quote:

Originally posted by greco:
How come li’l Hogg continues to get traction. I thought he publically said he wasn’t even there during the shooting, but jumped on his bike and rode to the school (3 miles?). Has reality been shit-Canned so the little asshole can be a hero?

He was in class the day of the shootings. Let's not rehash rumor.

I wouldn't say that he "continues to get traction." What "traction" he is getting is difficult to measure.

Why we keep hearing from him, is that people with deep pockets find him useful for their cause. Simple as that.

quote:

Originally posted by arcwelder76:

I wouldn't say that he "continues to get traction." What "traction" he is getting is difficult to measure.

The Harvard acceptance letter makes me wonder if he's being groomed to run for office.

quote:

Originally posted by radioman:

quote:

Originally posted by arcwelder76:

I wouldn't say that he "continues to get traction." What "traction" he is getting is difficult to measure.

The Harvard acceptance letter makes me wonder if he's being groomed to run for office.

Harvard is using him, too.

Sure, groom him to run for office, it will be a waste of time.

These kids are used like Gifford. It is shameful.

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:

quote:

Originally posted by cyberiad:
[QUOTE] I didn't find that girl who made fun of Sarah Sanders funny either. Maybe I just don't know what 'comedy' is these days.

Put it this way - the more clowns make fun of you, the better you look. Sarah Sanders doesn't have a thing to worry about because that girl doesn't know what 'comedy' is.

And neither does Louis CK

quote:

Originally posted by cyberiad:

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:

quote:

Originally posted by cyberiad:
[QUOTE] I didn't find that girl who made fun of Sarah Sanders funny either. Maybe I just don't know what 'comedy' is these days.

Put it this way - the more clowns make fun of you, the better you look. Sarah Sanders doesn't have a thing to worry about because that girl doesn't know what 'comedy' is.

And neither does Louis CK

You don't have to like, understand, or enjoy Louis C.K.. But judging by his success prior to the sexual misconduct stuff coming out, I'd say that he has some idea of what comedy is.

I wouldn't count Michelle Wolf as funny, myself. But if no one thought she was funny, she wouldn't have done a set at the correspondents dinner. Obviously her humor there was partisan.

Frankly, there is a difference between a bad comedian, and an offensive one. If we can't find either one of those things, I'd be even more concerned.

I'd say that he's talented enough to bounce back from his past indiscretions, and certainly one bit about activist children.

Nothing should be off limits to comedy. Nothing should be off limits to any form of speech. Once someone writes/says/does something, it can then be criticized.

Have you heard about the developing trend about comedians not being able to play college campuses? I find that pretty disturbing. It's a symptom of the SJW madness.

Louis is funny, and correct, his wank problems aside.

The kid is an annoying pawn with a useless opinion who has been given his 15min.

Hogg quit being protected as just a school kid when he and his buddy started lecturing the world. You want to do adulting, fine. FU and your half formed ideas. Hope you like being a rich white man from new York's bitch.
Adulting sucks when you prostitute it away.

Comedy should be sacred. Make me laugh (Lewis Black) I will buy tickets to see you etc. Dont make me laugh (Amy Schumer) and nope, not a penny your way.

quote:

Originally posted by arcwelder76:

Should they be put on a pedestal, and their word now be elevated above others, or their opinion have weight only because of what happened to them? No.

I think you hit an important point here.

There seems to be a fairly recent trend—last 10 years or so—of victimization being held to a higher standard. He’s a kid, and there’s a lot of historical precedence for kids being used by others for political motives.

Victims deserve our compassion, empathy, and support, sure. But I don’t agree with the concept that being a victim makes one automatically more credible or informed.

We have entered a period in the Information Age where easy individual access to mass communication has yielded an illusion of informed opinion.

A criminal’s perspective on the criminal justice system is held to a higher standard than that of someone who hasn’t committed any crimes.

A homeless person who has abused others to put themselves into financial ruin is seen as more credible in their opinion than someone who’s worked for their financial security.

A drug addict is seen to have a clearer view on substance abuse than those who receive the brunt of their offenses.

The cry of, “Oh, we should listen to him,” not because he’s right, informed, or educated, but more disturbingly because it would hurt someone’s feelings to not listen, is a notion I have difficulty conforming to.

Suppression of opposing views doesn’t start with broad strokes of the pen to legislate censure or silence. It starts when someone in the audience shooshes you, not because they want to hear the speaker’s opinion, but because they want you to.