Boycott Is The New Wedgie

"I won’t accept Ingraham’s apology until she’s more objective," said David Hogg after the conservative host retracted for mocking on him due to the rejection on four college applications. It is not the first time that the Parkland students engage in a back-and-forth discussion with their counterparts; but certainly, it is the first time a personal attack escalate to the point where 11 advertisers pulled from Ingraham´s show after the teenager called for a boycott. And this makes us wonder how far can their enemies go with this bunch?

First Ingraham turns Hogg´s college rejection into a parody, then the teenager successfully calls for a boycott; and right after some advertiser left her show, she regretted what she said. Moral judgments about how professional is the attack against the teenager arose, nonetheless, whether the attack might be justified or not, the point is that the whole quarrel, and mainly the output of it, summarizes the danger that implies to confront the image of a social justice movement.

In the past, several times the Parkland students have personally targeted public figures. In example, during the March For Our Lives, David Hogg hanged a price tag of $ 1.05 for everyone to remind "how much Marcos Rubio took for every student´s life in Florida" clearly implying the direct responsibility of the politician in the past events. Now, this is not to defend any politician of the student activism but to call the attention on how freely can some groups go with their ideas, while some others, like Laura Ingraham, need to suppress or shape their speeches to avoid financial or political loss. How David´s college rejection due to acceptance rates is a personal attack but finger-pointing Marcos Rubio as mass murder responsible is a simple opinion?

A personal attack against David Hogg is turned into an attack on the entire movement as he claims. Nonetheless, what I really wonder is how far the counterparts can go? If US citizens do not strength the opposition to this operation, soon there will be no critics against the heads, and the "objectivity" demanded will only be their side of the story. Let us remind that when it comes to money and political power leaders can quickly change their mind; as a good example, there is Laura after the third sponsor left her.