― mark s (mark s), Thursday, 17 October 2002 23:27 (twenty-one years ago) link
― jess (dubplatestyle), Thursday, 17 October 2002 23:31 (twenty-one years ago) link
― jess (dubplatestyle), Thursday, 17 October 2002 23:32 (twenty-one years ago) link
at the whorehouse with a face fulla makeup, where'd you think?
― di smith (lucylurex), Thursday, 17 October 2002 23:34 (twenty-one years ago) link
i haf read 0.0002% of this thread (ie jess promising he won't post again and the sentence before my own post)
― mark s (mark s), Thursday, 17 October 2002 23:35 (twenty-one years ago) link
― felicity (felicity), Thursday, 17 October 2002 23:36 (twenty-one years ago) link
er, good sleuthing there josh.
― mark p (Mark P), Friday, 18 October 2002 00:11 (twenty-one years ago) link
You have a heavy responsibility on your shoulders! But have mercy, before you fire off the post, ask yourself, would the world really be better without Momus and Vice? And while you're doing that, I'm going to call a referendum on alt.fan.momus and get a 100% confidence vote.
― Momus (Momus), Friday, 18 October 2002 01:22 (twenty-one years ago) link
― mark p (Mark P), Friday, 18 October 2002 01:40 (twenty-one years ago) link
― donut bitch (donut), Friday, 18 October 2002 01:48 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 18 October 2002 01:59 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Honda, Friday, 18 October 2002 01:59 (twenty-one years ago) link
You stole my joke!
― Jody Beth Rosen, Friday, 18 October 2002 02:01 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 18 October 2002 02:10 (twenty-one years ago) link
I posted a big long response to this then deleted it cz it's 5.35 am and I'm only bodily awake cz of my asthma, and no way is my brain awake.
― mark s (mark s), Friday, 18 October 2002 03:09 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Friday, 18 October 2002 04:07 (twenty-one years ago) link
― felicity (felicity), Friday, 18 October 2002 04:31 (twenty-one years ago) link
― dave q, Friday, 18 October 2002 04:39 (twenty-one years ago) link
― felicity (felicity), Friday, 18 October 2002 04:55 (twenty-one years ago) link
― James Blount (James Blount), Friday, 18 October 2002 05:11 (twenty-one years ago) link
f: who did that? you mean the populist thing? the nazis, for one.
― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Friday, 18 October 2002 05:17 (twenty-one years ago) link
― felicity (felicity), Friday, 18 October 2002 05:22 (twenty-one years ago) link
― felicity (felicity), Friday, 18 October 2002 05:28 (twenty-one years ago) link
dave: also they just met in springfield again and tried to come to chicago last year. (and killed some foax here about two years ago).
― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Friday, 18 October 2002 05:30 (twenty-one years ago) link
All the poster said was that vice treats the poor with dignity. Treating the poor with dignity is not the same as saying it's cool to be poor, and treating the poor with dignity is not synonymous with hating the rich.
(btw, those are two different "anon"s up there)
― felicity (felicity), Friday, 18 October 2002 05:44 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 18 October 2002 05:55 (twenty-one years ago) link
Although the racist language is impossible to miss, I hadn't consciously realized the pro-populism slant until anon's post. Sterling's post make me realize that the comparative subtlety of Vice's pro-poor (?) editorial content, and what history teaches about the potential dangers of that particular alliance, helps me understand why parts of Vice interest me but still make me uneasy without understanding why. (I fully understand why I don't like other aspects of Vice.)
― felicity (felicity), Friday, 18 October 2002 06:01 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Momus (Momus), Friday, 18 October 2002 06:39 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 18 October 2002 06:49 (twenty-one years ago) link
No. Doing reviews in a "voice" is something the NME has been doing for ages. But they're not in NYC so fuck em I guess.
― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Friday, 18 October 2002 10:17 (twenty-one years ago) link
In fairness, the people at Atlantic might well have thought that OPM should be released in the states. They just didn't think they'd make any money doing it.
― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Friday, 18 October 2002 10:18 (twenty-one years ago) link
This is another of those intended slights which I rather like (I'm going to put it in my collection alongside '16 year old goth girl' and 'so far up his own arse that he's giving birth to himself' -- I'm trying to decide which of those to put on my tombstone).
Part of my appreciation for NY Vice is that I (heart) many of the people in the NY downtown scene who are making the magazine. I know that the UK edition is going to have a totally different tone, and I'm going to hate it. May I be the first to say 'UK Vice, we thought you were going to be subversive but you let us down. YOU ARE SO DEAD.'
― Momus (Momus), Friday, 18 October 2002 10:52 (twenty-one years ago) link
'We had a show maybe twenty years ago and we showed a piece called 'Queer' and everybody was outraged at the word. They felt it was an aggressive attack on homosexual people. But three or four years later we were in a nightclub and we saw teenagers dancing the night away with 'Queer as fuck' written on their T shirts. And a year after that Queer Nation was founded, a very important movement. So in a way we robbed the evil word back from the enemy.'
― Momus (Momus), Friday, 18 October 2002 11:51 (twenty-one years ago) link
― mark s (mark s), Friday, 18 October 2002 12:04 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 18 October 2002 12:07 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Friday, 18 October 2002 12:10 (twenty-one years ago) link
"Nih ..... ger""Nih .. ger""Nigger?""Nigger!"
― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Friday, 18 October 2002 12:16 (twenty-one years ago) link
I think we got pissed off only after we wrote what came naturally to us and it offended people. We were determined to leave it in. It was just the way we talked. It’s surprising how brainwashed by hippies most of our generation is. Pro-love, pro-diversity, pro-tolerance–that’s the hippies’ bag. You want to hear people talk about niggers, try hanging around with black people. They are harsh. You want to hear anti-Semitism, go hang around with some Jews. You should hear Suroosh talk about fucking Pakis. It’s ear-burning. I’d argue that racists like the KKK don’t really have anything to say about niggers and fags because they don’t know any. They don’t go, "I am so sick of fucking drag queens. They are so self-indulgent. Fashion this, fashion that. Can’t you talk about politics for one second, you fucking transsexual?" They don’t know. We’re in the thick of it. When we’re pitching our television show, I say, "Understand that we are freaks. We’re not delving into the freak world. We live with the dregs of humanity.
I have no idea whether or not the Vice team *actually* live with the dregs of humanity (although somehow I doubt they hang out with pimps and crack addicts in their spare time), but this doesn't strike me as an attempt to recontextualise or reclaim language to me. It doesn't even strike me as genuine bigotry. It strikes me as a calculated attempt to shock liberals just for the sake of it. Very cutting edge... round of applause there Vice boys.
― Matt DC (Matt DC), Friday, 18 October 2002 12:32 (twenty-one years ago) link
I don't understand this argument at all. Why exclude some of the people doing the recontextualising?
the point is, who cares who's first: what matters is that someone's last
Could you exand on this? Why is the person still using 'gay' to mean 'happy' (Robin Carmody, according to a recent essay of his) the important one?
― Momus (Momus), Friday, 18 October 2002 12:36 (twenty-one years ago) link
As for the second bit, I'll expand on it (if necessary) once you've read it again, slowly and properly, actually noticing the words I'm using and thinking about their meaning carefully.
― mark s (mark s), Friday, 18 October 2002 12:43 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Momus (Momus), Friday, 18 October 2002 12:53 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Matt DC (Matt DC), Friday, 18 October 2002 13:01 (twenty-one years ago) link
vice being first is meaningless if the repositioning doesn't happenie pioneers don't deserve props unless society realigns (fair enough, although I'd say that anyone trying to change things and stick their neck out deserves at least bravery props)
and of footnote-ish relevance if it doesie Even if they're right, only historians care (well, that's a sadly anti-intellectual point, it seems mean to brush off even pioneers who really were prophetic)
(not that it IS first, obviouslySo although you've made clear that Vice wouldn't qualify for praise if it were a false or a true prophet, you're also keen to suggest that it is neither. In which case, perhaps it's in the big knot of people who follow trends. But doesn't that make it like those kids in the disco wearing the 'Queer as fuck' T shirts? You seemed to think they were important?
but the point is, who cares who's first: what matters is that someone's last)Well, this is gnomic. I can only assume you mean that nobody can come out of the closet until the last queer basher has vanished from the planet. Which is not a very brave position. But I'm sure I'm wrong. In which case, tell me what you did mean?
― Momus (Momus), Friday, 18 October 2002 13:02 (twenty-one years ago) link
My feeling is if people who share common characteristics want to use certain terms to describe themselves, fine. Who am I to say otherwise?
― suzy (suzy), Friday, 18 October 2002 13:21 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Friday, 18 October 2002 13:28 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Fritz Wollner (Fritz), Friday, 18 October 2002 13:30 (twenty-one years ago) link
Pardon? Why are you equating dress sense with sexuality? Aside from the fact that there are gay people involved in both.
In any case, you haven't responded to my point that using the word "nigger" or "paki" in an attempt to 'reclaim' it isn't actually any more constructive towards race relations than liberals not using the word at all, probably less so.
― Matt DC (Matt DC), Friday, 18 October 2002 13:33 (twenty-one years ago) link
Short, mildly cryptic answer: their explanations -- in the form of their books -- were what were cutting-edge and subversive about them.
― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Friday, 18 October 2002 13:36 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Fritz Wollner (Fritz), Friday, 18 October 2002 13:55 (twenty-one years ago) link
I love my mum and sister, but they can be a right pair of bigots sometimes (they move in pretty varied circles and like the Vice editors claim friendships with black people/gay people/etc so in no way are the Vicies subversive). The horrible thing is, they won't back down when I tell them they're talking utter racist shite; apparently if you're white and work 40 hours a week you receive special dispensation to disparage anyone on benefits, to moan about 'third-world' immigrants, to judge which black people are black people, and which are 'deserving' of some other epithet. It bugs the shit out of me that they cop these attitudes. What to do?
― suzy (suzy), Friday, 18 October 2002 14:12 (twenty-one years ago) link