The 'I hate this generation' thread - C/D

Momus - "He's a pioneer!"

ILX - "What?"

Blount - "Momus, you're just saying that because he's paying you."

Lather, rinse, repeat.

2. people dump on the guy

3. Momus shows up

Mix together

add water.

also, dud. the thread gets un-entertaining before the first 100 posts are over.

WHO CARES?!?!?

People Who Hate Vice: Don't read it!
Momus: Get a real job!

End of story.

-- Dan Perry (djperr...), October 7th, 2003.

Repeat until your hair has completely dissolved.

sounds like a new thread topic! we should get to the point where we get so post-modern that we just shit ourselves!

I imagine Missy shouting over the thread now. But what are the beats?

I wonder if I hit the link, and go to the loo, if it will have loaded by the time I get back, or if it will just crash my machine. Again.

It reminded me of the AAN conference I went to last month -- they held a "discussion" starring a panel composed of editorial representatives from the "Reds" -- two low-budget, AP-swiping youth-targeted dailies recently launched by the Tribune and Sun-Times parent companies. It is the alt-weekly house-culture custom to react to these two papers with insecurity-drenched scorn, so nobody asked the panel any interesting questions; they just basically got their ya-yas out yelling at them. It was really embarrassing. Rather than leave the room, however, I asked them one question: why on earth were they charging a quarter for it if they wanted anybody to read it? It must cost them more to collect those quarters than it's worth, and hadn't anybody told them how precious quarters are to people who don't own their own laundry machines? This is where the comparison to the Vice debate ends, as A. It's apparently handed out free and B. I sense Momus sincerely believes the editorial content has merit. These two points are connected -- my question was the only one that really got under the collars of the scapegoats on the panel. Publications refuse to give copies away for free when they aren't certain they're worth anything, even when their silly charges wind up costing them in circulation (and advertising). It was funny how the defensive reaction of these obviously budget-starved reps of two asset-rich companies reminded me of Philadelphia's Underground Literary Alliance, self-appointed champions of the working-class writer. They refuse to sell their zines at a reasonable price for the same reason: "You pay for value, dammit, and I'm giving you value! Aren't I? Aren't I?" And in both cases, the lack of time and effort put into the publication shows.

I'm now going to the Vice Web site, Momus, in response to your wish for professional critics to have at the thing. I have to admit that I'm already wondering "Do they pay freelancers enough to compensate for what the editorial process will do to my textual labors?" (By that I mean: would it be worth my time somehow?) The fact that they cut you to 400 words doesn't seem very promising. So, on second thought, I'll just hop over and see whether it's a decent read.

OH MY GOD.

WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH ILX!?!??!!?!?

Now I am going to assume that way, way, way too many people in here get absolutely none of my jokes. Oh, god.

Oh, god, does this mean that person who started the 'why oh why do men pose as women in chat rooms' WAS ACTUALLY NOT KIDDING??????

Um, sorry I can't be any more professional than that; maybe I should read more of Vice before I say anything else; I'm so shocked I admit I'm using a broad brush on ILX right now and it's absolutely dripping tar (and nigger cheese!). I'm certainly inclined to go back to the Vice site. Momus, how much DO they pay?

Momus's VICEmag "article" = 303
I HATE THIS GENERATION "thread" = 43,274

Sure he's a relentless blowhard, but HE'S GOT THE POW-WAH!

*using the MSWord word count function. No claims made for accuracy. Like the thread in question.

http://www.viceland.com/issues/v10n4/htdocs/mommas.php

How the fuck is that not progressive thought? Because it calls out the journalizin' profession as the trust-fund baby's game that it's turning into? Hit a little close to home, folks? Whenever I hear somebody bitching because somebody else is getting paid to write, MY knee-jerk reaction is either "boy, that poor fucker is REALLY sick of his day job, somebody give him a break, but then again he probably can't write anyway" or "yeah, parasites are really pure too."

Note also that the article ismore slanted towards "give the WHITE people whose parents aren't in the biz a chance" than it is towards "give the PEOPLE whose parents aren't in the biz a chance".

No, nepotism's only BLATANTLY A DISASTER if the person is incompetent. "Matters" is a different matter. Sometimes nepotism has results one likes; sometimes nepotism creates Drew Barrymore. The article does address competence... it's answering the question "If there is a liberal bias to the media, how the heck did it get there?"
It's NOT professing to answer the question "Should all these parlor pink bastards be fired and/or shot in the neck?"

"Note also that the article ismore slanted towards "give the WHITE people whose parents aren't in the biz a chance" than it is towards 'give the PEOPLE whose parents aren't in the biz a chance'."

Yes, that's because affirmative action already exists in the U.S. Of course, the article doesn't get into the flaws of affirmative action and how those flaws might translate in a sort of affirmative action aimed at outsider white males. Complicated world, no?

They're... It's because... No, I don't know.

Since when does getting a joke automatically make the joke funny?

Dan OTM. And therefore, the original "i hate this generation" thread = dud.

Am I the only one who notice Ann being momentarily posessed by Scooby Doo here?

Carry on.

Actually, most of the time I'm channeling Secret Squirrel.

Ann Sterzinger, for going to Vice, reading it, forming an opinion, and coming back to tell us, CLASSIC!

Sometimes nepotism works, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes affirmative action works, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes going by the resume works, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes going by professional appearance works, sometimes it doesn't.

You (and the article) are not making a very strong case against nepotism.

Yes, that's because affirmative action already exists in the U.S. Of course, the article doesn't get into the flaws of affirmative action and how those flaws might translate in a sort of affirmative action aimed at outsider white males. Complicated world, no?

WOW THE WORLD IS COMPLICATED I NEVER KNEW!!!!

Right now the issue I have is less with the content and more with the "Wow, I bet you never thought of this, you complacent plebe" vibe that accompanies it.

"The alt.fan.momus newsgroup archives contain numerous instances of momus ridiculing the concept of affirmative action. If interested, look particularly at the thread inspired by momus' writing on "supervictims.""

(Cough.) Um, what effect are you going for here? Have you ever been in a workplace that's been negatively affected by certain failures of well-meaning affirmative action policies?

Neither of us are trying to. We're trying to figure out what's going on.

Would she still be classic if she'd disagreed with you?

Right now the issue I have is less with the content and more with the "Wow, I bet you never thought of this, you complacent plebe" vibe that accompanies it.

Good lord, is it really that easy not to be a dud? I don't know whether to burst into tears or start plotting to take over the world. Hmmmm...

If that's Winnie the Pooh suplexing someone from the top rope, then fuck yes that's a great achievement.

Do you mean "playground activity" as some kind of INSULT?

And why would anyone make the effort to mock somebody without meaning anything by it? Typing gives you carpal tunnel syndrome.

http://www.viceland.com/issues/v10n8/htdocs/the_voice.php

That guy did his research and it shows.

And what do you know, instead of just making fun of the stuck-in-the-80s look of strip-club DJs, he actually tries to figure out why they look that way. His answer is interesting: they pine for a now lost time of prosperity. Hm, that smells like a journalist actually analyzing how other people's jobs work on them.

But, you know, it's reactionary because it doesn't talk about how miserably oppressed the strippers are.

And of course it's just all puerile attention-grabbing -- look how they use the word "pu**y" in the headline!

(Ally, that is one cute sea beestie.)

There's something annoying about the whole thread. Both threads, really. I think HStencil has the clue.

1. Do you 'gag' (or throw up) easily when contemplating humanity? Do you consider much human behaviour depraved and 'beyond the pale'? (YES indicates presence of 'global conservatism' and probably a hatred of the photographs of Terry Richardson.)

2. How do you respond to transgressive gags (or jokes)? Do you think that humour should be kept within limits of 'taste and decency'? (YES indicates presence of 'global conservatism' and probably much gagging -- sense 1 -- at the jokes of Dan Perry.)

3. How readily do you call for people to be gagged (or muzzled)? Do you call often for 'the Moderator', asking for posts or threads to be deleted? (YES indicates the presence of 'global conservatism'.)

If we strap Vice into the chair and administer these three tests, we get:

1. Clearly non-conservative -- mucho nakedness and pictures of people sticking needles in their necks.

2. Clearly non-conservative -- many transgressive jokes. However, may risk less in the future after being 'shamed' by the NY Times. Let's hope not.

3. Clearly non-conservative, much more likely to be censored that call for censorship. (Telling people to 'shut the fuck up' is not censorship. Vice does that all the time.) Some self-censorship may now be attempted if Vice bottles out. More's the pity.

How does this prove they don't "consider much human behaviour depraved and 'beyond the pale'?"

All this arguing over whether Vice is conservative or not just reminds me for the umpteenth time of the politcal spectrum being a horseshoe. The extremes are always closer to each other then they are to the middle.

I can't think of a worse insult that you can throw at someone "Oh you conservative!" (except "You liberal!" in certain parts of the States (read: all))

(bah xposted to death)

I don't understand why blaming crimes on minorities would be progressive if progressives were trying to document the realities of crime?

Cos this thread has veered from discussing the initial thread into, um, being a continuation of the earlier thread.

It has all the unneccesseary ingredients:

1) Momus
2) Vice Magazine
3) Endless pronouncements about "conservatism" and "progressivism" with pre-ordained value judgements as to the implicit merit thereof

At least I clear my catfights up in a few posts. Phew!

Come on McInnes, make my day. Innarests include staying in reading Graham Greene, and, um, staying in and watching Rohmer films . Yeah, baby, I'm living the Vice lifestyle!!

This is true but isn't there something to be said for the presentation or context? You could blame the audience for turning a sideshow into a freakshow, but I don't think that's being entirely fair or accurate.

I don't understand why blaming crimes on minorities would be progressive if progressives were trying to document the realities of crime?

Well, before it was "conservatives want to sweep social problems under the carpet and out of sight" but now you are amending that with a subjective call on the reality of social problems. Which is fine, but it seems to nullify your 'world conservatism' test as being objective.

People seeing the same thing different ways SHOCKAH.

For what it's worth -- and to many here it's worth nothing, because you've decided I have nothing worthwhile to say and am a Republican! -- may I just say that you have touched here on one of my betes noires: the idea that images on their own (and V9N6 was a bold experiment in making a magazine of images alone) are dangerously polysemous, and that it is irresponsible to publish them without commentary. Do you really need an editorial full of ringing phrases about the 'tragedy' of this and the 'lessons' of that after every photo? Without that 'declaration of intention', is every image suspect? Verily we live in dark times.

Eurgh. That's slander.

Vice C/D?