Who said he had it coming.  Never said that nor is it implied.  I will ask you a question.  If there is fire, will you walk directly into the fire expecting nothing to happen or would you protect yourself.  There is 2 situations here.  Mr. Ngo walked directly into fire and all you guys are like poor Mr. Ngo he got burned. Even your next statement stating people are condoning violence because we are stating he was stupid for walking directly into a violent situation and not being prepared for the worst.  Lol dude get over yourself. I am saying why did Mr. Ngo walk directly into fire and not be prepared to protect himself.  He either wanted that beating or he was foolish.

So if you walked directly into a group of gangbangers and they kicked your butt.  Would you be the person who says "Its my right to walk down this street".  I would say yes, it is your right to walk down that street but that would still make you a fool for walking directly into the middle of a group that will harm.  You can wrap yourself in your rights all day long but this is how people get killed every day.

Antifa is a violent group and I have stated they should be disbanded since they cannot control their members.  Actually Antifa has the same problem as the BLM group.  When you have no centralize control, anyone can proclaim to be part of your group and the more violent people will destroy anything you try to accomplish.

evidence? so far every time I have requested evidence for this guy being a far right proud boy I have been ignored, are you going to be the first and actually give me some receipts?

"I actually do not care about the left or right, I am putting the responsibility on Mr. Ngo."

so you are blaming the victim for being victimised?

"While what I see is a man putting himself into a dangerous situation and it happen."

yeah fuck that guy for actually going out into public to do his job

"The aim here is to point the finger and make it political."

because I identified his attackers?

"This man was beat by people associated by Antifa. "

why haven't you reported this to the police? everyone is under the impression that it was antifa

who beat this man then? can you identify them for us?

"You say this man was savagely beaten by the left but that isn't correct.  This man was beaten by Antifa and even if just saying that it still wouldn't totally be correct."

"Your statement tries to paint everyone on the left beating this man"

"Since you want to make it about the left instead of making it about Antifa."

"Your agenda is to paint the left as Antifa"

based on what? quote me specifically where I've said that antifa and the left are the same rather than antifa being a portion of the left

are you in denial that antifa are a portion of the left?

"The general problem that this thread has is too many people who are fixated on a binary context."

"The first step necessary for progress in this thread is that it gets acknowledged by the right-leaning people"

so you want to turn down the binary polarisation by exacerbating it to start with? why does a person's political position matter in condemning antifa?

"Ngo is the equivalent of a bully who constantly dishes out verbal abuse"

then post it? why do you people think its ok to constantly slander this man without actually providing evidence?

" Ngo must be good and a blameless victim."

so far the only bad thing people have posted is that he has exposed assholes like this guy:

which makes him a HERO

It looked like it examined three different angles but that article comes off as having a background agenda.

-It has no problem with calling Ngo far-right while calling the militant antifa just left wing.

-It acts like the right should be happy to have violators on the left wing so they can use mainstream media to propagate that bad behaviour and that is just a disgusting way to think,take the worst people and make them the standard for all of the rightwing so bad actions from our side are excusable?It is a strange argumentation and its goal really seems like making that assault a lesser offense.

A lot of those antifa members had their face covered,damn coward sheeps not even brave enough to do that for their beliefs when it might get them hurt afterwards.

I do agree on the second link.

Yes, Mr. Ngo can choose to walk into the fire, but he doesn't have to choose to walk unprotected.  There are a dozen things he could have done to make sure he prevented what happen or at least made sure he didn't get sucker punched like he did. Its not like he was on the Proud Boys side of this Protest.  Its not like he notified the police he was a target and at least made sure he was in a well protected area.

What you describe is exactly what I have been saying.  Mr. Ngo made a conscious choice to walk into that fire, understanding full well the danger and he got exactly what he should have expected.  He wanted that confrontation and Antifa did not let him down.  In my opinion he took one for the team.  Now he get to go on all the networks, internet and major media to tell his story and also get a nice little piece of cash for his troubles and injuries.  Not bad for a days work.

Antifa are fascists.

Mostly they're stupid fascists, who don't understand the nature of their own ideology -- they honestly believe themselves to be the good guys -- but that's the way of it, and I suppose it was true of the OG Nazis as well. Those (inside and outside of this thread) who advocate that sometimes violence is necessary to deal with people who believe the wrong things, or say the wrong things, are advocating for fascism, whether they are aware of it or not.

This Ngo guy? I have no idea about him and I don't really care about him outside of this: that you should be free to walk the streets of the USA (or, I suppose, document activities as a journalist) without facing violence or the threat of violence. This applies equally to "left" and "right." Every other detail is insignificant.

Who needs evidence? Someone on the Left can just claim anyone that has different ideals than them are Nazis and the rest will just buy it and label them as such. Makes debating your beliefs much easier when you don't actually have to debate. Or can't.

Bolded:I doubt that was intentional hence why i doubt it is a direct right wing agenda in this case but yes it could serve as a right wing agenda for others,much less could be used for that.

If we are left with just assuming we could say that the assumption with the most logical outcome would be that when putting a person in the alt-right group is often used as a way to villianize one with opposing political ideas.(opinion)

Second bolded: Including ourselves right? :p