You poison discourse, you're bad faith and nobody should engage with you in a meaningful manner.
For the sake of argument, let's take this for granted. Andy Ngo is a bad faith actor. In fact, he's the bad faithiest of the bad faith actors.
If you're a reporter and have the slightest bit of journalistic integrity, the fact that someone who has been swatted has called for others to be swatted in the past should interest you immensely. How could you not want to know at the very least if their experience has changed their mind?
I'm not talking about saying "you wanted someone else to be swatted so you deserve it." I'm talking about the most basic level of interest in knowing how this person's perception of swatting and its justification has changed.
Whether you like it or not, Ahmar, your total lack of interest in this angle reflects badly on you. Whether Andy Ngo is a bad person or not has no bearing on that.
For the sake of argument, let's take this for granted. Andy Ngo is a bad faith actor. In fact, he's the bad faithiest of the bad faith actors.
If you're a reporter and have the slightest bit of journalistic integrity, the fact that someone who has been swatted has called for others to be swatted in the past should interest you immensely. How could you not want to know at the very least if their experience has changed their mind?
I'm not talking about saying "you wanted someone else to be swatted so you deserve it." I'm talking about the most basic level of interest in knowing how this person's perception of swatting and its justification has changed.
Whether you like it or not, Ahmar, your total lack of interest in this angle reflects badly on you. Whether Andy Ngo is a bad person or not has no bearing on that.