Let's talk about Vice Magazine

Relevant indeed.

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one Fritz. I think instant right of reply completely changes the context of writing; you don't. I think that in the idea "bits of ILX are like Vice" the "bits of" part counterbalances the "like" part; you don't seem to. Fair enough but I can't think of anything either of us can say now to convince the other.

Jess - thanks for your contribution to the masterplan ;)

Oh, so the people who write for Vice have no power, do they? And if I'm a black person and I know what's in Vice and I see a bunch of beery loudmouths coming down the street at 3AM wearing 'Vice' t-shirts, do I offer to shake their hands in the spirit of love and multiculturalism? You're absolutely right that power changes everything, and with a large readership and a burgeoning media empire, I'd say the Vice boys have racked up a significant amount of it.

The article says 'In the old days, being on the side of nerds was subversive. Now, when Bill Gates rules the world, it isn't. So to be subversive, we need to do something else. Reset your watch, pay attention to the changed context!'

After reading the article several times, this line of thinking did occur to me. Except that it's interesting how you're deliberately vague in your categorization of the 'new way to be subversive', because the new way they're proposing in that article is to return to the violent persecution of the weak. Even if you don't take it as literally as I just did, the whole attitude still reeks of proto-fascism.

(I was going to tell Momus off for making slippery and untenable arguments, but hell, at least it keeps the conversation going. When was the last time I dropped all interest in school work to argue on ILX? Probably Spring 2001, actually.)

If....

shall we sing ebony and ivory?

Those may have been the only things there of interest to a white middle-class visitor from Manhattan, but they were hardly the only things there. That is where the thread started: Vice pointing out the limited, discontinuous viewpoint of people who can't imagine using the N-word but who are blind to class boundaries because they can afford to be.

Vice may willfully insult people based on their race, but it never ignores the poor, never mocks the poor, and never kowtows to the rich. I can't think of another magazine with a comparably high profile of which the same is true.

Maybe, but why do bullies care about nerds? Without nerds, bullies would have to turn their misdirected loathing towards themselves. I'm not saying people who give wedgies are necessarily proto-fascists. I'm saying that the attitude of that article, ie. 'if you're not LIKE US, you deserve a beatdown' extends to the whole damn magazine, an attitude which I think is disgusting.

P.S. I love you guys, especially Momus. Can you show up to the FAP this Friday? Come on, Japan's only what, a 10 hour flight?

Insulting people's race or sexuality from a position of privilege (if you have a media outlet such as Vice, you are undeniably privileged) is still a form of oppression which contributes to continuing inequality (which means poverty too). And in the "don'ts" section of Vice I see just as much mockery of the poor subjects as I do the rich ones. Why don't they just come clean and say they hate everyone? I can admire an honest misanthrope, if only for the honesty.

And also: this whole middle-class thing. I'm just not. Educated, yes, privileged in the eyes of others for having a role in the media, sure. But I weave in and out of solvency and I still usually feel like the (need-based) scholarship kid I was when I went to that desolate and deserted part of Williamsburg in the mid to late 1980's to buy the only clothes I could afford at the time.

If you weren't middle class, Suzy, you wouldn't be on the net right now but breast feeding six screaming kids. (Although you'd still shop at Domsey's, probably.)

Also, I find it very troubling when people start making apologies for the phrase "back then, you knew your place".

I'm sorry, but I think printing a lifestyle and fashion magazine is inherently ignoring the poor and kowtowing to the rich. (I also don't think there's anything wrong with that, but let's not pretend Vice is the fucking Urban League.)

No, no! You're not alone!

(the thing is that i do see vice-like tendencies in my own writing, and they bother me to no end, which is probably what makes me a little oversensetive to the comparison.)

this is officially the last thing i will be posting to this thread.

Seems like a pretty forward-thinking staff to print it all things considered.

thanks markpanon

I'm interested in something nabisco said and to which suzy hinted: "I'm sorry, but I think printing a lifestyle and fashion magazine is inherently ignoring the poor and kowtowing to the rich.

I'm not trying to pick on nabisco, because he was careful to say that there's nothing wrong with this (I hope he meant fashion and lifestyle, not kowtowing to the rich, BTW) and because he is in transit to NY (yay!), but why are the poor not presumed to be interested in, or to be entitled to, fashions and lifestyles?

As Andrew Farrell said upthread: "Insisting that the poor prioritze the things you want them to => yellow card!"

As I mentioned on the "Style Mags C/D?" thread, it's fine with me personally whatever people want to do with their clothes, but as the first "anon" poster mentioned, I think Vice gives coverage to an aesthetic that has less to do with money than imagination. Sure, they are often mean, but it's never "oh look at the big occlusions in THIS person's diamond tiara, what an impoverished loser, haha" it's often more like "why did this person assemble THAT particular ensemble from the the thrift store and decide to wear all the tiger prints at once?" or "hey, it's kind of nifty when guys shave their legs below the knee."

You can see beauty and non-beauty everywhere in the world, if you want to, even in a pile of garbage. Just because I can't afford a Mantegna painting doesn't mean I'm not allowed to look at it.