Quantcast
Right-Wing Star Andy Ngo Exits Quillette After Damning Video Surfaces

Forums - Politics Discussion - Right-Wing Star Andy Ngo Exits Quillette After Damning Video Surfaces

o_O.Q said:

"They would need to support some degree of collective ownership, not necessarily complete."

why don't you want complete collective ownership and how would you decide who is allowed to own a business?

"You definitely cannot be left wing if you think it is fine that the working class should pay for the financial crisis and not wall street."

I don't think you could argue that it was right wing either since the right is about less government intervention, but I definitely agree that those businesses should have failed

Obama was a piece of shit for doing that and murdering millions of people and destroying their countries and running guns to mexico etc etc etc

I won't rule out complete collective ownership as a functional way to make a state, but it is not my prefered society.

Some collective ownership does not mean that you have to take anybody's right to own a business. And even if the state should own a full sector, anybody can make a business in another sector.

"the right is about less government intervention", not true, Libertarians (and anarcho capitalist) are against governmental intervention. Lots of right wingers are are for governmental intervention, including the guy in your profile picture. And governmental intervention is fine, it is corporate welfare I have a problem with, which democrats and republicans have been pushing the past half century.

Doing better than Obama is an easy job, somehow Trump manages to do even worse.



Around the Network
TonsofPuppies said:

Well, look at what each group controls, right? The alt-right basically controls nothing. They are a small, largely insignificant group of people, relative to the population. I'm talking about the actual alt-right, not the new left's definition of alt-right (ANYONE who disagrees with ANY of their political ideologies). Now when it comes to the left, what do they control? They certainly control the universities at this point. By controlling academia, you control the minds / behaviours of the next generation of adults in the West. The media is largely far left-leaning these days. The biggest one of all though would be Big Tech. ALL of the major tech platforms like Google, Twitter, Twitch, Facebook, YouTube, etc. are all far left. Twitter, for example is very selective with enforcing their own ToS and clearly favours people with liberal agendas and Google / YouTube deliberately alter their search algorithms in order to prop up liberal content. This is a huge problem, because the internet has become such an invasive, necessary part of modern society's life and very few people know what's actually happening behind the scenes.

Media and tech companies? The actual leadership of these companies may be libertarian in some cases or even occasionally espouse certain liberal viewpoints (fellow Georgian Ted Turner's environmentalist activism comes to mind), but they are not "leftist" by any stretch. We are after all talking about massive for-profit publicly-traded corporations, entities that are going to have far more to gain from the GOP's economic agenda. These companies are capitalist through and through. Some of them may promote socially liberal ideas because there's a market for them, or because the leadership may genuinely hold socially liberal opinions and think the alt-right or Nazis are disgusting. But the idea that these huge corporations harbor some sort of socialist or otherwise left-wing agenda just plain doesn't make any sense. When conservatives do something like call CNN the "Communist News Network" I can't help but roll my eyes, as if I'm supposed to believe that a division of WarnerMedia, itself a subsidiary of AT&T which is a major Fortune 500 company, is somehow a Leninist front group. Also, if you actually watch CNN or MSNBC, you'd be hard-pressed to find any genuinely far-left viewpoints. I can't ever recall Anderson Cooper or Rachel Maddow arguing for the nationalization of the means of production or for a proletariat revolution to rise up and smash capital. Sure, MSNBC's prime time talking heads spend much of their time criticizing Republicans, but I've been listening to them for a very long time and I never got the impression that they were radical leftists. They're bog-standard liberals, and the corporate leadership at Comcast could nip that in the bud in a heartbeat if they wanted.

And let's not forget all the blatantly conservative elements in the media, namely Fox News and most of talk radio, which are certainly popular enough to warrant being called "mainstream." They are aggressively right-wing, increasingly so with each passing year, and are essentially propaganda mills wholly unconcerned with honest reporting of the news. Their entire business model is predicated on keeping the GOP base outraged and absolutely terrified that the commies are coming for them. I suppose if you listened to Rush Limbaugh all day or the Hannity/Tucker/Pirro/Ingraham parade every weekday night and took what they had to say seriously you'd probably think anyone to the left of Reagan is a literal Stalinist, but as far as everyone else is concerned the idea that the American news media writ large are actual socialists is laughable. Also, right-wing opinion leaders have far more clout and influence over the GOP than the likes of MSNBC have over the Democrats. Conservative talking heads aren't just opinion leaders. They are kingmakers. They have their audiences in thrall, and can mobilize them to primary any Republican seen as insufficiently conservative, and the goalposts of what they consider conservative keep moving further to the right every year.

As for academia, sure, college professors might be more liberal than most people on average, but aside from the rare tankie or militant gender studies professor, college professors are not some horde of Marxist revolutionaries. Conservatives may be under-represented, but I think that's because American conservatives increasingly want to be told things that just aren't so. More than any other group of Americans, they believe that reality should conform to their worldview. If reality clashes with their beliefs, then reality must be wrong. Colleges teach students facts about the world, facts that most conservatives find threatening to what they perceive as traditional values. Conservatives want to be told that they live in a world that's only 6000 years old. They want to be told that they can burn fossil fuels and expand industry and grow the population indefinitely and that there's no consequences for those things. They want to be told that homosexuals and transgender people are immoral deviants. They want to be told that supply-side economics works. And, especially if they're from the South (and I'm from the heart of the Bible Belt, where there's more Baptist churches per capita than people), they want to be told that the Confederate States really weren't such bad guys.

But of course academia isn't going to tell them those things, because those things are quite simply just plain wrong. Biologists tell them evolution is real. Geologists tell them that the Earth is billions of years old and that Noah's flood never happened. Climatologists tell them that global warming is real. Medical researchers tell them that nobody chooses to be gay and that there's nothing inherently abnormal or unhealthy about it. Economists tell them that cutting taxes for the rich doesn't stimulate the economy. Historians tell them that the Confederate States existed purely for wholly racist reasons. Academia essentially tells them the uncomfortable truth, that some of their most deeply-held beliefs are lies, and in response they call foul. Rather than re-examine their own worldview, they'd rather wallow in willful ignorance, deny reality, attack academia, and act like those who contradict their beliefs are part of some sort of nefarious socialist cabal out to destroy America and brainwash their children.

So, of course academia is going to skew liberal when American conservatives in general have a rather tenuous relationship with physical reality. Most conservative "intellectuals" would rather go work for a right-wing think tank or be a talking head for one of their propaganda networks. Sometimes you'll get a notable conservative that isn't a reality-denying wacko, but they're getting fewer and further between and increasingly likely to be excoriated as a "RINO" or worse by their own compatriots.

Last edited by Shadow1980 - on 02 September 2019

I read that entire thing and it was quite well written. I'd give you more upvotes if I could.

edit: I realized I replied instead of quoting. So I'm editing in the quote.

Shadow1980 said:
TonsofPuppies said:

Well, look at what each group controls, right? The alt-right basically controls nothing. They are a small, largely insignificant group of people, relative to the population. I'm talking about the actual alt-right, not the new left's definition of alt-right (ANYONE who disagrees with ANY of their political ideologies). Now when it comes to the left, what do they control? They certainly control the universities at this point. By controlling academia, you control the minds / behaviours of the next generation of adults in the West. The media is largely far left-leaning these days. The biggest one of all though would be Big Tech. ALL of the major tech platforms like Google, Twitter, Twitch, Facebook, YouTube, etc. are all far left. Twitter, for example is very selective with enforcing their own ToS and clearly favours people with liberal agendas and Google / YouTube deliberately alter their search algorithms in order to prop up liberal content. This is a huge problem, because the internet has become such an invasive, necessary part of modern society's life and very few people know what's actually happening behind the scenes.

Media and tech companies? The actual leadership of these companies may be libertarian in some cases or even occasionally espouse certain liberal viewpoints (fellow Georgian Ted Turner's environmentalist activism comes to mind), but they are not "leftist" by any stretch. We are after all talking about massive for-profit publicly-traded corporations, entities that are going to have far more to gain from the GOP's economic agenda. These companies are capitalist through and through. They promote socially liberal ideas because there's a market for them, or because the leadership may genuinely hold socially liberal opinions and think the alt-right or Nazis are disgusting. But the idea that these huge corporations harbor some sort of socialist or otherwise left-wing agenda just plain doesn't make any sense. When conservatives do something like call CNN the "Communist News Network" I can't help but roll my eyes, as if I'm supposed to believe that a division of WarnerMedia, a subsidiary of AT&T, a major Fortune 500 company, is somehow a Leninist front group. Also, if you actually watch CNN or MSNBC, you'd be hard-pressed to find any genuinely far-left viewpoints. I can't ever recall Anderson Cooper or Rachel Maddow arguing for the nationalization of the means of production or for a proletariat revolution to rise up and smash capital. Sure, MSNBC's prime time talking heads spend much of their time criticizing Republicans, but I've been listening to them for a very long time and I never got the impression that they were radical leftists. They're bog-standard liberals, and the corporate leadership at Comcast could nip that in the bud in a heartbeat if they wanted.

And let's not forget all the blatantly conservative elements in the media, namely Fox News and most of talk radio, which are certainly popular enough to warrant being called "mainstream." They are blatantly right-wing, increasingly so with each passing year, and are essentially propaganda mills wholly unconcerned with honest reporting of the news. Their entire business model is predicated on keeping the GOP base outraged and absolutely terrified that the commies are coming for them. I suppose if you listened to Rush Limbaugh all day or the Hannity/Tucker/Pirro/Ingraham parade every weekday night and took what they had to say seriously you'd probably think anyone to the left of Reagan is a literal Stalinist, but as far as everyone else is concerned the idea that the American news media writ large are actual socialists is laughable. Also, right-wing opinion leaders have far more clout and influence over the GOP than the likes of MSNBC have over the Democrats. Conservative talking heads aren't just opinion leaders. They are kingmakers. They have their audiences in thrall, and can mobilize them to primary any Republican seen as insufficiently conservative, and the goalposts of what they conservative conservative keep moving further to the right every year.

As for academia, sure, college professors might be more liberal than most people on average, but aside from the rare tankie or militant gender studies professor, college professors are not some horde of Marxist revolutionaries. Conservatives may be under-represented, but I think that's because American conservatives increasingly want to be told things that just aren't so. More than any other group of Americans, they believe that reality should conform to their worldview. If reality clashes with their beliefs, then reality must be wrong. Colleges teach students facts about the world, facts that most conservatives find threatening to what they perceive as traditional values. Conservatives want to be told that they live in a world that's only 6000 years old. They want to be told that they can burn fossil fuels and expand industry and grow the population indefinitely and that there's no consequences for those things. They want to be told that homosexuals and transgender people are immoral deviants. They want to be told that supply-side economics works. And, especially if they're from the South (and I'm from the heart of the Bible Belt, where there's more Baptist churches per capita than people), they want to be told that the Confederate States really weren't such bad guys.

But of course academia isn't going to tell them those things, because those things are quite simply just plain wrong. Biologists tell them evolution is real. Geologists tell them that the Earth is billions of years old and that Noah's flood never happened. Climatologists tell them that global warming is real. Medical researchers tell them that nobody chooses to be gay and that there's nothing inherently abnormal or unhealthy about it. Economists tell them that cutting taxes for the rich doesn't stimulate the economy. Historians tell them that the Confederate States existed purely for wholly racist reasons. Academia essentially tells them the uncomfortable truths that some of their most deeply-held beliefs are lies, and they call foul. Rather than re-examine their own worldview, they'd rather wallow in willful ignorance, attack academia, and act like those who contradict their beliefs are part of some sort of nefarious socialist cabal out to destroy America and brainwash their children.

So, of course academia is going to skew liberal when American conservatives in general have a rather tenuous relationship with physical reality. Most conservative "intellectuals" would rather go work for a right-wing think tank or be a talking head for one of their propaganda networks. Sometimes you'll get a notable conservative that isn't a reality-denying wacko, but they're getting fewer and further between and increasingly likely to be excoriated as a "RINO" or worse by their own compatriots.

Last edited by Bandorr - on 01 September 2019

  • Deadliest mass shooting by an individual in US history (10/01/2017)
  • Deadliest high school shooting in US history (02/14/2018)
  • Deadliest massacre of Jews in US history (10/27/2018)
  • Political assassination attempt of TWO former presidents(and 10+ other people)  (10/23/2018 - and beyond)

^^^
Reading your comment made me realize that I didn't upvote your thread so take my upvote :)

I keep forgetting that we can now do that on vgchartz lol.



Proud to be a Californian.

Threads like this make me sad,you should not wish violence on people just because they said some stupid things,this way you cantry to justify hurting almost anybody.



Around the Network

Andy got what he deserved and we all know it. No one is going to let you keep targeting them. He is a charlatan. An entertainer masquerading as a journalist.
I keep saying this over and over again, but if you think people are just gonna sit down and take it, you are going to be disappointed. If your life's work is to spread hate and misunderstanding, don't be surprised when Karma comes for you. This is a shared world with many different ideas. The moment you try to take that from a certain group of people, they will not go quietly or easy.



CosmicSex said:
Andy got what he deserved and we all know it. No one is going to let you keep targeting them. He is a charlatan. An entertainer masquerading as a journalist.
I keep saying this over and over again, but if you think people are just gonna sit down and take it, you are going to be disappointed. If your life's work is to spread hate and misunderstanding, don't be surprised when Karma comes for you. This is a shared world with many different ideas. The moment you try to take that from a certain group of people, they will not go quietly or easy.

"No one is going to let you keep targeting them."

"but if you think people are just gonna sit down and take it"

take what? what was andy doing in your opinion?

"If your life's work is to spread hate and misunderstanding"

what hate was andy spreading?

"This is a shared world with many different ideas."

and you think andy deserved to be beat up for having his

"The moment you try to take that from a certain group of people, they will not go quietly or easy."

so andy was trying to suppress the right of antifa to express their ideas?

can you detail how he did so?



Shadow1980 said:
TonsofPuppies said:

Well, look at what each group controls, right? The alt-right basically controls nothing. They are a small, largely insignificant group of people, relative to the population. I'm talking about the actual alt-right, not the new left's definition of alt-right (ANYONE who disagrees with ANY of their political ideologies). Now when it comes to the left, what do they control? They certainly control the universities at this point. By controlling academia, you control the minds / behaviours of the next generation of adults in the West. The media is largely far left-leaning these days. The biggest one of all though would be Big Tech. ALL of the major tech platforms like Google, Twitter, Twitch, Facebook, YouTube, etc. are all far left. Twitter, for example is very selective with enforcing their own ToS and clearly favours people with liberal agendas and Google / YouTube deliberately alter their search algorithms in order to prop up liberal content. This is a huge problem, because the internet has become such an invasive, necessary part of modern society's life and very few people know what's actually happening behind the scenes.

Media and tech companies? The actual leadership of these companies may be libertarian in some cases or even occasionally espouse certain liberal viewpoints (fellow Georgian Ted Turner's environmentalist activism comes to mind), but they are not "leftist" by any stretch. We are after all talking about massive for-profit publicly-traded corporations, entities that are going to have far more to gain from the GOP's economic agenda. These companies are capitalist through and through. Some of them may promote socially liberal ideas because there's a market for them, or because the leadership may genuinely hold socially liberal opinions and think the alt-right or Nazis are disgusting. But the idea that these huge corporations harbor some sort of socialist or otherwise left-wing agenda just plain doesn't make any sense. When conservatives do something like call CNN the "Communist News Network" I can't help but roll my eyes, as if I'm supposed to believe that a division of WarnerMedia, itself a subsidiary of AT&T which is a major Fortune 500 company, is somehow a Leninist front group. Also, if you actually watch CNN or MSNBC, you'd be hard-pressed to find any genuinely far-left viewpoints. I can't ever recall Anderson Cooper or Rachel Maddow arguing for the nationalization of the means of production or for a proletariat revolution to rise up and smash capital. Sure, MSNBC's prime time talking heads spend much of their time criticizing Republicans, but I've been listening to them for a very long time and I never got the impression that they were radical leftists. They're bog-standard liberals, and the corporate leadership at Comcast could nip that in the bud in a heartbeat if they wanted.

And let's not forget all the blatantly conservative elements in the media, namely Fox News and most of talk radio, which are certainly popular enough to warrant being called "mainstream." They are aggressively right-wing, increasingly so with each passing year, and are essentially propaganda mills wholly unconcerned with honest reporting of the news. Their entire business model is predicated on keeping the GOP base outraged and absolutely terrified that the commies are coming for them. I suppose if you listened to Rush Limbaugh all day or the Hannity/Tucker/Pirro/Ingraham parade every weekday night and took what they had to say seriously you'd probably think anyone to the left of Reagan is a literal Stalinist, but as far as everyone else is concerned the idea that the American news media writ large are actual socialists is laughable. Also, right-wing opinion leaders have far more clout and influence over the GOP than the likes of MSNBC have over the Democrats. Conservative talking heads aren't just opinion leaders. They are kingmakers. They have their audiences in thrall, and can mobilize them to primary any Republican seen as insufficiently conservative, and the goalposts of what they consider conservative keep moving further to the right every year.

As for academia, sure, college professors might be more liberal than most people on average, but aside from the rare tankie or militant gender studies professor, college professors are not some horde of Marxist revolutionaries. Conservatives may be under-represented, but I think that's because American conservatives increasingly want to be told things that just aren't so. More than any other group of Americans, they believe that reality should conform to their worldview. If reality clashes with their beliefs, then reality must be wrong. Colleges teach students facts about the world, facts that most conservatives find threatening to what they perceive as traditional values. Conservatives want to be told that they live in a world that's only 6000 years old. They want to be told that they can burn fossil fuels and expand industry and grow the population indefinitely and that there's no consequences for those things. They want to be told that homosexuals and transgender people are immoral deviants. They want to be told that supply-side economics works. And, especially if they're from the South (and I'm from the heart of the Bible Belt, where there's more Baptist churches per capita than people), they want to be told that the Confederate States really weren't such bad guys.

But of course academia isn't going to tell them those things, because those things are quite simply just plain wrong. Biologists tell them evolution is real. Geologists tell them that the Earth is billions of years old and that Noah's flood never happened. Climatologists tell them that global warming is real. Medical researchers tell them that nobody chooses to be gay and that there's nothing inherently abnormal or unhealthy about it. Economists tell them that cutting taxes for the rich doesn't stimulate the economy. Historians tell them that the Confederate States existed purely for wholly racist reasons. Academia essentially tells them the uncomfortable truth, that some of their most deeply-held beliefs are lies, and in response they call foul. Rather than re-examine their own worldview, they'd rather wallow in willful ignorance, deny reality, attack academia, and act like those who contradict their beliefs are part of some sort of nefarious socialist cabal out to destroy America and brainwash their children.

So, of course academia is going to skew liberal when American conservatives in general have a rather tenuous relationship with physical reality. Most conservative "intellectuals" would rather go work for a right-wing think tank or be a talking head for one of their propaganda networks. Sometimes you'll get a notable conservative that isn't a reality-denying wacko, but they're getting fewer and further between and increasingly likely to be excoriated as a "RINO" or worse by their own compatriots.

" Some of them may promote socially liberal ideas because there's a market for them"

yes which is what he was obviously referring to as he specifies here and in other posts:

"Google openly admits themselves that they favour left wing identity politics. "

but of course you would not have been able to write a long assay decrying how wrong he is if you had centered your post on what he was actually saying

"But the idea that these huge corporations harbor some sort of socialist or otherwise left-wing agenda just plain doesn't make any sense."

he never mentioned socialism and you have already admitted to the left agenda above, as you have specified yourself, left wing philosophy can be both social and economic

"When conservatives do something like call CNN the "Communist News Network""

possibly because of their refusal up until the past couple weeks or so to call out the activities of groups like antifa

instead justifying their activities as simply a response to violence from nazis

"Also, if you actually watch CNN or MSNBC, you'd be hard-pressed to find any genuinely far-left viewpoints."

yeah because anything short of calling for a complete revolt and dictatorship by the proletariat isn't left wing I'm sure

the constant appeals to gender pay gaps, racial inequality, wealth inequality etc etc etc are not left wing I suppose

"They are aggressively right-wing, increasingly so with each passing year, and are essentially propaganda mills wholly unconcerned with honest reporting of the news."

of course of course, incidents like covington where people were making death threats to teens because of the media's ridiculously stupid portrayal of what was happening was just fair and balanced reporting

https://nypost.com/2019/01/21/case-of-the-covington-kids-is-a-perfect-example-of-media-bias/

"I suppose if you listened to Rush Limbaugh all day or the Hannity/Tucker/Pirro/Ingraham parade every weekday night and took what they had to say seriously you'd probably think anyone to the left of Reagan is a literal Stalinist"

"They have their audiences in thrall, and can mobilize them to primary any Republican seen as insufficiently conservative, and the goalposts of what they consider conservative keep moving further to the right every year."

https://twitter.com/timcast/status/1124798285632417793?lang=en

"This is why they keep calling everyone "far right" The right barely moved and the left has gone off the rails

"
"So, of course academia is going to skew liberal when American conservatives in general have a rather tenuous relationship with physical reality."
given the conversations I've been having recently this is rather ironic
we have the left now entertaining the idea that biological sex is just a social construct but no, its only the right that has a tenuous hold on reality
Last edited by o_O.Q - on 03 September 2019

o_O.Q said:
OhNoYouDont said:
Only recently heard about this clown and I must admit, I am not at all surprised this weasel did nothing. Were I a believer in karma I would chalk it up to that, but this is just some good fortune for the world.

Lock him up.

did nothing to stop what?

did you actually watch the video and understand what was said?

or did you just jump to a conclusion because of what you were told to think?

Well aren't you naive.

Told to think by whom? I'm curious what your conspiracy theory is.



OhNoYouDont said:
o_O.Q said:

did nothing to stop what?

did you actually watch the video and understand what was said?

or did you just jump to a conclusion because of what you were told to think?

Well aren't you naive.

Told to think by whom? I'm curious what your conspiracy theory is.

"Well aren't you naive."

because I watched the video and am actually describing what happened? not the narrative that tries to frame what happened a particular way?

given what we see in the video what were you expecting andy to do?