"You want to make him out to be a victim, I am saying he is either a fool or he knew exactly what he was doing.  Which is it????"

well unless the definition of the word "victim" has changed i'm fairly sure that he's a victim of violence

now what i'm asking is why is your focus on the victim's actions (victim blaming)?

"Oh poor Mr. Ngo going into danger for doing his Job lol."

i wonder if you laugh at fire fighters who get hurt on the job too... either way its fucking disgusting

"You are trying to tie every violent action of Antifa to the left"

I have by talking about one event? where is this journal I've been using to keep track of every violent action by antifa at?

read your post back to yourself, actually digest it and try to evaluate whether what you've claimed here makes sense or not

"You care no more about Mr. Ngo then anyone else."

how do you know whether I care about a particular person or not? you reading the same crystal ball as tsgud?

" Instead he is just a tool for you to use to throw around your opinion about the violent left.  This part you will not admit."

well looks like we can't have a conversation about it then since you've already made up your mind that i'm being dishonest, but ironically enough that raises the question of why you'd choose to bring it up then? just to poison the well and make me out to be dishonest? are you going to answer that question honestly? well of course not right? because this was just projection

and yes in this situation leftists were violent, are you denying that this event happened?

"Yes, his Attackers are Antifa"

"No one is doubting this part of the story."

"" This man was beaten by Antifa and even if just saying that it still wouldn't totally be correct. This man was beat by people associated by Antifa.  ""

"I am basing my opinion on your own words because you keep bringing up the left into the conversation."

antifa claim to be leftists and that leftist values motivate their actions, do you not think that is relevant?

I didn't fail at all. I've been upfront with what I believe and backed them up with facts. If you're too blinded by your loyalty for your "unsung hero Ngo" to see my criticism of his actions is based on objective fact then that's on you. You're blinded and have failed because of this. I'm not going to talk in circles for you. To your last point, I brought it up because you were intentionally being deceptive with your personal political beliefs to feign neutrality by using the tactics in those points I listed in my last post.

You're not at all clever.  Those tactics are childish and detracts the debate at hand and make it impossible to have an intelligent conversation with you. So I'm done with you unless you grow up and evolve from the way you currently try to debate.

If you want evidence look it up from various sources on the internet if you don't believe it coming from me. I'm not afraid of you doing all the research you want because you'll see the criticisms I've said about Ngo are true. I'm done trying to educate you.

"If you want evidence look it up from various sources on the internet if you don't believe it coming from me. I'm not afraid of you doing all the research you want because you'll see the criticisms I've said about Ngo are true. I'm done trying to educate you."

thank you for indirectly admitting that all you intended to do here was to make assertions and REFUSE TO BACK THOSE ASSERTIONS

"I've been upfront with what I believe and backed them up with facts."

"Ngo being a far-right sympathizer"

to reiterate, can I have some evidence of this please?

"I brought it up because you were intentionally being deceptive with your personal political beliefs to feign neutrality by using the tactics in those points I listed in my last post."

can you actually quote me where I've have lied in this thread?

I've asked you multiple times to state my beliefs for me to see here and you have refused to do so, what are the right wing politics for example that i'm backing?

time for me to make an assertion, you brought it up to poison the well when you realised that you couldn't back your assertions... see? i can make assertions about you too

"You're not at all clever. "

why do you think so?

"Those tactics are childish and detracts the debate at hand"

sure and making endless unfounded statements and derailing when asked to substantiate them is the indication of a very mature and distinguished individual i'm sure

"So I'm done with you unless you grow up and evolve from the way you currently try to debate."

yes asking for you to substantiate your arguments is too much for you apparently, we should all just accept what you claim on faith

Well after this formidable comment, this thread can be closed.

So uncommon that anti-fascists act more fascists than whoever they fight against

Good job here focusing in on the categorical imperative of the action.  As Kant shows us, in order to properly judge the morality of an action the non-core details need to be stripped away revealing the categorical imperative of act, which is where we can evaluate morality. For example, the categorical imperative in the case of the topic of this thread would be: "it is OK to physically assault people who have done objectionable things in the past."  This is an accurate way to frame the argument that Antifa is making in support of their actions, while stripping away the sensationalism and emotion associated with terms like "far right."  The next step is to then apply this imperative to all of society and see if it results in a reasonable and functional social order.

In this case, it clearly does not: if anybody could physically assault somebody who has done morally objectionable things in the past then we would have a society where physical assault is universally OK as every single human is guilty of at least some fault.  Such a society is not something that any rational person would desire.  Based on this analysis, I have to conclude that Antifa's behavior is immoral.

"You also had some very fine people on both sides."

This ngo guy, lacks the rare superpower called common sense though. 

And Antifa claims to be "anti-fascist" (although technically they can't be fascists by the very strict definition of fascism) but nevertheless they use similar tactics utilized by actual fascists. So you really can't trust what these extremist groups say about themselves, their actions speak for themselves.

The Proud Boys do have an incredible amount of white nationalists on their side already and an overwhelming majority of them are misogynistic white males who believe in "white genocide" being a real thing. What they mean by "anti-racism" is that  they view more representation and protection for poc/minorities and their culture as perpetuating "white genocide" and as being "anti-white" and therefore racist. "Anti-racism" sounds good on it's own but they're using it to stand for something different.

My opinion of them is the same with Antifa, they're dangerous extremist groups that use political violence as a tool to spread their message. I don't agree with their actions, they're not civilized groups. I came to this conclusion of the two groups from various sources of info (both online and irl) and from being politically active irl.

SMDH on some of the stuff that people post on here ... 

With this mindset, it's no wonder why Europeans have a history of weak institutions and are more likely to fall into political disrepair as anyone with two eyes can see with both world wars ... 

Freedom of speech and rule of law should mean that EVERYONE is compelled to ALWAYS TOLERATE the INTOLERANT because failing to do would mean that no one is deserving of peace whether it'd be antifa or the neo-nazis since there would be a never ending bipartisan civil war along the political lines ... 

Challenging these two basic institutions is an affront to the lack of understanding in their necessity to developing self-sustaining peace ...