It looks like everything is right on schedule.
Here we see Andy Ngo on July 12 gloating about his attorney, Republican committeewoman Harmeet K. Dhillon showing up at Trump's social media summit of right-wing kooks.
The New Yorker described the summit like this:
It should surprise no one that Trump’s ideal White House gathering looks a lot like his ideal morning show. In both cases, the goal is to radically constrain the terms of the debate: Is Trump awesomely amazing, or amazingly awesome? The discussion in the East Room surely revolved around a set of questions—obsessions, really—familiar to anyone who has spent more than five minutes lurking on maga Twitter. Are right-wing activists the greatest free-speech martyrs society has ever known? Will the liberal thought-police of Silicon Valley stop at nothing to silence conservative voices? Is free speech dead?The last three sentences, especially, sound like Quillette article titles.
And the alleged liberals of the IDW like Bret Weinstein and Steven Pinker don't seem to have any problem with Ngo's clear admiration for Trump. I haven't found any complaints by them on social media.
Of course Pinker is busy right now denying his ties to Jeffry Epstein, in part by doubling down on crap journalist Jesse Singal's defense of Pinker's "very intelligent alt-right" comments given at the Koch-supported Spiked speaking tour, as published on his spokesman Jerry Coyne's blog:
Given my longstanding distaste for everything Epstein, it’s galling to be publicly associated with him based on some photos and mutual associates, but I suppose this is one of the dubious perquisites of fame (by academic standards). And it’s a particular hazard in the era of social media — last year I was featured in a New York Times op-ed by Jesse Singal called “Social Media Is Making Us Dumber. Here’s Exhibit A”; this year I appear to be Exhibit B.PZ Myers had an excellent response to Singal's contemptible white-washing:
Steven Pinker and the New York Times are making us dumber
And no surprise at all, Myers has an excellent response to Pinker's comments about Epstein:
There’s still a problem. He “disliked” and had a “longstanding distaste” for Epstein, and finds his behavior “reprehensible”, yet still he appeared at multiple events with him, assisted in an indirect way in his defense (which he now regrets), and this is the first time he has openly repudiated him. This is confirmation of what people have found objectionable about Pinker, that he is silent in the face of repulsive behavior, that he let Epstein associate himself with Harvard and took advantage of the Epstein jet, and only now, after he’s finally getting dragged off to his just reward (maybe), does he come out with this stuff. I first publicly criticized Jeffrey Epstein in 2011, and I didn’t even know him and have never met him! What took Pinker so long?
