Cool story but you're foundation is based in a fallacy known as false equivalence so your argument doesn't stand and you're wrong.

"A common way for this fallacy to be perpetuated is one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result. False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence doesn't bear because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors. The pattern of the fallacy is often as such: "If A is the set of c and d, and B is the set of d and e, then since they both contain d, A and B are equal". d is not required to exist in both sets; only a passing similarity is required to cause this fallacy to be used."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence 

"he similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors. "

good, what are the additional factors? that he's a man? that he's apparently not a leftist? 

all you're doing is restating the assertion, what i'm asking is for you to describe how I've used the fallacy in this specific case

You should reread mine and others statements for those additional factors that you're ignorant of. I explained these factors in my first post. Either you simply glossed over it or you completely understood it and are still trying to spin your narrative. If it's the latter then you are just being deceptive and irresponsible with the facts.

Also you can fully read this article for more additional factors.

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.

I do not think his goal was to trigger violence and if he is one of those shittalkers then his goal at most could have been people talking shit to him back so i do have sympathy for him and anyone similar that could have been in that place.

People "willing" to rise to the occasion,how brave of them to be willing to commit violence?

No one deserves to be attacked, at most a heated discussion is worthwhile but not that.

I do not have sympathy for him because he knew exactly what he was doing and he knew before the event that he was a target.  Antifa group stated they were on the lookout for him and he tweeted about it.  If you are going to go into a violent group expecting nothing to happen he either had to be a fool or did it on purpose.  Either way, it was his decision and he knew the risk.

Lets be honest here, it has nothing to do with being brave it's the fact that the group is violent and if you are looking to trigger that violence you will get what you want.  Its like someone going and hitting a hornet nest and expecting nothing to happen.

This has nothing to do with what someone deserves, it has everything to do with people choices. Even though I do not sympathize with Ngo, I feel if he is willing to take that beating for his work then so be it but running into the middle of that group definitely was a ballsy move no matter the situation.

can you explain how its a fallacy beyond assertion?

the left states constantly that questioning a victim's actions is victim blaming (when its a woman)

"Victim blaming occurs when the victim of a crime or any wrongful act is held entirely or partially at fault for the harm that befell them. The study of victimology seeks to mitigate the prejudice against victims, and the perception that victimsare in any way responsible for the actions of offenders."

now the left beat the shit out of a journalist and what is happening? suddenly its completely ok to criticise the actions of the victim and lets not forget that his actions were simply standing there with a camera

ok look, here's a dude kicking the shit out of a woman

is it ok to victim blame her too? or is it different because she's a woman?