Let's talk about Vice Magazine

(and then they all lez up)

Wednesday night at about 1 AM I was riding my bicycle home from [work]
when I met a red light about 15 or 20 blocks away from my house. Sometimes
if there are absolutely no cars or anything I'll run a red light, but if I
see headlights I assume they belong to a cop car containing a cop who will
give me a 200 dollar ticket and probably harass me to boot. So, I decided
to stay put. It's a long light, and I sat there and sat there.

A car coming down the road I was waiting to cross suddenly stopped at the
green light and a man opened the door and got out of the driver's seat. He
was black, probably between 20 and 30 years old. That's all I know and will
ever know about this person. He was approaching me rather quickly and
purposefully. I had a feeling that he was going to fuck with me in some
way, and was sort of waiting to see how.

He said "what up nigga?" and before I responded said "Where you from,
nigga?" I can't remember exactly but I think what I did was look back
and gesture vaguely down the street in the direction I'd come from - I didn't
really know what he could mean by asking me where I was from - "I'm from
Long Island" is maybe what I should have said but why would he care?
Anyway, as I turned back to face him and began to say...something, I don't
even know...I got punched in the face, hard, at least once and fell down. I
sat there in the road with my bike lying next to me and heard the guy get
back in his car and drive away. I think he said something else but I'm not
sure.

I couldn't see very well because a) I had just been punched in the face and
b) my glasses weren't where they should have been. I didn't want to put my
glasses on because I was sure they were broken, but they weren't. I sat
there for a bit longer, and touched my lip with my hand and my tongue to see
how badly it was fucked up. I slowly picked myself and my bike up and
continued to ride home.

What was running through my head as I rode home was "What am I supposed to
do now?" I felt like there must be some kind of appropriate reaction. I
didn't want to call the police because the police in my neighborhood are
fucking assholes (there's another long, much worse story I could tell
here...). I didn't remember anything about the car or the guy so there was
no way I'd be able to give the cops any information anyway. I wondered if
this was some sort of lesson, like, O.K. it's now unsafe to ride home at
night, but that's bullshit. I've been riding home from [work] late
at night for a year and I've never even felt uncomfortable before. What
managed to cross my mind for a second was: maybe I don't belong in that
neighborhood, like, getting punched by this guy was some kind of message to
move to a different part of town. That was the most fucked thought of all.
Thinking rationally, would you deduce that this guy was acting as an
authorized representative of the neighborhood?

I was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. I'm lucky that I didn't
get hurt more. I mean, if the guy had wanted to keep on kicking me or some
shit he could've just gone ahead and had his way with me. At least I was
just randomly punched - people get randomly stabbed and shot, too. I still
kind of can't believe it, but, it also makes sense in a weird way. I mean,
if I were driving around looking for somebody to punch, I would probably
would have punched me too.

I don't know what to make of the semiotics and/or semantics of this man's referring to my friend (who is, as you probably inferred, white) as a "nigga"; it seems bizarre to me, to be frank: was he using it primarily as a term of denigration? As a way of totally confusing my friend and making him feel uncomfortable? Is it what he calls everybody? I've no idea.

(I do know, however, what I probably would've done to that man had I been there and been suitably armed. My friend is a sweetheart who would never hurt anyone.)

As for the "N-word", unless I'm quoting something or otherwise making reference to a statement not my own, I never use it, whether ending in "-er" or "-a". Getting in the habit of using it in everyday speech strikes me as a very dangerous game -- the risk/benefit ratio is pretty atrocious.

Jess says 'no sound is innocent'. Race stuff is 90% of what makes Dan despair of humanity. The thread seems mostly to have concluded that re-casting meanings is a guilty activity. Indeed it is. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. The brave will do it, despite threats of a beatdown.

Dan again:

To relate this back to Vice, it's perfectly fine for them to ironically fling epithets back and forth under the guise of changing the world but they should be cognizant of the fact that the majority of the people who wander across them aren't going to buy their interpretation and be prepared to deal with the consequences of it (ie, my family beating your ass).

This goes back to my distinction between acts and deeds, and my first point on this whole thread. By all means be enraged (or encourage your family to be enraged) by transvalued epithets. After all, no interpretative act can be innocent, whatever the intended outcome of the transvaluation. But don't forget (and don't let your violent family forget) to judge by acts too. Vice employs homosexual and black contributors and promotes their perspectives and their terms. In the subculture Vice addresses, those people actually have considerably more cultural capital (ie cool) than straight and white people. It's by those deeds, and in that context, that you should judge the mag's editors.

As always, the answer to this dilemma can be found in that most holy of literary tomes, Chris Rock's Rock This:

"Yet some people still wonder why black people can say "nigger" and they can't. Believe it or not, it's a very common question. I hear it all the time:

White Person: Chris, can I say "nigger"?

Me: Why would you even want to?

White Person: I don't mean anything bad by it. I've travelled the world. I've got a yacht. I fucked Racquel Welch. Now, if I could just say 'nigger', everything would be complete.

Me: No. After I smack you upside the head everything will be complete."

I also want to note the following about this thread: "rappers do it" is a really piss-poor justification of basically any type of behavior.

Because I don't believe in the status quo. I don't believe that it is virtue just simply to avoid using a word which some people might find offensive. In many cases, that's conservatism and cowardice. That's what people do who don't think words and meanings are important enough to get into fights about.

I believe (in fact, I know) that society changes, and those changes start with small groups. In some cases the changes are wrought by avant garde artists, in some cases humble journalists. But nothing changes if nobody dares to stick his/her neck out.

My song about retards would basically say 'the retards are my friends'. It would be thought-provoking and ambivalent. 'Why don't I hang with retards? Why do we feel uneasy with someone saying he does? Why is it funny that he would pass this off as some kind of cool thing to do? Is he making fun of the handicapped, or is he paying attention to people who usually get none, or get only certain stereotypical 'managerial' or 'sympathetic' light cast on their lives?

The alternative is to pass in 'inoffensive' silence over such topics, or to sing 'I will always love you' or some variant, a 'formula so watertight nobody could possibly disagree with it. So you win.'

I'm not interested in winning, but in thinking. I'd rather be perplexed than right.

Modernism’s dirty secret: avant-garde work requires the survival of the order it first flared against, or its full radicalism no longer properly registers.

momus you sound like a 16 year old goth girl now.

I get the sense that the people who like the magazine have actually read the magazine, but that those who are critical of the people behind Vice haven't extended the criticisms to the published output that much, other than by pointing out (quite correctly) that hate speech words have a different effect when published than when uttered. By the way, I don't happen to share Momus' views on co-opting and subverting language here, so please don't attribute those to me, either.

I find parts of Vice amusing but after reading that interview I am wondering what it is I like about it. I have definitely wished aspects of Vice didn't exist, and I do have a different attitude towards it now. I think I have a similar reaction to Vice as I did to Spy in that my baser nature is amused in spite of my better self, although, unlike Spy, Vice is free so I don't feel like such a sucker for reading it.

If you can't get past the offensive words in Vice and have nothing more to add, I fully understand that, because it's an important issue, but I'd be interested in hearing someone articulate their criticisms of the magazine other than that it contains words of hate speech or that these guys are poor spokespeople for higher education in Canada. So, let's talk about Vice magazine, anyone?

a lot of the writing is good and the "don'ts" page is usually hilarious, but suzy is absolutely OTM re: "edgy" = zero actual risk.

Well, again and again we get people popping up with this motif that re-interpretative work is guilty (this time it's because it's lazy and cowardly, apparently). Yes, fine, there is no innocent revaluation. But where is the King Canute who can stop it going on? And what are your motives for wanting that Canute (actually, it would be better to characterise him as Plato) to come along and somehow fix meanings for all time?

The fact that Hollywood has done my song does change it. Like the notice on the post page says 'Other messages have appeared while you were composing your reply, which may change your message's context. Do you still want to post it?'

momus i said 16 year old goth girl. i know plenty of 19 year old goth girls smarter than you.

You forgot 'fundamentalist' -- one must embrace the details.

But I wonder why this argument doesn't apply to Ned and Mark?

they get the luxury of claiming/deflecting responsibility as they see fit without doing any of the work

it'd only take one post

I think I've just articulated it in a more wishy washy liberal way than they have

maybe so but the idea is also followed through a few degrees further than I've ever heard the vice eds attempt. their "defense" hasn't changed or developed in the slightest in all that time - how's that for rigid unflexible wordplay?

(vice-hatin is a years-old sport here in montreal and believe me what i'm doing ain't even close)

I don't see how beating can be considered desireable either, Dan, yet you're the only one on this whole thread talking about it. Do you really think a liberal-progressive revaluation of language is so clueless?

While my comment was clearly flip and meant to be taken as such, I've no doubt there's something to be talked about here seriously, inasmuch as just about anything can be discussed seriously. I might well have something to say about that at a later point; however, it is late, I am tired, and I have a number of things on my mind, so I'll leave it at that.

well, uh, yeah. what did you think i meant?

and what does shift have to do with *anything*? i subscribe to it. they may have the same v/c as vice but the similarities end there.

ps. what is your point anyways? i mean, jesus, so they reviewed your albums. doesn't mean you have to go to war for them.

Do you really think that these peoples' intentions and yours are at all similar, Momus? The way the Vice boys use these 'hot button words' doesn't indicate that they have any desire to reclaim them. And I can't imagine that any black person who reads their response to the Williamsburg question would be anything but offended, even if they work for the mag itself. GM is certainly not using these words in an affectionate way.

In fact, the only thing they seem to be interested in is projecting cool, and the easiest way to do that (in certain circles, at least) is to appear not to give a fuck about anything. 'We're so baaad, maaan, we say faggot and gangbang chicks and everybody does heroin and nobody wants to read about anything for very long, but were not serious about anything its all a big joke'.

The Vice method:
1) pretend to hate everything
2) pretend to condone all forms of unacceptable behavior
3) make it unclear whether you're pretending or not

I think the argument about whether there is an acceptable context for these words is a separate issue. As far as Vice is concerned, the only thing I care about is the intention with which these words are written. And the only thing I can determine from the context of this article is that even though the writers may actually be liberals who like and employ black and gay people, the ONLY reason they use those words is to offend.

haha!

must dash...i'm at my desk and now i have to go...to my bed...

well done! who would have thought that Vice magazine could provide so potent discussion opportunites?

oyasumi!

To rewind back to the argt I was having with Momus up-thread (legalising arrows etc.) - Momus is saying that hate-words are dependent on context. I agree. This is why I think 'reclaiming' them is totally useless against people who like using them hurtfully.

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.

What Momus is suggesting here with his first option is that the context of hate-speech itself changes when words are reclaimed. But it doesn't. The context of a guy yelling "Hey faggot!" hatefully at someone does not change no matter how many times that someone's cool mates say it every day: it's still intended to provoke fear, rage, humiliation and depending on circumstances still will provoke those things simply because of the tone of voice. So I just don't see what good 'reclamation' does for anyone other than the reclaimer who gets to feel transgressive.

There's also a difference between using the words and playing with the attitudes behind the words, and this is another effect of reclamation. The affectionate on-'scene' use of the word by transgressives takes away some of its sting in wider society, sez Momus. I don't agree (see above) but I see the argument. But what Momus is leaving out is that the on-'scene' use also removes its transgression-status and so the transgressives look for something more transgressive, and this seems to be what's happening with the interview at least. (I'm making no pretence of discussing Vice itself here). A shift from "we can detoxify racist words by using racist words ourselves" to "we can detoxify racism by being racist ourselves" (and get even bigger props from Momus too!).

1. What a pack of reactionary twunts. It's like they've stepped from the campus of a small liberal arts college, where as the few heterosexual males there, they have had their pick of really boring girls called Jen, made less boring by their trust funds. Dare someone to ask if they go in for fart-lighting. And they associate with Williamsburg, which is for middle-class people keen to maintain their college experience (last time I was in NYC I decided it was one giant alterna-mall).

2. The assumed liberal bias of counterculture is only that: assumed. Most people who run magazines (not the people who write for them or take the pics) are faux-liberal/zen-capitalist breadheads (hint - you have to like, or learn to like, advertising assholes if you want to do this business). These are no different and seem to enjoy selling others' difference for them, so their methods and motivations are not like big corporations HOW, exactly?

3. Nick seems to be doing a Voltaire and defending someone's right to free speech, whatever. While this is commendable as a principle (mostly because it's harder to play Find The Asshole when people don't have freedom of expression) I get the feeling the Vice founders would not be as keen to put in a defense of anyone else's rights of expression. I'm also extremely sceptical about the possibility of turning 'hate' words into 'love' words; I think people who try to do this are affecting toughness without actually having to be as tough as the people who've had to endure the hate attached to the words for their whole lives. And the Vice people sound like they get off too much on the naughtiness of their words to ever want the meanings to change properly.

4. Nick, the 'some of my best friends are retards and homos' song will be a) bad, b) will annoy tedious Birkenstock wearers who whine about that sort of thing and c) is soooooooo 1992.