Proud Boys' Gavin McInnes TOTALLY ERASED from Social Media

After weeks of controversy following acts of violence from his ‘western chauvinist’ group the Proud Boys, complete elimination of all thoughts or musings from the co-founder of vice media on the internet enters its final stage (making moves simply to be mean)

Proud Boys Founder Gavin McInnes (above) has hosted his CRTV show ‘Get Off My Lawn’ since September, 2017

Proud Boys Founder Gavin McInnes (above) has hosted his CRTV show ‘Get Off My Lawn’ since September, 2017

12/10/18, 8:15 pm EST

By John Corry, photo from Mediaite

I know what you’re thinking: Gavin McInnes is a TERRIBLE ‘person’ (Nazi/fascist/pigfucker), and there’s only ONE argument to be had here: does the ‘right to free speech' trump the ‘right to emotional justification’, or vice versa?

Fuck no (to both)–

‘Vice versa’ is the important part. It remains one question because my argument is that free speech and emotional justification are closer opposites than they at first appear (also meaning (in addition to the obvious (that they could cancel each other out))): they can’t exist without each other in the same way that one cannot know black without knowing white, up without down. etc.).

Gavin McInnes today had his Patreon and YouTube channels deleted. This comes amidst a rough recent few weeks for the mogul which have included McInnes’s deletion from Facebook, Twitter, and his job at Blaze media hosting the ‘Get Off my Lawn’ podcast. After co-founding Vice Media with Shane Smith and Sharoosh Arvi, and subsequently leaving in 2008, McInnes has remained very much in the public eye, from memorable appearances on Fox, to hosting a slew of podcasts over the past few years.

Most recently, he founded the controversial, self described ‘western chauvinist’ group: the Proud Boys.

‘Despite’ some rhetoric which oftentimes may not be exactly the most ‘polite’, the Proud Boys got themselves into some trouble after a violent clash with Antifa in NYC last month. There have been reports of other outbreaks of violence involving the proud boys over the past few weeks (ironically, mostly with the squeaky-clean Proud Boys liberal comparative (ish), Antifa), and it’s not like Gavin is exactly the most ‘polite’ person on the planet either (RUDE). While he maintains he’s often joking or specifically being provocative to prove a point, one could accuse McInnes of turning into that which he’s always parodied (a freak-out artist) (which, for the record, is not what I think happened; I do think Gavin’s for real and his thought is just a bit more ‘nuanced’ or niche (to put it lightly)). The FBI today clarified that it does not consider the Proud Boys to be an extremist group.

More details regarding the Proud Boys can be found here, here, and here (and no, the SPLC is not one of those links), and more info on Gavin here, here, and here. My personal contention (like usual) is that while I may oftentimes disagree with him, and most certainly oftentimes disagree with how he goes about phrasing his arguments, it’s not his fault some people take him so seriously, and at least he does have arguments for things, backed up not only with either facts or emotions, and is seemingly willing to think, if only for a moment, about what someone who disagrees with him might think on any particular topic (this is what I find o be true right now). Most importantly, he has a way of speaking to a group which, at the moment, like it or not (tolerance?), is having a tough time getting themselves heard (cis, white men are just as ‘human’ as any of the rest of us (assholes)). To assert that men have it generally so much easier than women, while true in some respects, is to get caught up in logistics at the cost of actual intellect, and, much more so (and more to the point), open-mindedness: both men and women have it tough right now. The reasons may differ, however correct and justified any reason or personal experience incumbent to one may be, but the sentiment is the same: angrily comparing victimhood is no more a legitimate avenue to solution than name-calling, unless we’re assuming that one side is generally ‘better’ than the others–


Which is not ‘fact’ or justified emotion (as it’s too opinionated), it’s a power-grab.

The inherent justification of all emotion is an assumed existent thing because no person can ever completely explain her emotions. The reason for this is because emotions are often heavily reliant on a subconscious understanding, one no person ever has complete control over or even part (<50%); emotions grow and evolve over time, and are derived from a wide slew of sources, including, but not limited to: interactions with other people and other people’s emotions, personal experience both daily and over longer periods of time, inherent and pseudo-natural personal traits (pseudo-natural: assumption of a transcendental intellect still reliant on a ‘natural’ world), personal taste in art and the like, emotional ‘training’ (what you reading, bruh?) etc.

To assume a need to justify emotions ignores the reality of the matter: that emotions are inherently justified, because they’re inherently subjective/relative (opposite of ‘fact’, which is inherently objective/Absolute (as far as perception is concerned)).

That’s not to say that your emotions don’t matter, quite the contrary. Because of that relative nature, emotions matter so much (just as facts do) that no one can ever even question them without an assumption of Absolute subjectivity (what is: a bigot (or: for someone assuming facts: an idiot)). And if someone else feels the need to assume your or anyone’s emotions as not inherently justified, or even not relevant, in that emotions are affecting people at every moment of the day, whether they realize it or not, is just as idiotic. Emotions are a thing, get over it. They are also not a thing you can quantify like you can quantify facts (given that emotions are subjective and facts objective), which means they’re much harder to successfully use in any dialectic (debate, argument, whatever) hellbent on making a quantified argument (which is what most dialectic is trying to do #HegelianDialectic;D).

But that also means the ability to have those emotions, and to let them out in a healthy way, is just as important.

Which is (generally) what free speech is supposed to represent.

I certainly can’t be the only who finds ‘being healthy’ to be a bit more of a tedious and downright difficult task than Men’s Health is going to CONSTANTLY remind me it is (my body, my choice (FUCKING. ASSHOLES those guys). Getting emotions out ‘in a healthy way’ can be a very tedious task /> because unlike getting physically fit, there’s not nearly as clear-cut a process for every person (*Joke). Exercising and not eating Shit can be generally accepted as fairly good stepping-off point in becoming physically healthy, but just as no two people’s bodies are exactly the same, no two people’s personal recognition of emotion is ever the same either. Considering the amount of mental stability it takes to really see one’s self objectively, that ‘recognition of emotion’ may even be more complicated, if anything because we seem to understand how our bodies work a little better than we do our minds as of late. To do it successfully (understand ourselves as thinking things #YesImRippingOffDescartesImGettingThere), we need to be able to say whatever comes to mind, without fear that we’re going to be lynched for taking such a chance, because understanding our emotions is complicated and idiosyncratic, let alone understanding the process through which we do that, and let alone understanding how those two concepts/understandings then interact with the rest of the world and with where we (as ‘thinking beings’) stand in it.

Which is what the argument here is. Gavin McInnes is not Plato. He’s no Einstein or Mother Teresa or Tommy Wiseau. His thought isn’t the most ‘new’ or ‘provocative’ unless we’re talking about the way he phrases it, or we’re ignoring facts. He talks, generally, to a niche and he’s made some mistakes in how he goes about breaking out of it, but if Gavin McInnes, an objectively interesting provocateur at best and a caterer to a small and potentially disturbed niche at worst, can be so easily deleted from the internet, I don’t see how we’re not headed straight towards ‘deleted from the internet=deleted from history’ with all suggestions of breaks or to slow down punishable by death.

The beauty of the internet is in its potential as a free, public forum, so defined by our species’ ability/desire to attempt to understand itself in as many possible ways as is necessary to ensure its survival (intellect as an extension of nature).


If someone’s ‘simply trying to be mean’ about it…