Even the beginning is silly. Bringing up the cultural revolution followed by "obviously I don't intend to compare anything to the cultural revolution". Okay, then what's the point? It's how all of these articles work.
He does not say that.
This is the paragraph that Barrin92 is trying to missrepresent.
> Let me be clear: The horror of Mao’s China was singular. I am not making a comparison to the death and destruction it caused or to the severity of the punishment that the mobs imposed. Instead, I am drawing a parallel (one that various journalists and commentators, including the pseudonymous Chinese-American academic, Xiao Li, have made before) to an instinct—the inclination to humiliate and terrorize
JK Rowling is a billionaire who doesn’t need much in the way of connections anymore, but she is certainly constantly attacked and abused, and has lost many opportunities for standing up for what she believes in. That you don’t care about it and think that amazon still sells her books doesn’t mean a woke mob didn’t attempt to cancel her doesn’t make that true, just means you aren’t paying attention.
Comparing either of those two to Harvey Weinstein is the real dishonesty done here.
Perhaps the people who aren’t genuine are those who make opposition to antifa the same thing as ‘favour of white supremacy’.
I don’t think we’re going to come to an agreement.
Of course, whether light-skinned Asians are considered “white” is a question of an arbitrary social convention which differs not only between groups of people, but also the contexts in which the question is considered. (The concept of “white people” is a mistake, which ideally will be made obsolete.)
Also, even if it was clearly against their self interest and they knew it, that wouldn’t strictly speaking logically preclude it.
But, if people expect that advocating for white supremacist stuff is usually motivated by something like self-interest, one generally expects it to be, for the most part, (excepting the rare exceptional individuals who have rather unusual motivations) to be people who would be considered “white”.
(Though, if someone is “white passing”, in the sense that people might initially consider them to be “white” if judging only by appearance, but might change one’s mind if informed of their ancestry, then such a person might have less incentive to avoid white supremacist stuff than someone who very few people would ever consider “white”.)
Does this answer your question?
It would be necessary to show strong evidence of it, which hasn’t happened, or else it’s just someone lying about them to discredit them, and doing so in a way that is utterly ridiculous.
In this case it appears to be a ridiculous claim with no evidence behind it - just a lot of bold lies from bold liars who are seemingly obtuse in the self interest of their ongoing smear campaign against a gay minority man.
A lack of evidence(especially for something as unprovable as a specific individuals personal beliefs) doesn't prove a lie any more than it proves a truth. You seem extremely convinced that these claims are false, enough to insult people who disagree, despite the fact that you don't have any proof of your position either.
I don't know the specifics of Ngo, but at best I can assume you're being disingenuous or intentionally misleading based on the kind of logic you're using to find your conclusions here
You seem to be conflating the far-right with white supremacy. There might be some overlap, but they are not synonymous.
Saying Ngo is "far-right"? Sure, I guess. Saying he's a "white supremacist" is a stretch.
- https://krebsonsecurity.com/2020/11/body-found-in-canada-ide...
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Miller_(political_ad...
It’s totally a possibility for someone to be a “minority” or Jewish and also a white supremacist, anti-immigrant, or far-rightist.
I don't have much background on the Proud Boys. I saw an article about one of their leaders pleading guilty to destruction of property or something recently, and I didn't think he was white. So I'm a little confused about this. I would have thought a white supremacist group wouldn't accept him, not to mention it seems odd that someone would join a group to their detriment.
but pointing out that white supremacists have a token minority friend or collude with someone who is serving their interests isn't really all that "challenging".
If you're conflating those two things I think you need to re-evaluate the political spectrum and realize it's a lot more varied than you think.
2) Proud Boys leader (until recently) was Black. Proud Boys are far-right, sure, but you really should stop calling everything you disagree with "white supremacist".
3) Ngo, as far as I can tell, merely used Proud Boys as a "resource" for his own safety and/or under "enemy of my enemy is my friend". As someone born in a socialist country, I cannot really blame him - far-right is evil, sure, but far-left is at least as evil, and I would argue more evil.
4) In any case, the statement "noteworthy by documenting the excesses of the far left" is true. The only framework under which one would need to mention that "but he also offended woke sensibilities in an unrelated/tangentially related matter" is the woke cult, the one that the author (and Ngo) do not belong to. For most of us, it is sufficient to let an arbitrary fact, or an accurate description, stand by itself.
He's a serial fabulist, raising hundreds of thousands after getting punched in the nose and claiming to have a brain bleed, but jetting cross-country to Boston a day later.
He's also a defendant in civil litigation for his apparent participation in a planned (rather than spontaneous) assault in Portland that led to criminal charges against right-wing agitators up there: https://twitter.com/RespectableLaw/status/116496174509978828...
It doesn’t sound like he’s a nazi/white supremacist to me.
Ngo chose to omit the fact of his prior knowledge and movement to the location with the Patriot Prayer group from his own coverage of the incident. You'll have to ask him why.
For those who are confused, here is another perspective on the events of that day with additional context. https://www.vice.com/en/article/d3apyv/super-awkward-for-rig...
You may not like his viewpoint, or his work, but he's a journalist. He's on the ground covering all kinds of protests and riots.
>It seems that you acknowledge his presence there.
Did you know that there were journalists who interviewed Osama Bin Laden, even after he took credit for bombings that took many American lives. Do you also consider them complicit?
>Ngo chose to omit the fact of his prior knowledge and movement to the location with the Patriot Prayer group from his own coverage of the incident.
Oh, well then, he deserves to be attacked, assaulted and harassed for that omission, right?
There are literally people who talk about killing him on Twitter.
If you really think the author did this, please quote the exact passage where you think they defended Andy Ngo.