[m-ee]

For anyone unfamiliar with Andy Ngo he has an extreme far right bias and associates with the proud boys. Worth taking anything he says we a heap of salt.

[nradov]

I'm unfamiliar with Andy Ngo's other activities, I just noticed that article and it seemed relevant. Is there anything factually incorrect in it?

[jjj123]

Idk about factually incorrect, but the piece repeatedly misgenders the cultists, puts their names in scare quotes and favors their old names (and calls those old names their “real names”) and leads with “trans terror” in the headline.

At every turn the purpose of the piece is demonize trans people, even if it got the facts right.

[chatmasta]

In my experience, biased authors are unintentionally reliable narrators. The reader can use that bias as an anchor for truth, to triangulate facts that might be less obvious in a neutral narrative. I would rather read two articles from biased opposing authors, than a single article from the middle. That’s why I read CNN and Fox instead of Reuters. And it’s the basis of sites like Ground News.

Of course, this only works as long as the reader is aware of the bias, so your comment is a valid warning in that respect.

[mrguyorama]

>In my experience, biased authors are unintentionally reliable narrators. The reader can use that bias as an anchor for truth

This is absolutely nonsensical. No amount of watching InfoWars can help you understand global warming or the operations of FEMA.

Bad information isn't like the "picking stocks" problem where being reliably wrong can be mapped to being right. Enough bias just comprehensively ruins the data.

[fortran77]

Andy Ngo is all over the place politically. He is "extreme" and hyperbolic though.

[refurb]

Maybe we have different definitions of "extreme far right", but I've never seen Andy Ngo say anything that isn't just mainstream conservative.

But regardless of his political opinions, has anything he said been false?