Something that bugs me whenever I see it:<p>&gt; these protesters were perfectly happy to use this student to further their own agenda, but turned on her as soon as they realized she wasn’t supporting their narrative.<p>Put another way: &quot;these protesters were perfectly happy to support this student when they agreed with her, but stopped supporting her when they realized they didn&#x27;t agree with her.&quot;<p>What the hell is wrong with that? Isn&#x27;t that exactly what you&#x27;d expect? If I agree with you, I&#x27;ll support you; if I disagree with you, I won&#x27;t. If I agree with you and support you and then you start saying things that I disagree with, I&#x27;ll begin to distance myself from you. <i>Of course</i> that&#x27;s how it goes, what else are you expecting?<p>I freely admit that I don&#x27;t know the details surrounding the particular student they&#x27;re referring to, but the way that the author framed this with such divisive language (&quot;further their own agenda&quot;, &quot;supporting their narrative&quot;) smacks of the sort of ad hominem garbage that seems to be increasingly popular in these sorts of arguments, and it stops discussion before it starts. Anytime you agree with someone you&#x27;re &quot;only doing it because it furthers your agenda&quot;; <i>everyone</i> has an &quot;agenda&quot; if agenda just means &quot;things I care about&quot; and every side of an argument is trying to &quot;further their own agenda&quot; if that just means &quot;achieve certain goals&quot;.