The hipster ethos, as promulgated in Vice Magazine, is indistinguishable from Ayn Rand's Objectivism

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Ha!

― Bnad, Monday, 26 April 2004 15:53 (twenty-two years ago)

Meanwhile, today the sky was blue as the pope shat in the woods.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 26 April 2004 15:55 (twenty-two years ago)

i have never met an objectivist. then again I've never met someone who didn't believe in evolution. nor a vice magazine reader, now you mention it

― Jaunty Alan (Alan), Monday, 26 April 2004 16:07 (twenty-two years ago)

Doing cocaine every night is indistinguishable from Ayn Rand's Objectivism.

― sexyDancer, Monday, 26 April 2004 16:08 (twenty-two years ago)

as are trucker hats

― Donna Brown (Donna Brown), Monday, 26 April 2004 16:10 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm on a mail list w/a couple of hard core randists. THEY ARE BONKERS.

― Pashmina (Pashmina), Monday, 26 April 2004 16:13 (twenty-two years ago)

well there's a news flash.

― hstencil, Monday, 26 April 2004 16:14 (twenty-two years ago)

there's a big market in making dummies feel smart.

― duke greenspan, Monday, 26 April 2004 16:31 (twenty-two years ago)

Ned I expected better of you. Wait a minute, what are you saying?

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Monday, 26 April 2004 17:29 (twenty-two years ago)

Do these people actually do coke or just romanticize the idea of it?

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Monday, 26 April 2004 17:40 (twenty-two years ago)

good question, probably half of them do and the other half watch, and and point and click, laugh all the way to the bank. then maybe they do it themselves after. it's all so sordid i can hardly wrap my head around it.

― duke publish, Monday, 26 April 2004 17:57 (twenty-two years ago)

I wonder if the original poster can expand this interesting thesis a little beyond 'Ha'?

Is there some conspiracy theory angle to it? Are Vice writers supposed to be fully paid up members of the Rand Institute? Or is it just an accidental symmetry along the lines of 'Objectivists believe in laissez faire capitalism, and so do magazine publishers' or 'Objectivists are atheists and so are many hipsters who read Vice'?

― Momus (Momus), Monday, 26 April 2004 19:52 (twenty-two years ago)

Alan Greenspan likes to pose in the buff, too:

― hstencil, Monday, 26 April 2004 19:54 (twenty-two years ago)

Ned I expected better of you. Wait a minute, what are you saying?

This is a good question.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 26 April 2004 19:56 (twenty-two years ago)

"I wonder if the original poster can expand this interesting thesis a little beyond 'Ha'?"

i don't know if the person can either, but i would like to slightly alter my previous statement and say that there is perhaps only a 'fair-size' market in making dummies feel smart. let's not go overboard.

― duke russle, Monday, 26 April 2004 20:35 (twenty-two years ago)

Ayn Rand on dating.

So funny I actually signed up.

― Camtron (Cameron), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 08:11 (twenty-two years ago)

having read vice i can't believe that you guys actually went that far into writing loads about it. it just seems to me that the uk vice is written by a bunch public school charley boys who like their electronica. yawn.

― doomie x, Tuesday, 27 April 2004 08:18 (twenty-two years ago)

momus maybe it's the idea of transcending morality, of living by your own rules, and other such canards, that they have in common

ayn rand was serious, at least--vice seems to be good at not revealing which aspects of its worldview are supposed to be taken seriously (and how seriously), which keeps them a step ahead of their audience in the most calculated and tiresome way.

not that i'm defending rand, who was a shit and whose philosophy is useless save for some catchy rush lyrics.

― amateur!st (amateurist), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 08:49 (twenty-two years ago)

vice seems to be good at not revealing which aspects of its worldview are supposed to be taken seriously (and how seriously)

I find rather troubling the notion that any sort of public narrative (a film, a magazine, a song) has to 'reveal which aspects of its worldview are supposed to be taken seriously (and how seriously)'. Do readers really have to be spoonfed with some syrupy music to know when to cry? Do you have to add a laugh track to tell people that it's okay to laugh? It seems to me that Vice is a nice implementation of ye olde Unreliable Narrator, a device I like a lot because it encourages people to be distanced, critical and, y'know, work out how they feel they should feel, think they should think, take seriously what they want to take seriously, etc.

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 14:23 (twenty-two years ago)

i think the basis gist of the thread is that objectivism was a fucking stupid idea and so is vice.

― Dave Stelfox (Dave Stelfox), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 14:30 (twenty-two years ago)

What's a Randist?

― CharlieNo4 (Charlie), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 14:33 (twenty-two years ago)

vice is FREE and looks good next to my TOILET.

― cutty (mcutt), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 14:34 (twenty-two years ago)

what's a "randist"?

have fun, now!!

― Pashmina (Pashmina), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 14:35 (twenty-two years ago)

there's several rand institutes (and one rand corporation): i think only one of these has much to do with ayn tho

(i googled for a pic of her in her excellent dollar-$ign$ cape but couldn't find one)

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 14:45 (twenty-two years ago)

****GASP**** MARK S!!!! With 2004 after his name!

Does this mean you've finished your book?

Preparing to answer this question I watched a streaming video Introduction to Objectivism which was quite useful. I can find some common ground with Objectivism (for instance, the anti-metaphysical, atheistic stuff, the Aristotelian side) but find parts of it absurd (the stuff about things existing objectively, the anti-statism, the reactionary aesthetics).

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 14:58 (twenty-two years ago)

[the first draft is indeed finished and delivered yay: i am awaiting editorial response re bits that may need tweaking (haha or junking), promised this week]

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:02 (twenty-two years ago)

Well, welcome back! Standards have plummeted in yr absence, 'tis an hour well chosen! Let Penelope's suitors gird up their loins!

vice is FREE and looks good next to my TOILET.

The current issue, on the theme of JOBS, is appropriate, then. You will no doubt enjoy reading about The Shit Disturber whose job is to clean old ladies' asses while sitting on the loo.

I find it really pretty pathetic that people are still hating on Vice, and still starting threads about how it incarnates some sort of toxic and venial 'small difference too far'. I can only assume it's because most ILXors are 'semi-hipsters' and hate to be reminded of the fact.

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:11 (twenty-two years ago)

vice is not even funny??!!??? its not even hip to read vice anymore! its like so 2003.

― doomie x, Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:15 (twenty-two years ago)

You sound like you think Vice is saying that to you, that you're 'so [insert Doomie vintage year]'... But get beyond this hip-terror and you'll find good writing. It's very much not 'a new wave of elegance is sweeping menswear' (actual Dazed headline last month, vomit!).

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:18 (twenty-two years ago)

i fear not hip-terror. just that when i see it now or friends see it -- we laugh. its old 'hipsterism' isnt it? and that's always a bore.

― doomie x, Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:19 (twenty-two years ago)

You will no doubt enjoy reading about The Shit Disturber whose job is to clean old ladies' asses while sitting on the loo.

that's really kind of summed it up... READ THIS IT'S REALLY SHOCKING!!!

THAT'S what i find pathetic about vice. it's the print version of those loud, obnoxious, namedroppy "tastemakers" any sensible person either tries to avoid in social situations or actively seeks out in order to start fights, depending on their mood.

― Dave Stelfox (Dave Stelfox), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:19 (twenty-two years ago)

It has lots of pretty pictures of new trainers, though.

x-post

― webcrack (music=crack), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:19 (twenty-two years ago)

Correction: A New Mood of Elegance is Sweeping Menswear is actually in this month's Edgy Style Mag:

http://www.i-dmagazine.com/i_collect/i_collect.php?id=242

Vomit!

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:20 (twenty-two years ago)

the cokeheads have taken over the asylum. its a brand. and brand just arent hip.

― doomie x, Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:20 (twenty-two years ago)

the hipster mag is this mondo thing. has articles about senior brothels and such. vice is old. it might as well be id!

― doomie x, Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:22 (twenty-two years ago)

reading vice is like talking about electroclash. passe!

― doomie x, Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:22 (twenty-two years ago)

Are you being ironic? I can't tell anymore.

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:24 (twenty-two years ago)

Worrying about what's hip IS SO FUCKING UNHIP. I thought that was the first rule of hipsterism?

― thighster, Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:26 (twenty-two years ago)

If Vice is in any way Objectivist, it's in its insistence on a certain ugly realism in its features. Sure, there's a shock jock element there, but every new school of journalism (and gonzo is surely an ancestor) tends to give the impression of being hard and nihilistic when it first arrives. What's wrong with features about literally shitty jobs? I have an article in the next issue about car-jacking in Moscow. It has a shock element, but also an educational element. Sometimes that's a good mix.

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:26 (twenty-two years ago)

no but talking shit about VICE is like talking shit about PITCHFORK..

soooooooooooo fucking obvious.

yet you read both of them anyway.

― cutty (mcutt), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:27 (twenty-two years ago)

i'm not worried. it just is ... old.

case-in-point

http://www.viceland.com/issues/v11n3/htdocs/i_love.php

is vice the new nme? i can't believe momus is still going on about vice. that's not very cutting edge.

― doomie x, Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:27 (twenty-two years ago)

There shd a proper grading of years it's so like

eg It's so 1982 > it's so 1798 > it's so 1813 etc

(also years to come shd be included)

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:28 (twenty-two years ago)

the next thing he is going to start threads about this fab new group called 'fischerspooner'.

x-post. ha ha.

― doomie x, Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:29 (twenty-two years ago)

Year 2525 best of all obv

― Ricardo (RickyT), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:29 (twenty-two years ago)

Momus are you really calling what Vice is doing "a new school of journalism"?

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:30 (twenty-two years ago)

it shd be done as a bar chart and reworked every year then turned into an animation

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:30 (twenty-two years ago)

I didn't like the Libertines article. Way too rockist. But at least they got an A+R man to write it. That was quite a funny move. It certainly added a laugh track to my reading of the piece.

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:30 (twenty-two years ago)

it wd be like looking at the sea

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:31 (twenty-two years ago)

the interactive cyber-equiv of a turner

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:31 (twenty-two years ago)

vice is old!

it is embarrassing to be seen reading vice because of that!

― doomie x, Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:32 (twenty-two years ago)

Well, if all you 'So 2001' and 'So 2003' people are buying Mojo I'll be very disappointed. In fact, if you're buying any magazines founded in any year ever, I'll think you're a wee bit hypocritical.

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:33 (twenty-two years ago)

there is a cool magazine. i mean, a feature on 'senior brothels!!'. it is mondo. vice is miami as in coke.

― doomie x, Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:34 (twenty-two years ago)

Momus don't be so defensive for heaven's sake! It's just that your defense of Vice appears to be: "It's new, it's daring, it's doing things that others aren't." Doomie's point is just that Vice isn't really doing anything new, which seems fair. On the other hand, "old" isn't an insult - Seneca is plenty old, but can't be bettered for blood 'n' gore. But as Vice seems to wish to position itself on the bleeding edge, Doomie's complaint is valid: there's nothing really new or outre about Vice.

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:36 (twenty-two years ago)

I have never read vice magazine, in fact, up here in teh n0rth3rn w4st3, I have never even seen a copy! The amount of heat these discussions generate just seems kind of weird.

― Pashmina (Pashmina), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:37 (twenty-two years ago)

heat > vice

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:38 (twenty-two years ago)

for something so passe...!

heat is cooler than vice!

― doomie x, Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:38 (twenty-two years ago)

as for me, ixnay on the ohjo-May: the only magazine I read regularly is the Momus-Arguers' Gazette, which is so next-paradigm that it's printed on edible panties

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:39 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't think it's that new. I do think it has set the tone of the early naughties, though. And that's why you're calling it cliched. There is a danger that it becomes a parody of itself now because the style is so recognisable. They're keeping this at bay by opening in new territories. I can't say where right now, but there's an important new Vice edition due next month. What will be interesting is to see how their patented style goes down in some very different cultures.

BTW, they haven't sent me any coke yet.

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:39 (twenty-two years ago)

heat is hotter than cool!!

vice is more vicious than morality!!

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:39 (twenty-two years ago)

x-post

But it reads like the National Lampoon ca. 1979!

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:40 (twenty-two years ago)

you gotta get on 'em about that coke btw or they're just gonna give it all to the doorman

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:41 (twenty-two years ago)

(which is lampoon way past peak btw)

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:41 (twenty-two years ago)

"different cultures" o no, not a tyneside edition of vice! we are not ready!!

(x-post, really people, "heat" is teh sukc)

― Pashmina (Pashmina), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:42 (twenty-two years ago)

you sound like the marketing department! my case, rests. vice is old-hat. to be consumed by wannabe-hipsters whilst others move on to more exciting territories.

i mean, john is right -- national lampoon and mad were 'cutting edge' and they faded. vice has faded! i would rather read my national enquirer photo coffeebook than be seen with vice!

― doomie x, Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:42 (twenty-two years ago)

next year: in hennys - vice clothing as approved by vice!!! vice suxxx.

― doomie x, Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:43 (twenty-two years ago)

sux is the new rox!

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:44 (twenty-two years ago)

I am not as harsh on 'em as doomie, I just wish they didn't think they were breaking new ground every time they make a Real Big Point of being white kids using the word "nigger"

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:44 (twenty-two years ago)

mark it is SO GREAT to have you back

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:44 (twenty-two years ago)

*checks if ilx standard is going up or down*

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:44 (twenty-two years ago)

radio times is radder than tv quick?

― Ricardo (RickyT), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:45 (twenty-two years ago)

doomie: ooo - mark s where did you get that shirt?
mark s: from the henny vice counter.
doomie: ooo - so outre!

john, i'm not being harsh. its just facts!!!!!

vice suxxx.

maybe in ten years time there will be an ironic revival?

― doomie x, Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:45 (twenty-two years ago)

the only way is up mark

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:45 (twenty-two years ago)

It is going up indeed. Rah for the Mark S!

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:45 (twenty-two years ago)

ILX with Mark S is sooooooo 2001! But 2001 is hip again!

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:46 (twenty-two years ago)

yes, mark s is the new vice!!!

― doomie x, Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:46 (twenty-two years ago)

hahahaha

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:47 (twenty-two years ago)

'honey, i got this magazine called vice. its kerrazy. they are a bunch of sweary marys but its fun!'
'ooo. let me see!'

― doomie x, Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:47 (twenty-two years ago)

magazines are all shit. let's burn them all.

― Dave Stelfox (Dave Stelfox), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:48 (twenty-two years ago)

(except for ,i>craft)

― Dave Stelfox (Dave Stelfox), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:48 (twenty-two years ago)

(except for craft)

― Dave Stelfox (Dave Stelfox), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:48 (twenty-two years ago)

b-b-but porn?

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:48 (twenty-two years ago)

don't but it...

― Dave Stelfox (Dave Stelfox), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:49 (twenty-two years ago)

don't BUY it, i meant

― Dave Stelfox (Dave Stelfox), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:50 (twenty-two years ago)

read me: i am old coke

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:50 (twenty-two years ago)

b-b-butt porn?

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:50 (twenty-two years ago)

don't try it, either

― Dave Stelfox (Dave Stelfox), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:50 (twenty-two years ago)

vice is new coke.

― doomie x, Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:51 (twenty-two years ago)

The Vice editor and publisher were all over our early Vice threads, you know. I really thought they were going to give me editorship of Vice India or let me invade Abyssinia for the way I was defending the mag. In fact they just sent me a free Vice book and asked me to write an article about teddy bears.

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:51 (twenty-two years ago)

Momus I totally respect that you're reppin' for your hood. And of course as an entry-level classicist I have no problem at all with the rehashing of old tropes. But to hear you say that Vice "set the tone" makes me want to say "oh come now" all waggly-finger-like. Vice takes its tone from a lot of American television, esp. cable stuff (Talk Soup, the Daily Show), zips it up with a little profanity & race-baiting/racial commentary (depending on how you look at it), and cribs a few notes from the late Doug Kenny. No shame in most of that! I laughed a couple of times at the last issue I bought! But I don't see them doing much that Jim Goad didn't already do about five times louder in Answer Me! (which I, po-faced puritan that I am, naturally hated).

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:51 (twenty-two years ago)

Is the stuff at the link posted above representative of the general content of the magazine?

― Pashmina (Pashmina), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:53 (twenty-two years ago)

yeah, i didn't care for jim goad either

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:53 (twenty-two years ago)

If you bought Vice, J0hn, you have been ripped off. It's a free magazine.

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:53 (twenty-two years ago)

if it's got ads in it, it ain't free ma-an

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:54 (twenty-two years ago)

vice is boring. i'm out of here!

― doomie x, Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:54 (twenty-two years ago)

mis-typed, didn't mean "bought" but "saw"

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:54 (twenty-two years ago)

as I neither bought nor picked up an issue but only read copies that were in people's houses or recording studios

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:55 (twenty-two years ago)

And honestly, I have nothing to add on the racial epithets issue. Language changes.

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:55 (twenty-two years ago)

ha ha. yeah right, 'sure', j0hn!

― a fool and his money, Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:55 (twenty-two years ago)

that "language changes" thing is the biggest red herring ever. That "language changes" neither explains nor excuses trust-funded white kids calling each other "nigger" for kicks and pretending that they're only reflecting "new developments in language use."

and yes ok I paid 20 bucks for my copy 'cos it had Momus in it and what of it, then

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:57 (twenty-two years ago)

ha ha!!

― a food and his money, Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:58 (twenty-two years ago)

i stole a copy then gave money to some random person, it's the new commerce

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:59 (twenty-two years ago)

ok, that's 100, stop now.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:59 (twenty-two years ago)

PUNK ROXXX DISTRIBUTION!!!!! will this regain vice's cool?

"I don't know Jim, 2004 has been a tough year for Vice."
"Listen, Brad, the telethon and the graphs show that Vice has become only marginally cool than it was three years ago and that's not showing alot"

― a fool and money, Tuesday, 27 April 2004 16:00 (twenty-two years ago)

'Saudi' is the new racial epithet, anyway. As in 'I'm the Saudi bitch that you wanna get with' (Peaches, Saudi Bitch).

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 16:01 (twenty-two years ago)

electroclash. heh heh. electroclash is the new dad rock!

― momus telethon network, Tuesday, 27 April 2004 16:02 (twenty-two years ago)

Momus she was just a little congested on the day they tracked the vocal, she's actually saying "naughty"

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 16:03 (twenty-two years ago)

Is naughty the new Saudi? Shit, I'm not doing enough coke.

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 16:04 (twenty-two years ago)

they got the best raves over there in Naughty Arabia

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 16:05 (twenty-two years ago)

NO no no no NO!! OH GOD JESUS NO!!!! LISTEN, MOMUS, DRUGS ARE COOL!

― vice pr team, Tuesday, 27 April 2004 16:05 (twenty-two years ago)

Is naughty the new Saudi? Shit, I'm not doing enough coke. < / dubya >

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 16:06 (twenty-two years ago)

blount I kiss you with gold spoons

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 16:07 (twenty-two years ago)

Nobody be nasty to me or I'll put you in the Don'ts. I already have the photos.

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 16:07 (twenty-two years ago)

if people who write for Vice say bad things about me, nobody'll wanna buy the album I put out in 2001

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 16:08 (twenty-two years ago)

and that would be so 1990!

― m.g. pr, Tuesday, 27 April 2004 16:09 (twenty-two years ago)

http://www.imomus.com/vicesummerisle.jpeg

The wages of sin. Vice, May 2004.

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 16:12 (twenty-two years ago)

ooo! so vice have record reviews! kerrazy! its like they've built the space shuttle of magazines!

― ooo, Tuesday, 27 April 2004 16:14 (twenty-two years ago)

yeah but they also gave JAPANTHER a 10.

― cutty (mcutt), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 16:16 (twenty-two years ago)

Pitchfork on the same Devendra Banhart record:

'You and I listen to more music than anyone in the history of civilization. I don't mean more than your friend or that guy on that message board who seems to know about every buzz-worthy leaked CD before anyone else, but rather, more than any previous generation of active music fans. Think about all our MP3s and CDRs, the stuff we actually buy, and then add in the music we hear once and immediately declare isn't worth the 45 seconds we spent with it. It almost seems ridiculous, because ultimately, few of us would be willing to recommend more than but a few songs (let alone albums) to anyone outside our close-knit music circles. Digital media was supposed to satisfy the audiophiles with better sound and the businessmen with yet another kind of product to convince us...' [continued page 259 of 'Issues in Audio Marketing Today']

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 16:19 (twenty-two years ago)

Mark S I found a worthy replacement for $Ayn$

http://www.cc.utah.edu/~cjw4761/main/pict/suprandc.jpg

― jesus nathalie (nathalie), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 16:21 (twenty-two years ago)

Momus for a guy who's read his Derrida you sure are into the binary oppositions: one need not read Vice or Pitchfork, y'know

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 16:22 (twenty-two years ago)

I make money writing for magazines. I say that with Vice-like directness. The mags I enjoy reading myself are the ones I can't read. Japanese ones, mostly.

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 16:26 (twenty-two years ago)

Momus you should write for Heat!

Re: Rand I do like it that she named herself after her typewriter.

― Presario Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 16:26 (twenty-two years ago)

('Directness' is not incompatible with an Unreliable Narrator, though. No binary opposition there.)

I don't like the look of Heat because it's one of those faux-American British mags that came along with cluttered page layout and clunky faux-American typefaces and reviews of Hollywood rubbish. It's a classic 'inferiority complex exploitation' magazine for British people who wish they were, you know, Robert De Niro.

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 16:29 (twenty-two years ago)

Whereas Vice is a mag that came to New York from Canada and made Americans wish they were Canadian. A much more interesting development. Strike in the heart of the motherland!

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 16:31 (twenty-two years ago)

But Momus, Vice reads like a magazine written by a bunch of people who wish they were Americans! For true!

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 16:33 (twenty-two years ago)

No, it reads like a magazine written by people who wished they were Americans, then realised how much cooler they were when they got there, and proceeded to take revenge by turning the tables and making Americans feel totally inadequate.

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 16:34 (twenty-two years ago)

haha - riiight

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 16:35 (twenty-two years ago)

well we're gonna have to agree to disagree ¥et again 'cause to me it reads like people who either are American or are doing a pretty fine job of sounding like willfully ugly Americans

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 16:36 (twenty-two years ago)

you gotta love my yen sign by the way I did it special for you

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 16:37 (twenty-two years ago)

yeah, i can't quite figure out exactly what is the difference between vice's rich kid hipster xenophobia and, say, lost in translation's rich kid hipster xenophobia

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 16:38 (twenty-two years ago)

I think the difference is that Coppola really hates hipsters since her hipster hubby cheated on her, whereas Vice just pretends to hate hipsters because hipsters hate themselves.

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 16:40 (twenty-two years ago)

If Americans wish they were Canadians, it's only because they want to get away from the Republican regieme supported by the Canadians who run Vice!

― hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 16:42 (twenty-two years ago)

yeah but they also gave JAPANTHER a 10.

yes, i was about to say.

Whereas Vice is a mag that came to New York from Canada and made Americans wish they were Canadian.

it's a handy soundbite, but i don't think vice made anyone wish they were canadian. seriously.

― lauren (laurenp), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 16:42 (twenty-two years ago)

what're you talking about, the first time I caught wind of their whole race schtick I was like "fuck this, I'm goin' to Banff"

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 16:45 (twenty-two years ago)

but coppola doesn't remotely hate hipsters - in the film ribisi/jonze is seen as having betrayed his hipster heritage by hanging with 'common' cameron diaz, and the lounge singer is held up for ridicule and disgust for singing maria muldaur while bill murray gets a free pass cuz he digs roxy music. even japan is redeemed when the chick and the dude hang with some 'hip' japanese - not like them square tv people who can't even pronounce 'r' correctly! lost in translation is EXACTLY the same hipster rich kid bullshit as vice

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 16:49 (twenty-two years ago)

very good point. if anything, vice is more joyful and open about the whole thing.

― lauren (laurenp), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 16:55 (twenty-two years ago)

why can't we all just do some coke and get along?

― cutty (mcutt), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 16:56 (twenty-two years ago)

Well, I like Vice and very much dislike Lost In Translation. One day I will try to work out why, when a lot of rain falls from the sky.

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 16:59 (twenty-two years ago)

you posting from london momus cuz there's a lot of rain falling right now.

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 17:02 (twenty-two years ago)

re: this 'new journalism' thing: DON'T TRY IT. you are wrong.

― g--ff (gcannon), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 17:03 (twenty-two years ago)

there have been several 'new' journalisms to come along. in the 1880s, the 20s, wolfe used the term somewhat self-aggrandizingly in the 60s. vice isn't even a blip, and it's barely journalism.

― g--ff (gcannon), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 17:05 (twenty-two years ago)

But that's what people always say when New Journalism comes along!

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 17:08 (twenty-two years ago)

your command of this subject is supreme

― g--ff (gcannon), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 17:11 (twenty-two years ago)

(Hasn't this thread happened five times already?)

― VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 17:15 (twenty-two years ago)

Let's see, if the poster for Lost In Translation had been a broken tooth, a plastic pig, and a desert, that would already have been better than the poster they had. If the plot of LIT had been like the Contents list of Vice that would also be better. There would be a scene of a medical orderly with an old lady, followed by a jizz mopper scene and a funeral parlour scene. Then a careers advisor would give a heartfelt speech, followed by a whore telling us how to be a whore (a hell of a lot better than the demeaning whore scene Coppola gives us). Then there'd be a scene about giving kids in wheelchairs handjobs.

The fact is that Vice on the screen would clearly be Harmony Korine, not Sofia Coppola. In other words, it would be a lot closer to a Fassbinder film than an Air album.

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 17:20 (twenty-two years ago)

dont get us started on harmony

― cutty (mcutt), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 17:24 (twenty-two years ago)

Isn't Harmony Korine completely insufferable?

― VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 17:30 (twenty-two years ago)

(multi-x post)

Blount has never been more OTM than about Vice/LiT.

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 17:30 (twenty-two years ago)

oh come off it M., Vice isn't fit to wash Fassbinder's coke-spoon

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 17:33 (twenty-two years ago)

people do NOT miss the conversations going on in the "comments" under the Vice articles Momus has graciously linked to above - here's one from the "How to Be A Whore" one (which another commentator observes is written in a style startlingly similar to the in-house Vice norm):

ya'll fucking poop-dick canadians gotta get fucked somehow, eh? CANADA IS A BURNT BITCH

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 17:38 (twenty-two years ago)

Vice gets up your nose, doesn't it?

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 17:40 (twenty-two years ago)

yes, but as I'm forever wanting to point out, just 'cause something annoys doesn't mean it's good

here's Vice editor Chris Nieratko, by the by, doin' a li'l "racial, not racist" humor in the website's "About Us" section:

http://viceland.com/issues/v10n6/htdocs/staff/iheartnj.jpg

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 17:41 (twenty-two years ago)

no. this 'ooo .. ooo vice, vice' is almost as boring as the magazine.

― doomie x, Tuesday, 27 April 2004 17:42 (twenty-two years ago)

'Second-wave feminists like Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon made up this cruel stereotype that everyone in the sex industry got fucked by their dad. What do they know about it? Shit, that's not fair. I mean, I got fucked by my dad, and every single woman I've met in the industry (stripping, prostitution, internet, phone sex…everything) got fucked by her dad, but…oh shit, wait. It is true.'

Did you like that bit, J0hn? Did it sound like a whore wrote it, or the editor of Vice pretending to be a whore? Is it usual to read about Dworkin and MacKinnon in free mags? Do you think this article demeans women?

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 17:44 (twenty-two years ago)

um, it's incredibly usual to read about dworkin and mackinnon in free mags

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 17:45 (twenty-two years ago)

being pretty familiar with both Dworkin & MacKinnon, it sounds to me like whoever wrote it hasn't read either of them

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 17:48 (twenty-two years ago)

(that was needlessly snide, but Dworkin especially is quite complex and is actually an example of my own if-it-provokes-it-has-value button: right and left, conservative and liberal all love to take turns shootin' BB's at Andrea Dworkin, one of the easiest targets in the history of feminist thought - heaven forbid we should try to engage her line of thought!)

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 17:51 (twenty-two years ago)

Marks out of ten for this article on 'How To Be A Whore in 2004', then? Did you like it?

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 17:52 (twenty-two years ago)

Marks out of ten for this article on 'How To Be A Whore in 2004', then? Did you like it?

It was all right, I guess. When I lived in Portland most of my friends were prostitutes - guys, mainly, working near the Justice Building around 13th & Taylor. My own experience of their attitudes - toward life, their line of work, the people they met up with, and so on - does not closely mirror that of the article's author. Contempt for the tricks seemed limited to guys who'd entered the trade out of actual empty-stomach hunger; my closest friends were guys who whored because it was hard for them to find work elsewhere: the market for waiters being flooded, and my friends not having any professional training (my best friend, Brad, being dyslexic and unable to complete classes without severe kill-me-now level frustration), and job interviews being somewhat embarassing when your manner of speech outs you before you've finished saying "hello." Maybe all these are/were just excuses, I dunno. But the seven or eight working guys I was pals with and the three or four working girls who liked to hang around with them weren't real "In your face! This is what bein' a WHORE is like, yeeeah!" about it. The girls I knew talked more about going to community college and getting a CNA than about, say, the sort of thing covered in the "youth" section of Vice's A-to-Z.

Not to call into question somebody else's experience, of course - just wondering if the article mightn't have been better written as a "how it was for me" than as a "what it's like" sort of thing. Not un-entertaining, though. 6 outta 10.

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 18:07 (twenty-two years ago)

Did I fart or something? sure got real quiet in here

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 18:42 (twenty-two years ago)

All the Americans decided they wanted to be more like the Canadians.

― Nemo (JND), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 18:43 (twenty-two years ago)

john don't talk about real-life -- it just confuses and upsets momus.

yay vice! being a crackhead and whore is really really cool!

― doomie x, Tuesday, 27 April 2004 20:09 (twenty-two years ago)

I'd give the whore thing 3 of 10. Ignoring whatever political issues I have with their content, I don't like Vice because they always sound like they're trying too hard. Trying too hard to be shocking, trying too hard to be cool, trying too hard to be funny.

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 20:12 (twenty-two years ago)

is this an east coast thing? because I swear I have never seen nor heard of this magazine until ILX and then it's only you east coast people who talk about it (I'm in SF). I feel like I am supposed to have an opinion about it.

― kyle (akmonday), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 20:13 (twenty-two years ago)

and we all know if you are trying to hard then it just isnt cool, now, is it momum?

― doomie x, Tuesday, 27 April 2004 20:13 (twenty-two years ago)

it's always seemed to me like what really turns the people behind vice on is the simple lure of lucre. that the supposed transgressive and fetishistic nature of what they tend to cover is actually a bore to them. or at least a joke. but it's the money which ain't funny.

― duke tautology, Tuesday, 27 April 2004 20:23 (twenty-two years ago)

d'ya write for vice?

― doomie x, Tuesday, 27 April 2004 20:58 (twenty-two years ago)

Momus: here's why everybody's giving Gavin McVice a hard time: http://www.amconmag.com/08_11_03/feature.html

― sexyDancer, Tuesday, 27 April 2004 21:12 (twenty-two years ago)

is this part of the stuff that he later claimed he meant ironically?

― kyle (akmonday), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 21:16 (twenty-two years ago)

http://viceland.com/issues/v10n6/htdocs/staff/iheartnj.jpg

You know, when I first saw this pic I felt like my cozy liberal preconceptions were being challenged. Then a few seconds later I realized I was just feeling a little gassy. It happens.

― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 21:24 (twenty-two years ago)

I have to agree with Dan's various sentiments at this point. As for the immediate above, that's more a stabbing pain in my abdomen.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 21:33 (twenty-two years ago)

I totally want to Upper Deck that guy. I sure hope someday I get invited to a party at his house.

― martin m. (mushrush), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 21:38 (twenty-two years ago)

You see, it's all very, "You know, this is stupid, and yet someone did it. And they could have done something else. People are indeed shit. Unless the plague."

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 21:40 (twenty-two years ago)

sure got real quiet in here

I got a headache and had to go to bed for a while, sorry. I liked your answer, anyway, it seemed honest.

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 22:04 (twenty-two years ago)

It seems to me that Vice is a nice implementation of ye olde Unreliable Narrator, a device I like a lot because it encourages people to be distanced, critical and, y'know, work out how they feel they should feel, think they should think, take seriously what they want to take seriously, etc.

this has all been talked to death and i'm saying nothing new, but i thought i'd take another look at the online vice (my 2nd since the last mammoth thread). john d's right - it's the comments that seem important here. no matter what article you're reading, scroll down a bit and the "nigger"s "jew"s and "french"ies inevitably appear. i get the feeling that, if anything, the vice environment is one that completely does away with the need for critical thinking. it doesn't quite matter anymore who means what or to what degree - going by the comments, it seems that now more than ever we can don blackface without thinking too hard about it. as much as like i'd like to buy that (THAT being "we're beyond good and evil and we're working towards a better future so let's keep language moving towards avantopia you fags"), i don't really. i'm not pretending language doesn't and isn't changing, but i am pretending that it serves us well to think about which bits and how. maybe (hopefully, i'd say), we can find a kind of change that isn't just changing AGAINST political correctness (which sounds like a very simple and easy thing to hate when you write it out as a two word phrase or speak it as a soundbite but.. i suspect it ain't). sure, maybe vice's a historical inevitability (if ya still believe in history) - an intrinsically awkward, sometimes funny, sometimes horrible side effect of REAL ACTUAL CHANGE FOR GOOD, but that's a little too forgiving for me.

― m. (mitchlnw), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 22:14 (twenty-two years ago)

("my 1st since.." that should read)

― m. (mitchlnw), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 22:15 (twenty-two years ago)

yeah but all that's difficult and uninteresting to parse when you're a dummy dropout like most of the people who are into Vice, let's face it. the smart people around it? well there's a small group looking on (like here), and a small group making money (perhaps also like here).

― duke woofer, Tuesday, 27 April 2004 22:40 (twenty-two years ago)

I really don't find the Reader Comments much different from ILX. For instance, the comments after the embalming article:

http://www.viceland.com/issues/v11n3/htdocs/ungrateful.php

Some are intelligent, some dismissive, some crude, some appreciative, some funny...

But while you can judge a board by its 'comments' (that's all a board is), you can't judge a magazine by them. It's written by professionals, curated, edited, it has a style and a mission. In Vice's case, a rather eccentric one which, while it plays all the positional games of 'hipper and harder than thou', is also a very personal vision of the world coming from Gavin and Jesse. It's not tied into product cycles like other mags. It really is a much more serious and ambitious magazine than most style press titles. It makes people think because of its unreliable narrator stance, its feisty contentiousness, its devil's advocacy, and the way it works with themes, not just doing a little theme section but turning over the whole magazine to consideration of a single topic, sometimes all the way through the reviews.

I said this before when defending Vice, but I'll say it again. I think I'm quite a good writer, but when Jesse solicits ideas for articles from me I often think my own responses are wishy washy, just below par. Sometimes I self-censor. For instance, I had nothing to contribute to the Jobs issue, mainly because I've never had one. Other times Jesse passes tactfully over the idea, and when I see the issue I accept that other people had much more lively or interesting ideas. That happened with the travel issue. Although I travel a lot, I didn't really know what to say about it.

From time to time, though, I find a pitch that just fits the Vice style, and Jesse recognises that it's good and works, and it runs. I'd say that happens with about one in five pitches. With all the other magazines I write for, my success rate is more like one in one. They tend to take whatever I propose, even when it's rather lame. So I must say I've developed some respect for Vice's editorial vision and process. They know what they are doing.

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 23:18 (twenty-two years ago)

Does Chris Nieratko write for Vice then? It's just gone vastly up in my estimation. I seriously don't think there's a better regular piece of journalism around at the moment than his porn reviews in Bizarre magazine.

― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 00:07 (twenty-two years ago)

objectivism is, in the end, just socialist-realist's ugly über-capitalist sister. zhdanov, molotov, and uncle joe couldn't have done it better themselves wr2 the objectivist-brutalist ethos -- to the point where i really wonder whether ms. rand was really a double agent (CHECK THOSE KGB FILES, COMRADES!!)

that said, i have no verdict on whether vice really is "objectivist," or if their credo is just so much third-rate nietzsche (which would, of course, make it a VERY CLOSE COUSIN to objectivism -- sorta like the romulans and vulcans).

― Eisbär (llamasfur), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 00:12 (twenty-two years ago)

nb: nietzsche = the REAL last refuge for scoundrels?

― doctorjohnsonbär (llamasfur), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 00:54 (twenty-two years ago)

Rand is nothing like Nietzsche

― fcussen (Burger), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 00:58 (twenty-two years ago)

looking back on my comment now it kind of reads like a parody of the fountainhead. or what i remember of it. so maybe Bnad was right...

― duke tweeter, Wednesday, 28 April 2004 02:08 (twenty-two years ago)

I've seen this bit quoted a lot about Vice (and, as in this case -- it's from the American Conservative thing linked above, by the Vice guys themselves):

According to the Cassandra Report (a trend-spotting “cool hunter” that charges corporations tens of thousands of dollars to tell them what’s hip), our magazine is the number one read for women aged 19-24 and for men aged 25-30.

I mean, what horseshit. The "number one read' for the Cassandra Report's friends and co-workers, maybe. But I guess corporations that pay the Cassandra Report tens of thousands of dollars deserve whatever they get.

― spittle (spittle), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 04:21 (twenty-two years ago)

Every generation has its own Momus-Vice Magazine thread. It's part of what makes us human. Unfortunately this generation has had about 50 of these threads.

― Skottie, Wednesday, 28 April 2004 05:19 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't start them. But if I see one, obviously I'm going to defend the home team.

― Momus (Momus), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 08:13 (twenty-two years ago)

Never heard of Vice till I read this thread

― Dadaismus (Dada), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 08:55 (twenty-two years ago)

... and I only read bits of this... what am I, stupid?

― Dadaismus (Dada), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 08:57 (twenty-two years ago)

But if I see one, obviously I'm going to defend the home team.

why, M.! If I didn't know you better I'd say you were becoming downright American

(JUST TEASING JUST TEASING ALL IN GOOD FUN LOVE YOU SO MUCH ILX IS FOR THE CHILDREN ETC)

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 11:31 (twenty-two years ago)

"SUICIDE GIRLS
Sorry hipsters, but this is not porn. It's not even sex work. It's more like a pretend tea party with your stuffed animals. I applied to it when it first came out and they actually expected me to do shit like explain why I'd be a good Suicide Girl. Excuse me? That's the first time a pimp ever wanted to see a résumé. The reason these girls can wax poetic about how it's the new porn and talk about empowerment is simple: They are not in the porn industry. Porn is about subordinating yourself for money. If it feels good, you're not doing it right."

― NUMBER 1 TERRY RILEY FAN (ex machina), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 17:37 (twenty-two years ago)

If you're jerking to it, it's porn.

― sexyDancer, Wednesday, 28 April 2004 18:01 (twenty-two years ago)

now that's objectivism

― duke rand, Wednesday, 28 April 2004 18:07 (twenty-two years ago)

that should be the Supreme Court's new standard for obscenity.

― hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 18:08 (twenty-two years ago)

Rand is nothing like Nietzsche

Rand is Comic Book Nietzsche.

― martin m. (mushrush), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 18:09 (twenty-two years ago)

The reason they're trying to make Suicide Girls look tame is that Suicide Girls is launching a magazine of 'hipster porn' which may have Vice a teensy bit on the defensive.

― Momus (Momus), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 18:11 (twenty-two years ago)

Airbrushed average boring scenesters!

― NUMBER 1 TERRY RILEY FAN (ex machina), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 18:23 (twenty-two years ago)

is there such a thing as an exciting scenester?

― duke scene, Wednesday, 28 April 2004 18:31 (twenty-two years ago)

momus otm re: suicide girls (vice SHOULD be afraid)

― cinniblount (James Blount), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 18:32 (twenty-two years ago)

BRIGHT EYES RULES

― NUMBER 1 TERRY RILEY FAN (ex machina), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 18:50 (twenty-two years ago)

Last time, didn't we just come to the conclusion that Momus's fascination with Vice is based on the fact that he wasn't in the U.S. during the late 80s and early 90s when zines were actually good? (plz. note: Answer Me! was not good.)

― J (Jay), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 18:52 (twenty-two years ago)

don't forget they pay him, too.

― hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 18:52 (twenty-two years ago)

What zines were ever good?

I used to read 2600 - -- - - SHOCKA!

― NUMBER 1 TERRY RILEY FAN (ex machina), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 18:54 (twenty-two years ago)

and I'll admit pay is definitely a good incentive for developing interest. All of a sudden, chemicals are very exciting to me!

― hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 18:55 (twenty-two years ago)

http://www.2600.com/covers/wi951.gif

Remember Nynex?

― NUMBER 1 TERRY RILEY FAN (ex machina), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 18:58 (twenty-two years ago)

Well, Rollerderby for one. I think Ben Is Dead had its moments. I liked the first few issues of Bunnyhop, Beer Frame was outstanding. I also vaguely remember there being a mag out of Texas that had *precisely* the same attitude as Vice ("Answer Me!-lite"), but I can't remember what it was called.

(x-post)

― J (Jay), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 19:00 (twenty-two years ago)

ben is dead ruled!

― s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 19:01 (twenty-two years ago)

http://www.2600.com/covers/sp991.gif

God, I can't believe I was into 2600 so long ago.... ~1994-1998 I read it I think.

― NUMBER 1 TERRY RILEY FAN (ex machina), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 19:02 (twenty-two years ago)

http://www.2600.com/covers/06871.gif

OMG

― NUMBER 1 TERRY RILEY FAN (ex machina), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 19:04 (twenty-two years ago)

Worst Radiohead album cover ever.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 19:06 (twenty-two years ago)

Whatever happened to "Crow" 'zine? I picked up one issue of that years ago, and it was great!

― Pashmina (Pashmina), Wednesday, 28 April 2004 19:07 (twenty-two years ago)

Momus's fascination with Vice is based on the fact that he wasn't in the U.S. during the late 80s and early 90s when zines were actually good... I liked the first few issues of Bunnyhop

Jay, I'm afraid I'm going to have to puncture that theory. I more or less wrote Issue 10 of Bunnyhop myself, the Fake issue:

The fact is that there is a statistically signficant positive correlation between these zines being good and my being in them. (Certainly in my own mind.) I am also in Suicide Girls magazine, should Vice fail.

― Momus (Momus), Thursday, 29 April 2004 08:35 (twenty-two years ago)

(That's also me on the cover of 2600's June 1987 number.)

― Momus (Momus), Thursday, 29 April 2004 08:38 (twenty-two years ago)

Two of my own early zines.

― Momus (Momus), Thursday, 29 April 2004 08:49 (twenty-two years ago)

(My Dick was already indistinguishable from Ayn Rand's Objectivism. At least, to the average reader of ILX.)

― Momus (Momus), Thursday, 29 April 2004 08:53 (twenty-two years ago)

Did your dick write the magazine i.e. was the text a load of life-giving proteinaceous goo?

― Liz :x (Liz :x), Thursday, 29 April 2004 08:54 (twenty-two years ago)

One of my fanboys promoting my zine:

http://www.nodata.org/honey/sinister/picnics/ATP-Caleb-4.jpg

― Jerry the Nipper (Jerrynipper), Thursday, 29 April 2004 08:55 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah, but the Bunnyhop fake issue came out in 2002, right? I mean, Noel's been doing that zine for ten years, he just takes nine months between issues or something. The first issue under that name came out in like 1994, and before that, I think it was the same magazine with a different title ("Waffle"?). Rather than puncturing the theory, you seem to have proved it!

― J (Jay), Thursday, 29 April 2004 17:06 (twenty-two years ago)

BTW, I have an original copy of the 'Blinky' issue of Bunnyhop, the one Noel had to destroy because Matt Groening threatened to sue him.

I also have an original copy of 'The Little Red Songbook,' the one that Momus had to withdraw when Wendy Carlos threatened to sue him. Coincidence?

― J (Jay), Thursday, 29 April 2004 17:09 (twenty-two years ago)

I totally forgot about Murder Can Be Fun, which seems to live on, sorta, as a website that apparently hasn't been updated since 1998. *That* was a great zine.

― J (Jay), Thursday, 29 April 2004 17:20 (twenty-two years ago)

I really don't think history is going to look kindly on Vice and its whole aesthetic. Things are already shifting, and very soon Vice and its ilk will seem like a very embarassing relic. Even moreso than right now.

It is awfully sweet that Momus will spend so much time defending his pals. I'd advise him to jump off that sinking ship, though.

― Matthew Perpetua (Matthew Perpetua), Friday, 30 April 2004 19:33 (twenty-two years ago)

ten years pass...

fuck yeah. fuck the poor

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/ayn-rand-ideal-published-july-27364158

atlas is shrugging again, baby!

― reggie (qualmsley), Saturday, 6 December 2014 23:41 (eleven years ago)

three years pass...

This exists.
Love the humanization of assholes like this by mainstream media and it's fun to imagine how this sort of blatant stupidity would've landed throughout history: "Nazi Leader: How He Went From Bold Hipster Mustache Choices to Genocide" ⁦@adamjohnsonNYC⁩ pic.twitter.com/rqge9f84xr
— Kyle Inabinette (@KyleInabinette) October 17, 2018

notice how NYT presents "Brooklyn hipster" as something inherently contradictory to racist and rightwing. Did any of these people actually read early VICE? https://t.co/CRuizqZ4Vp
— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) October 17, 2018

― Glower, Disruption & Pies (kingfish), Wednesday, 17 October 2018 21:10 (seven years ago)

a true shock pic.twitter.com/q5Zyy3cCIF
— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) October 17, 2018

― Glower, Disruption & Pies (kingfish), Wednesday, 17 October 2018 21:11 (seven years ago)

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