I thought Russian bots could spell and punctuate better than this.

Team SorryWatch debated whether to approve this. As Sumac noted, “lets a punk speak vulgar” has a certain poetry to it…but it’s pure insult, with no facts added. Does it add to the discourse?

Snarly says yes. It’s kinda like the debate over who the NYT should hire as a conservative columnist — if they pick someone reasonable and erudite, as Times columnists usually are, that person won’t reflect the emotional thinking of actual Trumpians; if they pick an Alex Jones/Breitbart type, the person will spew hate and fake news, which would be unTimesian. I think that SorryWatch is not the NYT, and unless a given troglodyte says something racist, homophobic or “she was asking for it”-y, I think we should approve the comment and let “reasonable” people see what “unreasonable” people think. And I think telling a Gen Z activist he is a punk speaking vulgar would not only NOT be distressing to him if he were to read it, but would actually amuse him. (We don’t want to publish actual hurtful insults. A fake image of Hogg ripping up the Constitution would be beyond the pale, as would attacks on his looks. For Snarly to approve, anyway.)

I (Sumac) debated approving this and then decided “no.”

If I thought “profreedom” were going to come back and read this, I’d ask “If Hogg is a bully for [allegedly] insulting people he doesn’t like, doesn’t that make you a bully for calling him one?”

It’s clear!

Do you know you are spouting lies about David Hogg, or are you just willfully ignorant?

I (Snarly) debated approving this, and then decided “yes.” It’s valuable for the fact-based media and fact-appreciating public to read how the far right sees the world. (That said, SorryWatch won’t approve racist, religiously phobic, misogynistic and LGBT-hating comments.)

Also he gave an interview where he says he ran to school, so apparently he wasn’t in the school.