"I said "at least they're white" about Williamsburg because it was funny."
"We’ve always felt that PC attitudes always hurt the people they’re trying to help. We believe words like “African American” and “East Indian” are just excuses for white, middle class, academic, liberals to patronize the working classes (of all races) and tell them how to speak."
"At worst it incites an angry debate on the power of words and what prejudice is really about."
― Mitch Lastnamewithheld (mitchlnw), Sunday, 13 October 2002 16:34 (twenty-one years ago) link
― jess (dubplatestyle), Sunday, 13 October 2002 16:42 (twenty-one years ago) link
― mark p (Mark P), Sunday, 13 October 2002 16:51 (twenty-one years ago) link
― mark p (Mark P), Sunday, 13 October 2002 16:54 (twenty-one years ago) link
― , Sunday, 13 October 2002 18:02 (twenty-one years ago) link
― s trife (simon_tr), Sunday, 13 October 2002 20:58 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Mitch Lastnamewithheld (mitchlnw), Sunday, 13 October 2002 21:20 (twenty-one years ago) link
― jess (dubplatestyle), Sunday, 13 October 2002 22:01 (twenty-one years ago) link
Gee, Momus. Have you been around the art schools, man? I've got a feeling you have. There's about a bazillion people doing the exact same thing Ryan's doing. Ryan is aggressively mediocre at it, no less. The whole Tillmans/Goldman thing is a fucking yawn. It's no-talent no-vision scenester snapshot crap. This shit's got to die, and Vice is just feeding it. That's enough of an argument against Vice as it is, before you get into their dubious politics.
Let's get to the heart of the matter with Ryan McGinley: he's a cute guy and he knows who to pal around with, and who to sleep with. He's a clever and ambitious guy, and a total hack of an artist.
― franky, Sunday, 13 October 2002 22:29 (twenty-one years ago) link
What makes me cringe is the "some of my best friends are [oppressed minority], therefore it's OKAY for us to use the word [epithet]" card the Vice guys try to play. And of course the reportage about being on the scene with Actual Real Live blacks/gays/dwarves makes the magazine seem so very real and trenchant. < /sarcasm>
I have to wonder how their "best friends" feel when Mr. Badass Vice Editor uses these epithets to their faces at a party or something -- I mean, mileage varies, but I wonder if they're perfectly cool with it, or whether they just grin and bear it while secretly feeling offended. All I know is how I'd feel -- uncomfortable.
― Jody Beth Rosen, Sunday, 13 October 2002 23:42 (twenty-one years ago) link
― s trife (simon_tr), Sunday, 13 October 2002 23:46 (twenty-one years ago) link
― jess (dubplatestyle), Sunday, 13 October 2002 23:49 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Jody Beth Rosen, Sunday, 13 October 2002 23:56 (twenty-one years ago) link
Magazine A decides to pass over your orientation in discreet silence, because 'it's about the music, man.' Mag A is read by some people for whom homosexuality is actually not an acceptable lifestyle option. And we don't want to put them off buying your records, do we? Because you might influence them towards your decadent metropolitan views if you don't push their faces in them. So shut up already and you might get somewhere, boy.
Magazine B is militantly liberal. It tries to feature as many 'minority' artists as it can, and push their 'agendas'. It wants to talk about you as a 'new gay voice' in music. All its questions seem to angle for anecdotes about how you've been discriminated against and beaten up. The article will be a form of cultural reparation. Hardcore queer activists will ask you to speak at rallies after reading this piece. Whoopee!
Magazine C -- written by people you see all the time around town, some of whom you may even have had casual sex with, you can't remember -- calls you an 'art fag'. Actually, that's what you call your boyfriend too.
― Momus (Momus), Monday, 14 October 2002 00:16 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Jody Beth Rosen, Monday, 14 October 2002 00:32 (twenty-one years ago) link
Vice magazine is run by people who have set their watches to the correct time, in terms of what words have what meanings to what people. This is why people who make money from trends are buying into them, and have been for a while. They are not affectionately calling, say, Larry Clark, 'pedo' in their articles. But they are calling people, affectionately, 'faggot'. This should tell you something about the word 'faggot' in the year 2002.
Resistance to the 'decriminalisation' of words like 'faggot' can be conservatism disguised as 'sensitivity'. Vice magazine is not conservative. Some people on this thread are.
― Momus (Momus), Monday, 14 October 2002 00:42 (twenty-one years ago) link
― felicity (felicity), Monday, 14 October 2002 00:49 (twenty-one years ago) link
Well, it's free, so there ya go.
― Jody Beth Rosen, Monday, 14 October 2002 00:56 (twenty-one years ago) link
― felicity (felicity), Monday, 14 October 2002 01:03 (twenty-one years ago) link
felicity, do you like goebbles?
― jess (dubplatestyle), Monday, 14 October 2002 01:07 (twenty-one years ago) link
― felicity (felicity), Monday, 14 October 2002 01:10 (twenty-one years ago) link
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
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
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
― jess (dubplatestyle), Monday, 14 October 2002 01:36 (twenty-one years ago) link
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
― Fuck You Abby, Monday, 14 October 2002 01:56 (twenty-one years ago) link
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
― mark p (Mark P), Monday, 14 October 2002 02:17 (twenty-one years ago) link
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
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
― mark p (Mark P), Monday, 14 October 2002 02:52 (twenty-one years ago) link
― jess (dubplatestyle), Monday, 14 October 2002 02:53 (twenty-one years ago) link
― s trife (simon_tr), Monday, 14 October 2002 02:55 (twenty-one years ago) link
"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
― Aaron A., Monday, 14 October 2002 03:03 (twenty-one years ago) link
― mark p (Mark P), Monday, 14 October 2002 03:03 (twenty-one years ago) link
― s trife (simon_tr), Monday, 14 October 2002 03:16 (twenty-one years ago) link
― jess (dubplatestyle), Monday, 14 October 2002 03:18 (twenty-one years ago) link
― 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
― jess (dubplatestyle), Monday, 14 October 2002 03:26 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Monday, 14 October 2002 04:45 (twenty-one years ago) link
― s trife (simon_tr), Monday, 14 October 2002 04:50 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Jody Beth Rosen, Monday, 14 October 2002 04:57 (twenty-one years ago) link
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
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
― boxcubed (boxcubed), Monday, 14 October 2002 06:51 (twenty-one years ago) link
― jess (dubplatestyle), Monday, 14 October 2002 06:53 (twenty-one years ago) link
https://www.thedailybeast.com/unsafe-and-just-plain-dirty-women-accuse-vice-of-toxic-sexual-harassment-culture
the least surprising of all
― louise ck (milo z), Friday, 17 November 2017 02:04 (six years ago) link
Nirvanna the band the show is in season 2 and curiously slept on. Mining the early 90s hard (especially 1990-93) for movie/pop culture references, it's a situational comedy like curb in spirit but the mockumentary out-in-the-streets moments make it a thing of its own. Highly recommended
― In a slipshod style (Ross), Thursday, 30 November 2017 05:39 (six years ago) link
I'm really interested in this show - Ross, should I watch the web series first or start with the first TV series?
― NI, Thursday, 30 November 2017 22:30 (six years ago) link
fuck these people and their garbage programming
― Οὖτις, Thursday, 30 November 2017 22:33 (six years ago) link
shakey, i understand that sentiment and agree for the most part, but this show is good and just marred by the vice name.
NI - start with the tv series, web series isn't as good or fleshed out, can always go backwards later :)
― In a slipshod style (Ross), Friday, 1 December 2017 04:16 (six years ago) link
Something's up
http://money.cnn.com/2017/11/30/media/vice-media-firings-workplace-conduct/index.html
― Ned Raggett, Friday, 1 December 2017 04:17 (six years ago) link
xp it's not just the name, when you watch it they get money
― sleeve, Friday, 1 December 2017 04:21 (six years ago) link
^ fair point sleeve
― In a slipshod style (Ross), Friday, 1 December 2017 04:29 (six years ago) link
Vice now just seems like "Internet Content, But With A Sneer(TM)"
― IF (Terrorist) Yes, Explain (man alive), Friday, 1 December 2017 13:54 (six years ago) link
That wasn't intended to be related to sexual harassment allegations, which I also agree are not surprising.
― IF (Terrorist) Yes, Explain (man alive), Friday, 1 December 2017 13:55 (six years ago) link
xxxp, good job torrents exist then. Thanks Ross, will do that.
― NI, Sunday, 3 December 2017 22:32 (six years ago) link
if you're not a ratings-reporting household, then watching on TV sends them no money
though if you do have the option of sending them a message that the specific content you approve of should be their focus, then watching it is a good way of doing that
or writing a letter to Spike Jonze I guess
― shackling the masses with plastic-wrapped snack picks (sic), Monday, 4 December 2017 02:29 (six years ago) link
if anyone at vice wants to anonymously send me the things they wish they could tweet right now i'll just fire 'em off for ya— Robyn Kanner (@robynkanner) December 23, 2017
― Wag1 Shree Rajneesh (ShariVari), Sunday, 24 December 2017 10:08 (six years ago) link
The NYT article apparently barely scratched the surface.
― Wag1 Shree Rajneesh (ShariVari), Sunday, 24 December 2017 10:09 (six years ago) link
that thread is just... ugh. what a caravan of sleazers, operating in open view.
― "Taste's very strange!" (stevie), Sunday, 24 December 2017 14:12 (six years ago) link
?
― kolakube (Ross), Sunday, 24 December 2017 14:13 (six years ago) link
I mean the Vice higher-ups behaving so sleazily.
― "Taste's very strange!" (stevie), Sunday, 24 December 2017 14:24 (six years ago) link
so much of this discussion reminds me of riot grrrl imagery -- where they attempted to establish a 'look' for themselves placing traditional female imagery and once-derogatory slogans into the context of punk rock clothing started off as sly commentary, but were soon co-opted by companies looking to make a buck off 'princess' and 'i stole your boyfriend' t-shirts for 11-year-olds. (see also: the wholesale erasure-of-SLUT-from-bare-midriff that made gwen stefani so initially successful.)so wouldn't that sort of cycle be eventually repeated if the arguments momus espouses hold true -- and wouldn't the underlying message of these mass-marketed uses of these words, then, also mutate into an affirmation of already-existing prejuidices that are held by the majority of americans, for the simple purpose of making as many dollars as possible?― maura (maura), Monday, October 14, 2002 12:26 PM (fifteen years ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
so wouldn't that sort of cycle be eventually repeated if the arguments momus espouses hold true -- and wouldn't the underlying message of these mass-marketed uses of these words, then, also mutate into an affirmation of already-existing prejuidices that are held by the majority of americans, for the simple purpose of making as many dollars as possible?
― maura (maura), Monday, October 14, 2002 12:26 PM (fifteen years ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
damn
― omar little, Sunday, 24 December 2017 15:06 (six years ago) link
there it is
― Listen to my homeboy Fantano (D-40), Sunday, 24 December 2017 18:26 (six years ago) link
capital gonna capital
― maura, Sunday, 24 December 2017 19:05 (six years ago) link
the rise of the alt right, explained
― Listen to my homeboy Fantano (D-40), Sunday, 24 December 2017 20:36 (six 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
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EEWpvc1XoAEmiZl?format=png&name=small
― mookieproof, Friday, 13 September 2019 15:40 (four years ago) link
whoops
i warned you about colorization bro. i told u dawg https://t.co/7N007t2zwV— bunny yeager air combat (@3liza) April 10, 2021
― 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
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
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.
― a man often referred to in the news media as the Duke of Saxony (tipsy mothra), Friday, 4 March 2022 12:25 (two years ago) link
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.
― a man often referred to in the news media as the Duke of Saxony (tipsy mothra), Friday, 4 March 2022 13:34 (two years ago) link
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
https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/09/media/vice-end-news-shows-layoffs/index.html
― omar little, Thursday, 9 November 2023 18:27 (seven months ago) link