I hate this generation

But that's everybody on ILX! Both extremes! Therefore we are the alpha and omega.

World: UH OH!

NY Times: It features expletive-laden articles with the tone of your most cynical friend, like this rant against wine: "O.K., you've had your taste — is it spoiled? No? Then nod at the waiter and let's get this date over with." (Add a few four-letter words to get the full effect).

RANTS AGAINST WINE! FOUR-LETTER WORDS! IN OLDEN DAYS A HINT OF STOCKING WAS LOOKED ON AS SOMETHING SHOCKING, NOW HEAVEN KNOWS...

With photography by Terry Richardson and Ryan McGinley that sometimes falls just short of pornography, Vice's articles can be raunchy in the extreme.

SEX ENTERS THE MAGAZINE INDUSTRY! OH NO! PANDORA'S BOX OPENED!

The magazine's contributors seem unconcerned about AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases, with one article arguing that safe-sex messages are ignorable propaganda for people who are not partners of gay men or injectable-drug users.

UNCONCERNED ENOUGH ABOUT AIDS TO WRITE ARTICLES ABOUT AIDS!

Mr. McInnes said he was a women's studies major in college. But his magazine would offend many women. An article offering a "Guide to Guilty Pleasures" calls Gwen Stefani lovable for "that pouty face that you kinda want to kiss and slap at the same time."

THE POSTFEMINIST BOUNDER! THINKS HE CAN KISS HIS CAKE AND SLAP IT?

" `No means no' is puritanism," Mr. McInnes said, expanding on his view of romance. "I think Steinem-era feminism did women a lot of injustices, but one of the worst ones was convincing all these indie norts that women don't want to be dominated."

UNDER HIS THUMB! AS SHOCKING AS 'SIR MICK', HERO OF ROLLING STONE MAGAZINE!

Many Vice readers defend the magazine's brand of political incorrectness, including some women. "If you think Vice is misogynistic, then you are a self-centered white woman," said Sarah Silverman, a comedian (and Jimmy Kimmel's girlfriend). "Because Vice is so much more. It harshly makes fun of men, women, all races, nerds, hipsters, the elderly, the short, the tall, the fashionable, the hopeless. It's without boundaries, which is what makes the playing field even."

IS NOTHING SACRED?

Few of Vice's fans or customers seem to realize just how deeply hostile Mr. McInnes is to the liberal live-and-let-live ethos of traditional bohemian culture. It is a fair bet that a majority of the downtown population opposed the Iraq war and dislikes the policies of George W. Bush. But in an interview Mr. McInnes advocated changing New York license plates to read "Liberalism Gone Amok." Last month, he wrote an article for Patrick Buchanan in The American Conservative boasting of having converted Vice readers to conservatism.

12% OF THEM, IN FACT! JUST ANOTHER 40% OR SO AND THEY'LL SWING TO THE RIGHT OF THE NY TIMES!

He actually leans much further to the right than the Republican Party. His views are closer to a white supremacist's. "I love being white and I think it's something to be very proud of," he said. "I don't want our culture diluted. We need to close the borders now and let everyone assimilate to a Western, white, English-speaking way of life."

HE LEFT OUT 'MALE' AND 'PROTESTANT'!

Vice apologized for Mr. McInnes's comments.

DON'T THEY ALL THINK THE SAME WAY? CAN'T THEY STIFLE PEOPLE WHO DON'T?

the author posted a sendup of all things Williamsburg: "I don't have any of those little T-shirts that say things about Little League football teams from little nowhere American towns. . . . I don't hang giant pictures of paint-by-number art on the fresh Sheetrock walls of the Williamsburg loft (that I don't have) that my parents (don't) rent for me. I don't go to art school. . . . I don't think Andy Warhol was brilliant, I don't think the Velvet Underground were `totally underrated.' . . . I don't carry a digital camera everywhere I go shooting pictures of my other dumb hipster friends and putting them up on my dumb hipster photolog site."

SO THE RICHLY-DESERVED BACKLASH BEGINS! AND HOW PROMISINGLY! WITH A LIST OF THINGS HIPSTERS DO AND 'I DON'T'!

gavin mcinnes - "I will use this publication to espouse and promote conservative values"

guess which side momus is on? (the 'provocative' side)('provocative'= returns my calls)

Oh. Hmm.

I had been wondering why I was wearing a bra today.

"Oh, we got both kinds. We got Country *and* Western."

http://www.butera.org/gwyneth/images/misc-96-10.jpg

now it is.

NOW it's pointy.

http://www.mute.com/mute/can/images/egebamyasi.jpg

I said it once and I'll say it again, can the world please stop being so '80s?

Vice wayyyy predates the Fader. While they are quite similar in that they function as catalogs of taste, Vice - which is text heavier - strikes a much more self-conscious pose and is more engaged in self-mythologizing. It's decadent posturing and cultural elitism (which is a house style extending from their sartorial "Do's & Don'ts" through their imagined post-PC immunity) are focused on building up the larger "vision" of "Vice Corp" - its record label, film deals, clothing line, urban boutiques and, of course, it's hype. Vice gets coverage from both hip (Dazed and Confused, the Voice) and mainstream media (NYTimes) on account of its bombastic brand-building tactics. The Fader, on the otherhand, receives more academic attention (PBS, Clamor magazine, rumors of MBA case studies) on account of their business model. While it has been argued time and again that magazines are nothing but instruments of capital, supported as they are by ads and with editoral content frequently beholden to sponsors' interests, the axis of media and commerce gets collapsed by the Fader, which is itself little more than the public organ of Cornerstone Media...a digital PR firm many of whose clients are, not suprisingly, often the subject of much acclaim in the Fader's pages. While Vice does a great deal to support it's "friends," the Fader's friends are predominantly the paying kind.

Both magazines are annoying (despite which fact I will read them still), but they achieve my ire (at least) for different reasons.

So Milo, in response to your question - Vice and the Fader, similar, but different.

I read the Fader for the one or two articles every issue that interest me - like the photographers-photographing-photographers thing last time.

(Could someone inform the NYC fashion people interviewed by the Fader that answering two interview questions the same is still lame-as-fuck. "What's the nicest thing anyone ever said about your work?" "It sucks." "What's the worst thing...")

Vice - "talk this way/party this way/pose this way - oh yeah, and buy this stuff (if you can find it, loser) to be cool"

Funny thing about Pabst. Apparently for a long time they were simply failing - sales dropping, etc etc. Then in the mid-90s they saw this huge surge in sales, having not changed any marketing schemes (or lack thereof). As it turns out, that parenthetical was the crux of going back into the black. Because PBR had a reputation as a white-trash "underdog" beer, backed by 0 ad-money and already enshrined by David Lynch (recall Hopper's Frank Booth "Fuck that shit - PABST BLUE RIBBON!" it was being suddenly being swilled by the "edgy" urban vanguard. So what did PBR do to keep this going on? As far as I've heard, instead of running ads, which would've damaged their street cred, they started sponsoring events - many of which themselves fall under the "redneck sports" banner (rodeo, NASCAR) - so that, instead of diluting their underdog cachet with traditional marketing, they reinforced it by attaching their name directly to prexisting emblems of redneck culture.

Personally, I love Pabst. It's always cheapest at the bar, goes down smooth, and so far as I'm concerned beats the shit not only out of other "cheap" beers (Milwaukee's Best, Natural Light/Ice, Schlitz) but out of the mass market beers (Bud, Coors, etc) as well. So, while you can thrill at drinking a blue-collar beer, you can just as well cast aside all such posturing and be honest in the fact that you are, quite simply, getting sloshed on cheap, decent tasting suds.

Nota Bene: If you're lucky enough to find Pabst on tap, it is recommended that you order an entire pitcher for yourself, drink from it as if from a stein, and get it all down before it gets too warm. Just be sure to give your trucker hat a jaunty pull to the side, you twat.

I think it began a while ago, when the gentrification of Williamsburg became complete and its residents could begin decrying that which they had created.

The problem with hipsterism is that much of it is underlaid by a vapid, petty form of elitism not too far removed from many peoples worst stereotypes of the fashion industry. What makes it more insidious it that it places so much focus on both irony AND authenticity, without resolving the fact that how they employ the former removes any possibility in the latter.

I recently moved from Brooklyn to Seattle. While some would say that I have hipster friends, or may even accuse me of the title, I have some serious issues with the cult of hipsterism that I find so evident in the twenty-something population of Seattle, which aches to be like the fake fucks that make Bedford Ave so insufferable. I'll admit it. I love my designer t-shirts, my minimal German techno, my postcollegiate newspeak. At this point, such tastes ARE to a degree actually CONFORMIST within my demo(psycho)graphic. And it is this conformism that is so frustrating, to me far more on a level of fashion and posture than on what one listens to or reads. Seeing three guys walking down Bedford Ave, each clad in tight jeans and jean jackets, their greasy do's coming out over their ears from beneath their trucker hats - seeing this makes me want to scream "GET A NEW UNIFORM!" If these people are supposed to be on the creative, cultural edge, why the fuck do they all look like drones? Even when the current DIY/retro-fashion thing is employed for the most "individual" look, you see the same sort of sensibilities (ironic 80s/post-punk/electro/redneck/blue collar) consistently deployed. What the fuck? IT'S LIKE HIGH-SCHOOL ALL OVER AGAIN!

On a more personal note, as someone with a rural upbringing the whole "redneck chic" schtick is extremely unnerving. I can't tell someone how to dress (though I will chafe at unoriginality), but it unfortunate that urban trendsetterslaves have "appropriated" what they consider a "style" (which it is definitively *not* - it's just how some people "dress for work") that is at a further remove than even hip-hop once was. How the fuck many people in Williamsburg have mowed their "lawn" with a bush hog? Irony is a fine, and proven, fashion tactic, but it often reveals what someone "is not" more than what someone "is." Ok, Bruce LaBruce, your NRA jacket is ironic? So you kind of don't support their politics? Fine. What the fuck do you believe? What is your style if nothing but a procession of negative definitions? In sum, my greatest complaint of hipsters is that what many call "style" is indeed more posturing. Let's get a square up to W'burg so that an objective third party can call out the posers, which are often the "real thing" as well. Like Coke.

Find Ana-Marie Cox's rant on Urban Outfitters for a better articulation of this, and it was published way back in 1995!

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1400032016/qid=1064804797/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-9733154-3503962?v=glance&s=books

in fact i should start a thread about it; it's basically the ILX handbook to a T =)

it explains why hipsters are always so concerned with terms like "gentrification" [hi major grubert!] and there is a picture of Ned in there, i swear

And speaking of Williamsburg (i don't even know where that is!), from a review -

From Publishers Weekly: The Hipster Handbook

Just as The Official Preppy Handbook exposed wearers of Lacoste polos and drinkers of Bloody Marys, Lanham’s new book delves into the lives of those who deem themselves too cool for school. Hipsters, he says, are the ones you see around town smoking European cigarettes, wearing platform shoes and reading biographies of Che Guevara. Lanham, editor of the site FreeWilliamsburg.com (Williamsburg being a favorite New York City hipster enclave), does his best to dissect the personality types, the hangouts, the colleges and even the facial hair of the modern-day Hipster.

Williamsburg is the Brooklyn neighborhood more-or-less at the center of this...question.

Aha, so maybe this indiefag vs. machismo question is the reason things like King of Leon rub so many the wrong way? Aside from the fact that they suck to the nth degree, of course

Lanham's Joke, June 30, 2003
Reviewer: Josh Ellis from Washington, DC Only recently, through a series of 'revealing' literary works, has the greater American public been made aware of the well-dressed, foppish, socially progressive, and supremely emasculated urban crowd known as metrosexuals. The existance of men who would rather spend a day at the beauty parlor than the ball field has come as a shock to every beer-guzzling frat boy who could not, for all the gold in fort knox, envision a world in which fashion savvy and unparalleled narcissism are more useful masculine traits than a strong physique and the ability to consume mass quantites of alcohol.

Treading similar ground, Robert Lanham's Hipster Handbook attempts to sate the masses by allowing a fleeting glimpse into an ever changing subculture indigenous to the metropolises of America. Lanham's opus manages to act simultaneously as both a (relatively) accurate satire of progressive urban life, as well as a guide by which one could, conceivably, become a hipster him(or her) self.

It is because of the janus-faced nature of the Handbook that nobody in America could actually take it seriously. On the one hand, Lanham would have us buy into his view that what he sees reflects the true nature of the hipster, while at the same time, he relentlessly parodies such a lifestyle, making it clear to the reader that very few Americans indeed could ever come close to living it. Proof: Lanham makes perfectly lucid the notion that, while a 9-5 job is considered utterly 'fin,' hipsters should possess the wealth necessary for the fast-paced, fashionable, trendy world of hipsterdom. The occasional waitressing shift at your local hipster bar will not pay for your Wicker Park loft, nor will it buy your Manhattan Portage messenger bag, your collection of Kraftwerks and Built To Spill CDs, or your Structure jeans.

Imagine Lynyrd Skynyrd. Now imagine a band solely influenced by their beards but forgot to actually listen to the music.

Alright guys, I'm off to pick up a six pack of PBR and a Swanson Hungry Man TV dinner. Then I'm going to watch reruns of Archie Bunker and try to think of ways to get more Stars'n'Stripes flying in this degenerate pinko neighborhood of mine.

A little too ironic...and yeah I really do think...

again, i'm not getting what's so "novel" about all this.

And I wonder if the upcoming homelessness issue will change people's minds about Vice being a 'Republican plot' or somehow 'slumming'. I know I could have written the same 300 words on the subject for a UNESCO or WFO house mag and had it dismissed as faded socialist do-goodery. But because it's in Vice, it'll be seen as the latest, most toxic form of evil youth manipulation, won't it?

No, they wear rope belts with vinyl hotpants

http://www.addvicemarketing.com/perfect.php

More disgusting or less disgusting than the whole ironic nü-Klan schtick?

(link from http://www.theanticmuse.com/~anamarie/archives/000374.html)

that and the writing is sharp, funny, clever and fucks with the media more then almost anything (go to gawker and read the email to choire describing the implications of the far right peice)

as for ryan mcginley, he isnt nan goldin, cause he seems to have some fucking fun or f un fucking, he has an inherent joy that goldin lacks. it isnt a chore to look thru.

that and goldin is so fucking staged and pretntious and "liteary"--i cant imagine mcginley titiling(sp) something the ballad of sexual dependecy.

It would explain the general bitchiness about fashion, though.

Momus -even though I disagree with everything you've said I still find it admirable you are prepared to go to such lengths to stick up for a publication you write for.

THE PRODUCT IS YOU, BABY, YOU!!!

Well, is that really 100% of the content of my little piece? Self-promotion? Are the Osaka homeless my ego dildo, a backgdrop in my Spike Jonze promo? I think that's a pretty cynical suggestion. And if -- despite my photos of, and words about, a social problem -- you're seeing more David Blaine than George Orwell, what does that say about 'this generation'?

My fave media moment of last year was watching Gavin Vice being called a cunt by Larry Clark after the former gladhanded him in a posh hotel.

my favourite media moments of last year and this = receiving cheques, nothing more, nothing less

I was being ironic, Momus.

What I don't get is this "Vice is so bloody relevant and edgy" attitude. It just seems so over. Maybe it's because, as a Montrealer, I got to see the rise of the media conglomerate that is Vice and know folks who wrote and then didn't for McGinnes et al., but the whole magazine is really really 1999. It's not shocking, it's boring. It's really a testament to the difference between Canada and the US that there are a whole bunch of folks falling over themselves in NYC for what most folks up here think is just beating a very very dead horse. Vice as a cultural arbiter? Please. Vice as a revolutionary publication with "sharp, funny, clever" writing? Please.

The evening after my most recent Vice experience, I spoke to a good pal who used to write for the publication in question. I took it out of my bag and asked if he'd seen the issue. Nope. We tried to find an article worth being interested in or getting worked up over. Nothing. We then tried to think of the last time we'd heard anyone mention Vice. No one in recent memory.

This "Williamsburg" I keep hearing about must be full of people with nothing more interesting to read. I guess after enough PBR anything seems funny and/or shocking.

http://www.videomag.cz/clanky07/img/zoolander.jpg

Ally, I've just seen Momus' future and that's a scary sight (as the term "granddad" doesn't suit him, a'tall).

long hair on boys: classic or dud (55 new answers, 110 total)
Can you teach me about NFL? (8 new answers)
People who smell their food before they eat it. Classic or Dud? (4 new answers)
is preferring to eat pizza with a knife and fork wrong? (175 new answers)
This is the thread where we talk about the 2003 MLB Playoffs (69 new answers)
Yet Another 'What Are You Listening To Today' Thread (85 new answers, 507 total)
Norway finally allowed the pleasures of New Jack City! (Unanswered)
Tell me of Wagamama, oh London peoples (80 new answers)

By the way, 'wagamama' is the Japanese for 'selfish'.

Tom: I was not saying 'I am George Orwell, and 300 words in Vice is as good as 'Down and Out in Paris and London'. I was saying that to write about social issues is rather different than to suspend yourself in a glass box as a publicity stunt.

To the Anglophone world of which Vice is a part (and no I don't like it because what Anna said), which has its own stereotype of the 'homeless' to go on, Japanese homeless, with their tidiness, organisation and pride in the few things they have, are just *different* and maybe as such, worthy of three hundred fucking words (at the very least).

It's very easy to be an armchair critic of what writers do if all you do is sit in your armchair, bitching. I mean Blount, no offense, but do you *ever* go out? If you get out more you either see the point of writing about whatever oddments compel you or you're too tired or busy to complain.

self-promotion = "you're seeing more David Blaine than George Orwell"

arrogance = "Homeless Man 2: (Only two teeth, cat.)"

etc

http://www.canalcine.net/imagenes/zoolander-1.JPG

...because that is clearly suzy, gareth and Momus :( :( :(

(I'm sorry but I think this conversation is silly and it gets tiring for Momus to be the strawman on ILX because I've seen not-poor people say plenty of similarly fetishizing or condescending comments about the working man or the poor or the homeless and no one calls them out as badly as people call out Momus! ILX in being a bit unfair shocker I guess, just don't read Vice people)

and yeah, cybele otm up there (except i don't believe williamsburg even exists)

I knew that, Sir Currie. No worries....

I don't encounter the magazine very often but it is much more harmless than the critics of it here go on about. It's a lifestyle magazine from Montreal, what do you expect?!?!?!

Even if there are some that disagree with you, you shouldn't let that stop you from expressing yourself, surely? Despite the occasional silly overtones on many of these threads (I admit, I'm guilty of adding to it), it's important to talk about societal issues, as well. This board isn't called, "I Love Everything....Except Sociology".

Vice as a magazine is pretty much bleh, no matter what the founders' politics may be. Most people I know check out the Do's and Don'ts (which are usually the only funny thing in the mag), then chuck it.

they're a lot of fun, too, so i think that both points helped in getting them coverage.

If the socialist message is that there are homeless people in the most affluent cities of the world, then thanks, I know about that already. If, in order to convey that message, it is necessary for you to interrupt a homeless person with an interview request as he's trying to go to the bathroom, then, no, I do not think the world needs more of those socialist messages inserted into the current media landscape.

Then the idea that he shouldn't write anything for Vice because it's controversial or not fully in line with his/your outlook is a little limited. A wee bit. A tad. A smidge. Eeeeennnnsie-weeeeeeeensie.

No one is saying Momus shouldn't write for Vice, I think some people didn't agree with what he wrote.

I mean why stop with vice then momus? why not write for the national review or the weekly standard?
-- cinniblount (littlejohnnyjewe...), October 1st, 2003

I'm afraid that all hats cannot be fully sanctioned. May I refer you to:

http://www.thescreamonline.com/strange/strange2-2/hatsofmeat.html

[...]

Oh SHIT.

What is this DECK??? Does anyone actually say this? Please use in a sentence. Thank you.

asstacular!

STATION!
http://www.arturogil.com/images/bt2.jpg

Not that I really care. Vice has absolutely zero cultural relevance over here as far as I can see. And if it did, I seriously doubt it would be read by young conservatives (with or without the capitals).

Is there a Japanese equivalent of the Big Issue, incidentally?

(The above Zoolander pic marks the highpoint of all Ally posting ever. It can never get any better. Delete Ally please).

http://www.skytv.co.nz/resources/highlights/zool_04.jpg

Williamsburg / art school / Vice magazine are not places you go to be authentic or to celebrate the fixed, earned, hallowed essences of things. They're places you go to play and to be magnificently fake. To renegotiate meanings. To create new ones. To wear a hat you have no inherent right to wear, to claim to be something you weren't born to be. Places, in short, to be 'irresponsible'. To be a child.

One of the games I might play in Williamsburg / art school / Vice magazine is to pretend to be a conservative. But this is part of my wider behaviour pattern of 'messing with meanings' and therefore not, despite all appearances, in any way compatible with a real conservative mindset.

But I guess what I'm describing here is the scale 'Libertarian', which crosses the Right - Left divide. There are right wing libertarians as well as left wing libertarians. The people annoyed with McInnes' posturing (and I admit I was one of them) are people who either dislike libertarian values altogether, or find certain forms of libertarianism incompatible with their left wing values (my case with McInnes' specific statements). I think what swings into action to resolve disputes between 'political responsibility' and 'freedom to play' is one's general attitude to 'the right to be wrong'. Which is, appropriately, exactly what my next Vice article is about. (Even if the buggers did cut it down from 2600 words to 400! Lemme play!)

On this thread Mr Blount clearly has a very different attitude to 'the right to be wrong' than I have, as regards the recent conduct of Mr McInnes. And I would say this colours Mr Blount either more conservative than I am, or less libertarian. But whichever, clearly less inclined to live in a Williamsburg-like place and to write for a Vice-like magazine. Less inclined, in other words, to play, and to question values by playing with them.

xpost-someone send Momus a Darkness CD stat!

See the para where I shift (visibly!) to saying 'but I guess what I'm talking about here is libertarianism'. See also the comment about pop and rock and how complicated it all gets when authenticity is just another costume.

Context overrides identity AND YET 'personality is destiny'.

suzy, speaking for for myself and not on behalf of anyone else (unless anyone chooses to particularly agree with me), i'd say that people are "into calling themselves writers" as you put it because they actually ARE writers, a fair number of them pretty damned good at it, too. i often find myself in your corner but that came across as being incredibly condescending.

Can you just spell out how that works, point by point?

Anyway Nick's only Republican in the British sense of the word.

ILX: Vice is awful reactionary etc etc

Momus: How can it be if it is publishing my article about Japanese homeless people?

Article then turns out to be 3 paras and a few photos which tell us that Osaka is very rich but there are still homeless people in it and that they build nice shanties and don't want to talk to Momus. This isn't zero content but nor is it anything revelatory or evidence of any kind of 'conscience'. Momus' position upthread seems to be that an article about homeless people is by definition not conservative: but of course it can be - an article which simply gawked at homeless people or affected to exoticise them might very well be conservative. Momus' article taken alone doesn't neccessarily do these things but in the context of Vice it does IMO.

For Momus to be able to make these points and us to unequivocally believe him/accept them, would =

- there are no Absolutes

- Identity itself if Relative

- Authenticity is just another construct

- "Liberals" inarguably accept the three preceding points, or else they aren't really liberals

The problems then arise when you try to define liberalism as any sort of fixed ideology in itself! If everything is so fluid, then there CAN'T be anything other to "Liberalism'" except the first three points up above.

Tom, actually you're missing one level of context here, which is that the article appeared in a theme issue, and the theme is Down and Out. As I see it, the dialogue on this thread is:

ILX massive: Vice is conservative because Gavin McInnes says he's a Republican.

Momus: Nobody I know at Vice is a Republican, I'm not a Republican, and look, McInnes has just recanted. What's more, the current issue, to which I've contributed, is about being Down and Out.

ILX massive: You must be Republican, and they must be treating it in a Republican way, because Vice is a Republican publication.

Which makes me conclude that the ILX massive is simply clinging to an old definition of the boundary between liberals and conservatives. This may, believe it or not, be the new way to be radical.

As for 'disgusting racial epithets', these are the well-known epithets that the racial groups call themselves, aren't they? And you're a white person saying they can't, right? And you're a liberal, right?

Are we supposed to have a picture of the writer next to each piece so we can be all confident that no ACTUAL racist remarks are being used? "Oh, don't worry about the incredibly misogynist and racist slant here, the writer is a black woman--see the picture?"

I think this comes down to what I like to call the Annabelle Chong conundrum. Ms. Chong made a film entitled "The World's Biggest Gang Bang" and entered the Guinness Book for having had sex with the most people in a single day. She subsequently made a documentary with Toronto's City TV all about the experience and her political attitudes about it. She also toured North America discussing the issues arising from this act.

A coupla years later, some other porn star (name escapes me) beat Ms. Chong's record and released a second gang bang film.

Now, just because Ms. Chong's video was, in her opinion, as much of a political statement as anything else, does it make any difference to the guy jacking off to it? Does the audience of these two videos care? Sure, Ms. Chong is "playing" with meaning, but unless you start actually believing in the authority of the author, you've got to recognize that everything we've got in this world creates meaning--it's all text (thank you Derrida) and it's all bloody writerly text (apologies to Barthes).

I don't see Momus as saying "there are no absolutes." I see Momus as saying "intentionality is the absolute."

Sorry for this obnoxious post.

momus, i've never said vice is conservative - i've said it's peurile, irrelevant nonsense that leaves a really nasty taste in my mouth. the fact is that i can see through it. i would not begin to attach a political ideology in terms of conservatism or liberalism to vice as, as far as i can see, it is merely narcissistic cobblers geared to an extremely small crew of urban hipsters who seem to think they are incredibly clever becuse they are involved in some crass situationist prank that's doing pretty well at making money out of other people's gullibility and stupidity - newsflash: this is what capitalism has always been about!

And you're a white person saying they can't, right? And you're a liberal, right?
i wish i could say i was black to that assumption, but yes i am white. however, no, i am not exactly what you would call liberal.

Suzy, I sent you mail but it bounced back -- it may be a problem with your account rather than mine, which I think is working fine.

Yeah, I could see them running a special 'Marketing = global slavery and oppression' issue. Then again, perhaps it would smack too much of that other Canadian magazine, Adbusters. Vice did their take on marketing recently when they did a whole issue about their own advertising manager, Eric Lavoie, mentioning him on every page and in every book and record review. A kind of running joke on product placement and on marketeer as true celebrity in age when celebrity relies so much on marketing.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

Check especially 'ad hominem', 'burden of proof' and 'inductive fallacy'.

Vice is conservative in so many ways that it'd take a master's thesis to bear them all out. "The new way to be" anything predates language, I'm pretty sure, and always turns out not to be much of a new way at all

I will say this very simply. I do not have a right-leaning heart. My whole political formation is Euro-communist. Marx, Adorno, Gramsci. I live on a street called Karl Marx Allee in the most left-wing city in Europe. I write articles for Vice drawing attention to homelessness. My favourite songwriter is Bertolt Brecht. I bodily get up and leave countries which swing to the right, like the US, your country.

It might indeed take a master's thesis to reveal Vice's conservatism, J0hn, but you just revealed your own in a single glib sentence: 'the new way to be anything... always turns out not to be much of a new way at all'.

'It’s funny now, but when you think about it, I guess it’s bad. When you’re shooting a gram a day and you don’t even own a pair of shoes and you get an infection in your foot? Man, it doesn’t matter how crystal clear that stuff is to start off with, because sooner or later it will completely destroy you. That’s why I quit. Thank fucking god.'

Do not form your opinion on Vice based on what the New York Times says about it, what prank calls the publisher makes to Pat Buchanan, or a couple of Dos and Don'ts you read on the toilet. Try reading it. It's actually an extremely rare combination of daring, well-written, and popular. My feeling is not that I'm somehow stooping to write for it, but that I need to really keep on my toes to keep up with the quality of a lot of their content.

This is where I still disagree Momus, if you imply that "Drawing attention" means anything more constructive than pointing and saying "Look, homeless" (and if it doesn't then it's not inherently a liberal or progressive or conservative action). It would be fairly easy for any readers of this thread - particularly those who clicked your link - to imagine an article in which the homeless are presented as part of life's great picturesque, simply another thing for the broad-minded aesthete to comment on.

Like Daria upthread, I like that kind of journalism, and the history of western art is littered with tramps and beggars being used as local colour, but it seems disingenuous to me to claim that it's liberal or progressive. Presented free of comment it just smacks of "rich man in his castle, poor man at his gate" world-weariness, a sort of pre-liberal (and hence pre-conservative) thinking.

The I-was-an-addict subgenre doesn't strike me as inherently liberal or progressive either, so maybe my ideas of what liberal or progressive writing might be are too (gasp) conservative.

'In Africa, somewhere near 29.4 million people are living with HIV/AIDS, and 3.5 million new infections occurred in sub-Saharan Africa in 2002. Ten million African youths from 15 to 24 years old and approximately three million children under 15 have HIV. And almost eleven million children have been orphaned by AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa.'

Momus, I have the sense you think there's more of an agenda, that the Vice guys actually feel like they're making a sly corrective to a given set of less-than-egalitarian values held by their readers. (Hence your frequent references to the homeless article, homelessness being an obv example of something everybody knows everybody's attention should always be drawn to so everyone can have a little agonizing over their own privilege - though Phil Collins already covered this ground, didn't he?)

Judging from the comments actually most of their readers are fairly obnoxious, but personally I read the magazine as pretty agenda-free. Well written and badly written articles, that's all.
Here is one of the best things in the last issue (hope it is OK to link to this):
http://www.viceland.com/issues/v10n8/htdocs/dos_donts/images/g_09.jpg
[...] Dude, what are you afraid of? You look like a cavity creep’s worst nightmare. Why would we make fun of someone that rides around our mouths kicking the living shit out of plaque?

'I am walking past a gypsy camp with my friend. He says he hates gypsies. I tell him not to be so prejudiced, and, after some facts about gypsies, I interview one who talks about her life and opinions.'

I mean, it could have come out of the Racial Equality Commission's schools mission. Is that really what you call 'agenda free'?

I think the straw man here is the reader who'd actually have views to the contrary and be convinced of anything by such an article. Nobody's that dumb, so I figure, it's just two guys talking.

- Identity itself i[s] Relative

- Authenticity is just another construct

...

- So there's noting inauthentic about parrotting yr cultural studies lectures on Derrida to justify political inertia

Reader 1: It's not nice to says gypsies are all thieves, that's like saying fags all have AIDS.
Reader 2: You've missed the point, bro!
Reader 3: This hipublican thing ain't panning out, is it?
Reader 4: All fags don't have AIDS... yet.

That's what we're up against, and you want subtlety?

(Anyway I thought it was kind of funny that the NYT article came out the same day that Rush Limbaugh did his whole foot-in-mouth routine on Sunday NFL Countdown. And I think McInnes' "oh, I didn't mean it, really" posturing is totally, absolutely pathetic -- it's as if the last hairballs of irony's heyday are being choked up and spewed across the room with every blog comment he posts. I'm actually sort of surprised he hasn't shown up on this thread yet to plead his case.)

Yes, go off and found The Hipublican, Dave. Make real porn, and real dough!

I do not see the reader comments at Vice as indicative of an audience with a pre-existing set of offensive and reactionary ideas, who are slowly being led to see the light through their reading of the magazine and its hidden liberal agenda. Rather, the discourse in many Vice articles is one that throws around a lot of provocative words, including a lot of racist words, quite casually. Thus, their readers reply to them in the same terms.

And is the Republican party thereby strengthened, or do racists have to work overtime to find new words to incarnate their hate now 'Paki' is a common and affectionate term, and the misogynists sweat in their quest for a sufficiently negative replacement for 'bitch'? As Brecht said, hating is hard work. Especially if you have to keep re-writing the dictionary.

If you want to believe this, go ahead, but it doesn't make it universally true.

It's also odd that you have to point to McInnes' alleged liberal credentials (women's studies) rather than the actual magazine in order to insist that it be read a certain way.

I'm politically progressive, and wasn't aware that it was a contest or that by not constantly discussing certain issues, I was avoiding them. (Foucault's critique of the following repressive hypothesis to thread: You aren't talking about X --> You must be avoiding/have a secret about X --> You must confess.)

Work on enough magazines and you will discover that whatever it is you are writing or producing for a magazine will be used by the proprietors to rationalise a more favourable page rate from the advertisers. Or the ad sales team dies trying. It is advertisers which underpin the rush to conservatism in 'edgy' titles by trying to manoeuvre positive coverage of their products. It is easy for them to do this as in many cases, advertisers like LVMH spend a good £10,000 each month on ad space per style mag and the threat of that drying up for any reason is more than the editor's job is worth (and that ten grand is probably twice the monthly freelance editorial budget).

MacInnes, like most putative media moguls and Julie Burchill, knows that the single best way of keeping his profile sky-high is to say and do things which put the collective nose of the media/liberal public well out of joint (and it ain't rocket science to read the UK press and think, 'oh, I'll sign The Streets to my boutique label'). If you want to lessen his effectiveness, don't rise to the bait. He doesn't scan as any more sophisticated than a James Brown figure, surely his UK equivalent (who once did a socialist fanzine and was sacked as editor of UK GQ for doing a feature on those super-stylish Nazis).

Oh BTW back in the days of Riot Grrrl there were a lot of tools like McInnes doing Women's Studies: we always assumed it was some new strategy for getting laid, the 'feminist for fuck's sake'. Back in the late '80s, when there was a grassroots/academic push to alter language, nobody ever agreed that by merely changing the language all else would follow - that's just what the neocons chose to focus on.

Photographing != Discussing

On the Sinners vs Winners thread last week I described a man who sleeps in the flowerbed outside our office and barks like a dog. Apparently that thread was socially progressive for this reason. My apologies to my Vice-hating readership.

Ah, right: it's a Whiggish political outlook (so not so new after all). The idea of historical inevitability is not one to be bandied about loosely especially in relation to the grim self-justification of a crew of racists who are quite obviously on the make.

Anyway it just reminds me of the Young Tories and their splinter groups in the '80s, 'libertarian' in that they were pro-drugs'n'guns [freedom *to*] but curiously silent on freedom *from* racism, exploitation, addiction, even. (Indebted to Charles Shaar Murray a bit here). Making racists think up new slurs=progress? Christ almighty.

http://www.osric.com/~jeremy/omfg.jpg

Momus, this is incredibly stupid because it basically implies that everyone on the Fashion thread only reads the fashion thread and has nothing to add to "actual debate(s) about important issues" and isn't going to win you any support...I could tear out a boring fashion spread from Vice and say "This magazine is completely fluff!" just as easily.

FWIW I still think everyone's basically overreacting. And also I kiss Nicole.

I was going to say something like that, but then I realized that there was little point in trying to reason with Momugatu.

See also: ''Josie and the Pussycats' - Naomi Klein stikes out'.

So there's noting inauthentic about parrotting yr cultural studies lectures on Derrida to justify political inertia

-- Enrique (miltonpinsk...), October 3rd, 2003.

...cause i wasn't consciously referencing Derrida. I'm ignorant of theory, sorry

a) no, wasn't really addressed at ya, I was skimming and the three points peeved me cos, ow, I've read them too many times now.
b) I've never read Derrida. I've read glosses of him, and about poststructuralism, etc.
c) I'm not ignorant of theory, but i can't say I'm as au fait as i might be, mainly because it seems to have sapped the french socialist tradition of all life, and i don't find it as liberating as others seem to.
d) so - I was wack, dude

I think all that intellectualizing is meaningless myself, but i'm not one for any sort of intellectualization to begin with. It's a straight road to nowhere.

Momus, Atilla would kill to have your fashion sense.

those were the days

Here's a letter to The Times regarding the article...

Dear Editor,
I’ve just finished reading Vanessa Grigoria’s “The Edge of Hip, Vice, the brand” on the cover of the September 28, Sunday Styles. What I gathered from the piece was two basic points. One, that Vice is a flash in the pan and two, that I am a white supremacist. The New York Times Magazine had an exclusive with us for a year. We spoke to Dwight Garner for hours upon hours, week after week, but alas the story was canned. We were led to believe one of the reasons for this was that his piece was, “Too positive.” Eventually, the story was pushed to Grigoria who, having only learned of the brand at a recent fashion show, was asked to become an expert in less than two weeks. Instead of getting the credit for the ten years of pop culture commentary Dwight had researched, we came across as a new fad that was born yesterday and could easily disappear tomorrow.
On top of that I feel I was goaded into turning my potentially Western chauvinist politics into white power politics because I was told that the piece had been rejected again for being too positive. It put us in a position where we felt if there were no tension there would be no piece. I suggested juxtaposing my Western, Christian politics with my co-workers Eastern, Islamic politics. When that didn’t spark an interest I believe I was coerced into making it a racial issue. When the piece finally ran every incendiary statement I had made, (from an email, to a haphazard cell phone conversation, to a bad joke made several years ago), was glued together and crowned with the words, “White supremacist.” I believe that is simply inaccurate. I have always taken pains to convey that being pro-Western is not a racial issue. I feel I was baited into sensationalizing my politics and was all but told the piece could not run if I didn’t provide the writer with something shocking. I think this is an unfair and inaccurate portrayal of my beliefs and would like to see a retraction.

Sincerely,
Gavin McInnes
Co-Founder,
VICE
Gavin McInnes | Email | Homepage | 09.29.03 - 9:59 am | #
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's more on the subject. It should be noted that I have had nothing to do with the magazine for over two years. Jesse Pearson is the editor and he defines what goes in the magazine.

http://www.viceland.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=cd24a460a05ec7177f4c27d8d23cb5dc;act=ST;f=3;t=145;st=210

Gavin McInnes | Email | Homepage | 09.29.03 - 10:01 am |

Do you stand for anything, Gavin?
omit | Email | 09.29.03 - 3:14 pm | #
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe in cartoons and arguing and cocaine. I believe playing devil's advocate is the best way for people to get to the truth. I believe cartoons are honest and amazing.
Gavin McInnes | Email | Homepage | 09.29.03 - 3:29 pm | #

:(

Except for the tiny detail that McInnes is pro-Western and I am pro-Eastern. But you can 'get' us both with race. Because being pro-Western means he's a 'white supremacist', but being pro-Eastern means I'm an 'orientalist'.

I'm white, went to a small liberal arts college, shop entirely in thrift stores, have a shag haircut, and date a boy who used to have a faux-hawk, but cut it off when they spread from the trendy to the geeky. I come from a middle-class family in Madison, Wisconsin- not the suburbs, for sure (we don't really traffic in suburbs in Madison), but a nice neighborhood. My father is a doctor, my mother is a school principal. I have absolutely no money ever, because I have 'artistic aspirations', and temp in the meantime to keep from being subsistent on the bourgeoise folks. Deplorable, right?

On the other hand, Dad's a holocaust survivor and my mother's parents were alcoholic, and she ended up homeless twice in her childhood. They both sought the stability of middle-class American existence, and they acheived it nicely; it's because of this that I can go out and artistically aspire.

I'm friendly, witty, articulate, have impeccable taste in film, music, and literature, and am probably cooler than you. I m universally well-liked, have a huge Friendster network, and talked about it all the time back in March till I wore out on it a bit.
I once wore a trucker hat, but stopped when they started getting sold in malls.

Do you hate me yet? If so, why?

Seriously here, think about it: why?
Gregor | Homepage | 10.02.03 - 10:26 am | #

Now, everybody has a different model of how much things like authorial intention count. I disagree with my brother, a Derridean scholar at Cambridge, on this point. He thinks language speaks us, I think we speak language -- that the author's intention still counts for something and that we have freedom within the system. But I would say that, being a writer, wouldn't I?

My model of communication is that it depends on authorial intention, on context, on tone, colour, the reader's abilities, nuance, and so on. But texts are usually carefully constructed to avoid ambiguity, no matter how playful or ironic or 'unreliable' they are. Usually a text signposts our expected response quite clearly. There is a 'tipping point' beyond which ambiguity is eradicated. The text has taken us from A to B, and we didn't even have to look under the hood to see how it did it.

Vice is no exception. It really doesn't take much parsing of the pieces I linked above to see how they're intended to be read, where they're intended to take the reader, and where they do take the reader. (The Gypsies piece has a discussion under it in which someone who fails to grasp the text's anti-racist message is castigated by other readers.)

If certain ilXors and writers for the NY Times read Vice 'against the grain', I really believe that is because of their intention to willfully misinterpret it. In other words, it's not a refutation of intentionality but an affirmation of it.

What I wrote above, and what I still feel now, is that I'm disappointed in your commitment to the authorial intention. I think that position denies the reality of what it means to read a text.

sfsdug reutfop fodsfgkoj oeifj fkoejf

I challenge you to do a close reading of any text in Vice and show me how anyone but an idiot or a lunatic could think it advocated race hate. McInnes is actually saying he's proud to be white in the same way that Billy Bragg is saying there needs to be a non-fascist reading of 'Englishness' and the union jack. This comes directly out of the left, and out of identity politics. It's the logical conclusion of the work of people like Marcus Garvey. It's the thing that happens when we realise that white is also 'ethnic' and should have the same 'minority' sense of its own meaning as other ethnicities, the same self-consciousness.

first of all,momus, you drew attention to the link colin (i think) posted upthread about fallacies
the first one reads as follows

"Description of Ad Hominem

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the
person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her
circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be
evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

1.Person A makes claim X.
2.Person B makes an attack on person A.
3.Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a
bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Example of Ad Hominem

1.Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

after this link was posted,and you mentioned it,you still posted the following

"The key thing in the NYT, I think, is the revelation that McInnes majored in women's studies and can quote Gloria Steinem."

which seems a bit incongruous

And thanks for putting that Eminem question, I wanted to ask people that myself.

Blount, I'll click those links now.

i don't really know why i'm entering this thread now, i'm about to fall asleep.

The phenomenon is truly epidemic. Nothing is called what it is anymore. "Bums" are now "homeless people." What once were "layabouts with no talent" are now "performance artists," as are "goth-enamored nephews home from the Ivy League" and "that weird neighbor who never comes up out of the cellar." "Vandals" are now "graffiti designers." Unhappy, makeup-free, by-anatomical-inspection-only women are now called "feminists." And "eight year old gay atheists" are now "Boy Scouts" — this, of course, by courtroom decree, and lately with the heartfelt support of Steven Spielberg.

A conservative, it is said, is one who believes that his grandfather, and his grandfather's grandfather, back on into the past, were in many ways more virtuous and wise than he, and so gladly pays attention to tradition, "the democracy of the dead"

-- but there is also a gold standard, a set of unchanging definitions, a golden inch, an ingot for every social value. Liberals do not believe this. They work much more with context and are comfortable with change. They are comfortable within history. That's exactly why I was saying upthread it was important to make 'misogynists sweat in their quest for a sufficiently negative replacement for bitch' (now that Peaches is happy to call herself 'the kind of bitch that you want to get with'). Conservatives hate having to rewrite the dictionary. They're not very good at it, anyway.

if we are attacking vice for spreading ideas which we would object to,(leaving intentions aside momentarily)such as racism,homophobia and sexism,then surely tupac and eminem are doing this,only to a much bigger audience

or,taking sides,a small group of hipsters thinking its ok to say nigger
vs
a large group of people from various different sectors of society thinking that "bitches ain't shit" or that homophobia is acceptable,or even the normal,default way of acting
(which would then,logically,become a self-perpetuating myth)

i mean i don't read vice and i do listen to rap,as i say i'm not trying to argue for any one side,i just think these things are worth considering

"liberals dream
of equal rights
conservatives live
in a world gone by..."

Would you like to show me where Vice says rape should not be labelled a crime?

Daria: why is it 'reactionary' to talk about language being used -- as you're using it right now -- to try and avoid ambiguity and pass the 'tipping point' so that communication can occur? Even Barthes' ecrivain, riffing on words, was still trying to communicate.

'I think Steinem-era feminism did women a lot of injustices, but one of the worst ones was convincing all these indie norts that women don't want to be dominated.'

Who is he attacking here, the women? No, they were 'misrepresented' by 70s feminism. Women themselves are victims of a victim-creating ideology. But so are men, 'these indie norts' who feminism on board. Here he's basically talking about himself and the readers of Vice, or rather, his previous self and the previous selves of the people who read Vice. He's blaming himself, blaming his male readers. They've wasted time being nice, polite, scrubbed, middle class suburban kids. They've signed on, at liberal arts colleges, to women's studies courses, thinking that internalising huge amounts of guilt about patriarchy would make women love them. It didn't, largely because women didn't want to see being female as an inherent disability or a claim to inevitable victimhood, as, say, Andrea Dworkin seemed to propose.

'i am thinking about this, and do you know what, i do not find vice homophobic or misogynist, and i think that it was one of the first to recognize how isolated women and fags feel from the discourses that are supposed to surround them...its what bruce la bruce calls post gay gays.'

But that's not the problem with that quote - the problem is it's very easy to extrapolate from it the statement "women want to be dominated", which is an immediate hackle-raiser. It seems to presuppose an either/or situation - Steinem et al say "women: they don't want to be dominated", empirical tests done by middle-class nice boys show that being Sensitive and Understanding and Submissive does not mean your girlfriend will not leave you for A Bad Man, ergo Steinem et al are Wrong and Women Want Dominating Men.

It can be read as "Steinem-era feminism convinced indie norts that they could get and keep girls by getting guilty about the patriarchy and not being cavemen, when in fact this didn't work because they were overbearing about it and some women like their menfolk domineering, and this was a big injustice to women because, um, it just was" - but that's not the immediate reaction it will provoke. The first reading that springs to mind is "Steinem-era feminism was unjust to women because it made indieboys think they didn't want to be dominated when in fact they [all] do" (Which begs the questions "if women want to be dominated and they aren't getting it from indieboys, surely they'll just go somewhere else? how is this unjust to anyone apart from the indieboys?" and "if women want to be dominated, what do we call female-gendered people who don't want to be dominated?")

It may not be what he meant, but the unspoken statement of "women want to be dominated" is very, very strong in that quote - and, if the indie norts choose to believe it, could do just as much of an injustice to women as Steinem-era feminism is claimed to have done. And that seems to be the commonly stated problem with Vice.

:) Felicity, I find just about every blanket statement about what all women want to be inherently absurd, not to mention très 19th century.

'i am thinking about this, and do you know what, i do not find vice homophobic or misogynist, and i think that it was one of the first to recognize how isolated women and fags feel from the discourses that are supposed to surround them...its what bruce la bruce calls post gay gays.'

Fine, fine. Boo-hiss on the rainbow flags and pride parades. But I also happen to feel isolated from Bruce La Bruce's punk rock discourse, too. Like I don't have better fucking things to do with my life than fussing over authenticity issues and whether I'm alienated enough from some strawman mainstream.

I have now fully dedicated myself to . . . The Pabst Project.

I'm glad homosexuals comprise such a small percent of the population, and I can easily avoid them if I chose (except if I want a nice haircut). God I just want to stab camp in its fucking neck.

I'm glad gypsies comprise such a small percent of the population, and I can easily avoid them if I chose (except if I want my windshield washed). God I just want to stab fiddle music in its fucking neck.

I'm glad Christians comprise such a small percent of the population, and I can easily avoid them if I chose (except if I want last rites). God I just want to stab God in his fucking neck.

I'm glad ilXors comprise such a small percent of the population, and I can easily avoid them if I chose (except if I want a nice debate). God I just want to stab -- ouch!

You anti-VICE anti-racist, word police liberal fat suburbanite fucks are not invited to the party. You're not supposed to get it. If you didn't hate it it wouldn't idnetify a generation. Don't you get it? Teh harder you scream the louder we laugh. The more you pontificate the happier we are we dropped out of school. Keep trying to be freedom riders. We are living our own lives, in reality, away from our parent's history. You went to Woodstock. We burnt it down. You had affirmative action. We had Jayson Blair. You had overspending. We had drug dealing. Keep emailing each other on the blogs. We are out there, in the cities, living and loving life. Isn't that truly why you hate us? Why don't you stop BLOGGING (what a hilarious word) and accept the fact that you are fat, ugly, old, irrelevant suburbaites. Focus on your kids. Go to community meetings and get a new stop sign near the school so it's safer. That's your role. Stop trying to figure out VICE. Youve never read it. You don't get it. And you're not invited.

sowwy

You went to Woodstock. We burnt it down.

Aren't you about four generations out of date with that?

Don't you mean Tony Blair? I mean, Jayson Blair just bamboozled the editors and readers of the New York Times, which is pretty easy, but Tony bamboozled a whole country.

We are living our own lives, in reality, away from our parent's history.

So far away that every choice you make is a calculated reaction against it?

Maybe McInnes is right re: how easy it is to herd the sheep

You live as you dream, alone.

To change the subject, does anybody think that maybe it's NOT a good idea to have ILX showing up on the godhatesfag.com referral logs?

It turns out that scientists in white lab coats have discovered that all hipsters are in fact gypsies and that all gypsies are homosexuals. Therefore, all gypsies are hipsters. And of course, all homosexuals are hipsters. And all hipsters are homosexual gypsies. Oh, yes. It's based on science.

Anyway it's kind of exhilarating when your inbuilt condescension takes a blow. I met a blind guy once at a party before anyone arrived and I had these instictual good feelings towards him. I was introduced and was really nice to him, shook his hand warmly. He was like "Elisha? Isn't that a girl's name?" When I said it wasn't he didn't answer, and wandered away somewhere else. It's a very "Vice" story. But so is the story about the thrasher metalhead at that same party dancing like a fool to "Poison Arrow."

On the thread I linked to I think a couple of people make the point that stereotypes traded in confidence build community feeling. Like "nobody talks about my mama but my me," etc but it also works the other way: when you stereotype someone outside your circle it reinforces your circle's commonality but identifying stuff that you're not, that you can laugh at. What I like about a lot of Vice articles is that it conflates these two things. The objects of Vice's derision are within the community of their readers and subjects as often as not, and even if they're not you kind of get the feeling Vice wishes they were. Here I am again talking without examples though.

"Homosexuals, gypsies, are all born the way they are." I think that's arguable, at least as much as the idea that hipsters AREN'T just born the way they are!!

Not to mention McSweeney's, another receny entrant in the self-engulfing irony sweepstakes.

?????

Momus, did you read much of the anti-hipster blogger? She is a super talented writer, it's worth the time for that reason.

Homosexuals, gypsies, are all born the way they are." I think that's arguable, at least as much as the idea that hipsters AREN'T just born the way they are!!

I believe I was born a hipster. I have been persecuted for my fashion sense. I have earned the right to scorn people who scorn or attack hipsters.

At boarding school I was called 'Groovy'. I wore Italian patent leather shoes, thick watch bands, and carried a fancy multi-coloured comb which people kept nicking from me to toss it around and mock for its sheer grooviosity. I listened to Bowie and Bolan. If you think it was easy to be a dandy at a macho all-male boarding school in the 70s, let me tell you that it wasn't. You stood out, and you were punished. I was beaten up for wearing 'poofy pants', brown velvet flares I'd bought in Italy. When my brother came to the school and someone ripped his identical pair, we fought together to defend the family honour, which was the right to be flamboyant. (This may be why my first ever post on ILX was to defend the idea of cool and equate it with a medieval code of honour.)

Later, I found that there were places where you didn't have to fight all the time, where people shared your basic values of flamboyance, playfulness, experimentalism, creativity. Williamsburg, home of Vice, was one such place. Various parts of Tokyo another. Various parts of Berlin, various parts of Paris. You recognise people who have fought the same battles as you have all their lives, been literally physically assaulted because they had a certain sense of style, a certain need to express themselves, and a certain talent. In a sense, their expressiveness and effeminacy was a more powerful statement than any machismo you could imagine, because it put them constantly in danger, and yet they never greyed over and hid themselves in conformity.

So you group together with these people, because it's great to mix and collaborate with them, but also because there's safety in numbers. But you never forget that this is a small minority, still embattled and mocked, still physically and verbally assaulted. Even on this thread the assaults continue. Someone upthread is talking about wanting to plunge a knife into a hipster's neck. No doubt people think hipsters are fair game because they're somehow spoiled or privileged. Well, I'm here to tell you it's a bloody hard life being a hipster. I have nothing but respect for people who stick with it. Many of us simply can't help it. Like gays and gypsies, we were born that way.

(it's evolution)(that's a good thing?)

but all up in their cashflow! and isn't that the most essential part of history when you get right down to it

(also dropping out doesn't give you an excuse to misuse apostrophes so flagrantly)

For an incredibly detailed look at just this topic, although in the teens and 20s rather than the 70s, see Martin Green's Children of the Sun (1976). Dandies vs. rogues vs. hearties --- FITE.

That sounds great. Sure the hell doesn't sound like Williamsburg, though.

Flamboyance is a value? I thought it was just an occasional side-product of true values. Damn, I'm stuck in the 20th century again aren't I?

Go ahead and call me judgmental, but I'll forever cringe whenever shallowness in any of its forms is extolled as a virtue

The sad thing is I don't think this solidarity exists; I have never been treated so rudely or uncivilly in my life as I have by people I'd describe as "hipsters." The New York girls in my Paris program who were interning for fashion houses over the summer & treated others badly for no reason at all. The semi-famous sound artist and his friends who were the most unwelcoming party hosts ever. Many, many, many indie rock fans at shows and at parties who roll their eyes & turn sour at the slightest transgression of their own personal rules of cool.

I'd say my friends are all stylish and creative people, but they're also welcoming, considerate, polite, and thoughtful. Of course there are hipsters who are as well - such as yourself - but it seems inaccurate to suggest this is the general rule. I sometimes think I'd love to be directly involved in fashion or the arts, or to write about them professionally - but all I encounter are stylish people being just plain rude to themselves & everyone around. Tell me there's not a good deal of eating-their-own going on among the creative set in Williamsburg. Not to mention treating the non-stylish like shit, something I've never had it in my heart to do.

Daria - your post to Momus somewhat mirrors my own views; why else do you think I'm disgusted by "the fashionable" ? Yes, dressing well matters, but it shouldn't matter toomuch, or if it does then you're going to be judging people on such a variable external, without looking beyond the surface of things. See, my viewpoint is supporting someone like a dandyish young Momus to dress as he pleases without being judged. It's ironic that you and Momus then turn that around and start judging others based on the same thing. Liking pretty things is fine, but disliking or dismissing one who doesn't share your sense or definition of pretty signifies an odd lack of depth to your judgment. I think you and i agree more than we disagree though, but, um, what does metaphysics have to do with any of this?

My definition of hipsters would be something like 'a pool of potential expressive types who have self-selected according to their ambitions or aspirations in the creative fields'. It's as wrong to say they're 'inherently uncreative' as it is to say they're inherently creative. But creativity is certainly important to them, whether you like what they produce or not. Basement Jaxx, so universally adored over on ILM, are archetypal hipsters, for example.

Yesterday I saw a video installation here in Berlin, Hans und Grete by Sue de Beer. It's a portrait of American adolescence in several chapters. The 'star' of the piece is Travis Jeppeson, the ex-boyfriend of Phiiliip, who records for my American Patchwork label. Travis and Phiiliip were a classic couple of hipsters when they lived in NY. You'd not only see them around town at the coolest parties, looking absolutely fucking fantastic, but they'd always be popping up with articles in the Village Voice, or giving you a novel they'd written or a new track they'd made, or DJing or playing shows. Just constantly active, 'on the scene'. Hipsters. Just 20 years old. And both very quietly spoken, positive and respectful.

Travis and Phiiliip were ambitious, sure, but in a way that absolutely made you want to help them achieve their goals. Talented, certainly. It wasn't a surprise for me to see Travis popping up in this video. Wherever he goes in the world, someone like him is going to make a mark and find and collaborate with other talented people.

These kids come out of the same box as (and are friends of) the similarly young, pretty, talented and hip Ryan McGinley (mocked and praised further up this thread), who managed to have his own solo show at the Whitney before the age of 25. Now, I suspect that the kind of people who mock McGinley would probably say they didn't care much for the Whitney either. Maybe they'd be the kind of people who hated people with cellphones before they got one themselves, or the kind of people who think having a text blog is 'normal' but having a photoblog is 'pretentious'. But I suspect that some of them will be reading Travis Jeppeson in twenty years when he's an important and established writer. And their children or grandchildren might be reading Travis' biography and dreaming of his bohemian years the same way we read about Montmartre in 1910.

Pff, now you're contradicting yourself! Didn't you just talk about the rap that vice covers (abt half their record reviews, in the last issue i saw) ?

Most of the people I've met and talked to who I think might be 'hipsters' (I won't name names as they're all on ILX) seem to me very friendly people, not at all condescending. The Vice-sponsored public party at Glastonbury 2002 was marvellous, a highlight of the festival. The one this year I enjoyed a lot less though the formula was basically the same - the fashion and musical choices seemed a bit obvious to me and played-out. Is this the way a hipster thinks, or has to think? Momus is positive and insightful about the creative impulses of a hipster, but oddly silent about their destructive impulses.

I'm very impressed by creativity even when I'm not impressed by the things created: I also think the fruits of creativity should be enjoyed by as many people as possible, a somewhat old-school and un-hip critical attitude I suspect. This is why I distrust Momus' bundling of creativity with stylishness and good looks.

Finally I'm very wary of Momus' sneaky attempt to inflate one example of blogger crankiness (text blogs > photoblogs) into some kind of guiding principle of the Great Unhip Masses. I don't know anyone who dislikes photoblogs on principle.

But dandies dress flamboyantly in order to be judged. And in order to be found acceptable by the judges they respect and probably in order to be found wanting by those they don't respect.

Whether they want to get beaten up for wearing brown velvet bell-bottoms is another story, although it wouldn't surprise me if some dandies would consider it a badge of honor to be scourged for the cause. Up to a point, of course.

But really, wearing the same trousers as ones brother, shudder. wie Peinlich.

Still, ViceMag doesn't seem to be about dandyism. That's quite another topic. Hipster, dandy, hmmmm, not convinced it's the same.

Well he was wearing fancy-pants at boarding school in the 70s. You should be able to get within a decade based on that info.

My experience of an all-male boys school in the 80s was that pretty much anyone who was bullied also joined in with the bullying of somebody else: a network of victimisation and guilt which ensured little was ever done about any of it. It sounds like the 70s were a different and nobler era, though.

What have hipsters destroyed recently? Have they tipped over the leaning tower of Pisa? Have they invaded Iraq? Their destructive impulses are mostly towards themselves. Drink, drugs, lung damage, ear damage. One of my best friends, a hipster art student who lived in Williamsburg, committed suicide last year. Destructive, sure, but mostly self-destructive. Because of internalised guilt, and because, like Icarus, they fly too near the sun sometimes.

It seems to me that for the dandy or the provocateur of any stripe, the ability to rouse opponents to violence (or some measurable level of anger) is a much better test of success than the approbation of ones friends and supporters. (cf. Momus' ability to get everyone hoppin' mad on this thread based on about 250 words in Vice).

In the book I mentioned above, Children of the Sun, (it's a really interesting book, ) the experience of arch-Dandy Brian Howard is meticulously surveyed. Howard was a huge success as a dandy at Eton, and successful too at Oxford, but beaten quite severely while at uni. It seems the boarding school was a safer haven (then, in the teens or 1920s)than Oxford was.

What I can't reconcile here is (a) the level of passion about Vice and Williamsburg [in my humble view, it's still Brooklyn, you only live there because it's cheaper than TriBecCa] and (b) wearing trucker hats and listening to Journey is hardly a dandy lifestyle. Can't even fathom its being seen as particularly hip. Surely Momus will remember from Canada days people listening to Journey and wearing trucker hats with no sense of irony, circa 1979 or so. No amount of sepia-toned nostalgia will ever make that era hip. Maybe funny, a la Waynes World, but not hip. Some things cannot be hip due to their essential chemical or physical properties. Journey is one of them. cf., Rush and REO Speedwagon. What's next, Whitesnake? Yikes.

*OK this particular negativity can be explained by that "narcissism of small differences" thing you're so fond of!

That is simply not true. There is nothing that cannot be recontextualised by a sufficiently talented hipster. Look out for my reassessment of Bowie's 'The Laughing Gnome' in an upcoming Vice.

Of course you're right. And to prove how right you are, I give you the singular exception to your rule: Journey!

Tom, I don't even know if I agree with the "positivity" of hipsters point. To me, it seems like the most weighty or worthy thinkers/writers/artists throughout history were not the mindless trendoids but those who could distance themselves long enough from society to ponder or critique it, or who were mentally unbalanced and inwardly troubled enough to remove themselves from it. True, there were the notable exceptions, the F Scott Fitzgeralds et al, but to make a claim that it's the hopelessly trendy dandies who are going to become the greats of each generation is laughably the contrary position to what most would guess, I believe.

I stand by my argument that if McInnes has anything like the liberal views which Momus would attribute to him, they are not expressed in anything I have found in Vice. (Why don't we just ask him? I feel weird talking about somebody who's not here even though it's an open bulletin board.. maybe he is lurking or will find this at some point in the future.)

And again I challenge people to go to Viceland.com and find something published in the magazine which is reactionary. Offensive, yes. Illiberal... go on, give me examples!

Actually, I'm not sure whether he has reacted against them or thought through the issues of justice involved and taken identity politics to their logical conclusion. I'm going to find the comments Vic refuses to link to and try to figure him out.

-- Momus (nic...), October 3rd, 2003. (later)

now 'Paki' is a common and affectionate term
If you want to believe this, go ahead, but it doesn't make it universally true.

-- Ricardo (boyofbadger...), October 3rd, 2003. (later)

'Paki' is not a common and affectionate term to me: are you going to explain how you have come to this conclusion or was that you in your 'provocateur' mode again?

I don't really see what difference that would make since he shifts rationales at whim, but I hear you can summon his spirit by saying the word "fucktard" in the mirror three times.

Maybe I'm confusing Momus' definition of hipster w/ "socialite." Or maybe I'm just being intolerant of whatever definition Momus is trying to twist and shape at this point since I'm kind of frustrated (but also fascinated) by this thread. Momus, I am not against you. I like you. I have dealt with Aquaians like you before (go ahead and ridicule me for saying that, I'm fine with it!) and fully understand your need for "play-acting," at positions that you keep shifting around on, to provoke certain responses in your audience that you hope will lead to a certain self-examination, or what have you. But when you come on here and say things like "Paki is an affectionate term," knowing full well that it isn't, maybe you should re-examine the subject matter you choose to play around with in the first place. Is it worth it?

And fwiw, I don't think Mt. McInnes is as benign (or twistedly idealistic) a playful provocateur as you consider yourself to be; he is not simply assuming certain stances and making certain statements to fool around with people. Maybe he's less of a pomo than you are, maybe he's "post-pomo" in his "reactionary" position on liberal politics, but whatever he is, I don't think his racist statements can be so easily rationalized and defended. I don't even suspect that he really cares all that much about what he says but rather that his number one goal is to earn as much wealth as he can.

momus has always been deeply conservative on this ie he believes only those inside the "talented" fortress are allowed to/capable of defining or judging talent (hence his deferral to tom/me/sterl and simply not seeing cybele... we three are - in momus's eyes - TALENT-CLASS TRAITORS so merit momus's address, cybele is - in momus's eyes - just not there at all: he thinks he has nothing to learn from those outside the fortress)

as it happens, i suspect professional artists somewhat HAVE to act reactionary in this way (to protect their own intuitions from being frittered away or diluted in pubchat, as they understand it) (= deep down they acknowledge/fear that their art is weaker than Ordinary Language/Concerns etc etc?) (this is a good fear if it makes their art more powerful/effective)

it's a v.old argument btw (call it "sense vs sensibility WHO WILL WIN?" )

momus's take on authorial intention on this thread = forget freud (haha just so you know to cite it when he turns to freud for borrowed authority in some other thread)

already undermined by the contradictory deeps of the unconscious, intention is anyway dwarfed by effect (or lack of it): i can say "i intend to be the greatest painter of the age" till i am green in the face AND REALLY REALLY MEAN IT but it won't make it so

the end of racism comes when no one knows or remembers what "race" meant: the "white pride" extrapolation of eg fanon is therefore NOT the end of racism but the pitiless institutionalisation of separatisms based on the ossification of a (always long-dated) cultural snapshot ("talented guys drive like THIS...")

bah i promised myself i would not read this thread

(irrelevant historical note: the word "meritocracy" was coined by someone v.hostile to the concept, but it was taken up by those who liked it bcz they tht it meant them)

but AIM made you do it ;)

i don't believe in the fortress (except when it comes to pointing out who can write well and who can't, then my professional deformation kicks in like the KKK)

That's not a good refutation of intentionality at all. The statement 'I intend to be the greatest painter of the age' is a successful communication of the mindset (ambition) of the speaker. The speaker fulfills his intention to communicate, whether or not ve fulfills ver intention to be the greatest painter of the age. The so-called Intentional Fallacy is not about whether we do the things we say we would like to do, but whether it matters what we plan to say, or in fact whether there is a 'we' outside of language at all. I am quite prepared to accept that language 'speaks us' to some degree, and also that Freud (who by the way I do invoke on this thread as well, with the 'narcissism of small differences') was right that the unconscious is present in our conscious articulations. To acknowledge that these are influences and limitations on what we say is quite different from saying that we are spoken by language or by the unconscious. How could Freud have written about the unconscious if his every utterance was just 100% an expression of his subliminal wishes? How could Derrida have articulated Deconstruction if language was simply speaking him?

'People often express things they don't intend to; subconscious or other meanings may slip out. This is not to say that an author's intentions are irrelevant to the text, but that any statements about her or his intent must be subjected to the same scrutiny and are subject to the same interpretive process as the text itself.'

By the way, Mark, I invoked your name not because you're 'in the fortress' (you both invoke and dispel this mysterious thing: 'build a fort and burn it down' indeed!) but because I was hoping professional critics would be at hand to go to Vice and look dispassionately at its content and tell me where the fascism is. Because I am telling you here and now, if you can find convincing evidence that this magazine is pedalling a consistently right wing, racist or reacionary line, I will resign from it immediately.

The speaker fulfills ver intention to communicate ambition, whether

You don't have to be talented to be hip. So I'd prefer to say 'Hipster politics = indentity politics based on a strong inherent desire to be expressive'.

I would also say that if you want enough to be a hipster, you can be one. There are no biological prerequisites, no racial prerequisites. Bohemia tends to mess with, complicate, invert all the usual racial values anyway. Vice using the 'n' word may simply be Bohemia's need to prove it's a step ahead of the mainstream, in a world where, as Daria pointed out, 'there are very, very few less controversial positions for any American media outlet to take than, "Don't be racist!"' Bohemia can be as shocking as it likes and live. It may not, however, kowtow to the consensus and live.

However, if you tell me that the intention of all the authors who create Vice matters not a whit, and that Vice is fascist if just one of its readers thinks it's fascist, then fuck off!

In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king, eh?

I'm going to turn a blind eye to your joke about the land of the blind, and merely leave you with a photograph of what I've been wearing while contributing to this thread these last two days, and, on the right, the best-dressed person I've seen today.

Perhaps according to you, but when you're on a discussion forum, each individual poster gets to be the judge of that.

Wait, are you saying gypsies are born as larvae or something?

And in regards to Momus, you may have been born with flair, but hipsterness, that was your choice.

Felicity: Actually - sad but true - style mags are judged by the advertisers, not the readers, and they pony up their cash accordingly. The readers and their numbers are merely taken into account by those advertisers, who are conservatives headcounting 'aspirational bohemians' or how many of these they are likely to reach through this medium.

Small editorial point for of all people, Mr. Sinker. The coiner of the term 'meritocracy' was Lord Young, founder of the Consumer's Association, Labour peer et cetera. He did rather a lot to level the playing field, then sired Toby Young.

That's only true if you assume all that matters is viability in in the monetary market. If so, then hasn't cinnablount been "on the money" throughout the thread?

Here, where expression does not have to be purchased, we are discussing the value of certain notions in the marketplace of ideas, so being backed by advertising really doesn't validate one person's opinion over another's.

And thus Momus convinces me that transferring to a 'real' art school is a Very Bad Idea.

(and for whose benefit are you injecting the subversive socialist messages of your hobo brochure??)

That's getting dangerously close to the deterministic idea of advertisers being in Suzy's formulation what the unconscious is in Mark S's, or Republicanism in Blount's... When originating content, Vice writers are not 'spoken by' these dark underground forces. The pressure I've noticed and objected most to is the simple need to be brief and clear, not to assume that people have heard of, say, Wassily Kandinsky. But I kind of learned that back in the 80s when I was dating a Smash Hits writer. Don't drops names unnecessarily, and if you do, always give a brief explanation.

ok Momus so the opinions of the various vice readers here are worthless and wrongheaded

I wish I had the impression that more people here had actually read Vice. I'm still waiting for people to go to the site, to the content, and find something politically incriminating. I mean, there's offensive stuff there, sure. I was rather offended by the winner of the Don'ts section this month.

so far the only readers who actually get to BE ON the style council that evaluates vice's worth = you, gavin + ???

Since picking up your free copy of Vice or hitting Viceland.com is not yet compulsory, I think the people whose opinion matters are those who read and enjoy it. On this thread, Anthony, Tracer Hand... (forgive me if I left anyone out).

And no, it wasn't Neil Tennant.

Look out for my reassessment of Bowie's 'The Laughing Gnome' in an upcoming Vice.

Man, real "hipsters" like my friend Drew decided "The Laughing Gnome" was great like 5 or 6 years ago. You're so behind the times, Momus.

(of course, "Williamsburg" and "hipsters" are such strange bogeymen that it's almost pointless to try refuting their usage - just let people keep blathering on about both, it's kinda funny.)

Also, I had an interesting conversation with my other roommate (the one whose friend subletted from you) about offensiveness and Vice: he was offended (in a mild way) by the caption in the "Dos" about the older black guy, yet was not offended by the caption in the "Dos" about the "punk rock math teacher Jewboy" (who happens to be a friend of mine from college).

My charity of choice is me, or rather, my landlord.

By the way, I never, ever use the word 'hipsters'. I prefer the term 'light people' (courtest Angie Bowie) or 'gousters' (courtesy her ex-husband, who almost called his 1975 album 'The Gouster' in a possible tribute to Norman Mailer's seminal and much-reviled essay 'The White Negro').

Okay, you are forgiven. See that's the thing. Simon trife and I both like Vice.

I just disagree with some of the things you're claiming for it.

See Momus there was a piece in your hated NY Times today about "Dignity Village," a relatively-autonomous homeless enclave in Portland, Oregon that actually discussed, in some detail, the lives of the people that live there, the challenges they face from a once-friendly-now-hostile City Council, etc. (although I guess it's not entirely your fault that the homeless in Osaka don't want to talk to you).

In other news, seconded on the Drew Daniels -- I think he's sexxxy but people seem to think I have horrible predilections when it comes to men so you may want to salt that comment to taste (if you have any.)

Suzy - regarding the advertisers - this is why it seems like McInnes is freaking out about the New York Times piece, 'cause uncouth, quasi-offensive comments in the magazine are one thing, but when the NYT labels you a white supremacist & puts together quotes to back it up, well, that totally crosses the line - I wonder if any big advertisers have bailed on them already?

(also: the do's & don'ts section has changed since the old days: the do's used to be MORE ADS)

you also still haven't dealt with my suggestion that your 'boarding school dandy' tribulations put the Young-Momus on the OUTSIDE of the necessarily narrow/conformist brand of cool implicitly advocated by ANY edgy style mag (and explicitly, bullyingly so in vice's case - knowing nudges & winks to same notwithstanding), not inside it - but i'm not holding my breath on that one

[*i don't know which month this is, i just screen grabbed it off a website for speed]

haha yes siring toby young = levelling culture w.a vengeance

I've now waded through McInnes' comments and have concluded that he is actually a bit of an idiot and somewhat right wing (he genuinely admires Pat Buchanan, for example). But he's a useful idiot, because ultimately he just wants to open Pandora's box. (Suroosh apparently regards Vice as a bit of a jihad.)

I'm finding 'the Vice crisis' the most interesting thing happening in the world right now, even including the pope's failing health. What I like is the idea that a magazine that's doing pretty well (all the stuff at the top of this thread about their film, book and record deals) can careen off the rails of its business plan with such a foolish move as 'playing the race card'. It really is punk rock. McInnes reminds me of Malcolm McLaren, Alan McGee, Bill Drummond, GG Allin, Costes. (Especially Costes. Oh, and he also reminds me of Mr Swenson, an artist I signed to my Analog Baroque label). He reminds me of all the people I've known who aren't content just to chug along, mediocre and mealy-mouthed, within the capitalist machine, making money, but insist on stirring up a ruckus in the mosh pit.

A Japanese girl called Narumi said this on the Anti-Hipster board:

'Why do people make this a witch hunt for everything? they said they do not agree with him. I don't think he agrees with him. I think all there is to learn is that you can't discuss certain things here. In Japan everyone has to adapt to a Japanese way of life. I am not saying we are better than you. I love it here and will be sad when it's time to go home. One thing I will not miss is how uptight people are. You cannot say too many things.'

That's beautiful. 'They said they do not agree with him. I don't think he agrees with him.'

Okay, NOW I'm befuddled.

(Seriously though, poor tiger. I hope he enjoys his new home.)

This convinces me, once and for all, that you are in fact Tom Peters.

Fine Momus, I give up, like McInnes all you want, but SWEET MASTURBATING JESUS ON A CRUTCH use your 'creative talents' and take yr goddamn rhetoric to some point past 1994, okay?

dude needed a TIGER to look tough IN HIS OWN APARTMENT?

Oh I dunno, mark, maybe he invited friends over? I can't remember if staying-in-is-the-new-going-out-is-the-new-staying-in-is-the-new-going-out. Maybe I need to consult a "lifestyle" magazine.

(Momus is also author of several books including, Thriving on Chaos, The Circle of Innovation, The Brand You50, The Project50 and The Professional Service Firm50.)

(although his politics are surely not too far from those of the senior management there.)

Michael, I'm impressed, you've read all my books! You're clearly 'in search of excellence'. You're the kinda guy who looks in the mirror and says 'Every day, in every way, I am getting weirder and weirder!' Go get 'em, Tiger!

Peters: It's a shockingly difficult question. A shockingly difficult question. I listened to the Fortune writer Tom Stewart give a talk on trust. And he said, "Given the transparency of the Web, given all the back-chatter that's going on in corporations about the lousy bosses, the boss who'll survive is going to have to learn how to do this amazing thing--which rarely happens in corporate America--tell the truth." And if I'm a boss, there's a clear defense against cynicism in my organization and that is to tell the truth. The unvarnished truth. If you bring in quality consultants, explain why the hell you're bringing in the quality consultants. Maybe it's just so that you can brag to your board that you brought the quality consultants in, but tell people that. I really think that the greatest defense in the world against cynicism is truth-telling.

I've now waded through McInnes' comments and have concluded that he is actually a bit of an idiot and somewhat right wing (he genuinely admires Pat Buchanan, for example).

You have me to thank for this admission-concession-revelation! You're welcome. No matter how much ruckus he may stir up in a peaceful mosh-pit, he's still an idiot, isn't that hard to believe? But one who's getting richer off of other idiots. Dandy-idiots. Didiots.

Vic, open your mind to colour, don't gray out on me! Have you tried 'Casual Fridays'? Try loosening your tie right now, there, doesn't that feel great? Go on, take it off altogether, like I've taken off mine! Now touch me in the groin area.

nick@momus.demon.co.uk

Momus in missing out everything since the eighties shocker!

("patriotism" "conservatives" "liberals", to start with.)

Insofar as I am behind the values of the west, I obviously have white supremacist tendencies. Insofar as I prefer the east, I am a rabid orientalist. Insofar as I've incorporated black music into my records, I have shamelessly plundered black culture. Insofar as I have left black music out of my records, I have been implicitly racist. Insofar as I have produced women singers, I have dominated them unforgiveably, putting words in their mouths. Insofar as I have been produced and managed by women, I have lain back lazily and let them do all the work, then hogged whatever credit came my way.

Now fast forward to 2003. Thank god nobody thinks that way any more!

Aimee Plumley listed ten different explanations McInnes had made for his remarks, as if this weakened his case. Sure, it would weaken it if McInnes were in some convergent situation where there is only one 'correct' way to act, to think and to explain. But McInnes is (hey!) a 'style labber', not a witness in court. His principal duty is to 'brainstorm'. His job is to be a sort of Baron Munchausen, an idea firecracker, exploding all over the place, not a 'responsible MD of a 10 million dollar corporation'.

I want McInnes to make important and suggestive mistakes, mistakes we can have a 600 word thread about. I'd much rather have him wrong than 'right', because the idea of people being right (or 'correct') alarms me. It implies there's only one way to do things. Didn't the feminists tell us that this is not about who's right and wrong, it's about who has power? Patriarchy is a master narrative, but it's not 'right', it's merely central. So we dislodge it with lots of competing, alternative narratives. We open up the field to competing 'truths'. Herstory, black studies, gay studies. All that. The more, the merrier.

Aimee should retitle her blog 'Divergers are Annoying' or 'The New York City Anti-Fabulist Forum'. She should examine the real roots of her need for corporate MDs to be clear, uncontroversial, authoritative rather than effeminate, ludicrous and confused. Because sometimes being publically confused is the best example a 'leader' can set, especially if he stumbles in the process across some of the most important issues of our time.

If you want my legal services for your upcoming court case, I charge $100 an hour.

Actually, 'liberalism gone amok' may well be the perfect motto for the landscape we arrive in when we 'complete' the project of identity politics. It should indeed be on every New York license plate.

Finally, something we can agree on.

Well, you were saying that intention counts but little, and I was saying that intention counts a little. So clearly you win! (But did you mean to?)

-- Momus (nic...), October 5th, 2003.

I thought you'd never ask.

Sorry, Vic, my unconscious mind was 'performing me' like a glove puppet. Even now, language is 'speaking me', and Momus has his hand up my ass.

Can the process a person uses to come to a conclusion/develop a behavior/attitude be divorced from the conclusion/attitude/behavior and still leave relevance/worth to said conclusion/attitude/behavior?

Halloween 2003 Costume Thread to thread.

Cue Robert Hughes' comment 'In the old days you couldn't say 'fuck' but you could say 'girl'. Now you can say 'fuck' but you can't say 'girl'.'

I'm not sure I agree with your proposal of The Law of Constant Taboo. Why should there always be a fixed number of taboos in the universe? What natural principle suggests that should be so?

I think it's a question of swinging pendulums. There comes a point where the 'hype' around a certain taboo, its perceived sanctity (not to mention sanctimoniousness), makes it suddenly look foolish and over-determined. Suddenly, like the Berlin Wall or the Ceaucescus, it is broached and falls. Its legitimacy fails.

One reason might be that 'racism' (or 'race consciousness') is a transitional phase through which we must pass before racial differences become completely immaterial in our society.

Which is one good reason why making 'racism' taboo is just not going to fly. Both wings are racist, left and right.

Good grief, Blount, do you really do nothing but sit around all day reading Supreme Court transcripts? I live in Germany. What's your take on the Hamburg Haffenstrasse land rights situation?

Do you agree that making race differences immaterial in our society is a desirable result?

If so, how does the heightening of race consciousiness help?

Please answer the question, I am constantly posing it to people, not just Momus.

(I'm getting to the others, this is like Jacques Tati playing tennis!)

No, I intended (shh, Mark S might hear!) to say 'Well, since everyone is racist anyway, there's absolutely no point in making racism taboo. Much better confront it and find a positive spin on it, like saying that white people should think of themselves as 'ethnics' too.'

In that you're adorably befuddled by the modern world and our civil rights? Tres amusant!

That's a very difficult question. It's like asking your boyfriend if he would still love you as much if you were just a brain floating in a jar. He'll be torn between saying 'Of course, darling, that wouldn't make any difference at all, it's the essence of you, your soul, that I love, and that would still be there!' and saying 'But I love you just as you are now, with a body, and with that scar on your pinky...'

It's as difficult for us to imagine a society in which race didn't figure in culture as it is for us to imagine living without a body.

Is it even possible to put a positive spin on racism, though? Though there are different groups of Whites (Irish, Italian, German, etc) as well as within any other ethnic group, the term 'racism' implies that a particular group is getting unfair treatment.

The problem with your analogy is that one involves a one-on-one relationship between two individuals and the other involves a system of classifying people into groups and drawing generalizations from there. One person might be okay with the brain-in-a-jar girlfiend. Another person might not. Analogies are a rhetorical device for not answering a specific question, as also signaled when someone prefaces an argument "basically." Nice try and thanks for playing.

But I don't think Momus is exactly sating this; this conversation is not about national identity, and he's not even an American. He's saying that "White-Americans" shouldn't hesitate to call themselves as such and demonstrate "white pride" because first we have to ...go through all that before racial consciousness is collectively wiped out NATURALLY or something? Exactly how will all that work again ???

I'm just re-phrasing Felicity's questions, yeah. Which Momus is now trying to dodge using the cop-out of it being inconceivable/unanswerale/unimaginable, when he's the one who envisioned or at least potentialized such a future in the first place (via rationalizing McInnes!)

But I don't think Momus is exactly sating this; this conversation is not about national identity, and he's not even an American. He's saying that "White-Americans" shouldn't hesitate to call themselves as such and demonstrate "white pride" because first we have to ...go through all that before racial consciousness is collectively wiped out NATURALLY or something? Exactly how will all that work again ???

I'm just re-phrasing Felicity's questions, yeah. Which Momus is now trying to dodge using the cop-out of it being inconceivable/unanswerale/unimaginable, when he's the one who envisioned or at least potentialized such a future in the first place (via rationalizing McInnes!)

Actually, one thing that sharpened my focus on this was a very interesting thread Dan started called 'Are you a racist?' or something. Just about everybody had to come clean about their thinking being, inevitably, racist. Which made it very hard to see how people could even imagine a world in which that wasn't the case. So I concur with the judgement of Mitch v. Trife -- or at least the thinking implicit in the question: is there such a thing as an inherently anti-racist (set of) philosophical tool(s)?

By the way Felicity, there was no need to stride off the court in a huff. I stand by my analogy and I think it's a good and respectful answer.

That's exactly why I wouldn't commit to a simple 'yes' to the question

Do you agree that making race differences immaterial in our society is a desirable result?

Because how will racial consciousness be wiped out without throwing the baby out with the bath-water? Without throwing the pearl out with the oyster? Without throwing the body out and keeping the brain in a jar? Do you want James Brown's brain in a jar?

Momus, if you don't see a world-without-race-consciousness as being fathomable, why would you be advocating greater racial consciousness in the short run, or defending those (like McInnes) who are using such identifictions to reinforce prejudices between different racial groups?

I am here! In fact I am wearing a tennis outfit as I type. But I still call double-fault. :)

Where's the inconsistency? If we can't get rid of race, we have to deal with race.

And I don't agree McInnes is reinforcing prejudice. He has the modesty of all people who declare their situatedness rather than the arrogance of all those who claim transcendence.