Let's talk about Vice Magazine

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (1177 of them)
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

I think it's the very essence of the thread, Jess. Here we have a bunch of people disapproving of someone else's scene, and doing so in the guise of some kind of 'sensitivity' to the rights and feelings of the very people who comprise the scene. Something amiss here, surely?

So who's going to walk into Art Fag Mondays and tell DJ Amy 'I'm not, um, 'gay' myself, but I really think you should change the name of this place. It's degrading!'

Momus (Momus), Monday, 14 October 2002 15:07 (twenty-one years ago) link

a

vic (vicc13), Monday, 14 October 2002 15:14 (twenty-one years ago) link

i too have to leave net-land for the moment, but okay Momus, if we absolutely have to reduce the argument then wow pretend we all choose a and have no problem using words that have lost their power to offend, and lookee, we were wrong all along and words really *are* able to be recontextualised!

which words? and how? why? when? with who in mind? while keeping a cautious eye out for which elements? oh, fuck it, i'd rather lick matted menses out of dyke pubes while getting sucked off at the jewboy afro hair day at the fag salon than think about this gay shit, but that's okay, everyone knows the vice "scene" includes every gay/black/jewish/left-leaning person living at present.

how's this, Momus: "I'm gay myself, and I really think you should change the name of this place. It's degrading!" ?

Mitch Lastnamewithheld (mitchlnw), Monday, 14 October 2002 15:19 (twenty-one years ago) link

Haha momus those aren't the two options. Walk into a room of black people using "n-a" and you'd better not use the word or you'd be in big trouble. In fact, the way race dynamics work, a good half the people would stop using the word the moment you walked in. The moment someone uses this word around me, I usually, rather than getting into the whole explanation Tracer laid out quite nicely, simply say I have delicate ears and would rather they not because I hear it and think of lynchings.

Better not to use the word at all than throw one more coal onto the fires of pent up rage and pain of the Ivan Julians of the world (cf. aforementioned bangs piece where he describes hearing it like shrapnel lodging in his stomach).

This doesn't mean that I am going to write letters to Vice complaining. I find them and what they pander to repellent, but fine.

Momus you're a dope half the time because you automatically equate moral disapproval with censorship and shock value with merit.

Sterling Clover (s_clover), Monday, 14 October 2002 15:20 (twenty-one years ago) link

Also Momus' if you're not gay you have nothing to say about how some gay people want to reappropriate "f-g" is in fact political correctness of the first order. That's like "if you're not black you'll never understand man" or etc. which of course has the flipside "the people of the empire will never understand the cultured ways of us british".

Sterling Clover (s_clover), Monday, 14 October 2002 15:21 (twenty-one years ago) link

i just wanted to publicly let mitch know that i love him.

jess (dubplatestyle), Monday, 14 October 2002 15:24 (twenty-one years ago) link

This entire argument is ridiculous, insofar as it assumes that Vice are using the words "fag" and "nigger" in a manner any more conceptual than eight year olds use the words "boobies" and "turd."

nabisco (nabisco), Monday, 14 October 2002 15:30 (twenty-one years ago) link

yes, nitsuh except 8 year olds don't publish magazines or give interviews, last time i checked. (except for maybe those super genius chess playing bastards.)

jess (dubplatestyle), Monday, 14 October 2002 15:32 (twenty-one years ago) link

Call me literalist but "Let's talk about Vice Magazine" is an invitation to criticise and disapprove of a magazine, not a 'scene'. It's open to the public in a way that a scene isn't. What Momus is basically saying is that anyone who reads Vice Magazine has to consider themselves part of the scene or they lose the right to criticise it - but in that case why publish anything at all? Starting a magazine, or anything public, is pretty much asking for your 'scene' to be questioned, modified, made fun of, improved as well as admired and imitated.

Tom (Groke), Monday, 14 October 2002 15:34 (twenty-one years ago) link

Call me literalist but "Let's talk about Vice Magazine" is an invitation to criticise and disapprove of a magazine, not a 'scene'. It's open to the public in a way that a scene isn't. What Momus is basically saying is that anyone who reads Vice Magazine has to consider themselves part of the scene or they lose the right to criticise it - but in that case why publish anything at all? Starting a magazine, or anything public, is pretty much asking for your 'scene' to be questioned, modified, made fun of, improved as well as admired and imitated.

Nabiso - are you saying adults should be judged by the same standards as 8 year olds then?

Tom (Groke), Monday, 14 October 2002 15:35 (twenty-one years ago) link

Words Reclaimed by Bratty Kidults Whose Parents Washed Their Mouths Out With Soap For Using Them, Age 10...the debate rages on.

why oh why am I having the sudden urge to play (LOUD) You'll Dance To Anything by the Dead Milkmen?

suzy (suzy), Monday, 14 October 2002 15:35 (twenty-one years ago) link

But Jess, these children are doing the all-important cultural work of recontextualizing words like "hump" and "titties" and making them safe and amusing for the rest of us, so that we never have to think about what they mean or ever meant!

nabisco (nabisco), Monday, 14 October 2002 15:35 (twenty-one years ago) link

Oh, shit, I think everyone's getting my argument backwards: I'm not saying Vice are okay, I'm saying Momus is silly for pretending there's anything more than juvenile idiocy behind their use of this language.

nabisco (nabisco), Monday, 14 October 2002 15:36 (twenty-one years ago) link

(I.e. "this whole debate is ridiculous" = "the half of it that likes Vice is ridiculous.")

nabisco (nabisco), Monday, 14 October 2002 15:38 (twenty-one years ago) link

thank god! nitsuh you make a cock-slurping faggot jewboy worry!!

jess (dubplatestyle), Monday, 14 October 2002 15:38 (twenty-one years ago) link

Well, the gay man objecting to 'Art Fag Mondays' would certainly be less patronising. But to say he would be right would be reactionary. If you agree that there is a struggle for the soul and meaning of words, and if you agree that every friendly use of a word like 'fag' blunts an arrow in the quiver of a fascist, then it would be reactionary to go up to the people who are (provocatively, it's true) on the cutting edge of the 'battle for interpretation' and tell them to stop doing what they're doing because it's degrading, or plays into the enemy's hands.

This reminds me of Nitsuh's comments on the 'Is Bush An Idiot' thread. He wanted the people who voted Nader to outline their longterm vision for the positive outcome a Nader vote might bring. And he got frustrated because nobody seemed even to have thought in those terms.

Here I'm actually being somewhat Naderite, in a sense, and saying that I believe the word 'fag' can be totally revalued *for the whole community* within a few short years, and that this victory, which I believe is both important and inevitable, is worth the short-term risk (of Democrats losing votes, in the Nader case, or of a peceived -- but illusory -- temporary *increase* in homophobia, in this case).

Momus (Momus), Monday, 14 October 2002 15:42 (twenty-one years ago) link

Isnt there a benefit though to keeping some hate speech hateful in a know-your-enemies sense? As in - if "fag" is entirely agreed to be unacceptable, and if homophobia is agreed to be bad, then the use of "fag" has no plausible deniability - ie you cant use it as an epithet and say "I am not homophobic". This is pretty much what has or had happened with some racial epithets. If these words are being 'reclaimed' though, they could be used as slurs with the intent to offend/abuse and then defended on the grounds we've been talking about.

Tom (Groke), Monday, 14 October 2002 15:52 (twenty-one years ago) link

i.e. if I was a fascist I wouldn't think my arrows were being blunted, I'd think "Great! They're legalising arrows!"

Tom (Groke), Monday, 14 October 2002 15:53 (twenty-one years ago) link

Tom and Suzy are ridiculously OTM.

I refuse to pick one of Momus's hypothetical scenarios because they're fucking stupid. I freely invite Momus to walk into a room filled with my relatives or my wife's relatives and start throwing the word "nigger" around because he desperately needs the beatdown.

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, 14 October 2002 15:53 (twenty-one years ago) link

what is momus and can we beat him? (yes, yes we can.)

jess (dubplatestyle), Monday, 14 October 2002 15:56 (twenty-one years ago) link

Momus you're a dope half the time because you automatically equate moral disapproval with censorship and shock value with merit

Sterling's name has never been more appropriate

RickyT (RickyT), Monday, 14 October 2002 15:56 (twenty-one years ago) link

(Addendum: Equating a magazine with a private conversation is Bill O'Reilly-level idiocy. Did someone redefine "clever" when I wasn't looking?)

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, 14 October 2002 15:57 (twenty-one years ago) link

but ricky t, sterl never did explain what makes him a dope the other half of the time.

jess (dubplatestyle), Monday, 14 October 2002 15:58 (twenty-one years ago) link

Here I'm actually being somewhat Naderite, in a sense, and saying that I believe the word 'fag' can be totally revalued *for the whole community* within a few short years

Why should it? What's so great about that word?

Jody Beth Rosen, Monday, 14 October 2002 16:01 (twenty-one years ago) link

Great. They've made a Homage Magazine for New York now.

Jesus, Momus, you can't claim both that the usage is for the scene, and is being carefully handled by licensed word-smiths, AND it's for the community (which I'm assuming is at least the 90% of the US outside NY), where it will bring great healing. Make your mind up.

Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Monday, 14 October 2002 16:03 (twenty-one years ago) link

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.

Momus (Momus), Monday, 14 October 2002 16:04 (twenty-one years ago) link

And what's so great about the word is that IT USED TO HURT US BUT WE CHANGED IT AND NOW IT MAKES US SMILE!

Momus (Momus), Monday, 14 October 2002 16:05 (twenty-one years ago) link

momus irony is not a concept my neighbors grasp, by and large.

also, since when did stockholm syndrome redeem a word?

jess (dubplatestyle), Monday, 14 October 2002 16:06 (twenty-one years ago) link


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