Laura Ingraham got herself into trouble for taunting David Hogg over the fact that his college application was denied by four schools. She apologized the next day. Hogg did not accept the apology and called for an advertiser boycott of her show on Fox News. He says she needs to "denounce" her own network. Until then, I guess, the boycott will continue.
After ungraciously rejecting an apology, Hogg announced that the world needs more "love" and less "mudslinging." Funny, coming from the guy who has been doing nothing but slinging mud for the past two months. He called Dana Loesch "disgusting," he accused Marco Rubio of accepting blood money, he's called his opponents "sick f**kers," and so on. Hogg, who is months away from legal adulthood, likes to refer to himself and his friends as "children" whenever they are criticized. The rest of the time he demands we take him and his ideas entirely seriously. Which is it? Is it OK to sling mud or no? Is Hogg just a helpless, innocent child or is he a mature adult?
I think I can answer that last question. Hogg is not a "child," neither is he a mature adult. He's a 17-year-old. He's just like most other 17-year-olds in the country. Juvenile, ignorant, vulgar. I don't hold it against him. I don't hate the kid. I'm not even mad at him. I was the same way at his age. I wasn't a gun control advocate, but if you had put me on TV, brought me up on stage in front of huge crowds, and given me this kind of intense, national attention, I imagine I wouldn't have covered myself in glory, either. Attention is intoxicating to anyone. To a teenager, it's crack cocaine. Anyone who has ever been a teenager must know this from experience.
So, here's an idea: let's stop giving him the attention. For his own sake. For our sake. For the sake of sanity and reason. Who cares about the kid's college application status? Why was Ingraham commenting on it in the first place? Who cares what he says? Who cares what he does? It only matters because we've made it matter. David Hogg has no actual power. He does have influence, but that's only because he's become a mascot for gun rights. And why is he a mascot? Partly because the liberal media selected him for that position, and partly because conservatives have heaped a ton of negative attention upon him, causing the Left to rally around him.
Most of the comments about David Hogg that I see on social media are from conservatives. Most of the articles written about him (yes, like this one), seem to be written by conservatives. David Hogg is "a thing" because we made him into one. We were churning out lengthy think pieces deconstructing Hogg's ideas after the very first time he appeared on TV. Maybe that was a mistake. It's perfectly fair and reasonable to criticize falsehoods uttered in front of a national audience, but maybe the ramblings of a kid were never worthy of the think pieces. Maybe we should have just shrugged our shoulders, smiled, and said, "I remember when I was young and had no idea what I was talking about." And then moved on with our lives.
David Hogg has no clue about guns. No clue about the Constitution. He attacks people viciously, personally, and dishonestly, and does not accept responsibility for it. In other words, he's 17. Maybe we should treat him like every other 17 year old.
Personally, I wish him well. I hope he goes off to college and finds success in life. I just don't care what he thinks about gun rights or any other subject. I think we should all stop caring.