Let's talk about Vice Magazine

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (1177 of them)
anyway, this is ridiculous. arguing with momus = pissing in the wind, and i'm hungry.

felicity, you know i was joking (since i am talking to you about it right now ha ha.)

jess (dubplatestyle), Monday, 14 October 2002 01:18 (twenty-one years ago) link

Two things.

1. One of Vice's contributing editors, Amy Kellner, a lesbian, DJs at an event called Art Fag Mondays in the Meat Packing District. She even named it.

2. 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. So let's put the word 'faggot' more and more in a friendly context, and hear hostile uses of the word sounding increasingly lame. Eventually the hostiles will be forced to come up with a new term. It'll take them about ten years. Partly because they're not too smart. And partly because they believe that words do not change their meanings, and that the word 'faggot' is -- and will always be -- intrinsically insulting. They're wrong.

Momus (Momus), Monday, 14 October 2002 01:22 (twenty-one years ago) link

momus you may have a kernel of a point in there, somewhere, i'll admit. but the fact that you call them "bushites" and think that the word faggot will lose its power or its appeal as a slur in ten years just reinforces how divorced from reality you actually are.

a lot of young black men call themselves niggers. would you walk into a room and do the same? even 10-20-30-40 years after the initiation of civil rights?

jess (dubplatestyle), Monday, 14 October 2002 01:34 (twenty-one years ago) link

and can we - at some point - stop pretending that new york has anything to do with the rest of the u.s. except in a sort of geological time lag sense. (and somehow i dont think gay clubs in the meat packing district will be one of its great cultural exports to the heartlands in 10-20 years.)

jess (dubplatestyle), Monday, 14 October 2002 01:36 (twenty-one years ago) link

One of Vice's contributing editors, Amy Kellner, a lesbian, DJs at an event called Art Fag Mondays in the Meat Packing District. She even named it.

First of all, and I don't know how apropos this is but I'll say it anyway, "contributing editor" is often just a vanity title given to famous writers and other "cool" people whose butts senior editors smooch in order to look hipper by association. Occasionally they'll write an article or something.

As Jess already stated -- just because a subculture has adopted an ironic usage of an otherwise loaded word DOESN'T MEAN that the word is inoffensive anymore. YES there are gonna be some "fags" here and there who don't give a shit how the word is used, but it's not really fair to use those people as proof that IT'S OKAY to go around using hot-button words like that.

Jody Beth Rosen, Monday, 14 October 2002 01:53 (twenty-one years ago) link

The real reason to hate Vice is not because of its politics, but because some dumb cunt named Abby has her bootleg Canal Street ear rings showing up in the next issue. Fuck that fucking cunt ass bitch fucking slut twat fucker. Fuck her and her horse. I hope she dies and never has children because if she does I will fully doubt any possible existance of a benevolent god.

Fuck You Abby, Monday, 14 October 2002 01:56 (twenty-one years ago) link

I don't know, it seems like the same old hipster-posing-as-fratboy crap that's been around for years, like Punk Magazine, Don't Be a Faggot-era Beastie Boys, Forced Exposure. But with more money and a better fashion sense. Whooptie doo. Occasionally funny and I love all the pictures of the cute kids out at clubs, but most of the writing is just obnoxious. And yes, they seem a bit too impressed with their anti-PC shennanigans. Yawn.

In other words, Michael Daddino was absolutely right.

That Albini quote is so WRONG it's, I don't know, cute. "Anyone involved"? Like, did he ever go to a Bad Brains show? Were the gay and punk subcultures really intermingled anywhere outside of NY, London and LA, especially after the first couple of years?

Arthur (Arthur), Monday, 14 October 2002 02:01 (twenty-one years ago) link

momus, stop being such a crazy faggot.

mark p (Mark P), Monday, 14 October 2002 02:17 (twenty-one years ago) link

(yup. looks pretty harsh to me.)

mark p (Mark P), Monday, 14 October 2002 02:17 (twenty-one years ago) link

Shift, which came out of the same Montreal scene as Vice, is also a good magazine. I certainly don't say that Vice is the only magazine anyone should read. Balance it out with a whole bunch of other stuff, by all means.

Personally, I find the insistence on skate culture in Vice and Tokion and some other mags a little silly. But that may be a generational thing.

On the question of 'the revaluation of all values', nobody has made the smart objection to my argument, which is that recontextualising insults is a reactive stance, and allows the enemy to set the terms of the debate.

And the answer to that is... but I'm typing this in a computer store in Ginza. Must dash.

Momus (Momus), Monday, 14 October 2002 02:34 (twenty-one years ago) link

momus, while i largely agree with your fairly obvious assessment of language and meaning as fluid and dynamic, i think you're invoking it at an inopportune time.

your argument readily positions vice as vanguards of libertarian language. in general, you seem more than willing to bestow a whole lot of credit on them ("...run by people who have set their watches to the correct time..."), all the while discounting a much more likely possibility: that they're a bunch of meatheads who use words like "fag" and "kike" and "nigger" because it instantly earmarks them as different from virtually every other magazine in their demographic. the tired "we're trying to disempower the rich kid academics" bullshit comes much, much later.

what are the dangers of re-selling latent bigotry as 'realness'?

mark p (Mark P), Monday, 14 October 2002 02:50 (twenty-one years ago) link

a must read

mark p (Mark P), Monday, 14 October 2002 02:52 (twenty-one years ago) link

according to momus there are none! everything and it's opposite! nothing is as it seems in the crazy funhouse world!

jess (dubplatestyle), Monday, 14 October 2002 02:53 (twenty-one years ago) link

felicity you are the queen bee, all playstation gameday players cannot faze you

s trife (simon_tr), Monday, 14 October 2002 02:55 (twenty-one years ago) link

excerpt from complaint posted on the vice message board:

"But although that might make you foolish, unthinking, and sadly all too typical these days, it doesn't make you bigots. No, what makes you bigots is under the Vice Guide to Evil where you listed "Israelis" as a runner-up. Not the Israeli government, not Israeli policy, just Israelis. Of course you wouldn't list all Muslims as evil because of Sept. 11, but it's somehow become politically correct and acceptable to consider all Israelis as "evil." Well, this is the exact same attitude as suicide bombers, who don't have any problems blowing up a family with little children, after all, they're Israelis, they're evil."

full response from gavin:

"Hey jewboy,
If you check the gang rape gavin thread you'll see a co-founder of the magazine defending Israel and the Jews."

mark p (Mark P), Monday, 14 October 2002 02:57 (twenty-one years ago) link

Vice stinks of a conspiracy with the sole aim of getting laid. all's fair...

Aaron A., Monday, 14 October 2002 03:03 (twenty-one years ago) link

all bases covered!

mark p (Mark P), Monday, 14 October 2002 03:03 (twenty-one years ago) link

give me a fuckin break, ilx was always just about getting laid too, at least vice doesnt like 'anything by dj vadim'

s trife (simon_tr), Monday, 14 October 2002 03:16 (twenty-one years ago) link

how come i've never gotten laid from the nihilism i've expressed on ilm then?

jess (dubplatestyle), Monday, 14 October 2002 03:18 (twenty-one years ago) link

surely you have jess

s trife (simon_tr), Monday, 14 October 2002 03:23 (twenty-one years ago) link

;-)

s trife (simon_tr), Monday, 14 October 2002 03:25 (twenty-one years ago) link

well, not directly.

jess (dubplatestyle), Monday, 14 October 2002 03:26 (twenty-one years ago) link

Never read the mag, nothing to say except to go on record again as finding "f-g" as well as "n-r" and even "n-a" offensive and distasteful in nearly all contexts. And those where I'm not offended (i.e. reclaimed by people they apply to) I still think the use is hideously misguided and counterproductive.

Sterling Clover (s_clover), Monday, 14 October 2002 04:45 (twenty-one years ago) link

sterl you are no longer my nigga >:o

s trife (simon_tr), Monday, 14 October 2002 04:50 (twenty-one years ago) link

I should also mention, in the interest of full disclosure, that New York Press (the free weekly that ran the interview with the Vice editors) just ran a cover story on the national crisis of OMG FAT PEOPLE THEY ARE UGLY TAX THEM.

Jody Beth Rosen, Monday, 14 October 2002 04:57 (twenty-one years ago) link

Saw this a bit late!

Vice is...okay. The thing with calling people art-fags in print which bugs me is that some readers will be clued in (and they might well be scenesters and/or 'friends of the mag') but people outside the loop/demographic might not be, so the meaning changes. So maybe it's not such a good idea. A good/entertaining writer doesn't need those words to fall back upon, so that's why I find the whole shtick kind of tiring.

There's an editorial argument that goes, 'make it conversational, like you're talking to your friends' and Vice does this. This is a risky strategy because half of the time, we talk utter bollocks to our friends and might not necessarily want to see that highlighted in print. Also, the supposedly 'inclusive' style which I feel included by is probably going to give off exclusion vibes to someone else, for whatever reason (I've never understood people who pick up magazines and wail about being hated by the stuck-up people who run them).

Also - and this is specific to something Nick wrote about the ex-Index lesbian contributor - magazines like to show editorial melting-pot but it would be more illuminating to see who's running the advertising department. Chances are it's mostly guys/ladette women with a more reactionary bent, who go to meetings with closet-conservative yuppie agency types who spend the whole time talking about art-fags etc in a non-inclusive, non-matey way.

Arthur: you should know this, but small cities' punk and gay scenes are often really tight and bear on each other - I think there's actually more separation in the larger cities. In smaller places, all the people who are 'different' wind up meeting each other eventually, and need each other. I think the words 'Husker Du' might be appropriate in this context!

Oh, and Ryan McGinley is a good enough photographer, but as opposed to Nan G or Wolfgang, he's perceived by fashion/magazine folk as being a bit of a wannabe and a bit too available. That's what happens when you land features in all the British mags at once, people think, shit, he must be about to be o.v.e.r. True, he's made good career moves, but is way too obviously inspired by what he could get in exchange for the pics of his friends/the portrayal of a scene based on how it's been for more original photographers.

And a few weeks ago Wolfgang told me he's not taking photos, or letting photos be taken of him, for a whole year. Not a careerist at all.

suzy (suzy), Monday, 14 October 2002 06:06 (twenty-one years ago) link

I can't type long, now I'm in a computer store in Shimokitazawa...

Just wanted to say 'Yay Suzy!' and...

How come nobody in this thread used the word Gonzo? Is that libertarian journo tradition forgotten in the US, or only amongst Gen ILXers?

Momus (Momus), Monday, 14 October 2002 06:43 (twenty-one years ago) link

momus has zero buttsex cred

boxcubed (boxcubed), Monday, 14 October 2002 06:51 (twenty-one years ago) link

yet he's such a buttfuck at the same time.

jess (dubplatestyle), Monday, 14 October 2002 06:53 (twenty-one years ago) link

(i learned to use "buttfuck" as a slur from vice.)

jess (dubplatestyle), Monday, 14 October 2002 06:54 (twenty-one years ago) link

Yay Nick!

Nobody uses gonzo because gonzo includes risk, ie. the distinct possibility of getting shot or surprised by one's surroundings. Edgy style magazines are not really edgy - any fule knos they're too attuned to what's going on not to recognise the need to succeed commercially. Such recognition includes making others take all the risk. You can then write about the addict/suicide/Other with gusto and go home to your six cats and meals for one, while planning what to do with that big paycheque and feeling cool because you're on a guestlist.

so Vice /= gonzo, capische? I'm just wondering if/how much they pay their writers. Give me that info and I'll be able to infer loads.

suzy (suzy), Monday, 14 October 2002 06:55 (twenty-one years ago) link

i like to picture him visiting a different computer store every day

boxcubed (boxcubed), Monday, 14 October 2002 06:56 (twenty-one years ago) link

Yeah, it's the best place to get 'serviced'.

Momus (Momus), Monday, 14 October 2002 08:23 (twenty-one years ago) link

I've never read Vice. Judging from this thread it's kind of like The Office but with cool people.

Tom (Groke), Monday, 14 October 2002 11:23 (twenty-one years ago) link

to go on record again as finding "f-g" as well as "n-r" and even "n-a" offensive and distasteful in nearly all contexts. And those where I'm not offended (i.e. reclaimed by people they apply to) I still think the use is hideously misguided and counterproductive.

Let's say I find the name 'Sterling' offensive. (Maybe I'm rabidly pro-Euro and anti-sterling. Whatever twisted reason.) I find utterance of the name 'Sterling' offensive in nearly all contexts. And those where I'm not offended (i.e. where some guy chooses to call himself Sterling) I still think using that name is hideously misguided and counterproductive.

I don't care what you think, even if you happen to be called Sterling and to use that name every day. To me it's offensive, and I think you're wrong to use it. You're letting us all down, and you're hurting yourself.

Momus (Momus), Monday, 14 October 2002 12:01 (twenty-one years ago) link

Momus he's just agreeing with your "smart objection" - that it's misguided, counterproductive, and allows the entire history of power imbalance implied by such words to set the agenda.... it's a ritual that actually repeats the shame and offense every time it's performed. Some people can handle this and they feel stronger for their ability to wince at the inoculation shot and carry on but assuming everyone to be at this level of confidence is a fantasy (and that's not even touching on people who aren't in on the "joke")

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Monday, 14 October 2002 12:13 (twenty-one years ago) link

For the record I like the magazine and the interview doesn't bother me, it just sounds like some dweebs desperate for attention, playing roles, and unable to switch off their sarcasm-guns

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Monday, 14 October 2002 12:15 (twenty-one years ago) link

momus, it's really not that difficult. stop being so insufferably clever for a second and work with me:

temporarily ignoring any concerns regarding vice's own latent bigotry, try this on instead. if you can acknowledge that meanings of words shift from user to user on a per-play basis, then surely you can acknowledge the possibility that vice's 're-definition' of certain words may not READ that way to a large segment of its readership. who (and, i know, it's rather dull and ho-hum) have the gall to hear "faggot" (hatred) as "faggot" (hateful) and not "faggot" ("as in 'art fag' - that's what i call my bf too!").

you're coming from a privileged perspective that is NOT in keeping with regular/vice-reading north america. for fuck's sake, spend some time on their message board. what do you think these people would say about a momus record?

really, it's all so arrogant to assume that your forward-thinking 'art fag' friends see the way out, because hey, they've been calling each other fags at dinner parties and sushi stops for years, and no problem there.

simple question: would you walk into a room full of black people and call them niggers?

mark p (Mark P), Monday, 14 October 2002 12:33 (twenty-one years ago) link

Obviously I wouldn't. I've been saying throughout this argument that it's all about context. Its others who are saying that words have fixed meanings.

The obverse question is, would Sterling or anyone else walk into a room and tell them to *stop* using the word 'nigger'? That's what he seems to be saying. And many people on this thread want to gatecrash the Vice party and tell them they can't use certain words in certain ways to their friends, amongst themselves.

Momus (Momus), Monday, 14 October 2002 13:48 (twenty-one years ago) link

And, just hypothetically, let's take away the safe neutral position. Let's say you only have the choice to walk into that room full of black or gay people with the two options

a) To use, yourself, the (formerly pejorative) word they're using to each other.

b) To tell them to stop using the (formerly pejorative) word they're using to each other.

Which is the better option? I answered your question, now please answer mine.

Momus (Momus), Monday, 14 October 2002 13:59 (twenty-one years ago) link

STOP ARGUING

N. (nickdastoor), Monday, 14 October 2002 14:12 (twenty-one years ago) link

But to make the hypothesis accurate we also have to assume that the friendly conversation is being broadcast to anyone who might be passing!

Tom (Groke), Monday, 14 October 2002 14:13 (twenty-one years ago) link

I'm waiting! a) or b)?

Momus (Momus), Monday, 14 October 2002 14:17 (twenty-one years ago) link

if we're including Tom's 'correction' (and we really should), then i'm thinking a real life manifestation of Momus's scenario might be something like a public university rally, and then it's very easy to imagine any number of passive spectators of the same race/sexual inclination being offended, so I'm leaning towards b). 'former' is in the eye of the beholder.

Mitch Lastnamewithheld (mitchlnw), Monday, 14 October 2002 14:37 (twenty-one years ago) link

mitch: a or b!! no commentary!!

jess (dubplatestyle), Monday, 14 October 2002 14:42 (twenty-one years ago) link

Gatecrash the Vice party?

It's a MAGAZINE. Although it's a ploy of advertising-sales types at magazines to sell titles as an 'exclusive' party 'everyone' (in its demographic) is invited to. Which contradicts, of course.

While I don't presume to tell people what descriptive slang terms to use, I'm generally not down with people who feel the need to use them. I'm also not down with the Inclusive Language Posse either as I hate being told what to say by some unimaginative local-government type.
Also, the *second* certain terms start crossing over, you can bet the people who started it off will get bored and find a new term so as to make the people who've just picked up the slang LESS COOL.


suzy (suzy), Monday, 14 October 2002 14:43 (twenty-one years ago) link

"slang"

jess (dubplatestyle), Monday, 14 October 2002 14:48 (twenty-one years ago) link

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-one years ago) link

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-one years ago) link

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-one years ago) link

lol even the Viceland sex show (Slutever) had to have a weed episode

louise ck (milo z), Monday, 19 February 2018 01:18 (six years ago) link

one year passes...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EEWpvc1XoAEmiZl?format=png&name=small

mookieproof, Friday, 13 September 2019 15:40 (four years ago) link

one year passes...

whoops

i warned you about colorization bro. i told u dawg https://t.co/7N007t2zwV

— bunny yeager air combat (@3liza) April 10, 2021


https://www.vice.com/en/article/epngbe/editorial-statement-regarding-photographs-of-khmer-rouge-victims

G.A.G.S. (Gophers Against Getting Stuffed) (forksclovetofu), Sunday, 11 April 2021 19:49 (three years ago) link

Wtf did this dude think he was doing?!

FRAUDULENT STEAKS (The Cursed Return of the Dastardly Thermo Thinwall), Sunday, 11 April 2021 22:20 (three years ago) link

nine months pass...

Not terribly shocking, but...

Vice Media secretly organised $20m Saudi government festival

When social media influencers turned up at the Azimuth music festival in the middle of the Saudi Arabian desert they were promised a festival of musical and gastronomic excess, all subsidised by an arm of the Saudi government.

What attendees did not know was that the pricey music festival was secretly organised by youth media company Vice, as part of the media company’s ongoing push to make money in the Middle Eastern state despite the country’s poor human rights record.

Just three years after Vice publicly announced that it was pausing all work in Saudi Arabia due to the fallout from the state-ordered murder of dissident Jamal Khashoggi, insiders at Vice told the Guardian the company was once again aggressively pursuing business opportunities in Saudi Arabia...

Hey they said they were 'pausing' work in the kingdom, so...

Andy the Grasshopper, Tuesday, 1 February 2022 21:15 (two years ago) link

one month passes...

This article doesn't directly have to do with Vice, though it mentions it, but I didn't want to start a whole thread just for it: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/josephbernstein/peter-thiel-anti-woke-film-festival-trevor-bazile

Posting it here because the whole vibe of this Thiel-funded film festival feels extremely early-Vice to me, the "post-Left" or "post-woke" thing is such a retread of anti-PC shtick of the late '90s/early '00s. Except arguably even more cynical. It's also a sad story about Trevor Bazile, who kind of floats through it like a ghost. And of course several of the organizers are guys with histories of sexual harassment. It's a rancid scene.

from the image in that piece i’d say peter thiel definitely subsists on the blood of innocent children

STOCK FIST-PUMPER BRAD (BradNelson), Friday, 4 March 2022 12:36 (two years ago) link

He is a spectacularly vampiric dude.

He's high on the list of dicks whose deaths I will loudly and gloriously celebrate.

politics is about vibes and the vibes are off (stevie), Friday, 4 March 2022 13:54 (two years ago) link

one year passes...

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