Anybody is free to have an opinion on Andy Ngo but calling him, with complete credulity, someone who "became noteworthy by documenting the excesses of the far left" without mentioning his vocal and widespread reporting in favor of white supremacy, with the Proud Boys being the most prominent example, doesn't make me think the author is being genuine. If the article had a more nuanced view as opposed to pushing a point along the lines of 'never give up, never surrender', I expect I'd be far more open to its message and reasoning.
"...in favor of white supremacy, with the Proud Boys being the most prominent example..."
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.
Because you asked an inconvenient question that challenges some people's narrative. It shouldn't be surprise to you that not everyone on HN starts with the question "is it true" or "is it a fact", such as did Andy's report on BLM violence true?
I'm not particularly aware of why white supremacists hung out with Andy Ngo, or why Ngo hung out with white supremacists, or why Ngo made kill lists for atomwaffen, manufacturers misleading propaganda, etc.,
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".
Andy Ngo is a gay Asian man. Any claims of support of white supremacy seem like those calling Ben Shapiro a nazi - ridiculous on their face and guilt by association that doesn’t stand any test of logic beyond grossly painting someone with bad words because they don’t want him to be able to speak credibly.
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.
That's just weird, does being of jewish heritage make you incapable of being a nazi? There's certainly a ton of polish and slavic nazis. What does Andy being a gay Asian man have anything to do with the claims of him being a white supremacist?
No, what’s weird is calling a religious Jew and a gay Asian man a nazi/white supremacist. It’s ridiculous on its face. They’d have to believe in the righteousness of their own destruction, something neither had espoused.
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.
They don't have to believe in their own destruction. There are several minority youtubers who are ver successful who support the far-right for their own benefit, to gain support and notoriety to support their grift. And the far-right loves tokenizing these minorities to 'prove' they aren't racist.
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 don't seem to consider the possibility that they genuinely agree with these "far" right wing views, nor that those people's support of those ideas is indeed genuine evidence that the ideas aren't racist. Instead you work backwards from your ideological certainty that the "far right" is all about racism, therefore any evidence that it's not must be some kind of subtle deception.
Insofar as “Asian” is considered “not white”, it would seem that it would be counter to an asian person’s self interest to advocate for white supremacy.
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”.)
1) Ngo is not white. I read his book and saw nothing there about "white supremacy". [edit] Ok, except maybe a biased take on Arbery murder in particular. Which doesn't really have much to do with anything systemic, or with most of the rest of the book. He's very clearly a classical liberal, either conservative-leaning or considering the right to be the lesser of two evils.
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.
Please provide some proof that he reported lies. Just merely reporting about matters - even matters you don't like exposed and want swept under the carpet - is not a reason for character assassination.
