Routine Shootings at US Schools and Universities Megathread.

[Jacob]

(if that was the case, Jake would be telling us its really no big deal, and studies show that most college students are ossum)

[Jacob]

Fair game, sure. Hardly taking the "high road". If he's successful, his boycott causes a lot more damage than a bit of name-calling.

He's not attacking her character, he's attacking the platform she's using to attack his character.

Whether you'd consider that the "high road" or not depends, I suppose, on whether you value your personal integrity more or less than your bread and butter.

[Eddie Teach]

His bread and butter isn't in question.

[crazy canuck]

So he's going after 3rd parties who are just trying to reach potential customers.

Is that a bad thing?

I'm not entirely sure, but I have reservations about it.  It seems like a back-door attempt to restrict free speech.  Even if the speech in this case was a classless bit of crap better suited to being said by a 3rd rate stand-up comic than to someone who claims to be a newsperson.

Free speech does not include freedom from others being convince they should not support what is said.

[Jacob]

His bread and butter isn't in question.

Nor is her character it seems.

[Admiral Yi]

His bread and butter isn't in question.

From his perspective at least, his life is.

[Eddie Teach]

Has Ingraham said something to put him in danger?

[Admiral Yi]

Has Ingraham said something to put him in danger?

She reduced, or at least tried to reduce, the probability of gun law reform.

[Eddie Teach]

Ok, statistically significant danger?

[Admiral Yi]

Ok, statistically significant danger?

If you want to make it a question of strictly summing up and comparing lost utiles, you need to include the risks faced by others as well.

[dps]

So he's going after 3rd parties who are just trying to reach potential customers.

Is that a bad thing?

I'm not entirely sure, but I have reservations about it.  It seems like a back-door attempt to restrict free speech.  Even if the speech in this case was a classless bit of crap better suited to being said by a 3rd rate stand-up comic than to someone who claims to be a newsperson.

Free speech does not include freedom from others being convince they should not support what is said.

So instead of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it", it's "I disapprove of what you say, and will therefore attempt to deprive you of your livelihood"?
 
In this particular case, what she said was a personal attack on him, so I suppose it's fair enough that he responds by attacking her personal ability to make a living.  But what if he were calling for a boycott against someone who merely stated a disagreement with his views?  It doesn't seem like a good way to advance debate.

[Eddie Teach]

My disagreement was that his choice of tactics(boycott) was somehow a noble response. If you want to argue his choice of sides gives him the high road, that's a different matter.

[DGuller]

The question I often ask myself is:  would I be okay with this if the tactic were used against gay rights supporters back when gay rights weren't so popular?  It's good that in current times, the power of the advertising dollar is on the side of the good guys when push comes to shove, but there is no guarantee that this will always be the case.

[Jacob]

My disagreement was that his choice of tactics(boycott) was somehow a noble response. If you want to argue his choice of sides gives him the high road, that's a different matter.

Personally I think you can - and are - making a legitimate argument. Conversely, I think there's also a legitimate argument to be made that your character is more valuable than your sway with advertisers.

[Jacob]

The question I often ask myself is:  would I be okay with this if the tactic were used against gay rights supporters back when gay rights weren't so popular?  It's good that in current times, the power of the advertising dollar is on the side of the good guys when push comes to shove, but there is no guarantee that this will always be the case.

Personally I think that politics is a rough and tumble game and that one should not get too precious about it. There are things that are beyond the pale, but hitting advertising dollars is - IMO - a perfectly legitimate technique. It's unpleasant when it's happening to you - and should be countered to the best of your ability when it happens - but there's nothing inherently wrong about it.