After an ill-advised and unnecessary tweet was sent out by Fox News Host, Laura Ingraham, regarding David Hogg's rejection from several colleges and his subsequent "whining" about it, Hogg, a survivor of the shooting at his Parkland high school and outspoken gun critic, called for a boycott of Ingraham's sponsors on Twitter.

This isn't the first time that David Hogg has called for a boycoot of the sponsors of a person or organization. For instance, in February, Hogg led another boycott targeting any company that gave discounts to members of the National Rifle Association.

Nor is this the first time that boycotts have been initiated targeting right-wing commentators and radio hosts. Sean Hannity was subject to a MediaMatters led boycott last year, claiming that his show was essentially "a Trump propaganda operation."

So this begs the question: what is the purpose of these boycotts?

If it's to punish Laura Ingraham and pressure Fox News to cancel her show for speaking negatively with respect to David Hogg, who is a minor and simply speaking out about a horrifying experience that he went through, then alright. At least there's an argument there.

So does that mean we're going to boycott Kurt Eichenwald for attacking fellow Parkland survivor, Kyle Kashuv, which coincidentally was the result of Eichenwald mistaking Kashuv for someone else? No? Well, why not?

I believe I have an explanation.

See, it doesn't matter what a commentator, radio host or public figure says or does that results in a call to boycott their sponsors. What matters here is what the person believes.

The only boycotts that receive major media coverage are those that are focused on right-wing individuals and organizations. Partly because the watchdog group that leads the charge of most of these boycotts, MediaMatters, has a definite left-leaning bias.

To be fair, I think all of the things that conservatives boycott is stupid too. However, I do think there is a substantial difference in the boycotts from each end of the political spectrum. Those on the right, by and large, boycott products and brands (e.g. Nordstrom for dropping Ivanka Trump's clothing line; Keurig for cutting advertising to Sean Hannity's show; etc.) Those on the left, however, seem to be boycotting sponsors to shows and organizations that they don't like.

Why does it matter that MediaMatters calls Sean Hannity's show "a Trump propaganda operation?" It doesn't. The same way that it wouldn't matter if I called Rachel Maddow's show an Obama propaganda operation. So why call to boycott Sean Hannity's sponsors? Because they don't want Sean Hannity to have a show at all.

Why boycott NRA partners for offering services and discounts to NRA members? Is that going to affect the NRA itself? Perhaps. But more so, it affects the members of the NRA who utilize those services and discounts. So why boycott NRA partners? Because they don't want the NRA to exist. They don't want anyone to be a member of the NRA.

Now, to get to my entire point in writing this. If you truly want diversity of thought, to truly have a productive discussion with someone that you disagree with, then you wouldn't support boycotts whose sole intention is to silence the voice of someone you disagree with.

Even CNN's Brian Stelter has said that boycotts like this aren't a good thing. ". . . I think it’s dangerous to see these ad boycott attempts happening more and more often in this country. My view is let’s not shut down anyone’s right to speak. Let’s meet their comments with more speech. Lets try to respond that way.”

I think all of us, regardless of political affiliation, want to have real conversations, with the goal of obtaining a better understanding of one another. So every one of us needs to stop supporting pointless boycotts and start responding the way that Brian Stelter is advocating--with more speech.