Let's talk about Vice Magazine

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (1177 of them)

It seems to me that at least part of what they're doing here:

I think we got pissed off only after we wrote what came naturally to us and it offended people. We were determined to leave it in. It was just the way we talked. It’s surprising how brainwashed by
hippies most of our generation is.

is claim their own language/stance as natural and authentic and everyone else's as reprogrammed, which hardly recognises the kind of complex intervention in competing semantics that Momus is claiming for them. I think to grant them this is as foolish as assuming there is one hot language, one real, of the streets (one real hot street ha ha). I'm not disputing the real of anyone's experience, but we're talking about mediation and representation here, where there's surely no single or essential real. or Given that the Vice people lay claim to an unreflexive rootedness in 'what's really going on', who is allowed to confront Vice and say 'that's not my real' (as opposed to 'that's not (morally) right')? (I just read Dan's point above, which may answer that question).

BTW Momus: props for a consistent and inventive defence of your position and almost incredible good humour in the face of sometimes nasty disagreement on this thread. i have thought this through hard and admitted a lot more ambiguity into my basic disagreement as a result of his points (along with lots of other ppl's, obv).

― Ellie (Ellie), Friday, 18 October 2002 15:23 (twenty-three years ago)

Sorry.

― Ellie (Ellie), Friday, 18 October 2002 15:24 (twenty-three years ago)

What's sick abt the quote mentioned earlier from the Vice editors is that they quickly & thoughtlessly slip from talking abt hanging out w/certain groups, being "in the thick of it" right to calling them "the dregs of humanity." Come on. They need SO MUCH to characterize some people as freaks, outsiders, just in order to prop up the idea that there's something to be subversive about. I don't know, I suspect it is a nice career move for some of the artists that work for them to claim they're being subversive too.
Trouble is, who in NYC thinks drag queens, for example, are all that strange?
I'd be pretty baffled if friends of mine started wearing "queer as fuck" t-shirts & announcing to me that they were thus subverting my homophobic attitude.. To which I would reply, er, what the hell are you talking about, I wasn't homophobic in the first place, it's a funny shirt but.. Dear Vice, stop telling me what I think because I can say people are different w/o calling them freaks.

― daria gray (daria gray), Friday, 18 October 2002 15:25 (twenty-three years ago)

650...

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Friday, 18 October 2002 15:26 (twenty-three years ago)

(ellie i rescued yr itals: is that how you meant'em?)

― mark s (mark s), Friday, 18 October 2002 15:27 (twenty-three years ago)

Mark s yes thank you - I was just wondering by what interweb majicks that fuck up got resolved. Mark s majicks! Now I look like I'm apologising for being nice to Momus!

― Ellie (Ellie), Friday, 18 October 2002 15:31 (twenty-three years ago)

haha you only did it because you are brainwashed by hippies

― mark s (mark s), Friday, 18 October 2002 15:34 (twenty-three years ago)

There are still things to be said here, but this thread has become unwieldy. Can we start up a sequel please?

― Colin Meeder (Mert), Friday, 18 October 2002 15:38 (twenty-three years ago)

Those darn hippies with their long hair and going to psych festivals and...er, wait.

No white person has carte blanche to call me "nigger".

I think Dan nails it here. There's an assumption being made that I don't think exists about the viability of said carte blanche.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 18 October 2002 15:41 (twenty-three years ago)

Colin -- thy wish is granted. Sequel thread now in place.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 18 October 2002 15:44 (twenty-three years ago)

Felicity: that comment above was only meant to speak to the reality that magazines supported by fashion advertising tend to be about a lot of fashion concerns that aren't by and large as relevant to the working class as they are to people with the wealth and energy to actually bother with them. This isn't to say that some members of the working class won't be very much interested in them -- there's a long history of very poor city folk comprising a sort of front gaurd of fashion. All it was meant to say is that it seems sort of silly to defend a largely satirical magazine about cultural luxuries by claiming them it as some sort of champion of the poor.

― nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 18 October 2002 15:50 (twenty-three years ago)

Excuse me, but is this where I find out what "fremme neppa venette" means?

― Nate Patrin (Nate Patrin), Thursday, 31 October 2002 23:54 (twenty-three years ago)

It means "Don't Call Me Nigger, Whitey."

― Jody Beth Rosen (Jody Beth Rosen), Friday, 1 November 2002 00:04 (twenty-three years ago)

OK thx bye.

(PS: Damn, I hope you didn't have e-mail notifications turned on.)

― Nate Patrin (Nate Patrin), Friday, 1 November 2002 00:13 (twenty-three years ago)

five months pass...

Seems like I missed quite a thread. Can anyone summarise it succinctly?

― Cozen (Cozen), Thursday, 10 April 2003 19:59 (twenty-three years ago)

people talked about Vice Magazine

― oops (Oops), Thursday, 10 April 2003 20:00 (twenty-three years ago)

ha!

― jel -- (jel), Thursday, 10 April 2003 20:06 (twenty-three years ago)

Maybe this is the wrong time to ask, but did anybody see the recent "retard" issue?

― hstencil, Thursday, 10 April 2003 20:14 (twenty-three years ago)

yes

― dyson (dyson), Thursday, 10 April 2003 20:26 (twenty-three years ago)

No. Should I be shocked or bored?

― Jody Beth Rosen (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 10 April 2003 20:26 (twenty-three years ago)

(Or awed?)

― Jody Beth Rosen (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 10 April 2003 20:27 (twenty-three years ago)

Maybe I did overreact a little bit. Good thread, though.

― Jody Beth Rosen (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 10 April 2003 20:30 (twenty-three years ago)

I dunno, I just skimmed through it myself. I rarely read Vice (mostly because of how an editor butchered a friend's piece then claimed to a friend of this friend that he "wrote it"), but when I do it usually produces in my head the same bewildered repulsion/fascination that I get when I read the Wall Street Journal Op-Ed page.

― hstencil, Thursday, 10 April 2003 20:33 (twenty-three years ago)

It's like someone gave Calum a publishing budget!

― Jody Beth Rosen (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 10 April 2003 20:38 (twenty-three years ago)

I read it way more often now, mostly just to see what music they're talking about. Also it's, you know, free. I've seen more things in it that I find funny, but my reaction to the bulk of it hasn't changed: they borrow this tone that can sometimes amuse me, and then they use it to avoid substantive thought way more often than encourage it.

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 10 April 2003 20:43 (twenty-three years ago)

is vice free in the uk? i found a free copy in rough trade ages ago, but i had an idea that they had some hyped up launch or something and now it costs $$$$$$ to buy here.

― ambrose (ambrose), Friday, 11 April 2003 15:06 (twenty-three years ago)

I'm still pissed off at missing this thread grrrrrrrrrr

― DG (D_To_The_G), Friday, 11 April 2003 15:11 (twenty-three years ago)

I just realized that gygax! posted this upthread:

Vice published Russ Waterhouse's interview with Violent Ramp but that's the only thing I've read of theirs.
Seems like a pretty forward-thinking staff to print it all things considered.

This is what I'm talking about with the "an editor butchered a friend's piece then claimed to a friend of this friend that he "wrote it." According to Russ (one of my best friends), they butchered the piece, then a little while later one of Russ's friends went to a party wearing a Wolf Eyes t-shirt (members of Violent Ramp are in Wolf Eyes). Somebody from Vice (I'm not sure who, I don't know the guys) said to him (paraphrasing) "oh they're pretty cool, did you see my [emphasis added] interview with Violent Ramp?" or something to that effect (I've heard this all third-hand from Russ). Seemed to me to be a pretty shitty thing to do, albeit minor.

― hstencil, Friday, 11 April 2003 15:34 (twenty-three years ago)

I'm still pissed off at missing this thread grrrrrrrrrr

I'm annoyed that I can't link to the Vice Throwdown part 2 sequel thread here for some reason. Nabisco never answered my question there. I'm still interested.

― felicity (felicity), Friday, 11 April 2003 15:46 (twenty-three years ago)

there's a sequel???????????????????????????????????????

― DG (D_To_The_G), Friday, 11 April 2003 15:50 (twenty-three years ago)

Vice is good. U are all gay.

― Momus (Momus), Friday, 11 April 2003 15:51 (twenty-three years ago)

Vice sequel thread here.

― Nicole (Nicole), Friday, 11 April 2003 15:53 (twenty-three years ago)

ooer nice save Nicole. Part 2 was when it got really good. Should we lock this one so people get the full effect?

― felicity (felicity), Friday, 11 April 2003 15:59 (twenty-three years ago)

nah, not until I say:

I like Slayer.

― jel -- (jel), Friday, 11 April 2003 16:01 (twenty-three years ago)

They'll never be able to top the aforementioned "Special" issue.

― Aaron W (Aaron W), Friday, 11 April 2003 18:39 (twenty-three years ago)

Hm. Just watched a few moments of Ghost World, and realized that the "Coon Chicken" scenes therein perfectly encapsulate Nabisco's (spot-on) criticism of Momus upthread, namely that per some of his posts here, Momus "sees inherent value in people's doing things society disapproves of." Thora Birch would represent Vice Magazine and Momus would represent the approving art teacher.

― Amateurist (amateurist), Tuesday, 22 April 2003 04:14 (twenty-three years ago)

actually isn't Vice Magazine sort of like the zine put out by the guy who brought the pedophile to meet Enid?

― James Blount (James Blount), Tuesday, 22 April 2003 04:22 (twenty-three years ago)

dude it's a metaphor.

― Amateurist (amateurist), Tuesday, 22 April 2003 04:32 (twenty-three years ago)

mine's a simile

― James Blount (James Blount), Tuesday, 22 April 2003 04:41 (twenty-three years ago)

actually mine's closer to analogy.

― Amateurist (amateurist), Tuesday, 22 April 2003 04:46 (twenty-three years ago)

two years pass...

But Vice is actually racist wheras T Birch's character is a mere cultural commentator!

― Fushigina Blobby: Blobania no Kiki (ex machina), Monday, 12 September 2005 20:46 (twenty years ago)

vice either has the clumsiest grasp of irony since me as a 14yr old, or is actually rascist.or it's neither of these, and i just dont get it. vice tries to assume an unassailable position, and perhaps succeeds. ultimately i dont really like it cos there's no earnestness.

lack of earnestness might not be much of a problem in itself, but as i see it has no other redeeming features...it's badly written. what happens when they run out of adolescent taboo subjects to cover.they should do a 'msuic' special, or a 'film' special.joke's worn thin

― daavis sztaayenszz, Monday, 12 September 2005 21:47 (twenty years ago)

It took OVER TWO YEARS for someone to say this!

― donut Get Behind Me Carbon Dioxide (donut), Monday, 12 September 2005 21:53 (twenty years ago)

I notice both the Nathan Barley and the Vice threads have been revived, and one observation I'd like to make is that it doesn't make much sense to be pro-Nathan Barley and anti-Vice, because one is parasitical on the other, and they're both satire. One's a set of post-PC injokes, and the other's an in-joke about a set of post-PC injokes. One's meta, and the other's meta-to-the-meta.

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 13 September 2005 08:29 (twenty years ago)

(And this thread, of course, is meta-to-the-meta-to-the-meta.)

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 13 September 2005 08:30 (twenty years ago)

vice isn't satire, though.

― N_RQ, Tuesday, 13 September 2005 08:31 (twenty years ago)

no but it likes to hide behind the trope when it can

― Banana Nutrament (ghostface), Tuesday, 13 September 2005 09:08 (twenty years ago)

puny tropes.

― N_RQ, Tuesday, 13 September 2005 09:09 (twenty years ago)

I skimmed a Vice for the first time a few weeks ago, and didn't really like it. Their in-your-face attitude is too obvious. It seems like it's geared towards nihilistic south park republicans or something.

There was a funny thing on one of their DVDs where they showed a video for a Queens of the Stone Age that was some naked Japanese guy jumping around with a picture of the editor's (or someone's) face over his naughty bits. It was brilliant.

I don't think it's up to white people to decide when the word "nigger" is okay to use, btw.

― recovering optimist (Royal Bed Bouncer), Tuesday, 13 September 2005 23:35 (twenty years ago)

peta to the meta

― latebloomer (latebloomer), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 00:03 (twenty years ago)

Skipping 1077 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.