Comment Archives: Last 30 Days
Re: “Hipsters Throughout History: The Definitive List”
No Oscar Wilde? Really?
Re: “Ranking the 13 Most Livable Neighborhoods in Brooklyn”
People, you are Funny and very, very critical! I say love it all and it is a must to work towards making every area of NY a better place, having Brooklyn being one of them! Chill with Love!
Re: “Travels with Hiroshi Shimizu”
well put in your normal, excellent nomenclature Mr. Gallagher. from my own viewpoint
Shimizu, as offered here by Eclipse series offers a necessary link as you mention, from Naruse to Ozu and we are all the better beneficiaries of. the missing link we need to see to completely and understand their culture before they got eat up with occupation of building a world war machine was a collection of warm Sundays and vacationing at summer resorts. none it that much different from our own selves.
Re: “Ranking the 13 Most Livable Neighborhoods in Brooklyn”
fortgreen clinton hills, is a zoo.
Re: “"Will.i.amsburg": or The Day the New York Times Officially Became an Internet Troll”
I actually thought the Times piece was kind-hearted and generous- he was genuinely exploring facets of a cliche, with full awareness of his uncoolness. There was nothing in the article to merit the kind of takedown you were so desperate to write: you actually completely misrepresented Alford's attitude. It's neither satirical nor is it mean-spirited (ahem). It was quite well written too. Even the comments on the article were (those I read) reasonable and interested, not in the slightest bit trollish. Do you have a chip on your shoulder about something?
Re: “"Will.i.amsburg": or The Day the New York Times Officially Became an Internet Troll”
@Lapin Agile: Oh snap.
Re: “6 Different Factions That Are Pissed At Citi Bike”
You forgot to mention every old woman in every borough. They seem to be the most vocal. Why old women? I don't know but just check out the angry demographic at all these meetings.
Re: “"Will.i.amsburg": or The Day the New York Times Officially Became an Internet Troll”
"Unclear to me which is the worst headline." You know this is incorrect, right?
Also, a Catskills-style humor piece is an oxymoron, and wrong- "Catskills humor," does not exist: it's known as Borscht belt humor, or comedy, sometimes just jewish humor, and is spoken, not written.
I suggest that if you want to tackle criticism you learn something first. Like what it is you're trying to say? And how to say it?
And I agree with Dennis, and Samyu. You are the one who has no business writing about the trendifying/ gentrification machine you and your shoddy publication feed off of. Are you defending it, or just jealous of the real writers at the Times, who actually do know what they're talking about, even if they sound (on purpose) like stodgy Manhattanites?
I would argue that you have even less of a sense of what Brooklyn is than Henry Alford does: looking at it as you do through the incredibly tiny window of your limited intellect and even more circumscribed sense of the borough. At least the Times covers parts of Brooklyn that aren't filled with kale, beards, and spoiled children of privilege pretending to be writers.
Re: “6 Different Factions That Are Pissed At Citi Bike”
Sarcastic article serves to further inflame critics and alienate cyclists. Instead, step-up, grit your teeth, and invite them for friendly discussions.
Re: “6 Great Brooklyn Vegetarian Restaurants NOT in Williamsburg”
The veggie burger at MOB is aaaaaamazing. AMAZING. There is some crazy sauce that they told us the totally normal ingredients of and I swear to you it is inexplicable and magical.
Re: “Photos: At Home With Passion Pit's Michael Angelakos”
is there supposed to be more than one photo?
Re: “"Will.i.amsburg": or The Day the New York Times Officially Became an Internet Troll”
Excellent Review
Re: “John Cale Still Has No Problem Talking Shit About Lou Reed”
I think the two of them have wasted to many years in not working together because of this constant bickering back and forth. They could have accomplished so much more wonderful and terrific music together if they had just been able to get their acts together professionally. When they are on the right page with each other there is nothing better.
Re: “Don't Move to New York”
Your all in the wrong place. You need to move to London. Americans all over the goddam place these days.
Re: “Hipster Dust Is a Thing. But Is It the Worst Thing Ever?”
Hipster Dust is back. We’re doing a limited summer run of 500 tins. Get ‘em while you can!
Re: “"Will.i.amsburg": or The Day the New York Times Officially Became an Internet Troll”
And thank you, Samyu. You have said it best of all the commentary I have ever read in all the media venues covering "new Brooklyn":
"why don't YOU go out and take a look at the 'real' Brooklyn? you know, people of color, people who can't afford college, or food, or rent. people who don't speak english, people who have come here from places far away and work 18-hour days and send all their money home to another place.
cause you don't have any interest in poor people who can't afford $7 chocolate bars and $15 cocktails. And neither do your advertisers."
Yes. And sigh. Oh, SIGH.
Re: “"Will.i.amsburg": or The Day the New York Times Officially Became an Internet Troll”
I echo these other commenters in relishing Ms. Iversen's [and the L Magazine's] hypocrisy. Ms. Iversen's indignation is ostensible. In fact, she is irked that not all mass media is immediately and explicitly sycophant towards "hipster buzzwords made flesh." Let's make no mistake--Mr. Alford's article is hardly critical though quite comedic of hipsters, Williamsburg or gentrification. Such is the state of things that the tone of such an article constitutes "trolling" by the NY Times. It reminds me of that article by Goldson for the WG News, "We're All Hipsters," that claims, ludicrously, that mass media is somehow arrayed in full against "hipsters." Meanwhile, he is writing from a media organ created, owned and operated by "hipsters," like Ms. Iversen here--and yet there is no lack of projection.
Ms. Iversen needs do her homework: the NY Times did not recently discover or jump on the bandwagon or is late on gentrification in Williamsburg. WRONG. The NY Times was quite possibly the FIRST MASS MEDIA organ to solicit, forget 'discovering,' gentrification in Williamsburg, writing about "artists" and housing in Williamsburg as far back as 1983. It did not recently "begin" reporting on Williamsburg. In the past thirty years of gentrification in Williamsburg, the NY Times' Real Estate section has written MULTIPLE articles on Williamsburg in EACH decade, and respondents have each time attempted to mock the NY Times' reporting. All the while the mocking is inferior than the quality of the writing it mocks. So that other commenter talking about "envy" and being "so 2000" is more comedic than anything Alford can caricature. That commenter, like Iversen, is SO 1983.
Re: “"Will.i.amsburg": or The Day the New York Times Officially Became an Internet Troll”
What's a 'spare guest room' - does it mean that you have one guest room you use for your guests and one you don't? Or does it mean that the guest room is spare?
Re: “"Will.i.amsburg": or The Day the New York Times Officially Became an Internet Troll”
"Brooklyn is actually a place where millions of people actually live and work. And it's not all fixed-gear bikes and artisanal mayonnaise."
UMMMM, this website covers nothing but the college-educated artisanal-mayo makers riding fixies. are you seriously taking the times to task for that? when they cover everything, and you cover NAIL ART? you're so stupid you can't even see the insane hypocrisy of your own argument...
why don't YOU go out and take a look at the 'real' Brooklyn? you know, people of color, people who can't afford college, or food, or rent. people who don't speak english, people who have come here from places far away and work 18-hour days and send all their money home to another place.
cause you don't have any interest in poor people who can't afford $7 chocolate bars and $15 cocktails. And neither do your advertisers.
you're not a real journalist. because who needs to be? you're just someone who rehashes writing from real publications to flesh out a slapdash advertising pamphlet. which fills trash cans feet away from where it's handed out for free.
also elegant to use "actually" twice in the same sentence like that. that pulitzer will be in any day now.
Re: “"Will.i.amsburg": or The Day the New York Times Officially Became an Internet Troll”
If you don't like the way the shit smells why are you rubbing your face in it?
