The Cult of Vice(cjr.org)
cjr.org
The Cult of Vice
http://www.cjr.org/analysis/the_cult_of_vice.php
8 comments
My thoughts exactly. The writing has gotten stale without adding real substance--with a few exceptions obviously. But in general they've sacrificed form without adding meaningful content. They had an issue on Somalia a while back where most of the pieces could have appeared on any mainstream magazine that gets extra brownie points for the symbolic act of dedicating an issue on an under-reported topic. It's like playboy, but instead of porn they have Do's and Don'ts and video game reviews, and the writing is shittier. I think I've enjoyed some of the fiction pieces they added in the past few years more than the journalism frankly.
You can be silly and be authentic most of the time, and then once in a while when you say something about the truth, people will listen.
I love that line in Ghostbusters: ""Let's say this Twinkie represents the normal amount of psychokinetic energy in the New York area."[1] It stupid and silly, hell its Ghostbusters, but the scene is an authentic template of many idiotic and funny explanations you witness in random casual conversation, as well as being pretty much a template for all latter day Bill Murray scenes.
McInnes' view on writing--"just write a letter to your brother but take out all the inside jokes"--has been almost completely abandoned in the magazine.
[1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzaQjS1JstY
EDIT: typo
You can be silly and be authentic most of the time, and then once in a while when you say something about the truth, people will listen.
I love that line in Ghostbusters: ""Let's say this Twinkie represents the normal amount of psychokinetic energy in the New York area."[1] It stupid and silly, hell its Ghostbusters, but the scene is an authentic template of many idiotic and funny explanations you witness in random casual conversation, as well as being pretty much a template for all latter day Bill Murray scenes.
McInnes' view on writing--"just write a letter to your brother but take out all the inside jokes"--has been almost completely abandoned in the magazine.
[1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzaQjS1JstY
EDIT: typo
> This amazes me: what makes them think that they aren't a trusted source of news for their audience?
High-quality, prestigious yellow journalism. Remember the Maine!
High-quality, prestigious yellow journalism. Remember the Maine!
"Yellow journalism" means it's sensationalized or exaggerated, but I think most of Vice's stuff wasn't; they simply reported on sensational topics, and people assumed they were exaggerated because the topics are seemingly larger-than-life to an audience unfamiliar with them.
Of course, they weren't perfect, but when they did sensationalize or exaggerate, I think it was a bit more harmless than most news sources. Everyone is doing it to sell ad space, but Vice tended to sensationalize stories that were weird rather than stories that created fear or outrage--their sensationalism was less politicized.
EDIT: To be clear, I'm talking about Vice a while back, not Vice now. The changes mentioned in the article are already apparent in some of what Vice is doing these days.
Of course, they weren't perfect, but when they did sensationalize or exaggerate, I think it was a bit more harmless than most news sources. Everyone is doing it to sell ad space, but Vice tended to sensationalize stories that were weird rather than stories that created fear or outrage--their sensationalism was less politicized.
EDIT: To be clear, I'm talking about Vice a while back, not Vice now. The changes mentioned in the article are already apparent in some of what Vice is doing these days.
Vice news docs in the beginning I liked because they gave uncensored translations of locals which sometimes were hilarious even when the topic was supposed to be serious, and there wasn't dubbed translations muting the local language out like every other media does. Sadly now they've taken to playing menacing background music during stories like when they interviewed some drug addict in Afghanistan who claimed to be ex Taliban and did everything including slowing down his laugh so it sounded as evil as possible. It's bordering on propagandatainment lately.
There was also a questionable story by Vice about the Nigerian military fighting militants recently and the supposedly embedded reporter made zero mention that the entire crew in the attacking helicopters they filmed in were not Nigerian. Hey why do the gunners and pilots have white arms? Are they mercenaries? British pilots? South African? Who knows Vice never bothered to tell us.
There was also a questionable story by Vice about the Nigerian military fighting militants recently and the supposedly embedded reporter made zero mention that the entire crew in the attacking helicopters they filmed in were not Nigerian. Hey why do the gunners and pilots have white arms? Are they mercenaries? British pilots? South African? Who knows Vice never bothered to tell us.
White people can be African. There are about 5m to 6m white Africans. There's probably not many white Nigerians - probably less than 10k. But white does not mean not African.
> This amazes me: what makes them think that they aren't a trusted source of news for their audience?
They probably know that their audience trusts them as a source of news, but they also know that the wider perception of them is not as a trusted source.
They probably know that their audience trusts them as a source of news, but they also know that the wider perception of them is not as a trusted source.
So they're going to dump their audience to compete for the audience that every other news source is competing for?
> it's an example of why companies getting big is bad for consumers.
it's also in general what drives us building new things/companies.
'Vice has described its salaries as “competitive with comparable emerging media companies,” but many employees seem to be here for the work and the culture, not the money.
“There’s a sense that you’re lucky to be there,” said one former employee. “What you don’t get paid for in cash is made up in the cool factor, and maybe getting into their parties.”
“It’s like a cult,” said another ex-employee.'
When an employer makes it clear that you're lucky to work for them, and when you're getting paid in cool factor instead of cash, you probably are working for a corporate cult.
“There’s a sense that you’re lucky to be there,” said one former employee. “What you don’t get paid for in cash is made up in the cool factor, and maybe getting into their parties.”
“It’s like a cult,” said another ex-employee.'
When an employer makes it clear that you're lucky to work for them, and when you're getting paid in cool factor instead of cash, you probably are working for a corporate cult.
working for a corporate cult.
Much like the modern (wrong) meme of "every company should try to be an abusive monopoly," every company should also try to be a cult unto themselves. You want your employees willing to die for the chance at helping you become a billionaire while they get much much much less. They should wake up every morning wondering how they can win your approval, even if it requires sacrificing their own wellbeing.
A good SV-viewpoint sociopathic writeup of why your company should be a cult is (pdf) http://blognewcomb.squarespace.com/storage/essay_pdfs/cult.p...
Much like the modern (wrong) meme of "every company should try to be an abusive monopoly," every company should also try to be a cult unto themselves. You want your employees willing to die for the chance at helping you become a billionaire while they get much much much less. They should wake up every morning wondering how they can win your approval, even if it requires sacrificing their own wellbeing.
A good SV-viewpoint sociopathic writeup of why your company should be a cult is (pdf) http://blognewcomb.squarespace.com/storage/essay_pdfs/cult.p...
This cool factor tradeoff works for a little while early on but once it ceases to be the inherently cool, it turns into large and manufactured cool. Simultaneously, that's when it also becomes a toxic work environment.
> When an employer makes it clear that you're lucky to work for them, and when you're getting paid in cool factor instead of cash, you probably are working for a corporate cult.
Or a startup
Or a startup
Or a game studio.
This sounds vaguely like when I interviewed for Dark Horse Comics' IT team, without the parties.
Where Vice started and where it is now is certainly a sign of the times, I'll say that.
Perhaps this is now old, but everytime Vice is brought up all I can think of is this piece with David Carr from Page One (2011) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLmkec_4Rfo
It has one of the best insults I've ever heard, hence its popularity. "Just cuz you put on a fucking safari helmet and look at some poop..."
But to dismiss what they've done with this video being posted every time does everyone a disservice. But yeah, good for a laugh. Not to be overly high and mighty about it but I'd really prefer to do my funny pics/videos on reddit.
But to dismiss what they've done with this video being posted every time does everyone a disservice. But yeah, good for a laugh. Not to be overly high and mighty about it but I'd really prefer to do my funny pics/videos on reddit.
I really wasn't trying to dismiss what the have been evolving into, rather to voice my own problems seeing past the Vice that was presented in Page One.
Here is a 2014 article from David Carr giving them a bit more credit
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/25/business/media/its-edge-in...
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/25/business/media/its-edge-in...
Absolutely they are evolving as a news org, and for the better. It is just hard to shake off the view I had of them.
Isn't Vice's show on HBO just Unreported World with no women, anorexic men, and sarcasm?
The last season even repeated the exact same story with the same correspondent and the same title for the Egyptian Tomb Raiders segment ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KmPQEtnqqI ).
The last season even repeated the exact same story with the same correspondent and the same title for the Egyptian Tomb Raiders segment ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KmPQEtnqqI ).
i occasionally read local vice articles (not u.s. - they obviously employ writers in lots of countries) and most of them are unbearable trash.
then, suddenly, a gem appears. the vice munchies take on weightlifter morghan kings diet is one of the better introduction to weightlifting in general.
(in case anyone's interested: http://munchies.vice.com/videos/fuel-the-diet-of-champion-we... )
then, suddenly, a gem appears. the vice munchies take on weightlifter morghan kings diet is one of the better introduction to weightlifting in general.
(in case anyone's interested: http://munchies.vice.com/videos/fuel-the-diet-of-champion-we... )
Relevant older, harsher piece
http://www.thebaffler.com/salvos/the-vertically-integrated-r...
http://www.thebaffler.com/salvos/the-vertically-integrated-r...
I'm sure the author in your link had some good points, but they may have been overshadowed by all of the article's vitriol.
the interview with the hell-banned founder (Gavin McInnes):
http://canadalandshow.com/podcasts/vice-oral-history
http://canadalandshow.com/podcasts/vice-oral-history
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-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.
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.
>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!
So, Gavin McInnes' fame, wealth and notoriety is all due to Canada's public funding of the arts!
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
[1] very NSFW http://old.noob.us/humor/what-if-women-were-as-horny-as-men-...
[2] http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/11/boys-wil...
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
[1] very NSFW http://old.noob.us/humor/what-if-women-were-as-horny-as-men-...
[2] http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/11/boys-wil...
"[Caitlyn] Flanagan is a self-described anti-feminist"
[1]: http://www.msmagazine.com/winter2004/backtothekitchen.asp
[1]: http://www.msmagazine.com/winter2004/backtothekitchen.asp
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...
[1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FCLkZKIJF4&feature=youtu.be...
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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
How some people are so incapable of recognizing satire is beyond me.
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.
What does he have to do to convince you?
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.
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.
Fair enough. I am actually one of those people, but there is a wide array of beliefs about him among my brothers and sisters, ranging all the way from indifference to disgust.
you mean hes exercising freedom of speech? Regardless of views, he has that right.
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.
>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.
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.
> 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.
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.
People only "forget" this when they are trying to be disingenuous about how freedom of speech works.
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.
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.
> 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.
Man... I'm really sick of this lame, lame, lame misunderstanding of free speech. The first amendment of the US Bill of Rights is a legal embodiment (among many others throughout history) of the ideal of free speech, but that's not where it ends. Attempts to shame (or otherwise coerce) unpopular speakers into silence is still a violation of that ideal.
Man... I'm really sick of this lame, lame, lame misunderstanding of free speech. The first amendment of the US Bill of Rights is a legal embodiment (among many others throughout history) of the ideal of free speech, but that's not where it ends. Attempts to shame (or otherwise coerce) unpopular speakers into silence is still a violation of that ideal.
You are wrong both in the textual sense and the historical sense of it. "Freedom of speech" has never in the history of the United States been anything but a governmental restriction; it has never been a moral calling for the citizenry. Nor should it be: while there is a compelling argument for the government's agnosticism with regards to the viewpoints of the citizenry, there is no serious or compelling argument for the citizenry's agnosticism with regards to the viewpoints of each other.
Shame is a tool for fixing shitlords or, if they are unfixable, rendering them powerless. It's a good tool. It gets a bad rap when the powerful are powerful no longer, but--strangely enough--never does when the powerful are powerful.
Shame is a tool for fixing shitlords or, if they are unfixable, rendering them powerless. It's a good tool. It gets a bad rap when the powerful are powerful no longer, but--strangely enough--never does when the powerful are powerful.
Sounds like you need to do a bit more reading on the subject.
> "If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like. Stalin and Hitler, for example, were dictators in favor of freedom of speech for views they liked only. If you're in favor of freedom of speech, that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise." -Noam Chomsky in Manufacturing Consent
But of course, you probably already do understand this and are just willfully ignorant.
> Shame is a tool for fixing shitlords or, if they are unfixable, rendering them powerless.
This has told me pretty much everything I need to know about your viewpoint. You're a bully and you relish silencing opinions you don't agree with, while thinking you hold some kind of moral high ground. Whatever gets you through the day, I guess.
> "If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like. Stalin and Hitler, for example, were dictators in favor of freedom of speech for views they liked only. If you're in favor of freedom of speech, that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise." -Noam Chomsky in Manufacturing Consent
But of course, you probably already do understand this and are just willfully ignorant.
> Shame is a tool for fixing shitlords or, if they are unfixable, rendering them powerless.
This has told me pretty much everything I need to know about your viewpoint. You're a bully and you relish silencing opinions you don't agree with, while thinking you hold some kind of moral high ground. Whatever gets you through the day, I guess.
>Sounds like you need to do a bit more reading on the subject.
I feel like you're making unsupported claims. I can think if two instances where you are correct:
1. "Equal time" laws, which are so specific and narrow in their scope to the point of being almost meaningless in a fractured media landscape.
2. Slander and Libel laws which protect people from being personally attacked when the claims are untrue. These laws do not apply to true claims, nor do they apply to criticism of opinions and they are very loose in the instance of public figures.
Neither one of these apply in this situation. I am perfectly within my rights to say "That opinion is wrong." and criticize it. Indeed, one could argue that's the very point of free speech, to encourage public discourse and argument.
I feel like you're making unsupported claims. I can think if two instances where you are correct:
1. "Equal time" laws, which are so specific and narrow in their scope to the point of being almost meaningless in a fractured media landscape.
2. Slander and Libel laws which protect people from being personally attacked when the claims are untrue. These laws do not apply to true claims, nor do they apply to criticism of opinions and they are very loose in the instance of public figures.
Neither one of these apply in this situation. I am perfectly within my rights to say "That opinion is wrong." and criticize it. Indeed, one could argue that's the very point of free speech, to encourage public discourse and argument.
I think you're missing his point. He's attempting to staple a moral argument to the citizenry--that it's not merely the government that must ensure freedom of speech, it's that we as citizens must accept and tolerate shitty speech. Which has no significant historical basis--Noam Chomsky is a guy and I don't have to agree with him, even when he's not being misquoted--but is alarmingly popular in certain dank corners of the internet.
More specifically, this notion is the origin of redpill horseshit--itself fallout from the fundamental disaster of my generation: the belief that we deserve to be loved, that people who don't love and adore us are wrong. From that tragic misapprehension rises this back-assward idea of acceptance-for-everything-under-the-sun, which you will note is employed almost strictly by people who have lost positions of social power but still cling to the ideologies of superiority that put them there.
One must deserve to be loved, and that requires work and effort. It is not, to crib a phrase from a friend, an existential entitlement.
More specifically, this notion is the origin of redpill horseshit--itself fallout from the fundamental disaster of my generation: the belief that we deserve to be loved, that people who don't love and adore us are wrong. From that tragic misapprehension rises this back-assward idea of acceptance-for-everything-under-the-sun, which you will note is employed almost strictly by people who have lost positions of social power but still cling to the ideologies of superiority that put them there.
One must deserve to be loved, and that requires work and effort. It is not, to crib a phrase from a friend, an existential entitlement.
> But of course, you probably already do understand this and are just willfully ignorant.
I am in favor of freedom of speech, and I said as much. No law should be passed to abridge speech I dislike. That has no bearing on whether I have to be in the same room or associate with those who want to do it. My freedoms to associate do not stop because a shitlord exercises his freedom of speech.
> You're a bully and you relish silencing opinions you don't agree with
Sure, by some dictionary definitions, I'm a bully, because I am totally okay with use superior positioning and social force to cow people who wish to use their freedoms to hurt people I care about. But I am not the government, and I am not responsible for the freedoms, or the consequences of freedoms, of others. And shame--which I use in a cultural context and you attempt to overload with moral words like "bully", I specifically use a word like "shitlord" because it has no positive meaning afforded to the speaker/writer in its use, I have no need for the fiction of a moral high ground--stops those who would hurt those I care about, when the opprobrium of society demonstrates that their speech is protected but not accepted. And that's the critical point: the gap between protection and acceptance is wide.
But "relishing" it--eh, not really. It is a functional consequence of living in an inherently political world, where social acceptance is what is necessary to enact political aims. Gay-bashers, say, had no time for "dissenting opinions" when they were the majority. I am comfortable--not gleeful, but comfortable--with not "accepting" them when that acceptance is what they need to harm people. Or, similarly and at rather lower stakes, GamerGaters (well, their spittle-flecked precursors) likewise were so very happy to assault anyone who challenged the young-white-male status quo, and only now that they are losing do they want the kind of acceptance that helps them achieve their political aims; I'm okay with not helping them do ill by "accepting" them.
.
oh, and EDIT: You shouldn't try to reference Chomsky without actually checking out the full context of the quote you pulled from Wikipedia--I assume just by Googling for "freedom of speech" and pulling the first "liberal" name you found--to make sure it means what you think it means. Had you read the book, you'd understand that Chomsky's concerns are around mass media, which are functionally organs of the state, using that position against the citizenry. Which is, again, different in not only degree but kind from individual disapproval and political action. But thanks for playing!
I am in favor of freedom of speech, and I said as much. No law should be passed to abridge speech I dislike. That has no bearing on whether I have to be in the same room or associate with those who want to do it. My freedoms to associate do not stop because a shitlord exercises his freedom of speech.
> You're a bully and you relish silencing opinions you don't agree with
Sure, by some dictionary definitions, I'm a bully, because I am totally okay with use superior positioning and social force to cow people who wish to use their freedoms to hurt people I care about. But I am not the government, and I am not responsible for the freedoms, or the consequences of freedoms, of others. And shame--which I use in a cultural context and you attempt to overload with moral words like "bully", I specifically use a word like "shitlord" because it has no positive meaning afforded to the speaker/writer in its use, I have no need for the fiction of a moral high ground--stops those who would hurt those I care about, when the opprobrium of society demonstrates that their speech is protected but not accepted. And that's the critical point: the gap between protection and acceptance is wide.
But "relishing" it--eh, not really. It is a functional consequence of living in an inherently political world, where social acceptance is what is necessary to enact political aims. Gay-bashers, say, had no time for "dissenting opinions" when they were the majority. I am comfortable--not gleeful, but comfortable--with not "accepting" them when that acceptance is what they need to harm people. Or, similarly and at rather lower stakes, GamerGaters (well, their spittle-flecked precursors) likewise were so very happy to assault anyone who challenged the young-white-male status quo, and only now that they are losing do they want the kind of acceptance that helps them achieve their political aims; I'm okay with not helping them do ill by "accepting" them.
.
oh, and EDIT: You shouldn't try to reference Chomsky without actually checking out the full context of the quote you pulled from Wikipedia--I assume just by Googling for "freedom of speech" and pulling the first "liberal" name you found--to make sure it means what you think it means. Had you read the book, you'd understand that Chomsky's concerns are around mass media, which are functionally organs of the state, using that position against the citizenry. Which is, again, different in not only degree but kind from individual disapproval and political action. But thanks for playing!
I guess I should have sensed I was speaking with an edgy troll earlier. Oh well ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
It's a shame you chose to dismiss the discussion rather than concede the point.
I mentioned that Gavin McInnes is a person who has made a living spewing incendiary, bigoted hate speech. You argued that we should still listen to him in order to not violate the ideal of freedom of speech. Other people eloquently pointed out that this is wrong, both by any reasonable moral standard and by the traditional motivating principles behind freedom of speech. You called those people trolls. That's a shame.
I mentioned that Gavin McInnes is a person who has made a living spewing incendiary, bigoted hate speech. You argued that we should still listen to him in order to not violate the ideal of freedom of speech. Other people eloquently pointed out that this is wrong, both by any reasonable moral standard and by the traditional motivating principles behind freedom of speech. You called those people trolls. That's a shame.
[deleted]
I agree that it's obviously nothing to do with free speech.
But it's entirely disingenuous to claim somebody is acting shitty when writing satirically.
But it's entirely disingenuous to claim somebody is acting shitty when writing satirically.
Sure, if you think it's satire. I am intensely skeptical of the idea that it's an attempt at satire--both from reading his stuff and from knowing people in the circles he's traveled in--and have never seen anything to convince me otherwise.
It's not a ringing endorsement when one's supporters best argument is "it's not illegal to say what he said in this particular point in time and space."
Apalled that this was downvoted. Either you are attacking the poster directly or you are against freedom of speech, either way, poor form.
This amazes me: what makes them think that they aren't a trusted source of news for their audience?
> With expansion comes a sense of responsibility,” he told me recently in one of Vice’s glass-walled conference rooms. “As time goes on I don’t think that being silly, being stupid, is cool anymore. When you look at the planet, at the state that it’s in, it demands attention. It demands scrutiny. And it demands a certain level of seriousness.”
Could it be that it's exactly the lack of seriousness of Vice's reporting up to this point that has made people trust them? Reality isn't always serious, and when it is, sometimes the only way to deal with it is to laugh at it, or to admit that it's strange.
In short, this looks like yet another company getting big and then changing everything that made them successful. It's not necessarily going to hurt their bottom line, but it's an example of why companies getting big is bad for consumers.