Why did they split it up? This isn't fucking 2009.

I didn't watch the clip and know nothing about Vice's production, but most channels that churn out content do this in one form or another to both make it appear as though they produce more content then they actually do and to maximize their ad revenue.

Why all the hate towards Vice? They do some entertaining stuff. I think it's just mindless hipster bashing.

They don't produce good work on a consistent basis.

You are dumb.

Well, I guess it's that people remember when VICE was headed by a racist moron. But in all fairness it re-invented itself and the alt-right shit is way in the rear view mirror. Along with said moron.

I like their docs when they don't feature a jaded douchebag as the investigative journalist.

Jeriko wow I had no idea but I think I've just skimmed the surface via a fairly lazy wiki search, but it's enough to know "fuck that guy." I've got the same problem with Q Radio, which every hipster loves, but that's because they whitewashed Jian Ghomeshi's deplorable actions so quickly just so they could continue airing the show, which is pretty much what Vice did. Not cool, so I don't listen to Q. Ghomeshi was a lot worse though IMO.

In either case it's like wanting to reboot the Cosby Show as soon as possible because it was many rerun networks' bread and butter, excusing the founders' behavior, be it McInnes' alleged (possibly just bad-taste parody) racism, or Ghomeshi's 5 counts of sexual assault, or Cosby's I-can't-even-remember counts of sexual assault. Really not cool.

They should remake the Cosby Show with an all-white cast following the exact same scripts word-for-word.

Actually they were better when they were headed by a racist moron, now they're partnered with Rupert Murdoch and are mainly a third party content provider, the good material is out there but it's the exception.

Yeah skimming over their website, Q was a lot better when it was headed by a rapist too. I just think some rebranding needs to be done (at least starting with the name) after a controversy. This also includes Subway, Jack in the Box, the Cartoon Network show Clarence, Chipotle, Jack in the Box, BP, zzzz

@Cam haha! I don't remember the Cosby Show because I was occupied with other stuff or if I was at home The Simpsons was on at the same time, so I don't know for sure, but I don't think they ever got into race on the show much, if at all, like they did on All in the Family (and by proxy Jeffersons) etc etc. So why not make White Cosby?

I'm sorry that I make you look stupid on a consistent basis, SolRo. It's not my fault.

Since you are mouth breathing hipster garbage, it's not surprising that you'd like Vice despite it being hipster garbage most of the time.

They went pretty insane on Facebook to the point where I had to delete them from my feed for extremely militant views and total deniability of anything outside their political agenda. They were approaching ridiculous SJW levels of commentary in their print articles, but I drew the line when a white fundamentalist Muslim preacher who was also a Five Percenter was allowed to write about how white people are the devil.

Because what.

VICE is like the perfect storm of gratuitous hipster cliches, and I do not say that lightly. Remember Old Man Murray's Start-to-Crate reviewing system? VICE episodes could be scored on a Start-Until-I-Mention-Brooklyn-Apropos-Of-Nothing scale.

VICE seriously pisses me off because it has the potential for genuinely riveting journalism, yet usually collapses into cultural fetishization. Americans living anywhere outside the northeast corridor are drooling hillbillies incapable of appreciating any culture or food beyond Hot Pockets and ketchup. (I've lived in both Michigan and LA, and yes, VICE went to the same lazy, patronizing well both times: People in LA are phony! All of Michigan looks like a warzone! New York!) Conversely, if someone living in their regional equivalent of a Flyover State says something ignorant, the correspondant invariably strokes his beard and praises their folksy wisdom.

Sure, they produce some good content, but I don't need a fucking white guy from Brooklyn lecturing me on how to eat a bagel in the middle of a warzone.

"Mouthbreathing hipster garbage." Haha. You're getting your subcultures mixed up, SlowRoll. I don't really blame you, since you don't leave your house. Behavior I wish that you would change.

Vice is crap most of the time, yet people seem to like videos that Vice makes, sometimes, which makes them more respectable than most media outlets, almost all of which would get a general POE media score of 0. That was the intent of my comment. Compare and contrast with the Putin Network, which gets a SolRo score of 100%, all the time.

I will also say that as far as covering actual VICE stores, such as the drug trends of Chinese yuppies in Shanghai, or the nature of slave labor in Siberia, Vice really knows their stuff, and they're sometimes the only people covering it, beating out the Economist or the Atlantic Monthly or other respectable outfits to the story.

And yes, I am hip and lovely, and I have had sex with other people. Sue me.

And Sexy Duck Cop, New York is better than LA. Still.

It's REVERSE HOMOPHOBIA, right?

That was more like 40 years ago butit is interesting how the sides have swapped. Of course in reality it's a combination of biological and environmental factors that varies from person to person, just like everything else. Hopefully some day people will get over the need to stick everyone in tidy "sexual orientation" boxes and people won't have to make their sexual orientation the center of their identity unless they want to.

Because the religious majority psychologically torturing LGBT+ youths into thinking whatever love blossoms naturally in their hearts is seen by everyone else as nasty and disturbing is exactly the same as LGBT+ youths asking religious institutions not to do that, right. I forgot how often gay kids get drunk and go find a straight dude to beat up, how many countries are majority queer. I forgot that queers and religious institutions were equally powerful and had access to the same resources and even had the same number of proponents. I honestly didn't remember that those two situations were comparable, so thanks for the heads up.

I do think one of the moral issues confronting the trans movement, and I mean that in very broad terms, is that if it's acceptable to change one's born gender than it should be acceptable to change one's born sexual preferences.

I foresee a weird alliance between elements of the trans community and people that wish that they weren't gay.

I think trans people generally say that they were born the gender they felt they should be ... just that they didn't feel they were in the right body? I think that's a way of sidestepping that particular problem.

Trans people don't "change their born gender" though, it's more like changing your body so that the way you perceive yourself and the way you look don't clash, to generalize a bunch. Like, the gender imposed upon them by their parents, the doctors at the hospital, and every piece of identification puts them in a situation where they have to fight to even have their names respected. The decision to transition is made despite credible threats to their physical, mental and spiritual well-being, not because of it.

HOWEVER your sexual orientation is a separate thing from your gender identity (i.e. there are gay, bi, lesbian, asexual trans and non-binary people), and feeling forced to change your sexuality because your peers are all saying that fags burn in hell is not the same thing as changing your body to match the role you feel you were born to play regardless of what's in your pants. The decision of gay men to "become straight" is being made BECAUSE of credible threats to their physical, mental and spiritual well-being, not despite it.

Basically "I'm going to change my body, despite the fact that it will make me suspicious to 90% of people" != "I'm going to deny myself love because I don't want sky dad to put me in lava forever"

Where the fuck are you getting this shit, baleen

wut

Unfortunately, prang, the individuals being profiled in this particular documentary are not "asking" religious institutions to stop doing all the things which you accuse them of doing. Rather, the individuals are doing precisely what I said: trying to use coercive force against religious institutions who offer services to people interested in alternative lifestyles, and doing so in a manner that exactly parallels, quite creepily, the ways in which previous generations attempted to suppress the LGBT community.

Hopefully, the views endorsed by the individuals showcased in the latter part of this documentary are NOT reflective of the LGBT community as a whole. My own personal theory is that, human nature being what it is, the hardline minority is composed of people who would, a half century ago, have been on the forefront of reactionary anti-gay politics; these kinds of people have not ceased to exist, they have not rejected their fundamental patterns of thinking, they have simply swapped one set of interchangeable memes for another. However, I am fairly confident that MOST intelligent LGBT individuals are, by nature, liberal and tolerant; people who would reject the extremist rhetoric of this new class of "hardline traditionalists", and speak up in defense of any of their gay brothers who chose to defy society by trying to "turn straight".

The world is a rainbow, and ex-gays have just as much right to exist as gays do.

Prang, the whole point is that there are people who don't want to be gay, regardless of the hellfire and brimstone preaching of Christians.
It has nothing to do with Christians, it has to do with people not wanting to have the sexuality THEY FEEL THEY WERE BORN WITH.

Being born gay has been the biggest reason why gays have gained general acceptance. It's not a decision or cultural choice, remember? That's kind of a big deal, what you're saying. You can't actually agree with yourself.

"feeling forced to change your sexuality because your peers are all saying that fags burn in hell is not the same thing as changing your body to match the role you feel you were born to play regardless of what's in your pants." Take out the religious elements of this and it makes no sense. You're saying you can feel ok with getting a vagina installed (or just being another sex for 3 days of the week, whatever) but if you just don't feel like blowing cocks anymore, it's because of Christianity.

Both things are intensely personal decisions perhaps beyond the control of a human being and they should be respected. I theorize that "trans" will grow to encompass transformation in a much broader sense, a transhuman sense, at some point, or else it's just a fad.

Shit yo as a queer who was raised Catholic I can't comprehend the argument that this is a personal choice that has nothing to do with the coercive environment of a religious background.

Obvi people can pursue what makes them happy or their "true selves" or whatever, and they should have a lot of leeway in that.

But praying away the gay doesn't work, it just creates a crowd who will get married but be unable to ever really be satisfied. Heaven help their partner who is doomed to shitty sex. That's a crap situation even for straight people. It makes you feel like something inside you is broken that God can fix, but it's not something anyone can fix because it's not broken, and maybe calling your mother overbearing or your dad absentee, you can deflect some of your own pain by foisting blame on your loved ones???

These camps are run by religious institutions, and the people who attend them are doing so for religious reasons. I've seen what casual homophobia can do to your reputation and standing in the community and I don't blame any of these guys for wanting to get rid of it, but they won't be able to. You actually think all these men's religion was only a coincidence w/r/t their desire to become straight, and that they acted completely independently of the ambient homophobia which necessitated the building, staffing, and maintenance for all these sexual orientation conversion therapy camps?

Cops shoot people, so do criminals, maybe... maybe criminals are becoming like cops? This has nothing to do with the law though. I mean, they're both shooting people, so they're functionally the same. Let's leave the law out of it.

baleen is saying: Everyone should have the option to explore their sexual preferences, and this includes homosexuals wishing to explore and choose heterosexuality as a lifestyle. The ability to decide one's own sexuality implies a more socially "learned" basis for sexuality, in terms of the old nature-nurture spectrum. If we accept that sexuality has a basis in 'nurture'--that is, it can be taught, learned, and decided-upon--then I, baleen, foresee the possibility of an alliance of thought between certain people choosing their sexuality and certain other people choosing their gender, both of which groups believe personality has some basis in choice. It may even be that, at some point in the future, this alliance of thought will abandon gender and sexuality as its main focus, and come to embrace human transformation as an end in and of itself.

prang is saying: While the above might be true in a theoretical sense, the experience of most homosexual conversion participants is that negative social pressures, and not personal exploration and preference, play a larger role than baleen's argument acknowledges. And I, prang, am offended by the equivalence being drawn between homosexual conversion groups (coercive) and the transgender movement (non-coercive), because it ignores the negative social and institutional pressures employed by conversion groups to achieve their goals.

Did I get any of that right?

It's a difficult question. In general, I would agree with you: people should NEVER be forced to do something which is against their wishes (unless they are violently, and without consent, intruding upon another)!

However, forcing children to do something they don't wish to do is actually very common - in fact, I would argue that it is one of the foundational principles of the childhood experience. Parents can make their kids go to soccer practice, can make their kids eat GMO vegetables, can force their kids to go church, can even stick their kids into psychiatric hospitals or group homes. (my own parents used to drag me to Rainbow Gatherings, Unitarian services, and karate class) The state, moreover, has for more than a century now claimed the right to force kids to go to school, wherein children can be compelled against their will to ingest all manner of things - cultural, ethical, sociological things, including (in public schools, as of fairly recently) the idea that being gay is "good" and "natural" (if the state mandates one cultural point of view, while forbidding another, is that not a clear example of indoctrination and tyranny?). And this is to say nothing of the long list of things the state expressly FORBIDS children from doing (including, ironically, going to ex-gay camp, if and when such legislation gets passed)...! Forcing children to do a thing and forbidding them outright from ever doing it are really just two sides of the same coin.

So, I might be willing to agree with you on this, RoUS. However, we'd first need a fundamental shift in our understanding of a child's right to self-sovereignty; something which isn't likely to happen.

I think it's important for you to describe some of the murders now.

I was thinking the first death would involve an outhouse laxative prank death involving the fatter counselor unable to leave the outdoor toilet and some kid comes for him with an ax while he's unable to stop pooping. The smell is so bad they don't hide the body, thus beginning a grisly series of deaths.

Also one of the kids has a zookeeper for a father and has stolen bear pheromones ahead of time just in case, and one of the counselors is fucked by a bear (after the shower stall falls apart) until he dies. But these are just some ideas.

"It would be a million times better than that shitty ______ movie Kevin Smith did."