8 ms·

the interview with the hell-banned founder (Gavin McInnes): http://canadalandshow.com/podcasts/vice-oral-history http://canadalandshow.com/podcasts/vice-oral-h

by litmus 11y ago

the interview with the hell-banned founder (Gavin McInnes): http://canadalandshow.com/podcasts/vice-oral-history http://canadalandshow.com/podcasts/vice-oral-history

heydenberk 11y ago
Just an FYI, before you listen to what he spews: McInnes is a white nationalist, homophobe, transphobe and misogynist. This mediamatters post summarizes some of the outrageous things he's said or done: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/06/05/meet-the-hipster-racist-fox-news-guest-attackin/199617 http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/06/05/meet-the-hipster-rac... You can understand why Vice would want to erase this dude from their history. I don't think they should be allowed to shrug it off, but I'm also glad that they try.
- cholantesh 11y ago
  I remain unconvinced that he's not simply a troll playing a very long con. When I read him as such, I have found him very enjoyable, but as of late, overexposure is really causing the joke to wear thin.
  - akilism 11y ago
    What does he have to do to convince you?
    - cholantesh 11y ago
      At this point, I'm not sure. If he didn't have a track record of making deliberately misleading statements and admitting that he enjoys goading people into reactions by saying things that are patently offensive, I might take him seriously.
  - heydenberk 11y ago
    I don't find it funny, and I bet that most people in the groups that he's "trolling" (exercising hate speech toward) don't either.
    - drunkcatsdgaf 11y ago
      you mean hes exercising freedom of speech? Regardless of views, he has that right.
      - wk_end 11y ago
        No one (here, anyway) is trying to take away that right. Freedom of speech also means that others have the freedom to criticize that speech, too.
        stinkytaco 11y ago
        >Freedom of speech also means that others have the freedom to criticize that speech, too. I sometime feel like people forget this. It comes up every time someone gets dropped by sponsors or their TV network for saying something outrageous (Duck Dynasty, Donald Trump, etc.). Freedom of speech means the government can't arrest you for saying it. It doesn't mean you get an automatic criticism free platform to say whatever you want. All of us (media owners included) are allowed to make our own assessments or business decisions about it as well.
        akilism 11y ago
        People only "forget" this when they are trying to be disingenuous about how freedom of speech works.
        joshuapants 11y ago
        > Freedom of speech means the government can't arrest you for saying it As I mentioned above, that's overly simplistic to the point of being wrong. Yes, there are statutes in various legal systems throughout history preventing the government from limiting expression. No, that doesn't mean that freedom of speech only exists in that regard.
      - eropple 11y ago
        Man...I'm really, really sick of this lame, lame, lame defense of lousy behavior. Freedom of speech doesn't mean that anybody other than the government has to have anything to do with you and doesn't apply to anybody here in their personal judgments of somebody who's choosing to act shitty. And maybe it's just me, but it strikes me that, when the best defense or excuse that you can trot out is that hey, it's actually going to get you arrested to do it, the moral argument is not exactly strong.
  - serve_yay 11y ago
    That's silly.
    - cholantesh 11y ago
      OK.
- Torgo 11y ago
  >Vice arrived at its current incarnation by a circuitous route. It emerged in 1994 as the Voice of Montreal, a countercultural magazine funded by Canadian welfare money So, Gavin McInnes' fame, wealth and notoriety is all due to Canada's public funding of the arts!
- benihana 11y ago
  This is a textbook example of an ad hominem attack. You're not arguing any points he's made on their validity; you're trying to invalidate things he "spews" because you think his character isn't sufficient. Intellectual laziness. Do you think that someone who says inciting things can't say insightful things simply because they stir up the pot? Or do you only think he's not insightful because he says things you personally don't like? https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
- litmus 11y ago
  I don't think he's a homophobe. In order to call him that you'd have to cast a very wide net. As for the anti-feminism [1] or misogyny, some of the same points he makes in more provocative tones are made by the like of Caitlyn Flanagan in the pages of The Atlantic.[2] The article you link to seems kind of overkill at times. It links to his articles for evidence of racial slurs where it seems pretty obvious he's doing it intentionally since in one he mentions an uproar where Sarah Silverman called Chinese people Chinks ("People look really stupid shaking their fists at a clown"), however self-serving that may be. But I think it can be said that his arguments are often repeat ad-nauseam versions of this scene from Rescue Me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJJpziU7wSs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJJpziU7wSs [1] very NSFW http://old.noob.us/humor/what-if-women-were-as-horny-as-men-nsfw/ http://old.noob.us/humor/what-if-women-were-as-horny-as-men-... [2] http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/11/boys-will-be-boys/304317/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/11/boys-wil...
  - cllns 11y ago
    "[Caitlyn] Flanagan is a self-described anti-feminist" [1]: http://www.msmagazine.com/winter2004/backtothekitchen.asp http://www.msmagazine.com/winter2004/backtothekitchen.asp
    - litmus 11y ago
      To be clear, I wasn't trying to claim McInnes or Flanagan weren't anti-feminists. In fact I introduced the term in my response because I thought it was a more accurate description than "misogynist". In American culture are all anti-feminists considered misogynists? It would be easier to discuss if there were common understanding of certain definitions. Similarly, if you are against marriage equality are you by definition a homophobe [1]? Not sure really why I was downvoted, as the link given in the parent post was about racism not homophobia (burden of proof etc). Also, I'm saying all this as someone who disagrees with many of McInnes's positions, go figure. [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FCLkZKIJF4&feature=youtu.be&t=6m56s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FCLkZKIJF4&feature=youtu.be...
- eertami 11y ago
  How some people are so incapable of recognizing satire is beyond me.

by litmus 11y ago

the interview with the hell-banned founder (Gavin McInnes): http://canadalandshow.com/podcasts/vice-oral-history http://canadalandshow.com/podcasts/vice-oral-history

heydenberk 11y ago

Just an FYI, before you listen to what he spews: McInnes is a white nationalist, homophobe, transphobe and misogynist. This mediamatters post summarizes some of the outrageous things he's said or done: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/06/05/meet-the-hipster-racist-fox-news-guest-attackin/199617 http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/06/05/meet-the-hipster-rac... You can understand why Vice would want to erase this dude from their history. I don't think they should be allowed to shrug it off, but I'm also glad that they try.

cholantesh 11y ago
I remain unconvinced that he's not simply a troll playing a very long con. When I read him as such, I have found him very enjoyable, but as of late, overexposure is really causing the joke to wear thin.
- akilism 11y ago
  What does he have to do to convince you?
  - cholantesh 11y ago
    At this point, I'm not sure. If he didn't have a track record of making deliberately misleading statements and admitting that he enjoys goading people into reactions by saying things that are patently offensive, I might take him seriously.
- heydenberk 11y ago
  I don't find it funny, and I bet that most people in the groups that he's "trolling" (exercising hate speech toward) don't either.
  - drunkcatsdgaf 11y ago
    you mean hes exercising freedom of speech? Regardless of views, he has that right.
    - wk_end 11y ago
      No one (here, anyway) is trying to take away that right. Freedom of speech also means that others have the freedom to criticize that speech, too.
      - stinkytaco 11y ago
        >Freedom of speech also means that others have the freedom to criticize that speech, too. I sometime feel like people forget this. It comes up every time someone gets dropped by sponsors or their TV network for saying something outrageous (Duck Dynasty, Donald Trump, etc.). Freedom of speech means the government can't arrest you for saying it. It doesn't mean you get an automatic criticism free platform to say whatever you want. All of us (media owners included) are allowed to make our own assessments or business decisions about it as well.
        akilism 11y ago
        People only "forget" this when they are trying to be disingenuous about how freedom of speech works.
        joshuapants 11y ago
        > Freedom of speech means the government can't arrest you for saying it As I mentioned above, that's overly simplistic to the point of being wrong. Yes, there are statutes in various legal systems throughout history preventing the government from limiting expression. No, that doesn't mean that freedom of speech only exists in that regard.
    - eropple 11y ago
      Man...I'm really, really sick of this lame, lame, lame defense of lousy behavior. Freedom of speech doesn't mean that anybody other than the government has to have anything to do with you and doesn't apply to anybody here in their personal judgments of somebody who's choosing to act shitty. And maybe it's just me, but it strikes me that, when the best defense or excuse that you can trot out is that hey, it's actually going to get you arrested to do it, the moral argument is not exactly strong.
- serve_yay 11y ago
  That's silly.
  - cholantesh 11y ago
    OK.
Torgo 11y ago
>Vice arrived at its current incarnation by a circuitous route. It emerged in 1994 as the Voice of Montreal, a countercultural magazine funded by Canadian welfare money So, Gavin McInnes' fame, wealth and notoriety is all due to Canada's public funding of the arts!
benihana 11y ago
This is a textbook example of an ad hominem attack. You're not arguing any points he's made on their validity; you're trying to invalidate things he "spews" because you think his character isn't sufficient. Intellectual laziness. Do you think that someone who says inciting things can't say insightful things simply because they stir up the pot? Or do you only think he's not insightful because he says things you personally don't like? https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
litmus 11y ago
I don't think he's a homophobe. In order to call him that you'd have to cast a very wide net. As for the anti-feminism [1] or misogyny, some of the same points he makes in more provocative tones are made by the like of Caitlyn Flanagan in the pages of The Atlantic.[2] The article you link to seems kind of overkill at times. It links to his articles for evidence of racial slurs where it seems pretty obvious he's doing it intentionally since in one he mentions an uproar where Sarah Silverman called Chinese people Chinks ("People look really stupid shaking their fists at a clown"), however self-serving that may be. But I think it can be said that his arguments are often repeat ad-nauseam versions of this scene from Rescue Me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJJpziU7wSs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJJpziU7wSs [1] very NSFW http://old.noob.us/humor/what-if-women-were-as-horny-as-men-nsfw/ http://old.noob.us/humor/what-if-women-were-as-horny-as-men-... [2] http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/11/boys-will-be-boys/304317/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/11/boys-wil...
- cllns 11y ago
  "[Caitlyn] Flanagan is a self-described anti-feminist" [1]: http://www.msmagazine.com/winter2004/backtothekitchen.asp http://www.msmagazine.com/winter2004/backtothekitchen.asp
  - litmus 11y ago
    To be clear, I wasn't trying to claim McInnes or Flanagan weren't anti-feminists. In fact I introduced the term in my response because I thought it was a more accurate description than "misogynist". In American culture are all anti-feminists considered misogynists? It would be easier to discuss if there were common understanding of certain definitions. Similarly, if you are against marriage equality are you by definition a homophobe [1]? Not sure really why I was downvoted, as the link given in the parent post was about racism not homophobia (burden of proof etc). Also, I'm saying all this as someone who disagrees with many of McInnes's positions, go figure. [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FCLkZKIJF4&feature=youtu.be&t=6m56s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FCLkZKIJF4&feature=youtu.be...
eertami 11y ago
How some people are so incapable of recognizing satire is beyond me.