Let's talk about Vice Magazine

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (1177 of them)
i'm thinking a real life manifestation of Momus's scenario might be something like a public university rally

No, no, no, Mark P set the terms of this conundrum and it was very simple: "Would you walk into a room full of black people and call them niggers?" And I'm saying that if you just have the option to

a) go along with their revaluation of the word or

b) question it

which would be the better thing to do?

Momus (Momus), Monday, 14 October 2002 14:51 (twenty-three years ago)

yeah mark: a or b!! no commentary!! pencils down in 10 seconds!!

(must dash...i'm in my living room and now i have to go to my kitchen.)

jess (dubplatestyle), Monday, 14 October 2002 14:54 (twenty-three years ago)

momus i think if you work just a little harder you can refine this argument down even more so to a question of such airtight construction that no one can possibly disagree with you. that means you win, right?

jess (dubplatestyle), Monday, 14 October 2002 15:01 (twenty-three years ago)

I think it's the very essence of the thread, Jess. Here we have a bunch of people disapproving of someone else's scene, and doing so in the guise of some kind of 'sensitivity' to the rights and feelings of the very people who comprise the scene. Something amiss here, surely?

So who's going to walk into Art Fag Mondays and tell DJ Amy 'I'm not, um, 'gay' myself, but I really think you should change the name of this place. It's degrading!'

Momus (Momus), Monday, 14 October 2002 15:07 (twenty-three years ago)

a

vic (vicc13), Monday, 14 October 2002 15:14 (twenty-three years ago)

i too have to leave net-land for the moment, but okay Momus, if we absolutely have to reduce the argument then wow pretend we all choose a and have no problem using words that have lost their power to offend, and lookee, we were wrong all along and words really *are* able to be recontextualised!

which words? and how? why? when? with who in mind? while keeping a cautious eye out for which elements? oh, fuck it, i'd rather lick matted menses out of dyke pubes while getting sucked off at the jewboy afro hair day at the fag salon than think about this gay shit, but that's okay, everyone knows the vice "scene" includes every gay/black/jewish/left-leaning person living at present.

how's this, Momus: "I'm gay myself, and I really think you should change the name of this place. It's degrading!" ?

Mitch Lastnamewithheld (mitchlnw), Monday, 14 October 2002 15:19 (twenty-three years ago)

Haha momus those aren't the two options. Walk into a room of black people using "n-a" and you'd better not use the word or you'd be in big trouble. In fact, the way race dynamics work, a good half the people would stop using the word the moment you walked in. The moment someone uses this word around me, I usually, rather than getting into the whole explanation Tracer laid out quite nicely, simply say I have delicate ears and would rather they not because I hear it and think of lynchings.

Better not to use the word at all than throw one more coal onto the fires of pent up rage and pain of the Ivan Julians of the world (cf. aforementioned bangs piece where he describes hearing it like shrapnel lodging in his stomach).

This doesn't mean that I am going to write letters to Vice complaining. I find them and what they pander to repellent, but fine.

Momus you're a dope half the time because you automatically equate moral disapproval with censorship and shock value with merit.

Sterling Clover (s_clover), Monday, 14 October 2002 15:20 (twenty-three years ago)

Also Momus' if you're not gay you have nothing to say about how some gay people want to reappropriate "f-g" is in fact political correctness of the first order. That's like "if you're not black you'll never understand man" or etc. which of course has the flipside "the people of the empire will never understand the cultured ways of us british".

Sterling Clover (s_clover), Monday, 14 October 2002 15:21 (twenty-three years ago)

i just wanted to publicly let mitch know that i love him.

jess (dubplatestyle), Monday, 14 October 2002 15:24 (twenty-three years ago)

This entire argument is ridiculous, insofar as it assumes that Vice are using the words "fag" and "nigger" in a manner any more conceptual than eight year olds use the words "boobies" and "turd."

nabisco (nabisco), Monday, 14 October 2002 15:30 (twenty-three years ago)

yes, nitsuh except 8 year olds don't publish magazines or give interviews, last time i checked. (except for maybe those super genius chess playing bastards.)

jess (dubplatestyle), Monday, 14 October 2002 15:32 (twenty-three years ago)

Call me literalist but "Let's talk about Vice Magazine" is an invitation to criticise and disapprove of a magazine, not a 'scene'. It's open to the public in a way that a scene isn't. What Momus is basically saying is that anyone who reads Vice Magazine has to consider themselves part of the scene or they lose the right to criticise it - but in that case why publish anything at all? Starting a magazine, or anything public, is pretty much asking for your 'scene' to be questioned, modified, made fun of, improved as well as admired and imitated.

Tom (Groke), Monday, 14 October 2002 15:34 (twenty-three years ago)

Call me literalist but "Let's talk about Vice Magazine" is an invitation to criticise and disapprove of a magazine, not a 'scene'. It's open to the public in a way that a scene isn't. What Momus is basically saying is that anyone who reads Vice Magazine has to consider themselves part of the scene or they lose the right to criticise it - but in that case why publish anything at all? Starting a magazine, or anything public, is pretty much asking for your 'scene' to be questioned, modified, made fun of, improved as well as admired and imitated.

Nabiso - are you saying adults should be judged by the same standards as 8 year olds then?

Tom (Groke), Monday, 14 October 2002 15:35 (twenty-three years ago)

Words Reclaimed by Bratty Kidults Whose Parents Washed Their Mouths Out With Soap For Using Them, Age 10...the debate rages on.

why oh why am I having the sudden urge to play (LOUD) You'll Dance To Anything by the Dead Milkmen?

suzy (suzy), Monday, 14 October 2002 15:35 (twenty-three years ago)

But Jess, these children are doing the all-important cultural work of recontextualizing words like "hump" and "titties" and making them safe and amusing for the rest of us, so that we never have to think about what they mean or ever meant!

nabisco (nabisco), Monday, 14 October 2002 15:35 (twenty-three years ago)

Oh, shit, I think everyone's getting my argument backwards: I'm not saying Vice are okay, I'm saying Momus is silly for pretending there's anything more than juvenile idiocy behind their use of this language.

nabisco (nabisco), Monday, 14 October 2002 15:36 (twenty-three years ago)

(I.e. "this whole debate is ridiculous" = "the half of it that likes Vice is ridiculous.")

nabisco (nabisco), Monday, 14 October 2002 15:38 (twenty-three years ago)

thank god! nitsuh you make a cock-slurping faggot jewboy worry!!

jess (dubplatestyle), Monday, 14 October 2002 15:38 (twenty-three years ago)

Well, the gay man objecting to 'Art Fag Mondays' would certainly be less patronising. But to say he would be right would be reactionary. If you agree that there is a struggle for the soul and meaning of words, and if you agree that every friendly use of a word like 'fag' blunts an arrow in the quiver of a fascist, then it would be reactionary to go up to the people who are (provocatively, it's true) on the cutting edge of the 'battle for interpretation' and tell them to stop doing what they're doing because it's degrading, or plays into the enemy's hands.

This reminds me of Nitsuh's comments on the 'Is Bush An Idiot' thread. He wanted the people who voted Nader to outline their longterm vision for the positive outcome a Nader vote might bring. And he got frustrated because nobody seemed even to have thought in those terms.

Here I'm actually being somewhat Naderite, in a sense, and saying that I believe the word 'fag' can be totally revalued *for the whole community* within a few short years, and that this victory, which I believe is both important and inevitable, is worth the short-term risk (of Democrats losing votes, in the Nader case, or of a peceived -- but illusory -- temporary *increase* in homophobia, in this case).

Momus (Momus), Monday, 14 October 2002 15:42 (twenty-three years ago)

Isnt there a benefit though to keeping some hate speech hateful in a know-your-enemies sense? As in - if "fag" is entirely agreed to be unacceptable, and if homophobia is agreed to be bad, then the use of "fag" has no plausible deniability - ie you cant use it as an epithet and say "I am not homophobic". This is pretty much what has or had happened with some racial epithets. If these words are being 'reclaimed' though, they could be used as slurs with the intent to offend/abuse and then defended on the grounds we've been talking about.

Tom (Groke), Monday, 14 October 2002 15:52 (twenty-three years ago)

i.e. if I was a fascist I wouldn't think my arrows were being blunted, I'd think "Great! They're legalising arrows!"

Tom (Groke), Monday, 14 October 2002 15:53 (twenty-three years ago)

Tom and Suzy are ridiculously OTM.

I refuse to pick one of Momus's hypothetical scenarios because they're fucking stupid. I freely invite Momus to walk into a room filled with my relatives or my wife's relatives and start throwing the word "nigger" around because he desperately needs the beatdown.

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, 14 October 2002 15:53 (twenty-three years ago)

what is momus and can we beat him? (yes, yes we can.)

jess (dubplatestyle), Monday, 14 October 2002 15:56 (twenty-three years ago)

Momus you're a dope half the time because you automatically equate moral disapproval with censorship and shock value with merit

Sterling's name has never been more appropriate

RickyT (RickyT), Monday, 14 October 2002 15:56 (twenty-three years ago)

(Addendum: Equating a magazine with a private conversation is Bill O'Reilly-level idiocy. Did someone redefine "clever" when I wasn't looking?)

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, 14 October 2002 15:57 (twenty-three years ago)

but ricky t, sterl never did explain what makes him a dope the other half of the time.

jess (dubplatestyle), Monday, 14 October 2002 15:58 (twenty-three years ago)

Here I'm actually being somewhat Naderite, in a sense, and saying that I believe the word 'fag' can be totally revalued *for the whole community* within a few short years

Why should it? What's so great about that word?

Jody Beth Rosen, Monday, 14 October 2002 16:01 (twenty-three years ago)

Great. They've made a Homage Magazine for New York now.

Jesus, Momus, you can't claim both that the usage is for the scene, and is being carefully handled by licensed word-smiths, AND it's for the community (which I'm assuming is at least the 90% of the US outside NY), where it will bring great healing. Make your mind up.

Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Monday, 14 October 2002 16:03 (twenty-three years ago)

Well (this to Tom's point) it seems to me that conservatives have a choice. They can either go along with the dilution of their homophobic words in ever-increasing quantities of irony (which may allow them, as you say, to use them more, but makes each use less and less satisfying) or they can pose as liberals and object to their victims taking control of language on the grounds of taste, decency, and sensitivity.

Momus (Momus), Monday, 14 October 2002 16:04 (twenty-three years ago)

And what's so great about the word is that IT USED TO HURT US BUT WE CHANGED IT AND NOW IT MAKES US SMILE!

Momus (Momus), Monday, 14 October 2002 16:05 (twenty-three years ago)

momus irony is not a concept my neighbors grasp, by and large.

also, since when did stockholm syndrome redeem a word?

jess (dubplatestyle), Monday, 14 October 2002 16:06 (twenty-three years ago)

if "fag" were ever totally revalued and became some sort of neutral description (in which case its meaning would remain fixed despite context?!) it would immediately cease having any political power for the people who want to use it; the project Momus describes is ultimately self-defeating: the whole point of using these words oppositionally is that they do have a sting and that you can show you're tuff enough to handle it - no sting, no smile

"at least they're white" quote was SPOT-ON btw in that when artists etc started moving into Williamsburg in the early 90s it was like the only cheap Brooklyn neighborhood close to Manhattan that wasn't black somehow - the two main ethnic groups there are Poles and Hasidic Jews. I've never heard anybody articulate this before as a reason for (largely white) college kids moving there. if these guys want Vice to remain the "only international free glossy style mag" though they'd better crack some jokes that more than like 10 people are going to understand, especially when it's as open to misinterpretationas this one.

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Monday, 14 October 2002 16:08 (twenty-three years ago)

Also:

We (and by 'we' I mean fags, non-fags, art fags and Vice readers) are a lot quicker and more creative when it comes to messing with language than Bushites in pickup trucks.

You are, at very best, not paying enough attention to the people you speak for.

Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Monday, 14 October 2002 16:08 (twenty-three years ago)

Momus, this whole "blunting" word-reclamation idea is like a man telling his wife that if he rapes her very carefully every night it won't be as terrible when someone does it for real.

nabisco (nabisco), Monday, 14 October 2002 16:09 (twenty-three years ago)

I freely invite Momus to walk into a room filled with my relatives or my wife's relatives and start throwing the word "nigger" around because he desperately needs the beatdown.

Momus, have you seen Kentucky Fried Movie?

Andy K (Andy K), Monday, 14 October 2002 16:12 (twenty-three years ago)

Momus, you can't claim both that the usage is for the scene, and is being carefully handled by licensed word-smiths, AND it's for the community (which I'm assuming is at least the 90% of the US outside NY), where it will bring great healing. Make your mind up.

It starts on the scene (and it's not all thought-out, it just happens because of stuff like camp and irony) and spreads out from there. I don't see any contradiction here.

Momus, this whole "blunting" word-reclamation idea is like a man telling his wife that if he rapes her very carefully every night it won't be as terrible when someone does it for
real.

Nabisco, who's being silly now? Come on, what did you make of my reference to your point on the Nader / Bush thread?

Momus (Momus), Monday, 14 October 2002 16:14 (twenty-three years ago)

Nabisco is my new best friend.

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, 14 October 2002 16:15 (twenty-three years ago)

WTF, Momus, why is that silly? You're saying that if people start casting the words "fag" and "nigger" around in a safe, non-hateful way, then ... then what? What does this accomplish? Does it really make it less dangerous or hurtful or threatening when someone calls you a fag or a nigger in a non-safe, actually-hateful way, any more than husband's safe, playful rape-enactment will make it "less terrible" to be actually raped?

So yes, I think the Nader-thread comparison is spot-on: what is this meant to accomplish, beyond making money tittillating people by saying words they don't think they're allowed to hear?

nabisco (nabisco), Monday, 14 October 2002 16:18 (twenty-three years ago)

Furthermore, how is removing the sting from being called a "nigger" going to stop security from following me around stores?

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, 14 October 2002 16:20 (twenty-three years ago)

I'm almost starting to feel sorry for Momus.

RickyT (RickyT), Monday, 14 October 2002 16:21 (twenty-three years ago)

Oh come now, Momus enjoys defending positions against a consensus, the least we can do is oblige him!

So let's also add that his "recontextualization" scheme is preaching to a choir -- it has no effect on the people who claim these as actually-hateful words apart from giving them the impression that they're completely right and even the fags and the niggers can see that.

nabisco (nabisco), Monday, 14 October 2002 16:23 (twenty-three years ago)

dan, if you were on the front lines of the advanced war for slur reappropriation and recontextualization then you could afford to shop at better stores! obviously, the key is to stop with all this High Culture Singing crap and put some duct tape over your nipples and get a drum machine! surely this probably feeds into your high school fantasies some how anyway?

jess (dubplatestyle), Monday, 14 October 2002 16:24 (twenty-three years ago)

Dan's point answers Nabisco's. It isn't going to stop security following you round the store. And rape remains rape, even in a world where all the hate words are blunted. Let's be realistic, we're talking about language here. This has always been my bone with political correctness. It only changes appearances. Yes, revaluate the words. But more importantly, revaluate acts. And that's where I can believe in the ultimate success of Vice more easily than the ultimate success of Nader.

Momus (Momus), Monday, 14 October 2002 16:26 (twenty-three years ago)

Dan, are the security following you around shops also black?

suzy (suzy), Monday, 14 October 2002 16:30 (twenty-three years ago)

No.

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, 14 October 2002 16:32 (twenty-three years ago)

It's late in Japan, oyasumi nasai!

Momus (Momus), Monday, 14 October 2002 16:35 (twenty-three years ago)

(When I get hassled by black people, it's usually because I'm in the company of a large group of white people and some ignorant ass feels the need to drop the O-bomb.)

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, 14 October 2002 16:41 (twenty-three years ago)

(Race relations forms about 98% of why I think the entire human race is worthless, BTW.)

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, 14 October 2002 16:43 (twenty-three years ago)

B-but Momus -- Language and Actions aren't so simple, especially when language can be a speech act (like "n-" very often) or directly linked to acts and actions can only hurt symbolically. I mean, security following Dan around doesn't hurt him directly unless he does plan to shoplift and is now being unfairly prevented from doing so. It's what it means to be followed by security, just like what it means to hear the word.

Sterling Clover (s_clover), Monday, 14 October 2002 16:44 (twenty-three years ago)

(I was going to post, "Maybe I should stop trying to steal shit," right after my comment about being followed by store security, but I wanted to seriously address an issue for a change.)

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, 14 October 2002 16:49 (twenty-three years ago)


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