Talk:Andy Ngo

This article contains information about one or more living persons. Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats. Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed. If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

Merged from Talk:Andrew Ngo

http://prospect.rsc.org/blogs/cw/2014/01/30/concrete-chemistry-and-the-tfl-sugar-rush/ http://www.sciencevision.org.pk/BackIssues/Vol8/Vol8No1/Vol8No1_09_Effect_of_Sugar_BazidKhan.pdf

αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 22:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

---

Wait, is this the same person as the baffling Talk:Andrew Ngo created earlier? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I didn't see that, unfortunately. Jinx created a hasty profile for Ngo, but that other Talk page was not connected to any main page. Merge? CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 03:06, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

But I notice the content of the talk page I linked seemingly has little to do with Andrew Ngo? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

It's connected. There were false allegations circulating that Ngo was attacked with "milkshakes with cement in them". CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 03:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, sure, then it should be merged. Without the context or explanation, it was pretty confusing for someone like me who didn't keep up that closely with the events. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario Is there a RW best practice for merging, in such cases? I can only find a way to relocate the other page here, but that would replace this. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 04:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I just copied and pasted text from the original page, so we have everything in one spot. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 04:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie Is there a problem with my edits? Curious. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:7498:47D3:9C05:EF95 (talk) 04:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

That's not curious, it's obvious and mundane. A new article springs up with definite skeptical slant toward a right-wing personality who works for a website with less than stellar record when it comes to the truth. Almost immediately someone comes along and tries to soften the language and change the tone of the article. Rather than fight over that I niped it in the bud and locked the page for the night. Further, the edits seem to be based off the subject's own claims, hardly an objective stance. Would we take a Creationist or quack at their word about their credentials or motive? I think not. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 11:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Maybe consider some better reading comprehension? I removed "provocateur" because this sort of language right after the guy got assaulted is pretty malicious, not to mention dumb (how do you think this makes RW look). And none of the content I added is slanted right-wing. Try again, big guy. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:7498:47D3:9C05:EF95 (talk) 12:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I made some improvements to article. There's a lot that can be added about his anti-feminism and Islamophobia. Will see what other dirt I can dig up, I think he's also made some tweets where he identifies as a "race realist" (like most the Quillette editorial). His views pretty much border on alt-right.Weird (talk) 13:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Much improved from what I can see. I linked the comment on his Wall Street Journal piece to several relevant pages, but there's the issue of his dismissal from Portland State U's Vanguard. It's what got him a piece in the National Review Online, later amplified by Breitbart, pjmedia, redstate, teaparty.org, etc. All his subsequent fame rests on his being a "free speech warrior" based on this article, while the situation appears murkier. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Need photo

Hi, can someone upload his photo to put on article? Weird (talk) 15:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Include the picture of his dumb face getting milkshakedRipCityLiberal (talk) 17:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

A link to relevant pictures. Btw, what's the common policy for a user cheering someone being physically assaulted? 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:7498:47D3:9C05:EF95 (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Probably milder than the policy toward a BoN advocating the pirating of photos not from Creative Commons. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 19:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

It is poor judgement to advocate violence that is not in self-defense, either implicitly or explicitly. It could be cause for edit reversion, ban or demopping depending on the nature of the edit. Bongolian (talk) 19:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I thought we already had this conversation that milkshaking is appropriate response to fascist actors?RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I think Ngo was also punched and/or kicked, which goes beyond what could be construed as protest of a public figure and into simple assault. But you weren't talking about that -- Mr. Numbers has a habit of creating straw men. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 00:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Not my fault people reference pictures of a physical assault while unaware of all facts. Google is just one click away, folks. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:7498:47D3:9C05:EF95 (talk) 00:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

BoN seems to also neglect full context. RipCityLiberal (talk) 15:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Digging up dirt on Twitter

I will go through Ngo's Twitter comments (that can be searched going back around a year) to see what I can find. Weird (talk) 17:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what purpose is served by announcing to the world you're gonna drag a guy who just got assaulted through the proverbial mud. Unless you want to give RW the reputation of being dishonest and malicious. Talkpages are public, you know. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:7498:47D3:9C05:EF95 (talk) 18:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Article destroyed by Ariel31459 - a Quillette fan

What the hell? See these inappropriate edits by Ariel https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Andy_Ngo&diff=2090734&oldid=2090730 Weird (talk) 16:31, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

The edits I made were factual. Ngo does not claim to be right-wing, or even conservative for that matter. I think he says he is left of center. Wikipedia calls him a journalist and editor, so that is factual. He has been called anti-feminist and Islamophobic which I have stated. The journalist Werleman calls himself an "activist against Islamophobia" here. That makes him pro-Islamic, I think. If you like we can replace it with his own words. I didn't say anything suggesting approval of Quillette. If you have verifiable content to contribute, please suggest it here. Ariel31459 (talk) 16:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Irrational. Richard Spencer doesn't claim to be a Nazi or white supremacist, so should we also remove those claims from article? It's irrelevent Ngo doesn't claim to be right-wing when he blatantly is. Weird (talk) 17:07, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Irresponsible. Pardon me if I don't take your word for it. We know it is true some people call him right-wing. Certainly this designation is relatively subjective. Now that Ngo has been violently assaulted by masked thugs, we are not going to claim anything we cannot back up or implies he should be a target for assholes.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:22, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie, @LeftyGreenMario, feel free to comment about the changes to article I disagree with and above dispute.Weird (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Just as an aside, don't call arguments "rational" or "irrational", it's a common soundbite from trolls. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 17:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

The article hardly looks destroyed to me. In addition, Arial's additions seem fine outside the "pro-Islamic journalist" comment. (I'm anti-Islamophobia, but I'm also anti-Islam as part of my views on religion in general, hence the dichotomy does not stand up to scrutiny.) ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 21:18, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

That's fine. I thought that since the journalist proclaimed himself "an activist against Islamophobia," that distinguishes him from opposing Islamophobia. Presumably we all do that.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Cement milkshakes

To take the right-wing media dramamongering with a giant grain of salt speaks for itself, but I dunno if the physics factoid is really relevant. People can throw a milkshake cup with pure cement in it if they so choose. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:7498:47D3:9C05:EF95 (talk) 21:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

It seems dubious. Also, true or false, the story of cement in milkshakes can be attributed to the Portland policeAriel31459 (talk) 22:38, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

"Doxxing"

The article talks about a person at a rally getting "doxxed" by Ngo, when it seems like all that happened is he tweeted out who she was alongside a photo of her. If this was about something that happened online, that would be a plausible description of what happened I suppose. But is it just me, or is it unreasonable to turn up to a rally and expect a journalist who recognises you to not to identify you publicly? Of course political violence is bad and she shouldn't have been beaten up by the Proud Boys - and nor should that Antifa guy have beaten up Ngo in the subsequent incident - but it sounds like there might have been some exaggeration on both sides.--Greenrd (talk) 15:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Can't disagree. The citation does not verify the claim. Here's a semi-reputable newspaper explicitly covering what was considered doxxing and the allegation that Ngo did it in an attributive way, as is typical of formal reporting. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

It's the differance between "John Smith, age 32, was attacked" and "John Smith, age 32, who lives at 123 street was attacked" Based on the data I see I must lean toward the former instance, and not the latter. (Though Ngo's phrasing in his Twitter post definitely doesn't help his case.) ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

andy also Doxxed a chapter of the DSA on the may day demo in portland-

the image the twitter used had -e censored i, the stream was ofc uncensored, so andy's fans, (proud boys as we know) now have a list with names and telephone numbers o terrorize 

the source s one twitter guys, so i recommend people to get that archived and make images so that it wont disappear from the net.

image of ngos stream. https://twitter.com/alsoconnor/status/1145141564324233216

reason why andy is an actual danger:

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/alt-right-antifa-death-threats-doxxing-quillette-a8966176.html?source=post_page--------------------------- ("In a tweet, Quillette contributor Andy Ngo attempted to identify us, and others, as covert “antifa ideologues” posing as experts for willing journalists, all of whom, apparently, have joined together in a plot to create a media-antifa industrial complex. Ngo is known for saying that antifascists activists are a violent menace who are being aided by the right, and on his podcast and social accounts is dead set on identifying the antifa-bias in the media." [...]"The video, posted to YouTube by a fan of the neo-Nazi terror organisation Atomwaffen Division, featured the images of several journalists, suggesting we should be murdered. "

he's known for "coincidentally" documenting proud boy gatherings and at least one of the PB is also connected to AW. So it makes sense to asume his stream is seen by people on pol, PB and more who then will try to dox anyone ngo can film well enough- I havent found anything about whether people on the list got targeted, but that still can come.