Well, 'Problematic' was the opposite of a show that was nostalgic and a light fluffy look at life. We were literally trying to kick a hornets' nest, and I don't know how effectively we did or didn't do that.
I want to upset people, I want to make people think, I want to keep people interested.
It's only by being disruptive that you get people to have a conversation about an issue.
I'm a provocateur.
I don't think I ever intend to provoke outrage, but I don't mind being provocative in content.
First make yourself unpopular, then you will be taken seriously.
I make enemies deliberately. They are the sauce piquante to my dish of life.
It's about polarization. You're trying to stir up something in your audience.
I never thought of myself as a particularly controversial figure.
I naturally want to be provocative.
Controversy seems to be a by-product of what I do, rather like offence is the by-product of a dog urinating on the pavement. It just happens.
The amusing thing about 'X-Force' is that it was highly rated - and hated - in about equal measure, Which suited me just fine. If no-one's feathers were a little ruffled, we probably wouldn't have been doing our jobs right.
If you're not ruffling feathers at CPAC, I don't think you're doing a very good job.
The tendency to convert concrete issues into ideological problems, to invest them with moral color and high emotional charge, is to invite conflicts which can only damage a society.
I like stirring the pot - I think it's part of my duty, to shake people up a bit - make them look at things in a different way.
I'd be very controversial if I said why, and I don't do controversial anymore. That's too passé. So last year. Being controversial is boring now.
