"ah ok but smearing someone as far right because they dislike islam which has occurred throughout this thread(by people who for the most part ironically probably dislike islam) isn't as much of an issue"

If you can show me polling that indicates that those statements are wrong then I'll comment. The interpretation of whether or not an individual is right wing based on their dislike of islam is an inductive claim that I cannot fully disprove. Your statement, on the other hand, was a deductive statement about trends on a group level, something that can be answered by polling to show you're wrong. 

"the vast majority of people on this site are anti islam i'd wager doesn't make this site right wing"

Already agreed that one can be anti islam and left wing, I'm making a holistic argument which is the only way one can inductively reason about a person's intentions. 

"links? and even if that is the case its kind of a useless point if the furthest right thing you can muster up from his articles is that he dislikes islam"

Wiki says he's written for "The Wall Street Journal, the New York Post and National Review," and the analysis I've found indicates all three of those are right wing news outlets. 

"well this is a new one, can I get a link?"

He was filming a counter protest of the proud boys and has done similar things for the group Patriot Prayer. You don't think that's something done in defense of a far right activist group? He goes to conflicts between the left and right and films the left doing shitty things. That's defense of the right. 

What would this person need to do to prove to you they are on the right? If he just says he's on the left but all his actions go against that do you just take his word for it? I think that one can make a pretty convincing argument that he is on the right, what evidence do you have that he's actually on the left?

I would define anti-islam in this case as someone who fears islam's growing influence in "the west" not just as someone who is not muslim. The polling I originally showed asked people whether or not they would be willing to vote for a muslim for president. If you are not willing to vote for a muslim for office regardless of their politics I would consider that "anti-islam". 

It can but it is not in this case.(or most likely not)

This is on the frontpage of their site in big letters:"New members joining worldwide everyday,all races,all religions,gay or straight" I really really do not think this is some kind of sneaky way of atracting racists while not openly promoting them,that is a tiny bit farfetched/grasping.

They will prob have some racists but hard to imagine it is an intentional racist group,not that i like them though i even dislike all that shittalker attitude greatly.

"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)?

Yeah, he is a victim of violence brought on by his decision to run right into it with a camera.  At least he got what he wanted.  I already stated why I am focusing on Mr. Ngo.  I consider him a political player and this was no random decision but a conscious act.

"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 show me a fireman going to a fire without protection and I will show you a fool.  What is disgusting is the simple way you view a very common sense situation.

"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

I guess you never fully look at your choice of words during this thread.  I suggest you go back and look how you phrase things and tie the left to Antifa instead of making this about Antifa.  I doubt you will do that since you have an agenda.

"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?

I am only going by your own words.  Mr. Ngo is a tool for you to make your political narrative more than about the beating or even him.

" 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?

You can always change my mind once you stop including the left in this act and just keep it to Antifa.  Lets see how long you can hold out before you revert to form. Opps you already broke it.  I guess you could not resist.  So in your eyes, do the Proud Boys, KKK or any other far right group represent the right or do they just represent their group.  Can you answer that question.

"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?

So if a person walk downs the street and punches a person in the face, yells out, I represent the Left what will you do.  Will that person be your next poster boy to parade around as the violent left or would that person just be another asshole.  The difference here is that what you seek is justification for the way you think so Antifa is your tool instead of just looking at them as just another violent group of assholes.

Oh and to answer your question, yes I do not think its relevant.  I consider Antifa as just another violent assholes group but then again, I have no agenda concerning the left, right or center.

Ngo obviously knew it was dangerous.  It is not the first time he has been assaulted.  But that really does not mean anything other than that he is brave to stand up to the terrorists.  It has to be done by somebody and we are all better for his having exposed them to a larger audience.

What is wrong with that?  If Ngo is wrong for walking into the lion's den then so were Gandhi and Martin Luther King.  May I ask if King deserved part of the blame for his own assassination because he stood up to his own group of domestic terrorists wearing masks who believed their view was so righteous that they were justified in employing violence to silence the "agitator"?  He obviously knew it was dangerous.

But King and Gandhi relied on people of good conscience seeing the violence and being repelled by it.  We have failed as a society if we see the same thing again and just because we hold onto the belief that the terrorists in masks are the "good guys" that there's a way we can pin the blame on the victim.

Are you sure? The president of the United States himself stuck up for what the far-right did in Charlottesville.

Are you sure? The president of the United States himself stuck up for what the far-right did in Charlottesville.

I'll add one more to your meme wall, my man.

You said "left wing and movements", so individual persons weren't excluded from your statement.

But sure, show me what you have.