PDA

View Full Version : VICE magazine's G. MacInnes in The American Conservative



D84
29-04-2005, 06:07 AM
I just saw this article in todays paper which is worth sharing:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/New-cool-rests-in-a-hotbed-of-old-prejudices/2005/04/28/1114635692379.html



"Finally, the dumb community's days are numbered," wrote Canadian Gavin McInnes, in The American Conservative.
"[Young liberals] are slowly but surely being replaced with a new breed of kid that isn't afraid to embrace conservatism. I'm not saying I had anything to do with this newborn counter-culture, but I do have this strange compulsion to start handing out cigars to all my friends."
The conservative counter-culture McInnes was coyly taking credit for is growing into a hugely profitable demographic that is tired of being politically correct and makes no apologies for its privileged, Western lifestyle. It is embodied by Vice - a free youth lifestyle magazine that McInnes co-founded in Montreal 10 years ago and now distributes throughout the world.
...

"Vice is co-opting underground culture and turning it into a commodity which it's then using to further their own agenda," says Paint it Black's owner Tom Scott. "It's a movement of fascist little hipsters."
Scott is concerned many of Vice's readers - traditionally a demographic who challenged authority and agitated for social change - have stopped caring about morals. "There's a whole group of punk kids that have decided punk isn't for them any more, and that they've got to grow up. So they slot into this Vice-esque, cocaine-snorting existence. They're going against all their past ideals as some kind of statement. They think they're being ironic."

HMGovt
29-04-2005, 09:20 AM
I just saw this article in todays paper which is worth sharing:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/New-cool-rests-in-a-hotbed-of-old-prejudices/2005/04/28/1114635692379.html



"Finally, the dumb community's days are numbered," wrote Canadian Gavin McInnes, in The American Conservative.
"[Young liberals] are slowly but surely being replaced with a new breed of kid that isn't afraid to embrace conservatism. I'm not saying I had anything to do with this newborn counter-culture, but I do have this strange compulsion to start handing out cigars to all my friends."
The conservative counter-culture McInnes was coyly taking credit for is growing into a hugely profitable demographic that is tired of being politically correct and makes no apologies for its privileged, Western lifestyle. It is embodied by Vice - a free youth lifestyle magazine that McInnes co-founded in Montreal 10 years ago and now distributes throughout the world.
...

"Vice is co-opting underground culture and turning it into a commodity which it's then using to further their own agenda," says Paint it Black's owner Tom Scott. "It's a movement of fascist little hipsters."
Scott is concerned many of Vice's readers - traditionally a demographic who challenged authority and agitated for social change - have stopped caring about morals. "There's a whole group of punk kids that have decided punk isn't for them any more, and that they've got to grow up. So they slot into this Vice-esque, cocaine-snorting existence. They're going against all their past ideals as some kind of statement. They think they're being ironic."

I don't see Vice in that light at all. It's just a magazine that isn't hung up on guaranteeing that nobody is offended, ever. And their record reviews are some of the best around, priapist rather than onanist - they say which records give them a hard-on but don't proceed to wank off themselves with critical theory for 400 words.

john eden
29-04-2005, 10:58 AM
Politicos always kids themselves that because people are consuming a particular product, they will swallow whole the beliefs of whoever produced it.

henrymiller
29-04-2005, 11:53 AM
have you met any vice readers, though? it's not a matter of reception theory. they haven't been brainwashed. they are indeed fascist little hipsters by nature or intent and they have *chosen* vice. it wouldn't be anything without them. the 'beliefs' of the editors are indeed those of the readers. why would you read it otherwise? it's not exactly a hotbed of dissent.

john eden
29-04-2005, 01:05 PM
Well I read it, sometimes. I like Jim Goad's stuff, tho I don't agree with much of it.

Similarly I don't really like Penny Rimbaud's stuff, but do agree with some of it.

Tho having said that, a browse through the readers comments on the viceland site would seem to suggest that some of them are conservatives of some shade. Does that mean the mag is a torch being held up to unify a new movement like that?

Pearsall
29-04-2005, 03:13 PM
have you met any vice readers, though? it's not a matter of reception theory. they haven't been brainwashed. they are indeed fascist little hipsters by nature or intent and they have *chosen* vice. it wouldn't be anything without them. the 'beliefs' of the editors are indeed those of the readers. why would you read it otherwise? it's not exactly a hotbed of dissent.

Have you really met anyone who actually takes Vice seriously?

I've met plenty of people who read it, but no one who thought it thought it was important or had anything genuine to say. Perhaps young 'conservative movement' types at the universities like it, but I'd guess that most of its readership comes from the fact that it's free and occassionally funny.

The editorial team is definitely pretty dodgy, though, in that they are flirting increasingly with overt white nationalism; they had Jared Taylor in on a debate and then they were plugging a talk of his on their website.

henrymiller
29-04-2005, 03:19 PM
of course they don't "take it seriously," ie they don't earnestly debate their bullshit, but they nonetheless firmly believe in it. otherwise they wouldn't read it! of course there's irony there, self-awareness, but its readers need that to go on with it. likewise the guardian is self-aware, but prints polly toynbee and george monbiot anyway. irony is just a safety-valve for these people.

stelfox
29-04-2005, 03:31 PM
their record reviews are some of the best around, priapist rather than onanist - they say which records give them a hard-on but don't proceed to wank off themselves with critical theory for 400 words.

i've often heard this said, but i think it's a total bullshit myth. i've never seen anything worth reading in it. is the london one still running or has it closed?

HMGovt
29-04-2005, 03:42 PM
i've often heard this said, but i think it's a total bullshit myth. i've never seen anything worth reading in it. is the london one still running or has it closed?

Still around, I picked it up in the Sun & 13 Cantons on Beak St a couple of weeks ago while having an idle afternoon pint.

Pearsall
29-04-2005, 03:44 PM
henrymiller,
I dunno man, I don't think that if you read something that necessarily means you agree with it. That's a bizarre assumption to make. I've read all kinds of stuff written by people that I don't agree with (Marxists, jihadis, white supremacists, black ultra-nationalists, 'critical theory' onanists, movement conservatives, etc etc etc), but that doesn't mean I agree with anything they are saying, or that I can't articulate where and why I disagree with their ideas.

And is there any point in earnestly debating what Vice is talking about? Most of the comments I've heard about Vice as an overall entity are "it's bullshit", which is about as much as needs to be said about it.

martin
29-04-2005, 07:01 PM
The piece he wrote for the American Conservative was apparently a pisstake, they ran it straight without checking it and in the full piece, there's references to a think tank that doesn't even exist and the statistics quoted were made up.

I think Vice is OK, the readers' comments are probably written by three people posting under fake IDs.

dominic
29-04-2005, 07:32 PM
i've had roommates in the past who always left copies of vice magazine lying around

(didn't much like said roommates -- of course what roommates have i ever liked!)

and yeah, i'd read through the magazine, look at the images, etc

fascination w/ the abomination

i think for the most part the magazine can only have bad effects on the general public

same is true of most newspapers and magazines -- i.e., they promote the bad -- and in the ideal republic they'd be suppressed!!!

however, vice magazine seems especially vicious -- i.e., let's celebrate the naked and callow

btw the magazine is pushing grime

and i think mike skinner is on their music label or something?

luk_ny
29-04-2005, 07:39 PM
man, that "american conservative" piece is shameful. why do you think that mcinnes is trying to suck up to the right like that?

vice is funny, but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. it's so negative and self-righteous.

owen
29-04-2005, 08:57 PM
sorry, but i think this outs them as the loathsome, misanthropic shits they are.

(i like momus tho :D )

zhao
17-05-2005, 03:46 PM
I kind of see his point: whiny complaining liberals have gotten us no where. while we were all feeling smart and cultured in our well informed contempt for the current administration and the fundamentalist christians they represent, the right stole the election. again. I mean GWB is anything but a stupid man. selfish and socio-pathic maybe, but not stupid like all liberals mistakenly thought.

as for the actual new generation of "alternative conservatives", it's a pretty scary phenomenon. picture a goth-kid with all the right tats and boots and jet-black hair covering one eye voting republican. come to think of it... some people prolly think I'm a fascist hipster... but that's just because they haven't taken the time to talk to me.

3underscore
17-05-2005, 04:15 PM
btw the magazine is pushing grime

and i think mike skinner is on their music label or something?

The label, it seems, is a name operated under a major. They have so far signed the Streets, the Boredoms, Chromeo (when Chromeo actually looked pretty exciting) and I think may have Kano (for a while some thought it had a rights deal on 679 records).

How close the magazine is to the music label I don't know. As for the magazine - it is free. It is the only way that people will pick it up. It's pretty content-less, though I guess the music reviews bare worth glancing at, mainly cos they will go as far as giving Zeigenbock Kopf and others a review.

Ned
17-05-2005, 05:59 PM
I read Vice and I think it's one of the best magazines out there. I don't buy into its nihilism but one clearly isn't intended to and I don't think many people do (although of course people will carry on accusing 'hipsters' or 'students' or whatever of whatever they want). I like it because, firstly, it's almost the only magazine I can think of which has a recognisable voice; if you think that kind of prose is easy to pull off with such flair then you've obviously never tried. Secondly, their satire of magazine conventions in general is often very witty - for example their interview with Bloc Party here (http://www.viceland.com/issues_uk/v3n4/htdocs/bloc.php) or their fashion spread recently where all the clothes were just discarded over furniture in empty houses. Thirdly, it's unfair to say it's contentless - for example this piece (http://www.viceland.com/issues_uk/v3n4/htdocs/mogadishu.php) about grime in Somalia is a worthwhile piece of journalism which you wouldn't find anywhere else. Vice is easy to criticise because it seems - and this is part of the point - as if it would be very easy to put together, but actually there are countless throwaway ideas in every issue which a conventional style magazine would beg for. Vice is something which needs to exist and I'm thankful it does.

Dubquixote
17-05-2005, 07:47 PM
Vice is the best magazine around. It's got balls, it's way funnier than anything else out there, the photography puts most 'serious' photojournalism to shame, features like the "Gross Jar" and porno reviews are stupidly hilarious, its irreverent pisstake towards race issues in America is refreshing, and occasionally it reveals a surprising degree of heart ("Rob's" commentary peppered throughout last month's "Crazy" issue was classic).

Personally I think MacInnes argues a strong case that conservativism has actually become the progressive movement at this moment in history, while liberalism is stagnating.

mms
17-05-2005, 09:32 PM
there are some things that are just entertaining about vice, the reviews are excited,'do's and don't s' spot on, piers martin's electronica page is always genial and joyful about good music.
i don't like the grimewatch thing as it seems to just treat the mcs like animals and i don't like idiots that call people fags and niggers.
vice mag has an unflinching view of the darker side of things, no wonder william bennet writes for them sometimes, its ok but it's very depressing, worn out and jaded like someone who's run all the adrenalin from their body, but it beats the kind of british school fce style oldschool of overexcited puff pieces. At the very least it provokes thought, even though it's nihlistic in its outlook and with that seems to be rather exploitative.

HMGovt
17-05-2005, 11:26 PM
Picking up vice is now the ONLY reason I bother to venture back into London. I wouldn't even bother doing that, but they don't publish their album reviews online and soulseek wouldn't be the same without them.

Yay vice. Fuck over-earnest muesli-knitters who don't get it.

minikomi
18-05-2005, 09:01 AM
Has anyone seen relax magazine from japan? I'd really like to see an english style mag with writers this lovely, in love with nice design for the hell of it, articles about abandoned amusement parks and interviews with guys who invented board games.. and next to no advertizing at all. I would PAY for a magazine like this. . . no sense of irony, hipsterness or tongue-in-cheekness at all, just genuine enthusiasm with strange niche foci.
The photography is awsome too..

henrymiller
18-05-2005, 09:36 AM
"its irreverent pisstake towards race issues in America is refreshing."

yeah amid tell-it-like-it-is blowhards like rush limbaugh it's so... refreshing, isn't it?

"Personally I think MacInnes argues a strong case that conservativism has actually become the progressive movement at this moment in history, while liberalism is stagnating."

personally i think this is horseshit. how 'progressive' is environmental vandalism, rollback on abortion rights, global war, ruination of all public services in favour of market domination?

"Fuck over-earnest muesli-knitters who don't get it."

richard. fucking. littlejohn.

Woebot
18-05-2005, 09:40 AM
never been that keen on it myself. makes me feel a little sick. i like a bit more meat in my music writing, you know a few more facts a bit of sympathetic analysis and a bit less personality from the writers especially when they're quite as plastic as they seem to be (whines, is it too much to ask for?) i do see the same hipster-tendencies in myself sometimes, and i'm not especially proud of them...

monkeysblood
18-05-2005, 10:44 AM
i have read it a lot and can even find it pretty uplifting sometimes (eg. the 'you're not punk - and i'm telling everyone' piece from penny rimbaud and the 'tim yo is dead' one in the same issue by (eek!) mr mcinnes) despite the general nihilism. it's full of wanky lifestyle ads but it's free and as someone already said it can make you think a bit for yerself, wether it's being offended by it or whatever, rather than just washing over you in a diluted pissy way like most other publications. it's turned me on to a few bits of music too - sunburned hand.. for example.

they have been increasing the amount of paki, nigger and fag type references which definately makes me feel uncomfortable but it hasn't made me start using those terms (apart from now!). i get the feeling they are just baiting to increase notoriety and profile (see photos of coke snorted off nut sacks etc) and mocking it all at the same time.

is it really worth getting all sweaty worrying about a mag read by a few skaters and record shop loafers? or is that what gavin wants me to think. damn.

but it makes me laugh a lot.

HMGovt
18-05-2005, 11:16 AM
"Fuck over-earnest muesli-knitters who don't get it."

richard. fucking. littlejohn.

I'm sorry, but there is definitely a sizeable constituency of really very annoying, precious left-wingers and far-greens who take all the fun out of life and who take offence at everything, often on behalf of people who couldn't care less. I suppose 'Guardian-readers' is the catch-all. If I was trying to scrape a living in an ice-scarred, post-apocalyptic wasteland, I'd rather be in the company of Vice readers than Guardian readers - I'd die drunk and laughing, listening to better music. Over in the Guardian-reader camp it would be all cous-cous and Erykah Badu.

AshRa
18-05-2005, 12:14 PM
They ran an article a couple of years ago which used some pseudo-scientific nonsense to 'prove' that all America's economical problems would be 'cured' if they had never let any immigrants into the country!! The following issue, they actually defended it in the letters page...!

I was working at a record shop at the time and I was so mad I phoned up their distributor and actually told them to stop sending us this borderline-Nazi rubbish, which they did. I got a lot of stick from other people in the shop once they found out - calling me a wimpy liberal and stuff, but i'm NOT a liberal, i'm just an anti-conservative!

Anyway I now work in a clothes shop which *does* get Vice delivered and I do have a sneaky look now and again :D I like the pages with polaroids and catty comments!

HMGovt
18-05-2005, 12:29 PM
borderline-Nazi rubbish!

The Nazi immigration policy was remarkably open - millions of workers from all over Europe found 'jobs' and accommodation in Greater Germany during the war. It's fair to say Nazi Germany would have ground to a halt had it not been for migrant workers. The Nazis were even good enough to provide free transport, albeit at gunpoint and shepharded by barking dogs. Then, in the final stages of the war, the Nazis pretty much opened up all their borders to foreigners, and tens of millions of young men looking for ways to occupy their time (andd perhaps a fraulein) streamed into the country and stayed for decades.

So I think you have the Nazis all wrong on immigration, at least.

AshRa
18-05-2005, 12:37 PM
Sorry it was a bit of a flippant word to use I know! :o

I was using it to make a point about white supremacy ideas.

jenks
18-05-2005, 12:39 PM
nice to see lazy thinking regarding huge swathes of the population are alive and well on this thread.

guardian reading liberals - all very ben elton 1980s dontcha think?

all eating cous cous and listening to Erykah Badu ??????

read your adolescent rag if you want but let me read my paper without dismissive narrow comments which bear no realation to my reality.

as for the nazi comments, i sometimes wonder if someone is trying to wind me up.

Noah Baby Food
18-05-2005, 12:43 PM
I really, really like VICE, though I admit it can get a little wearing sometimes.

The point is, I think, as they say in the Illuminatus Trilogy, "THINK FOR YOURSELF SCHMUCK!". The Dos and Donts Special Issue actually had on the cover, something to the effect of, "WHAT TO DO ABOUT EVERYTHING, EVER". And yeah, some people perhaps do swallow every little thing they write and take it as gospel. But fuck, that's their problem! Some numbskulls didn't see the satire in the Dead Kennedys either. Should Jello have kept it a bit simpler, explained everything really simply, to appeal to the "lowest common denominator"? Would have ended up like those dogmatic lecturing bores Conflict. Coz that's WAY more offensive and patronising in my book - not giving your audience the credit that they might be able to think for themselves...it's the censorship argument, and it stinks.

I'm all for the slaying of sacred cows myself. I grew up under humourless, severe 1980s feminism and New Marxist kinda schtick, misguided "experimental parenting" - certain things could NEVER be questioned....there was a "party line" on a lot of issues, e.g. pornography. There's no way this is a healthy state of affairs. VICE plays Devil's Advocate, and there's NO OTHER widely available magazine doing that and they should be commended. The irony is, coz it's free a lot of folk probably don't even read the articles and just look at the (very good) photography.

AshRa
18-05-2005, 12:58 PM
The irony is, coz it's free a lot of folk probably don't even read the articles and just look at the (very good) photography.

...of boobies.

Sorry for causing any offence by my use of the N-word.

owen
18-05-2005, 02:22 PM
"its irreverent pisstake towards race issues in America is refreshing."

yeah amid tell-it-like-it-is blowhards like rush limbaugh it's so... refreshing, isn't it?

"Personally I think MacInnes argues a strong case that conservativism has actually become the progressive movement at this moment in history, while liberalism is stagnating."

personally i think this is horseshit. how 'progressive' is environmental vandalism, rollback on abortion rights, global war, ruination of all public services in favour of market domination?

"Fuck over-earnest muesli-knitters who don't get it."

richard. fucking. littlejohn.

on the fucking money. i mean when did being 'anti-p.c' become twice as tedious as p.c itself? sometime in the mid 90s, was it not?

dominic
19-05-2005, 02:38 AM
not sure whether i should comment here or over in the miscellaneous section where there's a nick kilroy thread

anyway, a friend came by my apartment today and had a copy of the latest vice magazine with him, which i then read -- the "drugs issue"

and i must say that on the whole i enjoyed the articles

what i don't like is: (1) all the ads -- but that's unavoidable, isn't it? -- and (2) the fact that they don't acknowledge any "spiritual" aspect of drug use -- i.e., some of the pieces are top-notch in the "tell it like it is" way (such as the article on rehab, the article on purity of drugs, etc) -- which is good -- but others are so aggressively cynical and seem to revel in degradation/desecration

not to sound like a sentimental hippie, but i suppose i see the ins-and-outs of drug use as having a post-xian religious dimension -- i.e., they get you out of your body and are a medium in which everyday social identities don't matter (as with music) -- and they also enhance the power of music -- which is not to say that i advocate using drugs all the time (though something within my hates the notion of advocating moderate use -- though i'm in fact very moderate and, indeed, strictly occasional in my own current use)

so i guess applaud the realism of the vice magazine drug issue, but think it a bad thing when this realism gives way to a thorough-going cynicism and misanthropy

it's why i'm not entirely down with martin amis -- i find it amusing in small doses but ultimately false and think the overall effect of such literature and magazines is to exacerbate the ills of our times -- i.e., the irony, the knowingness, the misanthropy

simon silverdollar
19-05-2005, 12:10 PM
I'm all for the slaying of sacred cows myself. I grew up under humourless, severe 1980s feminism and New Marxist kinda schtick, misguided "experimental parenting" - certain things could NEVER be questioned....there was a "party line" on a lot of issues, e.g. pornography. There's no way this is a healthy state of affairs. VICE plays Devil's Advocate, and there's NO OTHER widely available magazine doing that and they should be commended.

the Sun, The Daily Sport, The Mail, and The Express slay all those liberal, left wing 'sacred cows' on a regular basis.

magazines such as Nuts and Zoo and Loaded also do this, to some extent.

if you want right wing journalism yr spolit for choice, really.
problem is that, it being right wing, it's a bad thing. like Vice.

3underscore
19-05-2005, 12:10 PM
there is definitely a sizeable constituency of really very annoying, precious left-wingers and far-greens who take all the fun out of life and who take offence at everything, often on behalf of people who couldn't care less. I suppose 'Guardian-readers' is the catch-all. (cut) Over in the Guardian-reader camp it would be all cous-cous and Erykah Badu.

I have seen some misconceptions in my time, but the idea that the average Guardian reader is the type that complains about things like vice magazine is almost laughably misguided. The Guardian may be cous cous and Erykah Badu - that I can understand - but are more likely to be highly supportive of Vice, even if they don't personally like it.

HMGovt
19-05-2005, 12:28 PM
I have seen some misconceptions in my time, but the idea that the average Guardian reader is the type that complains about things like vice magazine is almost laughably misguided. The Guardian may be cous cous and Erykah Badu - that I can understand - but are more likely to be highly supportive of Vice, even if they don't personally like it.

You're right, I often read the Guardian/Observer myself and enjoy Vice. But the Guardian is more annoying and infinitely more preachy, particularly on matter of lifestyle and consumerism, than Vice.

Noah Baby Food
19-05-2005, 01:18 PM
Silverdollar - dude, I don't want "right wing journalism". Don't insult my intelligence man. I fucking loathe the Mail and the Express. My personal politics are far-left libertarian. How is VICE "right-wing journalism" if they're printing articles by Penny Rimbaud? I just like the fact that the magazine inspires a bit of thought and debate. You don't see Dazed & Confused and the like inspiring threads like this on forums do ya? And it's FUNNY.

VICE has nothing in common with Zoo or Nuts. I'm not some fucking car-obsessed virgin with a Hollyoaks haircut and a Keane album. Any magazine that publishes writing by William Bennett deserves praise in my book.

simon silverdollar
19-05-2005, 01:29 PM
Silverdollar - dude, I don't want "right wing journalism". Don't insult my intelligence man. I fucking loathe the Mail and the Express. My personal politics are far-left libertarian. How is VICE "right-wing journalism" if they're printing articles by Penny Rimbaud? I just like the fact that the magazine inspires a bit of thought and debate. You don't see Dazed & Confused and the like inspiring threads like this on forums do ya? And it's FUNNY.

VICE has nothing in common with Zoo or Nuts. I'm not some fucking car-obsessed virgin with a Hollyoaks haircut and a Keane album. Any magazine that publishes writing by William Bennett deserves praise in my book.

ok, fair enough. but then i'm not sure what you meant by 'slaying sacred cows' of liberalism.

is the fact that Vice uses words like Paki the slaying of a sacred cow? or do you mean something else?

Noah Baby Food
19-05-2005, 01:52 PM
I came across a bit aggy there, I apologise...

I don't like the use of the words "Paki", "Chink" and suchlike, I must admit. However, perhaps using these words in the flippant, satirical context that VICE do can make people question their prejudices? I really don't think it's done to inspire hatred. I guess that's why I'm comparing the magazine to the coal-black satire of the likes of the Dead Kennedys. Plus, they'll give space to some white supremacist, an Islamic Fundamentalist London hip-hop crew, the mentally handicapped, militant gay groups - I don't they judge or have an agenda, they put it all out there in an "irreverent" manner, which I don't see any other big-distribution magazine doing.

Slight tangent: I've got a Reagan Youth t-shirt which features a photo of a hooded Klansman patting a kid on the head, with the heading "Youth Anthems For The New Order". RY were one of the most fiery, defiantly left-wing punk bands around, but that imagery? It's uncomfortable for sure (I was wearing this shirt in the pub last night and I got some fuckin funny looks I can tell ya...).

The nastiest kind of prejudice is the covert, intellectualized kind - the kind that you DO get in the likes of the Mail and the Express, in the context of asylum seekers for example. Building-site type banter is a lot less offensive in my eyes, a lot easier to deal with. "Coloured" is WAY more offensive than "Paki" in my book - and people still do say this shit! (especially in my currently adopted Yorkshire - a hotbed of racism, it seems).

D84
19-05-2005, 02:17 PM
on the fucking money. i mean when did being 'anti-p.c' become twice as tedious as p.c itself? sometime in the mid 90s, was it not?

I've been meaning to weigh in on this point for a while: wasn't Political Correctness invented in the early 90's by someone like Auberon Waugh in the Spectator? (notwithstanding Mao Tse Tung etc)

Having been brought up in a mildly political family I have never experienced this phenomenon except as a shibboleth, a straw man of the right wing press. It's a classic argument ad hominem. What does invoking political correctness have to say about the validity or otherwise of left wing views? Nothing. (I agree with Mark Latham btw: it's not about Right and Left anymore, but rather Insiders and Outsiders).

I have uncles and cousins who are conservative and that doesn't make them any more interesting or funny... Where I work there are heaps of people with refined, excellent tastes in music but that doesn't mean that I agree with their office politics or have to respect them - these are separate matters.

I gave Vice a chance (hey, I'd still read it if I was in the pub/cafe waiting for my mates to turn up) but it just strikes the wrong note for me... For example I read an article called "Mandela's Hellhole" written by a white female South African "refugee" talking about how she had to leave the country due to the violence - fair enough - but implicit was the suggestion that the problem was black majority rule rather than the hang-over of a corrupt colonial system which fucked up the black majority for generations.

Another thing that irks (at least from what I've read) is this focus on the cult of the trashbag. I've been a trashbag off and on for a while now and I don't need any advice or pointers, thanks ;) It's not difficult, unique or glorious. Like golf the fun is more in the doing rather than the relating.

I'll give them points for digging up Al Jaffee though.

3underscore
19-05-2005, 02:26 PM
I don't like the use of the words "Paki", "Chink" and suchlike, I must admit. However, perhaps using these words in the flippant, satirical context that VICE do can make people question their prejudices?

Personally, I think this is a desperate clutch at straws to say that it is OK in a satirical way. It simply isn't satire, in the same way that Bernard Manning isn't. It is using overt racism to offend, and that you cling to the fact that this "may make people question their prejudices" is more based out of hope, as it could also easily make people believe their prejudices are acceptable.

Face it - Vice is purely an agit magazine desperately trying to stir up a name for itself. And it is a bit of a shit one at that, as it doesn't truly have a cause.

Noah Baby Food
19-05-2005, 03:17 PM
OK, fair do's and all. I really don't think it's the same as Bernard Manning but we aren't really gonna move forward from this one. "It simply isn't satire" - ? How do you KNOW? Why is what VICE do any different from the shock tactics that have been used in punk for ages? They're not profiteering off the kids either, just the advertisers.

If this magazine is as nasty as is being suggested, then why did Penny Rimbaud of CRASS write them a really good article? Can't see him doing a comedy collaboration with Bernard Manning (a la Chubby Brown and Smokey) myself.

And Grimewatch is a good read too.

Hell, I LIKE stuff that makes me feel uncomfortable. Are Whitehouse a misogynist group, or do they just deal with misogyny in their work? you know what I mean...

henrymiller
19-05-2005, 04:13 PM
i think i missed the meeting where penny rimbaud and crass became paragons of the left.

dominic
19-05-2005, 05:37 PM
vice magazine is misanthropic

and misanthropy is the conceit of the socially privileged as against the rest of humanity

the perspective allows one to cut through a lot of sacrosanct mumble jumble, the pieties of the middling classes -- and therein lies the value and the appeal of the magazine

just don't forget whose perspective it is

or confuse it with the truth

monkeysblood
19-05-2005, 06:59 PM
left, right, left, right, left..
ATTENTION!

mms
19-05-2005, 07:17 PM
You're right, I often read the Guardian/Observer myself and enjoy Vice. But the Guardian is more annoying and infinitely more preachy, particularly on matter of lifestyle and consumerism, than Vice.

yep i loathe the guardian so i read the bits that are interesting online.

dominic
19-05-2005, 07:30 PM
left, right, left, right, left..
ATTENTION!

ha ha!

think i may have deserved that one!

(i.e., reread my remarks and they strike the wrong note)

let's just say that the magazine's a guilty pleasure

HMGovt
19-05-2005, 10:18 PM
vice magazine is misanthropic

and misanthropy is the conceit of the socially privileged as against the rest of humanity

the perspective allows one to cut through a lot of sacrosanct mumble jumble, the pieties of the middling classes -- and therein lies the value and the appeal of the magazine

just don't forget whose perspective it is

or confuse it with the truth

Oh, that's very portentous. But I think you're confusing Vice with Mein Kampf or the Turner Diaries - Reminder: it's a frothy style magazine with good journalism, great photography, concise record reviews and a sense of humour.

Noah Baby Food
20-05-2005, 10:58 AM
Aye...in the words of VICE...."WTF????? Can you be a bit more of a nerd, please?" (no offence eh, just it does get a little EARNEST round here at times innit...BRRRAPPP!)

Pearsall
20-05-2005, 02:39 PM
I've been meaning to weigh in on this point for a while: wasn't Political Correctness invented in the early 90's by someone like Auberon Waugh in the Spectator? (notwithstanding Mao Tse Tung etc)

Having been brought up in a mildly political family I have never experienced this phenomenon except as a shibboleth, a straw man of the right wing press. It's a classic argument ad hominem. What does invoking political correctness have to say about the validity or otherwise of left wing views? Nothing. (I agree with Mark Latham btw: it's not about Right and Left anymore, but rather Insiders and Outsiders).


Ah, my mother was an academic in the late 80's...let me assure you that, at least on this side of the Atlantic, political correctness, in its fully-named glory, was very much a real phenomenon for a time!

Eventually, of course, the pettiness and silliness of much of political correctness had it die a death as a term to which people would attach their own ideas, but it's not like it has really died out. It's simply become the academic emo. Everyone knows what it is and can recognize it on sight, but no one who is perpetrating it would ever actually describe themselves as it.

henrymiller
20-05-2005, 03:19 PM
i think it's only deep-down earnest people who could fall for VICE really, like if they pull their heads out of the library they will find that in general the country could do with a little more political correctness. academia has turned PC into a pathology precisely because it's effectively separated itself from the life of society. so no, racist epithets are not okay. (also, cous-cous is good shit.)

alo
20-05-2005, 11:56 PM
Well....A bit late but oh well,

Obviously there's a confused, reactionary divide over 'wimpy' liberalism and the rest, and in magazine terms that means a shit say nothing, uncritical magazine on the one hand and Vice on the other.
I can understand the cringyness of some left leaning snobbishness/ ignorance that crops up in conversation with some friends, but honestly, apart from the fact that The Guardian is probably the easiest target going, using terms like 'muesli knitters' puts you fimly in the Vice category: Trying way too hard mate. (Flashback to house parties and lines in the corner)
Add to this, I've met the people at Vice and they are exactly the kind of smug, moneyed, Londonite media tossers that the more pro-Vice people on this board think they might be rebelling against.
The pussyish co-opting of Grime for a start- (I doubt they've ever seen the inside of Bow.)

The problem I have with it is that it is full of provocation that goes nowhere. As mentioned before on the thread, most people couldn't give a shit about subscribing or not subscribing to its world view, mainly because its free, and that is why its so poisonous- The non committal nature of its pleased-with-itself offensiveness.

And what's wrong with Erykah Badu? Is it cos that's what Dad used to pin you down and rape you to back in the day?






See, ANYONE can fucking do it.




(Trying-too-hard overtones present and correct)

Andy Capper
22-05-2005, 07:28 PM
I normally don't post on these forums, especially when all the comments about VICE are 80 per cent positive, but one thing got my goat.

It was the thing that 'ALO' said about meeting VICE and us all being 'smug,moneyed london media tossers'.
That made me mad.
Umm, none of us are originally from London and if you think I am rich, you must be poorer than West Africa.
So, seriously, 'Alo', when do you meet me? Was I flush that week? Did i buy you a drink or something? What was it? 'smug juice'? How was it?
Tell me when and where. Maybe we can meet there again sometime soon to discuss your problems.

And the thing about 'pussy-ish co-opting of grime'? Explain why writing about Grime and putting on Grime events is 'pussy'? And how we never went to Bow to make that documentary where Gavin had a gun pulled on him and Jamie nearly got stabbed.

Look forward to hearing from you,
Best,
Andy

mms
22-05-2005, 08:02 PM
to back andy up here, he's the antithesis of a rich moneyed london tosser from the couple of times i've met him.
also piers martin who i've known for some years is a bloke with a posh name from just outside plymouth plus he's always a bit skint. :D

tox
22-05-2005, 09:11 PM
On a slightly related, but kinda unrelated note, did Sugar Ape magazine from Nathan Barley (the series from Channel 4) make anyone think of Vice?

The inside of the office is exactly how I imagine Vice to be, together with the not-quite-sure-if-its-ironic shock tactics, such as rebranding the magazine Rape - "the 'SUGA' is inside the 'R'."

As Jonathan Yeah?, the editor of Sugar Rape, said "Stupid people think its clever, and clever people think its a joke" and perhaps this applies to Vice as well.

Andy Capper
22-05-2005, 10:47 PM
umm, you forgot to mention that I am good looking and have an excellent body as well.

fyi, the vice office is more like a eastern european hippy commune than the one on Nathan Barley. that place was like Siegfried & Roy's mansion compared to our shack. I don't go in that often cos I don't like wading through the mess of armpit hair, cigarettes and chewing gum that the interns spit out on the floor in between stamping and packing envelopes.

..... if anybody wants to pitch me articles / photos, it's andy@viceuk.com
bye bye

Noah Baby Food
23-05-2005, 11:39 AM
Nice to see Andy Capper's two-penn'orth here.

If I had a choice between VICE or The Wire, it's VICE every time. Noticed the latest issue of RWD is rocking the VICE style humour slightly, too, although maybe I am imagining this.

Ultimately, even if VICE stopped all the naughty bad words, gave fat record deals to a load of grime artists, walked your dog and stopped world debt, it would STILL get hated on by some folks.

-They give away a free CD every month (email them and they send you one)

-They write about grime every month

-They sign grime artists

-They give grime artists prestigious gigs throughout the world

-They put on FREE club nights with good music

...rilly doe...WHERE'S THA LOVE???

Noah Baby Food
23-05-2005, 03:56 PM
Sorry everyone, I will stop, but I just thought of this:

Is it OK for dancehall artists to go on about "bunnin chi-chi men" etc, but not for VICE to use their cheeky, offensive lil' epithets? Don't see much cussing of dancehall artists round these parts...

Also, the attitude to women and gays in a lot of gangsta rap...and grime!


Can someone explain this to me? If you're "authentic", you can say what you like and use offensive terminology, but if you write for VICE, you can't? Is that the crack?

Coz, that looks AWFULLY like "we can't expect anymore from these poor salt-of-the-earth artists, they haven't had the education we have...(but isn't it so EARTHY?), but when it comes to EDUCATED JOURNALISTS (i.e. US), we can't accept this kind of language, because they really should know better"....

Now I fully expect some big wordy responses telling me why I'm wrong in no uncertain terms, but my point is: look a little deeper at your preconceptions before piling in...

mms
23-05-2005, 07:00 PM
Sorry everyone, I will stop, but I just thought of this:

Is it OK for dancehall artists to go on about "bunnin chi-chi men" etc, but not for VICE to use their cheeky, offensive lil' epithets? Don't see much cussing of dancehall artists round these parts....

ermm i think you'l find its not, its abhorred


Also, the attitude to women and gays in a lot of gangsta rap...and grime!

again



Can someone explain this to me? If you're "authentic", you can say what you like and use offensive terminology, but if you write for VICE, you can't? Is that the crack?

Coz, that looks AWFULLY like "we can't expect anymore from these poor salt-of-the-earth artists, they haven't had the education we have...(but isn't it so EARTHY?), but when it comes to EDUCATED JOURNALISTS (i.e. US), we can't accept this kind of language, because they really should know better"....

Now I fully expect some big wordy responses telling me why I'm wrong in no uncertain terms, but my point is: look a little deeper at your preconceptions before piling in...

it's not cos no one here condones any kind of homophobia, sexism around these parts.
dunno where you get your info from.
no one has any preconceptions, everyone here knows the problems with supporting music that is sometimes sexist, homophobic etc and acknowledges it and speaks up against it.

zhao
23-05-2005, 07:17 PM
who ever said Vice is misanthropic (Dominic?), please read this article:

http://www.viceland.com/issues/v12n2/htdocs/mother.php

I'm going to get a bit personal here, at the risk of being reidiculed by the REAL arseholes worldwide: this simple little piece of journalism made me cry. and I DON'T cry easily. it also inspired me to call my estranged family and see how they are doing after 1 entire year of not talking.

I met one of the founders of VIce at a party in the hills in LA a few years ago (I think it was Shane) where I was spinning some records. the VIce crew rolled in at 3 AM, after my set was over. we had a long conversation in which he was doing endless bumps and also told me all about the very VERY humble beginning of Vice (used to be called Voice, a stapled together rag he put together while crashing on friend's couches), hanging out with Tibetan monks, the incredibly fucked up situation in Afghanistan (pre-911), being on a first name basis with Latin American drug-lords, and having Warner Brothers knock their door down trying to get a movie deal.

Vice is 1 of my 2 favorite magazines in the world, ever. (the other being the Wire)

dominic
23-05-2005, 07:46 PM
i'm not going to ridicule you for liking the article qua list (though if a short list such as this is the best you can do for demonstrating the magazine's worth, then surely you're reaching . . . )

and, yes, even in the drugs issue the article about the heroin addict w/ a phd in advanced sciences had a certain kind of "humanity" to it

nor can i claim to have read all that many issues of "vice" magazine

yet the overall vibe that i get from "vice" is misanthropy, knowingness, smirk smirk smirk, guffaw

human beings as nothing more than pleasure/pain networks, albeit w/ a few clever types and the billions rest lumpen and stupid

zhao
23-05-2005, 08:57 PM
sure they sometimes have a "cooler than thou" demeanor, but honestly, you don't? you don't look at someone in a Dave Mathews Band t-shirt and think "clueless moron"?

the best thing about VIce, as someone already touched on, is that there is a real balance of many many different attitudes. regularly there are articles which express the anger and frustration we all feel and regularly there are very touching bleeding heart pieces.

their no-agenda agenda is perhaps the most relevant stance someone with a brain can take these days.

blissblogger
24-05-2005, 04:29 PM
I came across a bit aggy there, I apologise...

I don't like the use of the words "Paki", "Chink" and suchlike, I must admit. However, perhaps using these words in the flippant, satirical context that VICE do can make people question their prejudices? ).

read lester bangs on The White Noise Supremacists, his stinging auto-critique of his own attempt to "defuse" racial and homophobic epithets lenny bruce stylee -- je demolished all these arguments back in 79

Vice is part of a long, tired tradition that goes back through Answer Me to Punk magazine with Legs McNeil

that said, i love 'do's and don'ts' and the mag can be real funny and does have a 'voice', and a couple of the writers (notably, unfortunately , g mcinnes) have real style, in part because they've removed any and all internal censors and just let their inner repulsiveness sprawl and ooze

which sounds 'courageous' and ballsy until you realise

it's just more white men rolling in the shit of their own privilege and entitlement innit

despite running the show white men are full of rage and hate, it's really strange -- someone wrote quite a convincing piece last year arguing that the heartland votes for bush out of spite! against their own interests, but out of pure spite!

it's unbelievable that people are still banging the anti-PC drum as if PC now (or indeed ever) had some kind of hegemonic strangehold on the culture

also interested in this ideology of humour as excusing everything vs these mythical 'humourless feminists/radicals/etc' ... A/ cos most of the feminists, radicals etc i've ever known have been very witty and very merry sorts, and b/ because it's a very specific kind of right-to-humour that's defended here, a humour rooted in Other-directed aggression, stereotype, demeaning, vindictiveness etc. ie. jokes about Irishmen being thick. immigrants, gays etc. it's obvious when you'd watch say Andrew Dice Clay performing to a crowd of bellowing and braying male 'ugly americans' that what you were witnessing wasn't really about laughter or humour, but some kind of ritual exorcism of anxieties and projected self-loathings...

henrymiller
25-05-2005, 10:38 AM
On a slightly related, but kinda unrelated note, did Sugar Ape magazine from Nathan Barley (the series from Channel 4) make anyone think of Vice?

well, the awesome ep 5 had sugar ape's 'vice issue', didn't it? with the underage models being molested by the staff but it was okay because they were 'in on it,' only they kind of weren't (and not, in fact, underage). the series totally nailed the 'ethos' of vice and co.

jonatton yeah?: "i hope we haven't offended *absolutely everyone*"

3underscore
25-05-2005, 03:44 PM
I would like to think that the current issue of vibe would promote many here to admit that it is culturally and morally bankrupt. To hear that a certain article has been published, and in the style it has, would offend many here.

Those who have seen it will know what I mean.

henrymiller
26-05-2005, 09:24 AM
oh, go on, fill us non-east-london peeps in!

dominic
26-05-2005, 10:00 AM
the nick kilroy piece?

3underscore
26-05-2005, 01:45 PM
the nick kilroy piece?

Exactly Dom. It truly shows they have no idea of a line which shouldn't be passed. I found it quite sickening that they did it, especially with the postscript note in the style they did.

Andy Capper
26-05-2005, 03:32 PM
Hey this thread is great for publicity.

This one goes out to all those crying about the Nick Kilroy article...

Were you friends with Nick?

Nick was a friend and actually volunteered to write that piece for Vice. When he died we asked the people closest to him for permission to run the picture and the article. They consensus was: "yes, that's what Nick would have wanted."

So, in what way did you find it "sickening"? You think we shouldn't have mentioned he'd just died?
Pretended he was still alive and OK? Ignored the fact that a contributor and a friend had died of an OD?
You don't think that article will make people think twice about going down the same road as Nick?

Let me know your thoughts cwybabies.

henrymiller
26-05-2005, 03:38 PM
omg roffle 'cwybabies'. pathetic. anyway, i didn't know nick kilroy and haven't read the article but pretty much stick a hypodermic in vice and you'll get find something to hate. like a woman being descibed as 'walking rape deterrent'.

3underscore
26-05-2005, 04:42 PM
Hey this thread is great for publicity.

This one goes out to all those crying about the Nick Kilroy article...

Were you friends with Nick?

Nick was a friend and actually volunteered to write that piece for Vice. When he died we asked the people closest to him for permission to run the picture and the article. They consensus was: "yes, that's what Nick would have wanted."

So, in what way did you find it "sickening"? You think we shouldn't have mentioned he'd just died?
Pretended he was still alive and OK? Ignored the fact that a contributor and a friend had died of an OD?
You don't think that article will make people think twice about going down the same road as Nick?

Let me know your thoughts cwybabies.

Vice find the time for the article after his death. When was it written? Was the main thing that promoted the publication the handiness of tapping an epitaph on the end, in the classic last line hit that Vice so enjoys?

For me Vice has always tried too hard. It starts off as being close to the bone, and now all the flesh is gone because it has done that too often, it has just carried on grinding down to the marrow. Your friend has died, and Vice chooses to acknowledge it in a typically agit provocative style. Beats an obituary in Vice land, I guess. Most publications seem to have made do with them for quite some time...

To be honest, I am at least glad it was printed following consultation - I had my doubts, as that kind of article is exactly how the magazine appears to position himself. Did I know him personally? No. Had encountered him? Yes, I had.

And the fact that someone found it sickening? Maybe not my best choice of words, but it made me pretty uncomfortable about the whole article, everything. But wasn't that your aim?

Thanks for responding Andy, but maybe some justification rather than a string of questions next time?

Yoghurt Sothoth
26-05-2005, 06:30 PM
Know What Ye Of Sickening, Mortal?

Many Mortals Such As Thyself Do Balk And Cringe At The Filth Which Permeates This Realm. Prithee, Keep In Thy Mind That All Art Natural Upon This Plane, All Filth That The Mortal Doth Imbibe, Ingest, And Inhale Art The Wondrous Palate Of Nutrientious Filth Which Aboundeth Here.

Indeed, Where Art This Entity, Death, Of Whom Thou Dost Speak?

When Mine Minions Begin Festering Within The Mortal 'gut', Death Hath Already Come And Gone! I Should Enjoy Meeting The One Which Doth Sow The Fields Of Filth Among Mortals For Mine Minions To Relish!

Much Art 'new' And Yet Also Art Much 'same', Mortal! For In The Span Of 'time' Over Which Mine Mass Hath Existed, I Hath Seen Many Burgeoning Clusters Of Putrefaction Emerge, Wither, And Fall To Dust Upon The Plain.

Regardless, The New Filth Art Oft As Savoury As The Old, For Unlike The Mortal 'wine', The Filth Art Homogeneous And Rather Consistent In The Largest Of 'pictures'.

For Whether The Grassy Meal Consumed By The Sheep Art Urinated Upon By The Passing Wildebeest Or Horse Or Cattle, It Is Thus Consumed, Its Sustenance Absorbed, Its Nutrients Converted To That Which The Host Might Utilize.

All, Therefore, Art Good, So Long As The Filth Doth Flow!

I And Mine Minions Would Hope The Grogans Surge Forth From Thy Buttocks With Mighty Purpose And Direction!

mms
26-05-2005, 07:22 PM
the nick kilroy piece?
i knew him and thought it was quite fitting, that's what he was like and it was a bit spooky.

Dubquixote
26-05-2005, 07:30 PM
...have real style, in part because they've removed any and all internal censors and just let their inner repulsiveness sprawl and ooze

which sounds 'courageous' and ballsy until you realise

it's just more white men rolling in the shit of their own privilege and entitlement innit

despite running the show white men are full of rage and hate, it's really strange -- someone wrote quite a convincing piece last year arguing that the heartland votes for bush out of spite! against their own interests, but out of pure spite!

it's unbelievable that people are still banging the anti-PC drum as if PC now (or indeed ever) had some kind of hegemonic strangehold on the culture

...what you were witnessing wasn't really about laughter or humour, but some kind of ritual exorcism of anxieties and projected self-loathings...


Removing one's internal censors and letting one's inner repulsiveness ooze, rolling in the shit of one's own privilege, white people's self-loathing, exorcism of anxieties, etc... Unpleasant as these things may be, at least somebody is telling the truth! That's the whole idea. It's called VICE. PC does have a stranglehold on the culture of Vice's target audience. White people, in urban America in particular, ARE full of rage and frustration about being white, boring, privileged, despised. Granted there's a place for civilized, polite, constrained discourse. But too often politeness is just a veil and a lie.

The heartland did NOT vote for Bush out of spite, or ignorance, and it's that sort of condescension toward Red State America that confirms just how paralyzed the left is right now. They may have voted against their own interest in a number of ways, but voting against affirmative action, social welfare, gay marriage, and the UN was (whether explicitly or implicitly) very much a vote to protect traditional white political and cultural power. Blue State America needs to lose the attitude that those stupid rednecks in the South didn't know what they were voting for when they reelected Bush & Co, that they were unwitting accomplices who were merely manipulated by terrorism fears, etc.

dominic
26-05-2005, 07:45 PM
i knew him and thought it was quite fitting, that's what he was like and it was a bit spooky.

to me he was simply an abstract friend of other abstract friends on the internet -- a name i had often seen mentioned while reading woebot or k-punk or hanging out on dissensus -- so i have no real opinion on the nick kilroy piece -- was merely trying to clarify 3underscore's reference

though i might add that i had never before heard of a single drug in the nk piece, which made the piece weirdly intriguing and at the same time morbid

as for vice magazine as a whole, my position is that it's a guilty pleasure -- i have serious problems with it, and yet unlike most magazines i will actually read it if it falls into my lap

and that's probably what the editors aim for, and what the name of the magazine means = something to read while on the toilet -- so here reception neatly corresponds with intention

dominic
26-05-2005, 08:20 PM
White people, in urban America in particular, ARE full of rage and frustration about being white, boring, privileged, despised.

nice comment -- should provoke more discussion -- not that i agree w/ all you say or anything

i think there is rage and that the rage has everything to do with being boring = most of us become deadly boring and yet none of us would freely choose this fate

(not sure if the rage directly relates to being white and despised)

and the sense (and reality) of privilege results in guilt even as you feel enraged = can't feel properly enraged b/c you know you're privileged = the complex dubquixote identifies as "rage and frustration"

i think vice magazine caters not to this complex of feelings but to being white and privileged and despised = others despise "us" and we despise "them"

not sure if vice magazine has any direct connection to the rage that comes from being a boring person, except to provide cheap entertainment and to say, in effect, that everybody "else" is also deadly boring and pathetic


The heartland did NOT vote for Bush out of spite, or ignorance . . . . They may have voted against their own interest in a number of ways, but voting against affirmative action, social welfare, gay marriage, and the UN was (whether explicitly or implicitly) very much a vote to protect traditional white political and cultural power.

yes, but don't you think that the corporate elite has nothing but contempt for middle america and systematically fucks it over?

or is it simply the cold logic of capitalism?

move all manufacturing jobs, all customer service jobs abroad -- and then wipe out all local business by building walmarts and fast-food franchises

or maybe i don't quite grasp how the american empire works -- i.e., run insurmountable trade deficits w/ no apparent consequences other than unfavorable exchange rates for privileged americans traveling abroad or importing 12" records

(maybe the trade deficit is simply a kinda tax that we impose on the rest of the world -- what other countries must render unto caesar)

in any case, no matter which party is in power, the landscape of middle america becomes more and more desolate, more and more desperate

so perhaps the red states vote to maintain their cultural power b/c they know their economic position is going to worsen regardless

dominic
26-05-2005, 08:33 PM
Removing one's internal censors and letting one's inner repulsiveness ooze, rolling in the shit of one's own privilege, white people's self-loathing, exorcism of anxieties, etc... Unpleasant as these things may be, at least somebody is telling the truth! That's the whole idea. It's called VICE.

errrr, no -- this is called sharing or popularizing or legitimating a perspective -- not telling the truth

i was rightfully taken to task upthread for striking an portentous tone when i said vice magazine was about perspective and not about the truth

but now you've given me grounds to make this point again

(i think it's called vice b/c it's a guilty pleasure, not b/c it has anything to do w/ the supposedly wicked truth)

dominic
26-05-2005, 08:36 PM
White people, in urban America in particular, ARE full of rage and frustration about being white, boring, privileged, despised

why do you say in "urban America in particular"?

and how does this relate to red state/blue state voting patterns?

Dubquixote
26-05-2005, 09:39 PM
why do you say in "urban America in particular"?
and how does this relate to red state/blue state voting patterns?

Urban whites who read Vice are classic blue staters: who live in more racially/socioeconomically diverse places and are more likely to be afflicted by white guilt. They are disliked or treated cooly by many in the black and Latino communities.


yes, but don't you think that the corporate elite has nothing but contempt for middle america and systematically fucks it over?

or is it simply the cold logic of capitalism?

move all manufacturing jobs, all customer service jobs abroad -- and then wipe out all local business by building walmarts and fast-food franchises

or maybe i don't quite grasp how the american empire works -- i.e., run insurmountable trade deficits w/ no apparent consequences other than unfavorable exchange rates for privileged americans traveling abroad or importing 12" records

It has been an interesting role reversal this past election that the Democrats fell on the side of trade protectionism, while Republicans were in favor of global trade. Also Democrats were suddenly against debts and government spending, while traditionally small government Republicans were spending wildly.

It may be the case that the cold logic of capitalism always screws the working class, but the mood post 9-11, considering the worsening recession and deepening military commitments, left most people in the middle-class American right convinced that sacrifices were required to defend America and return it to its former position of economic, military, and moral strength, and that the cost of the Democrats' perceived softness on defense was too great. Just my take though.

zhao
27-05-2005, 05:23 PM
it's just more white men rolling in the shit of their own privilege and entitlement innit


I'm not saying that this is not a good point or indeed the fact of the matter, but if you are going to dismiss something on these grounds you might as well dismiss A LOT of other things in western culture too. such as Mozart. or Davinci. (who were able to practice their art because of their privilege, who merely provided services to the rich and powerful)

I believe in judging something by the set of criteria which follows it's sphere of function. and not by if the person who made it is white or black or rich or poor.

ofcourse privilege plays a major role in the making of and distribution of culture, and it's disgusting when some rich white idiot gets his while real talent is ignored, but this is not the case of Vice.

did you read my recount of the beginnings of Vice a few posts up? they didn't start it on no trust fund that's for damn sure.

zhao
27-05-2005, 05:47 PM
Blue State America needs to lose the attitude that those stupid rednecks in the South didn't know what they were voting for when they reelected Bush & Co, that they were unwitting accomplices who were merely manipulated by terrorism fears, etc.

too right. it's this kind of self satisfied liberal sentiment that is making us lose (by "us" I assume most are liberals here). while we were busy congratulating ourselves on how cultured we were, the "dumb" fundamentalist christians had their shit together and won. so GWB is "stupid" is he? well obviously he's smarter than whoever says that because he's making himself and his buddies richer at the expense of the world.

dominic
27-05-2005, 10:48 PM
but if you are going to dismiss something on these grounds you might as well dismiss A LOT of other things in western culture too. such as Mozart. or Davinci. (who were able to practice their art because of their privilege, who merely provided services to the rich and powerful)

what you call "these grounds" is not blissblogger's premise

i.e., he's not taking issue w/ privileged people making art or writing -- that'd be the height of hypocrisy as blissblogger, by my understanding, rec'd a first-rate education

rather, he's taking issue w/ how certain people make use of their privilege, i.e., what they write, the attitudes and opinions they propagate


]did you read my recount of the beginnings of Vice a few posts up? they didn't start it on no trust fund that's for damn sure.

only if you define privilege very narrowly to mean being the beneficiary of a trust fund would the people behind vice magazine not count as privileged

they're white, they're male, they're cosmopolitan

they went to good schools

they never had to work in factories, work as janitors, repair cars, butcher meat

never had to join the army or guard prisons

they've never been on the dole

they have no problems hailing down cabs

(btw mozart and davinci were privileged precisely in the sense that they were trained and educated by parents/benefactors and received the patronage later on in life of the wealthy and powerful -- M and D certainly were not the equivalent of modern-day trust-funders)

and let's just say that a good percentage of white people are privileged as against the rest of the world -- i.e., they have pretty cushy lives and quite literally "nine lives" worth of opportunities to make use of or piss away

which isn't to deny that many of us piss away opportunity or don't like the opportunities we have in hand -- for the complex of reasons that dubquixote hinted at

i.e., we're privileged as compared with the rest of the world, seemingly, and yet we're deeply frustrated and bored and depressed, etc

dominic
27-05-2005, 11:06 PM
so GWB is "stupid" is he? well obviously he's smarter than whoever says that because he's making himself and his buddies richer at the expense of the world.

which means he's doing so at the expense of the people in middle america who supported him

therefore they are rather stupid -- correct?

or else they've concluded that america's economic health will decline and their own prospects deteriorate regardless of which party is in power -- and therefore voted strictly to preserve their cultural and social position

zhao
28-05-2005, 03:00 AM
Lights, camera, tragedy, comedy, romance
You better dance from your fighting stance
Or you'll never have a fighting chance In the rat race
Where the referee's son started way in advance
But still you livin' the American Dream
Silk PJ's, sheets and down pillows
Who the fuck would wanna wake up?
You got it good like hot sex after the break up
Your four car garage it's just more space to take up
You even bought your mom a new whip scrap the jalopy
Thousand dollar habit, million dollar hobby
You a success story everybody wanna copy
But few work for it, most get jerked for it
If you think that you could ignore it, you're ig-norant
A fat wallet still never made a man free
They say to eat good, yo, you gotta swallow your pride
But dead that game plan, I'm not satisfied

[Chorus]
The poor get worked, the rich get richer
The world gets worse, do you get the picture?
The poor gets dead, the rich get depressed
The ugly get mad, the pretty get stressed
The ugly get violent, the pretty get gone
The old get stiff, the young get stepped on
Whoever told you that it was all good lied
So throw your fists up if you not satisfied

Are you satisfied?
I'm not satisfied

Hey yo, the air's still stale
The anthrax got my Ole Earth wearin' a mask and gloves to get a meal
I know a older guy that lost twelve close peeps on 9-1-1
While you kickin' up punchlines and puns
Man fuck that shit, this is serious biz
By the time Bush is done, you won't know what time it is
If it's war time or jail time, time for promises
And time to figure out where the enemy is
The same devils that you used to love to hate
They got you so gassed and shook now, you scared to debate
The same ones that traded books for guns
Smuggled drugs for funds
And had fun lettin' off forty-one
But now it's all about NYPD caps
And Pentagon bumper stickers
But yo, you still a nigga
It ain't right them cops and them firemen died
The shit is real tragic, but it damn sure ain't magic
It won't make the brutality disappear
It won't pull equality from behind your ear
It won't make a difference in a two-party country
If the president cheats, to win another four years
Now don't get me wrong, there's no place I'd rather be
The grass ain't greener on the other genocide
But tell Huey Freeman don't forget to cut the lawn And uproot the weeds
Cuz I'm not satisfied

[Chorus]

Yo, poison pushers making paper off of pipe dreams
They turned hip-hop to a get-rich-quick scheme
The rich minorities control the gov'ment
But they would have you believe we on the same team
So where you stand, huh?
What do you stand for?
Sit your ass down if you don't know the answer
Serious as cancer, this jam demands your undivided attention
Even on the dance floor
Grab the bull by the horns, the bucks by the antlers
Get yours, what're you sweatin' the next man for?
Get down, feel good to this, let it ride
But until we all free, I'll never be satisfied

[Chorus] - Repeat 2x

D84
23-09-2005, 01:23 AM
After reading the comments in the Hate Is a Strong Word (http://www.dissensus.com/showthread.php?t=2255) thread in the Music forum, I thought I'd share this great piece pf Vice mag bashing I found the other day:

FUCK VICE:
http://ruthlessreviews.com/rants/schultz/fuckvice.html

Buick6
23-09-2005, 02:04 AM
also interested in this ideology of humour as excusing everything vs these mythical 'humourless feminists/radicals/etc' ... A/ cos most of the feminists, radicals etc i've ever known have been very witty and very merry sorts, and b/ because it's a very specific kind of right-to-humour that's defended here, a humour rooted in Other-directed aggression, stereotype, demeaning, vindictiveness etc. ie. jokes about Irishmen being thick. immigrants, gays etc. it's obvious when you'd watch say Andrew Dice Clay performing to a crowd of bellowing and braying male 'ugly americans' that what you were witnessing wasn't really about laughter or humour, but some kind of ritual exorcism of anxieties and projected self-loathings...

Yeah but so too is listening to the Smiths and My Bloody Valentine. Besides Morrissey is one of the funniest men in English rock ever, shame his fans don't 'get it'.

And Andrew Dice Clay can be very fucken funny it's amazing that being 'rude' as a comedian is considered so 'transgressive', just like the Eddie Murphy or Devine or Richard Pryor or Three Stooges and Warners Brothers cartoons, or Monty Python and SouthPark. Part of the problem with 'radicals' these days is that they are odd-ball dickheads who are not funny - wit and being truly 'funny' are different talents - 'wit' is to do with maipulating power and is inherently political, where being 'funny' is defusing power.

Part of the issue with 'Vice' is that it's a *free* magazine that has made it's publishers rich - and despite the publishers outspoken views, I figger there's just a tinge of repressed ENVY that others haven't been able to do the same.

I kinda like 'Arthur' magazine myself, and part of the failure about this thread is everyone's given so much 'publicity' to 'Vice' and totally neglected a more worthy, elightening, relevant, informed and cutting-edge *free* publication. Poor effort comrades.

D84
23-09-2005, 02:37 AM
I kinda like 'Arthur' magazine myself, and part of the failure about this thread is everyone's given so much 'publicity' to 'Vice' and totally neglected a more worthy, elightening, relevant, informed and cutting-edge *free* publication. Poor effort comrades.

I tried to get a couple of issues of this from Midheaven mail-order earlier in the year for the Jello Biafra and JG Ballard interviews (I'd love to see Vice put them on their covers) but they didn't have any copies left.

Is it available anywhere outside on San Fransisco or Sydney, Australia in particular?

Vice on the other hand is everywhere...

zhao
23-09-2005, 05:25 AM
I didn't think anything of Arthur until I went to the festival (which was a dissapointment, with the exception of CIRCLE, whose 30 minute set alone was worth the $90 for the 2 days) the issue they gave away had this cool interview with Alan Bishop of Sublime frequencies and Sun City Girls, and some other well worth reading articles.

still love Vice though.

let's turn up the heat on the debate a little:

what did people think of THIS little article?

http://www.viceland.com/issues/v12n5/htdocs/hey.php

D84
26-09-2005, 04:15 AM
let's turn up the heat on the debate a little:

what did people think of THIS little article?

http://www.viceland.com/issues/v12n5/htdocs/hey.php

That's a good article.

But what keeps it from me saying that it's a great article is that it doesn't try to interpret the facts. Sure, as the writer says the enemy and slavery come in all colours but as the 1st comment to the article on that page says, he neglects the simple fact, "slavery was not a black white thing it was a rich poor thing". It's a small point but to me it's a very important one. Is Jim Goad trying to suggest that because slavery isn't racist America isn't?

I've already stated my some of my gripes with the magazine. I think it's great that it sets out to be controversial and that it does provoke thought/discussion (I argue about the mag's value with my friends).

Nonetheless this criticism in the Ruthless Reviews article I posted above is spot on:


7) A long time ago, 'subversive' or (sigh) ‘edgy’ publications were political; defining themselves against THE MAN. I mean EVERYONE from hippies to greasers to punks to you-name-it, any subculture worth its salt was at least paying lip service to individuality. But the whole cult of the hipster has done away with this, in favor of openly embracing popularity, fashion, and elitism for its own sake (rather than being elite because of commitment to certain ideals). Again, cokehead wall-street day-traders with trucker hats and far less money. Unless they have a trust fund. Which half of them do. And nowhere is this trend more clear than (sigh) Vice Magazine.

joanofarctan
08-10-2005, 11:36 AM
This thread now has more words in it than an average Vice issue.

What's all this talk about?

I don't know. Didn't bother reading most of it. But i'll leave a territorial piss-stain here just in case others do.

Vice is still one of the only magazines i'll bother flicking through.

I'm really disappointed with the London issues since they started it up. Not enough topics (grime, grime, grime), not enough quality contributors, not enough London. All the good articles still seem to lie stateside.

Andy, sort it out. If it wasn't for Piers' words, Bennett's piece and Jamie's photos, Vice London would stink so bad even i wouldn't pick it up. I'd just get the US version instead.

I can see why the readership gets hate. I've been down the Old Blue Last a bunch of times and the crowd is a pretty boring hoxditch cross-section. I assume some of them are dumb enough to show up just due to the Vice affiliation. How gay is that?

Andy Capper
01-12-2005, 09:39 AM
for the millionth time, it's not "THE LONDON VICE", it's the European / UK Vice and the content reflects that.

and all this stuff about people from Vice not having shit jobs or being on the dole? Well when you all buy the new edition of the Vice Guide To Sex And Drugs And Rock N Roll (out in all good bookshops in February ish) you will all read the truth.

Also..
"grime grime grime"? where? when? how? only boring hoxditch people think that

Which bennett article? Nathan or William?

Look at the new one...

http://www.viceland.com/index_uk.php

Tell me there's not some humdingers in there..

owen
01-12-2005, 03:35 PM
in the sense of 'ew'.

zhao
01-12-2005, 06:24 PM
as the writer says the enemy and slavery come in all colours but as the 1st comment to the article on that page says, he neglects the simple fact, "slavery was not a black white thing it was a rich poor thing". It's a small point but to me it's a very important one. Is Jim Goad trying to suggest that because slavery isn't racist America isn't?



7) A long time ago, 'subversive' or (sigh) ‘edgy’ publications were political; defining themselves against THE MAN. I mean EVERYONE from hippies to greasers to punks to you-name-it, any subculture worth its salt was at least paying lip service to individuality. But the whole cult of the hipster has done away with this, in favor of openly embracing popularity, fashion, and elitism for its own sake (rather than being elite because of commitment to certain ideals). Again, cokehead wall-street day-traders with trucker hats and far less money. Unless they have a trust fund. Which half of them do. And nowhere is this trend more clear than (sigh) Vice Magazine.

maybe I'm not understanding what you said correctly... but that is PRECISELY the main thrust of Jim Goad's argument: that America's real divide, with all the injustice it entails, is along lines of Class, not Race.

about the second part of what you said... I have to think about this more but it seems to me, even though I did not experience the 60's first hand, that a part of western "counter culture" has always been about priveledged kids play-rebelling against a system which gives them the luxury to rebel. that it's always been about "popularity, fashion, and elitism". Provided I'm referring more to, say, people that hung out at the Roxy in LA in the 60s than the Situationists or the Frankfurters...

petergunn
01-12-2005, 10:54 PM
i like jim goad, i don't like Vice... i just find it kinda silly... being on cocaine will never be a revolutionary stance... it's funny to read back issues of Vice and see them plug all this shit they make fun of now...

zhao
02-12-2005, 08:13 AM
i like jim goad, i don't like Vice... i just find it kinda silly... being on cocaine will never be a revolutionary stance... it's funny to read back issues of Vice and see them plug all this shit they make fun of now...

somewhere along the line hedonism became confused with rebellion, and excess somehow is mistaken for revolution. goes along nicely with "popularity, fashion, and elitism" and what I was saying 2 replies up. who's to blame? lord Byron? the Marquis? Andre Breton?

tryptych
02-12-2005, 10:27 AM
Isn't it not that hedonism became confused with rebellion, but rather consumerism became regarded as a method of rebellion (instigated by culture generating corporations).

So we've been sucessfully sold back the idea that the act of rebelling can be done by purchasing, making consumer choices. Whether that be the music you listen to, the clothes you wear, or the drugs you take.

john eden
02-12-2005, 10:30 AM
So we've been sucessfully sold back the idea that the act of rebelling can be done by purchasing, making consumer choices. Whether that be the music you listen to, the clothes you wear, or the drugs you take.

That's been the case since at least the 60s, though.

In fact that's what's been happening since the creation of "the teenager" after WW2.

edit - it's only a magazine, though - what do people expect? There'll be another one along in a minute...

tryptych
02-12-2005, 10:43 AM
That's been the case since at least the 60s, though.

In fact that's what's been happening since the creation of "the teenager" after WW2.



Of course it's been happening since the 60s - the movement has its roots in ideas of self-development - but in the 80s-90s things seem to have picked up the pace with more and more companies trying to convince us they can sell "cool".

I'm probably not describing this very well, but if you're interested the book "Commodify your Dissent" ed by Thomas Frank and Matt Weiland is full of essays on every aspect of these changes.

john eden
02-12-2005, 10:52 AM
Ok, smart. To be honest I'm less interested in this subcultural rebellion stuff these days, probably because I am getting too old, but also because it seems to me that it can only ever appeal to twentysomethings and is therefore hugely limited.

It's all about OAPs as the vanguard of the revolution round my way. Old ladies giving property developers an ear bashing - awesome stuff!

Andy Capper
02-12-2005, 11:47 AM
"So we've been sucessfully sold back the idea that the act of rebelling can be done by purchasing, making consumer choices. Whether that be the music you listen to, the clothes you wear, or the drugs you take."


Who is "WE"? Sounds like something Penny Rimbaud would say half way through a bottle of wine. He's 65. Spackboy aren't you a bit young to be making tired old generalisations like this?

Nobody falls for this first year political science debate society chit chat any more.

tryptych
02-12-2005, 12:07 PM
Nobody falls for this first year political science debate society chit chat any more.

Doesn't make it necessarily false though, hmm?

simon silverdollar
02-12-2005, 01:06 PM
VICE is like 'Nuts' or 'Zoo' for people who live in Hoxton and wear tight jeans isn't it?

john eden
02-12-2005, 01:27 PM
Nobody falls for this first year political science debate society chit chat any more.

As someone involved with VICE, you must be aware that people will "fall" for any old shit if you stick enough colour photos and corporate advertising around it.

petergunn
02-12-2005, 10:55 PM
"So we've been sucessfully sold back the idea that the act of rebelling can be done by purchasing, making consumer choices. Whether that be the music you listen to, the clothes you wear, or the drugs you take."


Who is "WE"? Sounds like something Penny Rimbaud would say half way through a bottle of wine. He's 65. Spackboy aren't you a bit young to be making tired old generalisations like this?

Nobody falls for this first year political science debate society chit chat any more.


dude, don't apologize for being part of a yuppie/entitled prick magazine... c'mon... just admit it, you guys take underground shit, recycle it and give it a spin your advertisers like and then walk away with a pocketful of cash. everyone knows this. some people like it, some people don't. when someone calls you on this, you should say "so what" and publish your next photo of people in East New York smoking crack or transexuals having fist fights, not argue with them. the bottom line is when compared to real underground shit, Vice doesn't have a leg to stand on, but when compared to Spin, Black Book, Dazed and Confused, etc etc, it comes out smelling like roses. the problem arises that those magazines don't pretend to have any importance whatsoever, where occasionally it seems like Vice has delusions of grandeur.

i have to say, when i first picked up a copy of Vice, it reminded me of a paler version of Popsmear. Any USA people remember this magazine? same mix of fashion, drug culture, street culture, music, with the same "i'm a happening hip young dude, partying in the city" editorial vibe, but done a little smarter with more writing and less fashion, but fuck it, the fashion brings in the money...

simon silverdollar
03-12-2005, 12:45 AM
As someone involved with VICE, you must be aware that people will "fall" for any old shit if you stick enough colour photos and corporate advertising around it.

and that's VICE merkled....

!!

mms
03-12-2005, 08:08 AM
i like some of it and its anti boring people so thats good and it not wining.
its free so you can pick it up or put it down or do what you want with it.
the record reviews are good and dos or don'ts is funny as there is no excuse for dressing badly.
they have a label that releases music i like.
piers martin has his own page in the uk one and hes spot on .

there are lots of other things i don't like about it but you get that with anything if you have critical faculties.

ultimatley like most magazines its main purpose is to hype new goods month on month .

AshRa
15-12-2005, 08:28 AM
The reviews of Coldcut / Hollertronix were so scathing and spot-on I was crying with laughter when I read them yesterday... "So out of date it's actually frightening" :D

Diggedy Derek
15-12-2005, 09:04 AM
That's pretty damn funny actually.

AshRa
13-02-2006, 08:01 PM
I'm beginning to change my opinion of Vice with the last two issues, they seem to be really going out on a limb. Current issue is almost entirely fictitious and quite a frightening read (you have to constantly remind yourself that the stories are fiction) somewhere beyond self-parody. I found myself questioning whether some of the music reviews and adverts were concocted by the writers too... Just flip to the back 2 pages to see what I mean. :)

Buick6
13-02-2006, 09:57 PM
I can read Vice on the toilet quick enough to not get pins and needles. Which means it's a shit read.

stelfox
14-02-2006, 11:06 AM
Hey this thread is great for publicity.

This one goes out to all those crying about the Nick Kilroy article...

Were you friends with Nick?

Nick was a friend and actually volunteered to write that piece for Vice. When he died we asked the people closest to him for permission to run the picture and the article. They consensus was: "yes, that's what Nick would have wanted."

So, in what way did you find it "sickening"? You think we shouldn't have mentioned he'd just died?
Pretended he was still alive and OK? Ignored the fact that a contributor and a friend had died of an OD?
You don't think that article will make people think twice about going down the same road as Nick?

Let me know your thoughts cwybabies.

well, if this doesn't prove my point that vice is a ton of adolescent horseshit, i don't know what does. i like simon's comparison with andrew dice clay, because i'm sure vice would rather see itself as bill hicks, but it's not. brilliant stuff about bow, andy. fucking genius. i live very near bow and have done for 10 years. i've been walking through that area at all hours of night and day for what amounts to one-third of my life... never once had a problem. the fact that you guys can pitch up for a couple of days and nearly get murdered, does that not tell you something?

ambrose
14-02-2006, 04:19 PM
maybe what scares people about vice is actually the fact, that like metro, free distributed publications are the way to go for the entire print media industry, and thus herald the end of that industry in its current format.

Logan Sama
14-02-2006, 04:27 PM
What scares me about Vice is the utter nonsense written in it about people of a socio-economic under class which borders on minstrelesque.

I don't really mind if people with more money than sense want to smoke crack in their soho apartments.

HMGovt
14-02-2006, 04:31 PM
What really scares you all about vice is that they've taken bits and pieces of 'your' culture and have had some success turning them into a glossy, money making enterprise.

It's just a magazine, deal with it!

maximizer
14-02-2006, 07:17 PM
Vice magazine is one of the best magazines in the world, they are the pioneers in free urban culture related magazines.
Im from the UK however live in Montreal, and putting out my first issue of
Rage mag in March, Vice really had a big impact on me.

john eden
14-02-2006, 07:23 PM
Vice magazine is one of the best magazines in the world, they are the pioneers in free urban culture related magazines.
Im from the UK however live in Montreal, and putting out my first issue of
Rage mag in March, Vice really had a big impact on me.

Are Vice to blame for your near-autistic level of monomania on Dissensus, max?

bassnation
14-02-2006, 08:18 PM
What really scares you all about vice is that they've taken bits and pieces of 'your' culture and have had some success turning them into a glossy, money making enterprise.

i prefer sugar ape personally - incisive articles on the stray scene and upcoming artists like 15peter20, surely vice magazine is nothing but a poor parody in comparision.

jenks
14-02-2006, 09:59 PM
ahh maximiser the character that came up up with the threat of spamming dissensus into the stone age

vice mag continues to be a publication that confuses political insight with lazy journo positioning.

being aware of the words and labels you use does not make you slavishly opposed to what is uncool, but the misnomer pc does worry me - when people use the epiphet pc it gives them an out. if we think in terms of politicallyaware then i think we have a currency we can trade in, if we are consciously aware of the connotations of an ascribed label maybe we can find ways of describing that is less inflammatory

jenks
14-02-2006, 10:01 PM
Are Vice to blame for your near-autistic level of monomania on Dissensus, max?

monomaniac, moi :confused:

Yoghurt Sothoth
14-02-2006, 10:01 PM
if we think in terms of politicallyaware then i think we have a currency we can trade in, if we are consciously aware of the connotations of an ascribed label maybe we can find ways of describing that is less inflammatory

BUT THAT'S JUST POLITICAL AWARENESS GONE MAD!

john eden
14-02-2006, 10:16 PM
ahh maximiser the character that came up up with the threat of spamming dissensus into the stone age

actually, to be fair to him, that was me maliciously editing his spammy post. :o

zhao
15-02-2006, 05:09 AM
I may not be up to the minute on indie publications but to my knowledge Vice regularly does the most creative journalism for a youth culture magazine. ever.

first person experience of sexual politics in the economic boom of shang-hai; glue sniffing kids in africa; pro-skaters looking for the perfect ramp in Israeli war zones; a day in the life of an undertaker; etc, etc, etc, etc.

IdleRich
15-02-2006, 08:56 AM
Vice Magazine is ok but you have to take it with a pinch of salt, that's all. Part of the thing with Vice is whether or not you get it and whether or not there is anything to get and that allows them to have this stance of saying what they like and then saying they were joking. This is pretty weak but in a free magazine I don't really care.
Someone upthread (I can't remember who) said that their kind of humour is very easy to do but you only have to see the people who try to do it and fall flat on their face on their letters page and on their online forum to realise that it isn't as easy as all that. I do find the forums they do very revealing of the kind of people who take it too seriously, they are filled with illiterate (better spell that right) fools trying to be as offensive as possible

http://www.viceland.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?;act=ST;f=2;t=257

This annoys me but you can't review a magazine (or band or anything) by it's audience can you?
Also, like everyone said, Piers Martin is good and they do articles on interesting stuff that no-one else does.

bassnation
15-02-2006, 12:04 PM
This annoys me but you can't review a magazine (or band or anything) by it's audience can you?

i've just been checking the website and on cursory examination (the do's and don'ts, plus reader comments) seems to be rather a lot of people calling each other limp dick faggots, mongoloids and urging each other to fuck their mothers cunts.

don't get me wrong, got no problem with people being cutting and offensive if its witty and funny - but i can get this kind of asisine tripe on a zillion net forums.

is this what passes for adult humour in hoxton these days?

maybe i'm getting too old to appreciate the brilliance of yoof media.

IdleRich
15-02-2006, 12:24 PM
"i've just been checking the website and on cursory examination (the do's and don'ts, plus reader comments) seems to be rather a lot of people calling each other limp dick faggots, mongoloids and urging each other to fuck their mothers cunts."

I just think that the magazine does it with (slightly) more humour and style than the readers and forum posters who seem to have completely removed the funny bit which just leaves you some potty mouthed idiots trying to outdo each other (as you said).

bassnation
15-02-2006, 12:44 PM
I just think that the magazine does it with (slightly) more humour and style than the readers and forum posters who seem to have completely removed the funny bit which just leaves you some potty mouthed idiots trying to outdo each other (as you said).

yeah, maybe i should actually read the magazine proper before passing judgement (lol)

zhao
15-02-2006, 04:57 PM
yeah, maybe i should actually read the magazine proper before passing judgement (lol)

yes that is usually a good idea Bassnation.

ofcourse you can't judge anything by its audience, but Vice particularly has been so successful and is able to keep doing the interesting articles because they are popular and have mass appeal. and "mass" always means a high percentage of morons.

the reader's reponses come mostly from said teenage morons, but on the forum you do see a lot of political discussion, on this page for instance:

http://www.viceland.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?;act=SF;f=3;st=60

and to get today's kids to talk about world affairs on their own is no small feat!