassment.
I agree--which is exactly why it is not sensible nor responsible to put kids in the spotlight like this. They are being used as 'pawns' in a larger game, and are not aware of it. What they say now, publicly, is never going away--even though many of these kids views are bound to change significantly over the next 10 years or so.
People should call a spade-a-spade on the agenda, which is to use these kids as 'human shields' in order to advance a pre-planned policy program. The gun regulationists should not be doing it, and the pro-gun advocates should not 'go with it' as though it were a legitimate move.
...it is not sensible nor responsible to put kids in the spotlight like this. They are being used as 'pawns' in a larger game, and are not aware of it.
Yep.
People have long used children (and old people) as the excuse for their agendas, as marketing tools, and as bargaining chips. They do it with censorship, and the push against free speech (what if kids see/hear this?)
I am so happy I grew up in the days before impromptu mass media and universal on-line publishing. Even without the for-profit publishing and TV networks, there would still be all the YouTube clips and podcasts.
What they say now, publicly, is never going away--even though many of these kids views are bound to change significantly over the next 10 years or so.
What is too bad is generally these kids have never been told that they will change more in their 20s than they have in their teens. That is a handy piece of information to have when somebody is handing you a microphone.
I went through the entire American political spectrum in my 20's: Democrat, Socialist, Communist, Environmental Crazy, Anarchist, Republican, Libertarian. The saddest fact is that this boy is 17, yet he still has no idea that HOW you solve a problem is important, and just demanding that somebody do something is likely to end badly. This is a basic lesson he should have learned by now. Don't they teach history in school anymore?
People have long used children (and old people) as the excuse for their agendas, as marketing tools, and as bargaining chips. They do it with censorship, and the push against free speech (what if kids see/hear this?)
Yes--which, ironically, in-it-of-itself proves how little such adults care about the children (contrary to their claims); and (many of) the kids will look back and understand that one day, likely sometime in their twenties.
What is too bad is generally these kids have never been told that they will change more in their 20s than they have in their teens. That is a handy piece of information to have when somebody is handing you a microphone.
Yes, which again, show how minimally involved the parent are in the kids lives--which is a enormous part of the reason why events such as this (i.e. the shooting itself) occur. For instance, the "elephant in the room" for (many) of these mass school shootings is "How was the kid treated in school? Was he bullied, tormented, extremely socially rejected endlessly? Who was participating, to what level, and who was complicit? Everyone? Did anyone do anything about it on any significant, relevant scale? If the treatment is so bad, why didn't the parents pull him out for Homeschooling rather than torture? etc. etc.
Again, people do not like to consider such matters, and instead scapegoat the weapon of choice as the root cause of the issue--when, clearly, it is not. Logically, the same event could occur with bombs, suicide bombing, etc. etc. Furthermore, the reason why people do not like to consider it is that it destroys the "Disney Channel"/idealized-version of themselves, other people, and the world generally. As culpability is (often) partially reflected in the mirror.
What I would like to discuss is essentially what the Netflix series "13 Reasons Why" began to explore (which, apparently, many people were unable to handle). That is, the contributions your 'average' person makes to the daily suffering of others in their 'reach' through forms of extreme social rejection, bullying, dehumanization, etc., with the exceptions being very rare. Furthermore, how a person in such a perpetually painful/tormented state becomes necessarily 'unwell', often 'cries out for help' which goes ignored or the subject of further ridicule, deeper resentfulness builds as they become more withdrawn and is highly susceptible to lashing out in very dangerous, unhealthy, and counterproductive ways toward either themselves (i.e. self-harm, suicide) and/or to others in their personal mission of what is often imagined to be 'vigilante justice' on their behalf (i.e. hurting others who have often in some hurt them). (Side note: Consider the joke in Billy Madison, when Adam Sandler calls a guy from High School he used to bully, who then crosses his name off a 'hit list' once he hangs up the phone OR, in the movie "Full Metal Jacket")
I would add, the common euphuism/scapegoat is often 'mental health issues'--while, of course, anyone who is extremely socially rejected & ostracized (i.e. a 'social leper') will necessarily have substantial 'mental health issues'. Hence, why solitary confinement is internationally considered torture. If given the option, human beings would prefer to be around serial rapists, torturers, & murders at least part of the time rather than alone. It is a simple fact of our Biology, and much has been learnt about through Neuroscience & other disciplines, although, of course, much more research is necessary to gain further insights.
As just noted, quite a bit is now known about this phenomena as a matter Neuroscience/Biology, so the level of 'debate' occurring around it (or, rather, not happening) now is truly pathetic (dangerously so)--as, unfortunately, is often the case.
I, too, lament the tendency for many on both sides to refuse to engage in more complex analysis than "He used a gun, so the gun is the cause of death," or "Guns don't kill people; people kill people."
"He used a gun, so the gun is the cause of death," or "Guns don't kill people; people kill people.
Yes, and those are some of the favorite go-to scapegoats for this issue.
The reality is (which people are aware of, though want to 'brush under the rug'); Tragedies such as Columbine, Parkland, etc. would be logically impossible if even 20% (or less) of people were of high-level empathy--as the kids' lives would have been functionally completely different, which leads to superior mental health & stability, less resentment, etc. etc. [Note: Now, of course, there actually are some people with strictly innate mental health issues, though that is not what we are discussing here, in this context]
What would be interesting, though still highly tragic, would be if such a kid organized an effort very similar to what is portrayed in the movie "Seven Pounds" by Will Smith's character, rather than leaving the world as a mass murderer. That is, instead of focusing on all of the sh'tty people in the overwhelming majority who made their life 'hellish', seek out the rare 'good people' who may be in need, and offer what is possible through donations, including bone marrow, and organ donations prior to and upon self-inflicted death. In this way, they could get their story out, explain their reasoning, life experiences, etc. in a final letter to humanity which could potentially touch the 'hearts' of the 'average' person, who often/overwhelmingly contribute to the tragedy. This would give them that last bit of 'power'/'redemption' they are looking for--though, of course, the way it is happening now through mass murder is just absolutely nightmarish for everyone involved and is not going to help get through to people whatsoever; thus, perpetuating the cycle of torture & death, rather than throwing a 'wrench in the plans', as is often intended.
Tragedies such as Columbine, Parkland, etc. would be logically impossible if even 20% (or less) of people were of high-level empathy--as the kids' lives would have been functionally completely different, which leads to superior mental health & stability, less resentment, etc. etc.
Empathy for somebody in pain does not preclude the ability to recognize a bad person when we see one.
Everybody experiences pain, loneliness, misunderstanding, etc.. Some even see their friends get shot by some homicidal ass. Most of these people do not respond with sociopathic behavior.
Maybe your grassroots solution of empathize and be kind to people would work, and maybe it would not. What I like about your solution is that even if it fails, life still gets better.
Link to "Seven Pounds" trailer here:
I own the movie. It is a good one.
I am a free will hardliner, so I leave the responsibility for how folks deal with their lives (however screwed up and unhappy) on them. Even when people's pain drives them to nihilism, there is no reason for the default response to be destructive.
Seven Pounds is an interesting study in that principle.
Yes--frankly, I am not so sanguine it would work (as intended), or possibly may not even be publicized as people tend to only respond to personal fear (i.e. selfish impulses). However, as you pointed out, even if it 'failed', it still 'worked' because one would be making sure they are empowering the right people, in-so-far as they have power to give. Then, these statistically rare good people could potentially use their newfound strength to make more of a positive difference in the world.
Even when people's pain drives them to nihilism, there is no reason for the default response to be destructive.
Seven Pounds is an interesting study in that principle.
Yes, I agree. I found it to be one of the more rare (comparative the entire sample size), very thought provoking films.
I honestly do not think good people are statistically rare. At least, they are not rare in my experience.
Sure, many of us are often blind and preoccupied, but generally not exclusively so. We fade in and out of various degrees of awareness of others.
Sure, many of our immediate reactions are angry or selfish or unkind, but most people ARE merciful after we calm down or reflect a bit.
Absolutely, violence and theft are the exceptions, not the rule.
I find that people are OVERWHELMINGLY of good will, even when they are a pain in the ass, or mucking stuff up.
Were I to identify a single primary problem in Western culture, it would be that people have a tendency to want to help people too much. As a result everybody is pushing their solution on people who have a different solution, so folks are getting in each others' ways. The gun debate is typical of this.
Seriously, my conclusion after years of analysis is that most of the world's big problems are caused by people who truly want to make the world (or their countries, etc.) better.
That is the beauty of your empathy solution. It forces the "helper" to stop trying to fix anything, and just be kind, and give understanding support.
It does not take much to help people feel less alone.
I honestly do not think good people are statistically rare. At least, they are not rare in my experience.
Sure, many of us are often blind and preoccupied, but generally not exclusively so. We fade in and out of various degrees of awareness of others.
This would have to do with one's standards of what constitutes as 'decent', 'good', 'morally strong', etc. It appears, our standards differ rather significantly.
For instance, have you ever seen "The Huntchback of Notre Dame", "The Elephant Man", or some other (supposed) 'freak', social leper story? Do you doubt the claims of how they were treated (or, in the case of fiction, are claimed to be treated if it were real)? I think this is a good place to begin. Below is a video to a scene in "The Elephant Man", who was a real person, which can help illustrate what this person's life was like--and was who participating in his torment.
Edit: When watching the clip, understand & accept, if you woke up tomorrow like that--that would become your life; as in, that is how people would react toward you. This helps view the world through a different set of eyeglasses than typical.
I am not sure what you think the Elephant Man train scene clip illustrates.
I think the entire scene illustrates my point. Everybody, including Merrick, is caught up in their own perceptions and activities, but the vast majority show signs of good intentions, and then act on them.
However, when Merrick knocks over the girl and runs off, a woman yells to stop him. When she calls for help, a horde of strangers respond to help.
- - The kids messing with him were being typical little brats. They are the only people in the scene who are bad people.
- - Merrick knocks over a little girl, but never tries to help her up, or even apologize and ask if she is alright. He does not evince any goodness either.
- - A woman who yells, "Stop that man," is reacting to the fact that he knocked down a child and rushed off.
- - Most of the people following him cannot even see what he looks like until they get into the bathroom.
- - When the men get into the bathroom and see him there is no jeering, no unkindness, simply blank confusion.
I am not sure what you think the Elephant Man train scene clip illustrates
It illustrates that if you lived as that person, regardless of other peoples ignorance & preconceptions, then you would be forever tormented and crippled by these 'good' people--to the point of living a life of seclusion; as he did.
Again, people in "13 Reasons Why" did not all have malevolent intent, and felt varying degrees of guilt afterward. However, first and foremost, nearly everyone was out to cover their own ass first--even if they knew they were guilty as charged.
Also, you do realize there were literally 'freak shows', 'freak collections (as a hobby)', 'Human Zoos', etc. etc., all in recent history? It appears you are doubting that 'average people', strangers would gawk at people like that (or more)--when there is a tremendous evidence to the contrary--including the Elephant Man's life.
Additionally, stating (most) people are only partially moral, often more self-absorbed/self-interested is very different than stating people are demons--which is how you appear to have interpreted the statement.
It illustrates that if you lived as that person, regardless of other peoples ignorance & preconceptions, then you would be forever tormented and crippled by these 'good' people--to the point of living a life of seclusion; as he did.
Okay, but you used this clip to argue that most people are not good. I do not think that ignorance and preconception precludes people from being good people. Were that the case, it would be impossible for anyone to be good because we are ALL ignorant and have preconceptions.
Also, you do realize there were literally 'freak shows', 'freak collections (as a hobby)', 'Human Zoos', etc. etc., all in recent history? It appears you are doubting that 'average people', strangers would gawk at people like that (or more)--when there is a tremendous evidence to the contrary--including the Elephant Man's life.
What do you think the internet is?
I would certainly hesitate to denigrate freak shows. They made it possible for people to make an independent living who were otherwise unable to support themselves . Chang and Eng, the Siamese twins, prospered. They would have been unable to work in an industrial economy, but were able to marry and raise large families.
The fact that the brothers had 21 children is the direct result of strangers being curious enough to pay to gawk.
Being curious no more precludes those people from being good than does their ignorance, especially if it helps men who cannot work to live happy lives with families and children.
Okay, but you used this clip to argue that most people are not good.
One, there is not actually anything wrong with the guy--as it is superficial appearance deformity. Mentally, he was fit like anyone else--although, very, very few people ever accepted him (even partially). However, the fact that there are some people who do accept him, and do not de-humanize him, means that everyone else has a lot explaining to do.
This type of story is a constant theme throughout history, as well as in literature, ect. I frankly don't care if it doesn't sound flattering for people, that is how people comport themselves--and it has yet to be seriously challenged/changed/improved upon. I would add, this theme shows up constantly in Sci-Fi, with humans attacking the Aliens first toward genocide--simply because the are 'others'; which sets their amygdala's on high alert. Also, if you read stories of social lepers (that is, actual lepers, and such), they report the same phenomena. The overwhelming majority treat them like garbage, a small minority is in a 'grey area', who are at least partially kind at times, even if flawed at other times, and only a very rare few that genuinely do not de-humanize them.
I would certainly hesitate to denigrate freak shows. They made it possible for people to make an independent living who were otherwise unable to support themselves .
Again, in many cases, why were they unable to support themselves (considering people like the Elephant Man were mostly functionally 'healthy', it was strictly based on a matter of appearance)--and at what cost did this 'job' come at? Their dignity as a human being. Are you to argue 'Human Zoos' were in fact a good thing for those put on display, trapped there--like we do with monkeys?
This type of story is a constant theme throughout history, as well as in literature, ect. I frankly don't care if it doesn't sound flattering for people, that is how people comport themselves--and it has yet to be seriously challenged/changed/improved upon.
Actually it has been DRASTICALLY improved upon in Western culture. We have applied cultural pressures to almost eliminate xenophobia. We have absolutely eliminated the killing of the infirm, weak, and deformed from our culture. We have even made it possible for people with diametrically opposed beliefs and values to live together in peace, and sometimes in harmony.
I am NOT arguing that ALL people are good, nor that most people are socially adept.
Certainly, I think that freak shows, the atom bomb, cloud computing, and smartphones clearly demonstrate that we are an EXTREMELY stupid species.
Obviously, we agree that it is painful to live with the fact that our ancestors were selected out for curiosity, violent fear responses, and antipathy to disease or anything that appears to be diseased.
However, if I correctly understand your main point, you equate bad manners (as evidenced by gawking) with being a bad person, and believe that without an incredibly high degree of empathy, people cannot be good.
I think you are expecting us all to shed the blessings of three billion years of natural selection in favor of the dominance of a relatively new trait (empathy).
However, if I correctly understand your main point, you equate bad manners (as evidenced by gawking) with being a bad person, and believe that without an incredibly high degree of empathy, people cannot be good.
Then you do not understand me correctly. Perhaps, I have framed my argument poorly--in which case this is my own fault. Note, I will have to backtrack and give my views more structure, as well as how it relates to yours in order to overcome this. I am a bit busy at the moment, but will get back to you shortly will a fuller response.
