mainstreaming of VICE // VICE mainstream

[baboon2004]

on the one hand, I agree with you. VICE is like an insult comic who uses tons of racial/gay/etc slurs in an act but is firmly anti-racist/sexist/etc, and is at least in some way using those words to depower them Lenny Bruce style, tho I don't know that distinction is always clear to readers, or even writers. whereas most mainstream things are exactly the opposite where that structural shit is all firmly in place but at the same time there's a fake P.C. code firmly in place, i.e. where oppression is reduced to making a public apology to NAACP or GLAAD.

This is really interesting. Not specific about VICE, but I think the vast majority of those insult comics are arseholes, who just use a thin veneer of 'irony' to disguise the fact they just want to be free to use those slurs, but simultaneously pretend that they are somehow 'subverting' them. Can't count (well I can, but I mean that there have been a lot of occasions) the occasions where I've noticed this recently, to the point where I've virtually given up on comedy.

No doubt there are some clever people who are genuinely attempting subversion, but there are an awful lot of bigots hanging on to their coat-tails and pretending to be 'edgy'.

 

[baboon2004]

and you know what is wrong with the gang signs piece? absolutely nothing.

if you people think that and the "cum guzzlers" article are "racist" and "misogynist" then i'm sorry, you don't know much about racism and misogyny.

you have to expand upon this with an argument as to why you think this, c'mon. I agree with you that a lot of mainstream TV might be even more dubious, but that is no argument in itself.

I'm also unclear as to why, as a man, you've positioned yourself as a spokesperson on misogyny... I didn't think the 'cum guzzling' article in question was that bad either to be honest, but telling other people what they do or don't know is a bad look, especially on a forum which lots of (ok some...ok, a few!) people read.

 

[baboon2004]

In terms of coverage of race and music, I thought this DJ Rupture quote was interesting:

"Many music critics still believe in magical black people: 'Oh, they're making crazy, avant-garde music in Chicago, and it's called juke'," he says. "But at the same time, the privilege of being a black man with a middle-class background at the start of the 21st century is that I can do whatever I want: it doesn't have to feel representative. I was nerdier than people wanted DJ /rupture to be." They wanted a thug? "Yeah, which is the holy grail: 'It's avant-garde but it's scary at the same time!'"

 

[zhao]

come on. Accusing VICE, of all magazines and TV shows out there, of sexism and misogyny is worse than something the Internet Wimmin Mobs would do.

Anyone who actually thinks VICE is sexist or racist is entirely out of touch with reality, does not understand the function of sarcasm or irony, and has zero sense of humor. that's all i have to say.

 

[baboon2004]

That's your view, fine. But to pretend that VICE is so far from being dubious, and that anyone who think so is 'out of touch with reality', is disingenuous. You clearly must be able to see why some people would have problems with some of the articles cited - by all means present an argument against them/in defence of VICE, but don't use 'out of touch with reality' putdowns without explanation. There's an argument to be had here.

And the 'no sense of humour', 'they were being ironic' argument is one that doesn't wash, because, and I think you'll prob agree on this, it is the exact same one that is routinely used in the service of so much bigotry.

 

[e/y]

zhao are you joking linking to that bullshit NS piece (which was written b/c their editor and other prominent white feminists dismissed the importance of intersectionality in feminism)? and imho the people who you dismiss as the "Internet Wimmin Mob" have a much clearer understanding of and right to define what is or isn't sexist or misogynistic than two men like you or I.

 

[IdleRich]

"if you people think that and the "cum guzzlers" article are "racist" and "misogynist" then i'm sorry, you don't know much about racism and misogyny."

I'm not sure if Nommos was saying that the cum-guzzling article was sexist, just that it was horrible frat-boy shit.

 

[zhao]

pretty sure he was giving it as an example of misogyny

 

[crackerjack]

zhao are you joking linking to that bullshit NS piece (which was written b/c their editor and other prominent white feminists dismissed the importance of intersectionality in feminism)? and imho the people who you dismiss as the "Internet Wimmin Mob" have a much clearer understanding of and right to define what is or isn't sexist or misogynistic than two men like you or I.

So if gender trumps all in this, how come you're dismissing the NS piece, which is also written by a feminist woman?

 

[nomos]

pretty sure he was giving it as an example of misogyny

No.

just that it was horrible frat-boy shit.

Yes.

 

[Sectionfive]

online wimmin mob is twitter intersectionality-core now, keep up

 

[e/y]

So if gender trumps all in this...

that's not really what I said, is it?

 

[crackerjack]

that's not really what I said, is it?

You dismissed one feminist writer's piece as "bullshit" while in the same sentence suggesting Zhao has no business criticising other feminists because he, like you, is a man. Do explain how that works.

 

[Sectionfive]

Think the consensus on the NS was bullshit in fairness. In a long line of bullshit pieces on the matter. And the assumption readers are already aware of the who while not naming name might as well be an essay-length subtweet. Not least as the article is about cliqueishness, perceived or otherwise. There are no membership cards in the feminist club as far as I am aware. Like if a man has a point of disagreement it's just a disagreement but a feminist is somehow excluding her.

A few years ago people were writing these pieces asking where all the young feminists were. Now they are talking back on social media and the same people are shouting stop silencing me, when all most people are asking is to take other considerations into account. Part of it even feels like what Slothrop was saying about vinyl DJs and cultural capital manouevres, only with the double of columnists having to get used to two way traffic and much of highlighting they may not be always as right as they thought. Especially if they considered themselves very much on the right side up until now.

 

[crackerjack]

A few years ago people were writing these pieces asking where all the young feminists were. Now they are talking back on social media and the same people are shouting stop silencing me, when all most people are asking is to take other considerations into account.

From what I've seen these "other considerations" mean habitually qualifying every sentence you write with so many sub-clauses and let's-not-forgets while crosschecking with this month's dictionary of the acceptable terms (exhibit A: the blogger who called Caitlin Moran "transphobic" for saying that if you put your hands in your pants and can feel a vagina you're a woman) as to reduce professional journalism to the same standard of unreadable bollocks as most of the academia that inspires these people. Plus, tbh, many of them seem a bit fucking mad.

 

[Sectionfive]

That's a bit of caricature though. I dunno, there is really nothing impenetrably academic about it. When people blindly defend columnists or deride concepts they seem to forget every other day spent explaining why things are sexist and the reaction they themselves get.

 

[crackerjack]

That's a bit of caricature though. I dunno, there is really nothing impenetrably academic about it. When people blindly defend columnists or deride concepts they seem to forget every other day spent explaining why things are sexist and the reaction they themselves get.

Strikes me there's a lot more blindness (and none of that ablist talk here, please ) on the part of those attacking them. For instance, the spat over Suzanne Moore began because she used the term transexual rather than transgender and was called out for transphobia. I'll admit she didn't cover herself in glory with some of her responses, but if I had to put up with that level of self-righteous self-indulgent sniping I'd have given a lot worse.

 

[Sectionfive]

Was more to it then that with Moore but I agree all sides could approach each other better.
What's happened though is people are conflating the behaviour of critics with validity of the concept. A mistake imo.

 

[crackerjack]

What's happened though is people are conflating the behaviour of critics with validity of the concept. A mistake imo.

Understandable, though. The absolute last thing the left in general needs is yet more reasons to play language police, IMO.

 

[Sectionfive]

a lot of bruised egos etc