Let's talk about Vice Magazine

I would say that "irritating=good" is one of the least interesting formulae around, just for the record, and cite the Insane Clown Posse as evidence of my claim.

Or, as my betters once put it, "Wicked clown, wicked clown/wicked clown, wicked clown/wicked clown, wicked clown/wicked wicked wicked clown."

because "they" do it at the exclusion - no the DERISION - of everything else. as tom alluded to, ilx's own vice-isms are read within the context of ilx as a whole. if ilx were JUST those things (fisting jokes, "nigga please", drug refs, whatever), i'd guess that it'd have a VERY different demographic overall.

i'm not for one moment suggesting that vice isn't reflective of the way that people speak at times, nor am i saying that there isn't value to what they do. in fact, i admitted *way* upthread that they sometimes "hit at the root of a subject with more effectiveness and insight than anyone else"

what i object to is the way that their VERY one-dimensional dialectic is proferred as a complete and whole and 'real' lifestyle. i mean, you can't deny that what they do is generally to the exclusion of reasoned debate or considered opinion (their 'serious' stuff is always coded by an "aw shit" moment of faux-earnestness). it's clowning. it's anti-intellectual. and it's that which makes me really question momus' prevailing theory that they're using these epithets in an earnest attempt to subvert their meanings. rather than, say, subverting the meanings in an honest attempt to use these epithets.

(sorry. it slipped.)

But it also seems to me that you don't like John Ashcroft, and you don't like him because you've decided that his particular transgressions and his particular rebellions against the status quo aren't positive or productive ones.

So I absolutely cannot believe you're pretending there's some deep trick to the question I asked you earlier (and consequently skirting the entire point of it). There are a great variety of actions that violate norms in a great variety of ways. Clearly this doesn't mean that they're all good. Having people running around smeared with their own feces, for example, would be highly transgressive and would certainly get people talking, but it would also stink.

There is nothing at all antlike about pointing that out, to you or to Bob Dylan. Breaking down "the status quo" -- which let's note is a term you introduced to this discussion, so stop trying to backtrack into "there's no such thing" -- is not inherently good: it's only productive if you're breaking down a part of the status quo that for some reason needs to be broken down. What you're doing is saying "I unquestioningly support emptying the bath out the window, in all cases." And all I'm saying is you have some sort of responsibility, in each case, to think about the ratio of baby to bathwater therein.

Mein...gott...they...are...even...more...stupid...than...I...feared...or...dreamed.

and if we're reducing this argument to cliches, all i'm saying is ilx has some responsibility to think about the ratio of thrown rocks to glass houses here.

yes, i realize that message boards and magazines have different functions but a lot of the criticisms of vice here centre around it's glibness, hipness, cynicism, emotional remove, shock-for-shock's sake, ambivalence about stereotypes, etc. all of which ILx and most normal, intelligent people indulge in from time to time.

Yeah, it was a great example of how satirical intent can catastrophically backfire!

suzy criticizes momus's ideas as "so 1992" ... describes williamsburg as an "alterna-mall" for people clinging to their college days (while gavin from vice refers to wmsburg as "the big dorm" & "the flipflop capital of the world" or something) - where's the difference?

and btw I'm not citing Suzy dismissively, I love reading her stuff but she is hip and glib and sometimes cruel like it or not. It's not a crime - it can be an asset, why deny that? She also seems to have the smarts and empathy to back it up - and that's where Vice is lacking.

He's saying that its up to people to work out for themselves whether a transgression is good - eg against the status quo of British colonial rule - or bad.

Your 'Momus do you like Ashcroft?' point is silly, though. You can't be solicitor general and still be in any way 'transgressive' or 'against the status quo'. Power changes everything.

People on ILX oftentimes write in a hip, glib and cruel manner in the context of a conversation; one person writes something, someone responds (usually within minutes), someone else chimes in, the original point may be expanded upon or retracted, offensive things may be retracted or explained or pushed even further, but there is a constant back-and-forth that allows a community to form where certain turns of phrase become part of the common lexicon, usually because of a shared experience among the people using them ("grebt", "HEIN?", "U+K", "(and then they all lez up)", kitten pictures, "b*ngb*s", Ma$e vs William Henry Harrison, etc).

One is a formal mode of communication exploiting informal tropes to generate interest and controversy as a ploy to grab readers, the other is a group of people who enjoy talking (shit) to each other in a medium that happens to be viewable to a wider audience. One is a business venture that has turning a profit as its bottom-line goal, the other does not. One involves some amount of turnaround time on calling someone on saying something stupid, while on the other you can be brought to task immediately if someone disagrees with you.

These differences, particularly with respect to Vice being a captial-driven venture, make comparing the way people write for Vice to the way people write on ILX completely nonsensical and illogical to me.