By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - "Anti fascists" Severely Beat Journalist

NightlyPoe said:
sundin13 said:

I disagree. I personally think participation in a conspiracy theory attacking journalists for being secret antifa members is fairly significant. The fact of the matter though is that this guy and antifa have a history. This was not antifa beating up a random journalist who just so happened to be this guy. This is antifa beating up this specific guy who has been an enemy of antifa for years, even bragging about how much antifa hates him in his twitter bio. Being anti-antifa is who this guy is.

Again, it's not even his article.  I'm just tossing that whole line in the rubbish bin on that basis.

And yes, Ngo has made it his M.O. to document antifa behavior.  It's not unusual for a journalist to focus on a specific issue.  Let me ask you if there would be any caveats to be found in an article if a journalist who spent years documenting right-wing hate groups were to be attacked.  I can assure you, that there would be no "he was looking for it" type of moral equivalence.

That specific article is not his article, however he did vouch for it, vocally support it, and agree with the ideas behind it.

As for the documentation of antifa, I think it is impossible to be a solely anti-antifa journalist when almost every single one of these incidents (including this one) involve counterprotests against violent far-right hate groups. In focusing exclusively on the evils of antifa, you create a narrative which indicates that those right wing hate groups are innocent victims (which obviously isn't the case) and that silence condones those hate groups who were just there to wave their flags and be peaceful, right? (that last bit was sarcasm...)

That said, I think you could very much have an individual or group who was anti-right wing who went into right wing protests to start trouble and I think that they would get criticized for "looking for it". In fact, you might be able to put many members of antifa in this very category. Some individuals go to these protests in order to encourage the other side to cross a line so they can use it for their narrative. Again, condemn those who step over the line, but watch for how this information all plays into the larger narratives. Like, consider the fact that you don't see a widespread story like this every time an antifa member or a Proud Boy gets punched in the face. Why is that?



Around the Network
RolStoppable said:
NightlyPoe said:

How is a group that uses violence as a means to their political ends not a terrorist organization?

I see no reason for me to distance myself from Ngo.  He's harmless and he's shining a light on a legit problem in this country.

I am not familiar with the full scope of this topic, but a quick Google search brought this to light:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Boys

The Proud Boys is a far-right neo-fascist[9] organization which admits only men as members and promotes political violence.

That's the group Ngo walked with, right?

Does all of that excuse violence used against him?



Immersiveunreality said:
RolStoppable said:

I am not familiar with the full scope of this topic, but a quick Google search brought this to light:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Boys

The Proud Boys is a far-right neo-fascist[9] organization which admits only men as members and promotes political violence.

That's the group Ngo walked with, right?

Does all of that excuse violence used against him?

No.

How many times does this question have to be answered for you to accept the answer?



sundin13 said:
Immersiveunreality said:

Does all of that excuse violence used against him?

No.

How many times does this question have to be answered for you to accept the answer?

Once



sundin13 said:
Immersiveunreality said:

Does all of that excuse violence used against him?

No.

How many times does this question have to be answered for you to accept the answer?

once,why you think it would take more?



Around the Network
Immersiveunreality said:
sundin13 said:

No.

How many times does this question have to be answered for you to accept the answer?

once,why you think it would take more?

You've asked it several times already despite multiple individuals having said that criticism of Ngo does not excuse anyone for committing violent acts. If that condemnation was too subtle, I will gladly say as clearly as possible that nothing excuses the violence committed against Ngo even if criticisms can be made against Ngo.



sundin13 said:
Immersiveunreality said:

once,why you think it would take more?

You've asked it several times already despite multiple individuals having said that criticism of Ngo does not excuse anyone for committing violent acts. If that condemnation was too subtle, I will gladly say as clearly as possible that nothing excuses the violence committed against Ngo even if criticisms can be made against Ngo.

Good we agree on that.



Immersiveunreality said:
RolStoppable said:

I am not familiar with the full scope of this topic, but a quick Google search brought this to light:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Boys

The Proud Boys is a far-right neo-fascist[9] organization which admits only men as members and promotes political violence.

That's the group Ngo walked with, right?

Does all of that excuse violence used against him?

Considering the level of violence on display, yes, it does. At times it's unavoidable to use violence, because unlimited tolerance would only empower the intolerant and make them go one step further each time they face no resistance.

If the American government did a better job and put a stop to organizations that promote political violence, it wouldn't have come this far to begin with.

I am not one of those people who will argue that violence is always bad and/or unnecessary. After all, this world has seen dark times where even the death of millions of people was a necessity.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Shipments

RolStoppable said:
Immersiveunreality said:

Does all of that excuse violence used against him?

Considering the level of violence on display, yes, it does. At times it's unavoidable to use violence, because unlimited tolerance would only empower the intolerant and make them go one step further each time they face no resistance.

If the American government did a better job and put a stop to organizations that promote political violence, it wouldn't have come this far to begin with.

I am not one of those people who will argue that violence is always bad and/or unnecessary. After all, this world has seen dark times where even the death of millions of people was a necessity.

You're letting me down.

Unavoidable to use violence because of opinions hurting us?

How much do you want to violate the intolerant for them just using words?

Last edited by Immersiveunreality - on 07 July 2019

can the people claiming that andy ngo was a proud boy or "far right" actually provide some evidence?