Re: CfP: Critical reflections on pandemic politics: left-wing, feminist and anti-racist critiques

[Sean Cubitt]

etail.

As with most of these discursive tendencies it's first and foremost impersonal, 
which can make it hard to counter without opening oneself up to charges of 
relying on ad hominem. I think that helps to account for its rise as a 
rhetorical strategy: it 'works' mainly because it lays basis for a scripted 
form of pseudo-argument ? pious platitudes about science, openness, debate, 
democracy, whatever. But, as I think you suggest, Florian, it would be a 
serious mistake to see it as merely rhetorical: it has concrete consequences.

It might be useful to think of this turn in terms of rightist 
'culture-jamming,' 'overidentification,' and related ideas.

Cheers,
Ted

On 20 Jan 2022, at 7:00, Florian Cramer wrote:

>> - Government propaganda and censorship around lockdown and vaccination
>>
> [...]
>
>> - The role of mass and social media in anti- or pro-lockdown or vaccine
>> propaganda, political polarization and forms of media virality (eg. via
>> covid-19 memes)
>>
> [...]
>
>> - Mandatory vaccine rollouts as assaults to the feminist appeal to bodily
>> autonomy
>>
> [...]
>
>> - Ethical considerations regarding mass experimentation, moral shaming and
>> lateral citizen surveillance
>>
> [...]
>
>> - Teleological and theological narratives of science as salvation (eg. via
>> vaccinations)
>
>
> All beautiful examples of a "Querfront" discourse where extreme right
> positions are packaged  in left-wing rhetoric. Not a single point, however,
> on minorities and vulnerable people and communities endangered by
> anti-vaccer egoism, and neo-Darwinist politics - for example in the UK,
> Sweden and the Netherlands, of "herd immunity" through survival of the
> fittest.
>
> You should invite Dutch experts Willem Engel and Thierry Baudet as keynote
> speakers.
#  distributed via : no commercial use without permission
#is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: 
nett...@kein.org<mailto:nett...@kein.org>
#  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://mx.kein.org/pipermail/nettime-l/attachments/20220121/ab5ec406/attachment.html>

--

#  distributed via : no commercial use without permission
#is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l

End of nettime-l Digest, Vol 172, Issue 22
**

#  distributed via : no commercial use without permission
#is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
#  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:

Re: CfP: Critical reflections on pandemic politics: left-wing, feminist and anti-racist critiques

[Ana Teixeira Pinto]

no worries, I failed to sign it! and do agree with you Ted! xAna

On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 4:29 PM Ted Byfield  wrote:

> I think I know how that happened, and it's more likely a spellcheck thing
> — but that's one of those unknowables, isn't it? And a poor excuse in any
> case, and carries much less weight than the context — nettime's
> long-established history of gender bias. Way back I had a boss who all but
> beat into me how important it is to get names right; he was a creep but he
> was also right. So: Ana, please accept my apologies, and bronac, thank you
> for pointing out my mistake.
>
> Ted
>
> On 21 Jan 2022, at 8:34, bronac ferran wrote:
>
> > can't help wondering who the 'Alan' is to whom your email is addressed
> >
> > seems a perfect subliminal reflex (I won't say knee jerk response) ...
> >
> > as ever
> >
> > B
> >
> > On Fri, 21 Jan 2022 at 13:26, Ted Byfield  wrote:
> >
> >> Alan, your question seems right on. I think there's an answer — it's
> just
> >> not very satisfying.
>  <...>
>
#  distributed via : no commercial use without permission
#is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
#  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:

Re: CfP: Critical reflections on pandemic politics: left-wing, feminist and anti-racist critiques

[Ted Byfield]

I think I know how that happened, and it's more likely a spellcheck thing — but 
that's one of those unknowables, isn't it? And a poor excuse in any case, and 
carries much less weight than the context — nettime's long-established history 
of gender bias. Way back I had a boss who all but beat into me how important it 
is to get names right; he was a creep but he was also right. So: Ana, please 
accept my apologies, and bronac, thank you for pointing out my mistake.

Ted

On 21 Jan 2022, at 8:34, bronac ferran wrote:

> can't help wondering who the 'Alan' is to whom your email is addressed
>
> seems a perfect subliminal reflex (I won't say knee jerk response) ...
>
> as ever
>
> B
>
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2022 at 13:26, Ted Byfield  wrote:
>
>> Alan, your question seems right on. I think there's an answer — it's just
>> not very satisfying.
 <...>
#  distributed via : no commercial use without permission
#is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
#  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:

Re: MONEYLAB NFT ESSAY PRIZE

[Hank Bull]

Great idea! And none better than Moneylab to host.
Hank

On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 6:39 AM Geert Lovink  wrote:

> *Popular search query: "Making Millions with NFTs!"*
>
> Empowerment or Trap? Jackpot or pocket money? You be the judge. Time to
> auction off our criticality. In a single year, NFTs have gone from
> obscurity to superstardom. Are NFTs, DeFi and gamified decentralized apps
> the new way for the disenfranchised to (finally) get paid? Or are they the
> gateway drug to a life of precarious hussle amidst capitalism's death
> spiral? The web3 debate has defined the young millenials/GenZ 'Covid'
> generations. What will the NFT lottery bring in this merciless economy?
>
> We have heard from the experts, we have heard from the grifters, we have
> heard from boomer cynics and we've heard from the evangelists. Now we want
> to hear from young people struggling in this economy. What is the future
> *you* see on the other side of the NFT craze. Is it, finally, a way for
> creative people to survive and thrive? Is it a scam or just an immature
> futurist prototype? Is it destined for cooptation by the corporate and
> financial powers that be? Or is it a platform for new forms of solidarity?
>
> The *Moneylab*  network was
> initiated by the Amsterdam-based Institute for Network Cultures in 2013 to
> bring together thinkers, artists, technologists and activists to explore
> the future of money and value in a digital age. Since then, it has
> organized 12 conferences all over the world, published three readers and
> several pamphlets, hosted an active mailing list and maintained a well-read
> blog. The project has been taking a breather since June 2021, after hosting
> five fabulous pandemic-era conferences in cyberspace. But we're back, with
> a whole different ball game!
>
> We invite creative responses from people under the age of 30 to the
> question "*are NFTs the key to a generation's empowerment, or a
> capitalist trap*?" Responses may be sent in the form of a conventional or
> experimental essay, including notes, aphorisms and dialogues of max. 2500
> words, if possible packed with links, comments, memes and sound. Or a
> video/audio/interactive media composition of up to 15-minutes. We look for
> advanced speculative writing, critical theory and first-hand experiences
> with monetary experiments.
>
> *The deadline for submissions is March 1, 2022.*
>
> Please send your submission to *i...@networkcultures.org
> *. The MoneyLab board will assemble a diverse
> squad to read/watch the submissions and choose the most interesting,
> original and illuminating from among them. The first, second and third
> winners will each recieve 250 euro/usd. The successful works, as well as
> honourable mentions, will be published  on the MoneyLab blog and related
> media outlets. Authors will be invited to display, read and comment on
> their work at a special online meeting of the MoneyLab community.
>
> Those who would like to discuss their ideas and get feedback ahead of the
> deadline are warmly invited to *join the Moneylab Discord server*, where
> a special channel (https://discord.gg/AXGJtqqX3V) has been established.
> There will also be a *facilitated brainstorming and feedback session* on
> Zoom on February 9 and 8pm CET (5pm Eastern). In both the Discord channel
> and the Zoom session experts and members of the selection committee will be
> on-hand to offer *supportive and constructive feedback*.
>
> For the MoneyLab board: Max Haiven, Ela Kagel and Geert Lovink
> https://www.networkcultures.org/moneylab
>
>
>
> #  distributed via : no commercial use without permission
> #is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
> #  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
> #  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
> #  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
> #  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
#  distributed via : no commercial use without permission
#is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
#  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:

Re: CfP: Critical reflections on pandemic politics: left-wing, feminist and anti-racist critiques

[bronac ferran]

can't help wondering who the 'Alan' is to whom your email is addressed

seems a perfect subliminal reflex (I won't say knee jerk response) ...

as ever

B

On Fri, 21 Jan 2022 at 13:26, Ted Byfield  wrote:

> Alan, your question seems right on. I think there's an answer — it's just
> not very satisfying.
>
> It's standard fare (with good reason) to note that the maldistribution of
> global healthcare, from R through everyday practices, benefits the global
> north at the expense of the global south. This criticism has been
> especially prominent in a few areas like HIV/AIDS and (not coincidentally)
> vaccine research. As you and everyone else who will read this almost
> certainly know, quite a bit of pharma research is conducted in
> less-developed countries (i.e., *on people in LDCs*), but when it comes
> time to make the resulting products available, the debate mysteriously
> shifts — to the need to amortize R costs, corporate rights to profit,
> etc, etc. So there are valid arguments to be made about colonialism (and
> therefore imperialism) in the context of pharma.
>
> The problem comes when those decades-old, generic arguments are applied in
> new contexts. Admittedly, 'new' has a pretty woolly meaning here, but you
> kinda now it when you see it. For example, ebola may be ancient, but the
> threat it poses in the context of globalization — largely thanks to
> aviation — are new. No one in their right mind would argue that ebola
> should have been deliberately transported to the EU or US so we could make
> sure that candidate vaccines are tested 'equitably.' The risks outside of
> narrow confines of testing are too extreme, so candidates were mainly
> tested in situ — and, crucially, *the vaccines were deployed in situ*.
> (I'll ignore the fact that OF COURSE there are samples of it and other
> pathogens in 'secure' facilities, often quasi-military.)
>
> SARS-CoV-2 moved too quickly to be isolated 'like' ebola, so the challenge
> it presented was genuinely global — and the same is true for the vaccine
> research, in part because national regulatory structures around the world
> adapted quickly. Upshot: candidate vaccines were tested much more widely
> than usual, in LDCs as well as WEIRD countries, and anywhere else that
> worked. And yet the global south, which has played a decisively important
> role in helping everyone to understand SARS-CoV-2, has gotten screwed in a
> familiar range of ways (not just access). So, again, there are valid
> grounds to talk about colonialism (and therefore imperialism) in the
> context of Covid-related pharma.
>
> But, as you note, the moment someone starts to talk about "provax"
> imperialism, everything turns upside-down and backwards. I think I get the
> general argument (not yours), that the West's overall pro-vaccine stance is
> part and parcel of a larger ideological front — a double bind that both
> valorizes vaccinations then denies access to them — and that that morally
> untenable position is continuous with 'imperialism.' But, as you suggest,
> the more pressing issue — as measured by populations sickened or dying from
> Covid. That's a lot more compelling than some vast schematic criticism
> untethered from any practical solution, like better access to vaccines and
> healthcare.
>
> Cheers,
> Ted
>
>
> On 20 Jan 2022, at 12:30, Ana Teixeira Pinto wrote:
>
> > What is "pro-vax imperialism"? To what concrete, real, policy does this
> > term apply? It seems to suggest that vaccines are being foisted on the
> > global south when the actual problem is hoarding...
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 6:06 PM Ted Byfield 
> wrote:
> >
> >> This kind of 'concern trolling'–esque appropriation of leftish discourse
> >> in the service of rightish agendas is becoming pervasive in the US at
> least
> >> — and elsewhere, I'm sure, albeit with less detail.
> >>
> >> As with most of these discursive tendencies it's first and foremost
> >> impersonal, which can make it hard to counter without opening oneself
> up to
> >> charges of relying on ad hominem. I think that helps to account for its
> >> rise as a rhetorical strategy: it 'works' mainly because it lays basis
> for
> >> a scripted form of pseudo-argument — pious platitudes about science,
> >> openness, debate, democracy, whatever. But, as I think you suggest,
> >> Florian, it would be a serious mistake to see it as merely rhetorical:
> it
> >> has concrete consequences.
> >>
> >> It might be useful to think of this turn in terms of rightist
> >> 'culture-jamming,' 'overidentification,' and related ideas.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Ted
> >>
> >> On 20 Jan 2022, at 7:00, Florian Cramer wrote:
> >>
>  - Government propaganda and censorship around lockdown and vaccination
> 
> >>> [...]
> >>>
>  - The role of mass and social media in anti- or pro-lockdown or
> vaccine
>  propaganda, political polarization and forms of media virality (eg.
> via
>  covid-19 memes)
> 
> >>> [...]
> >>>
>  - 

Re: CfP: Critical reflections on pandemic politics: left-wing, feminist and anti-racist critiques

[Ted Byfield]

Alan, your question seems right on. I think there's an answer — it's just not 
very satisfying.

It's standard fare (with good reason) to note that the maldistribution of 
global healthcare, from R through everyday practices, benefits the global 
north at the expense of the global south. This criticism has been especially 
prominent in a few areas like HIV/AIDS and (not coincidentally) vaccine 
research. As you and everyone else who will read this almost certainly know, 
quite a bit of pharma research is conducted in less-developed countries (i.e., 
*on people in LDCs*), but when it comes time to make the resulting products 
available, the debate mysteriously shifts — to the need to amortize R costs, 
corporate rights to profit, etc, etc. So there are valid arguments to be made 
about colonialism (and therefore imperialism) in the context of pharma.

The problem comes when those decades-old, generic arguments are applied in new 
contexts. Admittedly, 'new' has a pretty woolly meaning here, but you kinda now 
it when you see it. For example, ebola may be ancient, but the threat it poses 
in the context of globalization — largely thanks to aviation — are new. No one 
in their right mind would argue that ebola should have been deliberately 
transported to the EU or US so we could make sure that candidate vaccines are 
tested 'equitably.' The risks outside of narrow confines of testing are too 
extreme, so candidates were mainly tested in situ — and, crucially, *the 
vaccines were deployed in situ*. (I'll ignore the fact that OF COURSE there are 
samples of it and other pathogens in 'secure' facilities, often quasi-military.)

SARS-CoV-2 moved too quickly to be isolated 'like' ebola, so the challenge it 
presented was genuinely global — and the same is true for the vaccine research, 
in part because national regulatory structures around the world adapted 
quickly. Upshot: candidate vaccines were tested much more widely than usual, in 
LDCs as well as WEIRD countries, and anywhere else that worked. And yet the 
global south, which has played a decisively important role in helping everyone 
to understand SARS-CoV-2, has gotten screwed in a familiar range of ways (not 
just access). So, again, there are valid grounds to talk about colonialism (and 
therefore imperialism) in the context of Covid-related pharma.

But, as you note, the moment someone starts to talk about "provax" imperialism, 
everything turns upside-down and backwards. I think I get the general argument 
(not yours), that the West's overall pro-vaccine stance is part and parcel of a 
larger ideological front — a double bind that both valorizes vaccinations then 
denies access to them — and that that morally untenable position is continuous 
with 'imperialism.' But, as you suggest, the more pressing issue — as measured 
by populations sickened or dying from Covid. That's a lot more compelling than 
some vast schematic criticism untethered from any practical solution, like 
better access to vaccines and healthcare.

Cheers,
Ted


On 20 Jan 2022, at 12:30, Ana Teixeira Pinto wrote:

> What is "pro-vax imperialism"? To what concrete, real, policy does this
> term apply? It seems to suggest that vaccines are being foisted on the
> global south when the actual problem is hoarding...
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 6:06 PM Ted Byfield  wrote:
>
>> This kind of 'concern trolling'–esque appropriation of leftish discourse
>> in the service of rightish agendas is becoming pervasive in the US at least
>> — and elsewhere, I'm sure, albeit with less detail.
>>
>> As with most of these discursive tendencies it's first and foremost
>> impersonal, which can make it hard to counter without opening oneself up to
>> charges of relying on ad hominem. I think that helps to account for its
>> rise as a rhetorical strategy: it 'works' mainly because it lays basis for
>> a scripted form of pseudo-argument — pious platitudes about science,
>> openness, debate, democracy, whatever. But, as I think you suggest,
>> Florian, it would be a serious mistake to see it as merely rhetorical: it
>> has concrete consequences.
>>
>> It might be useful to think of this turn in terms of rightist
>> 'culture-jamming,' 'overidentification,' and related ideas.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Ted
>>
>> On 20 Jan 2022, at 7:00, Florian Cramer wrote:
>>
 - Government propaganda and censorship around lockdown and vaccination

>>> [...]
>>>
 - The role of mass and social media in anti- or pro-lockdown or vaccine
 propaganda, political polarization and forms of media virality (eg. via
 covid-19 memes)

>>> [...]
>>>
 - Mandatory vaccine rollouts as assaults to the feminist appeal to
>> bodily
 autonomy

>>> [...]
>>>
 - Ethical considerations regarding mass experimentation, moral shaming
>> and
 lateral citizen surveillance

>>> [...]
>>>
 - Teleological and theological narratives of science as salvation (eg.
>> via
 vaccinations)
>>>
>>>
>>> All beautiful 

Final Call xCoAx 2022: International Conference on Computation, Communication, Aesthetics and X

[Andre Rangel]

xCoAx 2022: International Conference on Computation, Communication, Aesthetics 
and X — Final Call
(6-8 July 2022)

Dates: 6-8 July 2022

Location: Coimbra, Portugal and online

Website: http://xcoax.org/ 
Extended submission deadline: 15 February 2022

xCoAx is an exploration of the intersection where computational tools and media 
meet art and culture, in the form of a multi-disciplinary enquiry on 
aesthetics, computation, communication and the elusive X factor that connects 
and characterises them all.

The focus of xCoAx is on the unpredictable overlaps between creative freedom 
and algorithmic rules, between human nature and machine technology, aimed 
towards new directions in aesthetics.

xCoAx has been an occasion for international audiences to exchange ideas in 
search for interdisciplinary synergies between computer scientists, artists, 
media practitioners, and theoreticians at the thresholds between digital arts 
and culture. 

Starting in 2013 in Bergamo, xCoAx has so far taken place also in Porto, 
Glasgow, Lisbon, Madrid, Milan, and Graz.
xCoAx 2022 will take place in Coimbra, Portugal. 
However, building on our experience of the CoViD-19 pandemic, part of the event 
will be made available online. We will closely monitor the evolving situation 
and more details will follow. 

xCoAx 2022’s keynote speakers are Winnie Soon and Andreas Broeckmann.

Call for papers, artworks, performances

xCoAx 2022 calls for papers, artworks, performances and research 
works-in-progress by scholars, artists, performers and students, working on any 
of the multi-disciplinary facets of xCoAx.

Topics

You are invited to submit theoretical, practical or experimental research work 
in the form of papers, artworks, and performances, on a range of topics that 
includes but is not limited to the following:

Computation
Communication
Aesthetics
X
Algorithms / Systems / Models
Artificial Aesthetics
Artificial Intelligence / Creativity
Audiovisuals / Multimodality
Design
Interaction
Games
Generative Art / Design
History
Mechatronics / Physical Computing
Music / Sound Art
Performance
Philosophy of Art / of Computation
Technology / Ethics / Epistemology

Important dates

Extended submission deadline: February 15
Notifications to authors: March 27
Registration deadline for authors: April 17
Delivery of final versions of papers and artwork/performances/symposium 
abstracts for the proceedings: April 17
Delivery of final versions of multimedia files and video presentations for the 
website: May 8
Welcome, opening of the exhibition, performance: July 6
Doctoral symposium: July 6
Discussions of papers, artworks and performances: July 7-8
Performance evening: July 7
Closing party: July 8
Exhibition take-down: July 9

Submission categories

Papers
Please submit a paper (3.000 to 6.000 words, excluding references) following 
the formatting in the Word template at 
http://xcoax.org/xCoAx_2022_Paper_Template.docx 
 
Revision of papers will be double-blind. Please make sure that the PDF file is 
completely anonymised (i.e. omits author-related information in the body of 
text or as explicit self-citations, notes and bibliography). Accepted papers 
will be published in the conference proceedings and authors will hold a 
15-minute presentation at xCoAx 2022.
Doctoral Symposium Abstracts
PhD students can apply to present their work-in-progress and receive feedback 
from established researchers. Submit a document, following the formatting in 
the Word template at 
http://xcoax.org/xCoAx_2022_DoctoralSymposium_Template.docx 
, comprised of a 
research paper and a letter of support from your advisor (700 to 2.000 words, 
excluding references) that should include the following: 1) Purpose of the 
research and its importance to the field; 2) Brief survey of background and 
related work; 3) Description of the proposed approach; 4) Expected 
contributions; 5) Progress towards goals. 
Revision of proposals will be single-blind. A revised version will be requested 
for inclusion in the proceedings after the symposium. Previous xCoAx Doctoral 
Symposia were chaired by Frieder Nake, Mario Klingemann, Philip Galanter, 
Angela Ferraiolo, Simona Chiodo, Marko Ciciliani. The Doctoral Symposium will 
be a closed event.
Artworks
Proposals should provide a clear description of the work (in case of online 
artworks possibly a link to the artwork itself) in the form of a document 
including the following:
An abstract of maximum 200 words
A main text of 700 to 2.000 words (excluding references)
An appendix with technical rider and setup details of the artwork for either an 
online or on-site exhibition or performance setting
Another appendix with references to multimedia material on the artwork 
The document must follow the formatting in the Word template at 
http://xcoax.org/xCoAx_2022_Artwork_Performance_Template.docx 

Re: CfP: Critical reflections on pandemic politics: left-wing, feminist and anti-racist critiques

[Ana Teixeira Pinto]

What is "pro-vax imperialism"? To what concrete, real, policy does this
term apply? It seems to suggest that vaccines are being foisted on the
global south when the actual problem is hoarding...


On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 6:06 PM Ted Byfield  wrote:

> This kind of 'concern trolling'–esque appropriation of leftish discourse
> in the service of rightish agendas is becoming pervasive in the US at least
> — and elsewhere, I'm sure, albeit with less detail.
>
> As with most of these discursive tendencies it's first and foremost
> impersonal, which can make it hard to counter without opening oneself up to
> charges of relying on ad hominem. I think that helps to account for its
> rise as a rhetorical strategy: it 'works' mainly because it lays basis for
> a scripted form of pseudo-argument — pious platitudes about science,
> openness, debate, democracy, whatever. But, as I think you suggest,
> Florian, it would be a serious mistake to see it as merely rhetorical: it
> has concrete consequences.
>
> It might be useful to think of this turn in terms of rightist
> 'culture-jamming,' 'overidentification,' and related ideas.
>
> Cheers,
> Ted
>
> On 20 Jan 2022, at 7:00, Florian Cramer wrote:
>
> >> - Government propaganda and censorship around lockdown and vaccination
> >>
> > [...]
> >
> >> - The role of mass and social media in anti- or pro-lockdown or vaccine
> >> propaganda, political polarization and forms of media virality (eg. via
> >> covid-19 memes)
> >>
> > [...]
> >
> >> - Mandatory vaccine rollouts as assaults to the feminist appeal to
> bodily
> >> autonomy
> >>
> > [...]
> >
> >> - Ethical considerations regarding mass experimentation, moral shaming
> and
> >> lateral citizen surveillance
> >>
> > [...]
> >
> >> - Teleological and theological narratives of science as salvation (eg.
> via
> >> vaccinations)
> >
> >
> > All beautiful examples of a "Querfront" discourse where extreme right
> > positions are packaged  in left-wing rhetoric. Not a single point,
> however,
> > on minorities and vulnerable people and communities endangered by
> > anti-vaccer egoism, and neo-Darwinist politics - for example in the UK,
> > Sweden and the Netherlands, of "herd immunity" through survival of the
> > fittest.
> >
> > You should invite Dutch experts Willem Engel and Thierry Baudet as
> keynote
> > speakers.
> #  distributed via : no commercial use without permission
> #is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
> #  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
> #  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
> #  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
> #  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
#  distributed via : no commercial use without permission
#is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
#  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:

Re: CfP: Critical reflections on pandemic politics: left-wing, feminist and anti-racist critiques

[Ana Teixeira Pinto]

I would not call Florian's response a knee-jerk reaction, and also find it
difficult to sketch out an anti-racist position without addressing vaccine
equity, or the adjacency of anti-vaccine rhetoric to narratives of reverse
colonialism entailing the subjugation of white people; not to mention their
rabid antisemitism. I would not foreclose a left-wing critique of
government policy but would agree with Florian that its dangerous to couch
far-right sentiment in left wing discourse.




On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 1:06 PM Hoofd, I.M. (Ingrid) 
wrote:

> Your knee-jerk response is an excellent example of elitist and
> false-oppositional ‘left’ thinking that has completely fallen for the
> government and big-pharma propaganda, and forgets to think critically about
> power structures, knowing very well that right-wing and left-wing, while
> also entertaining huge differences, are not pure opposites. Baudet would be
> proud of you; he can rake in the spoils.
>
> Cheers, Ingrid.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Florian Cramer 
> *Sent:* Thursday, 20 January 2022 13:00
> *To:* Hoofd, I.M. (Ingrid) 
> *Cc:* nettim...@kein.org
> *Subject:* Re:  CfP: Critical reflections on pandemic politics:
> left-wing, feminist and anti-racist critiques
>
>
>
>
> - Government propaganda and censorship around lockdown and vaccination
>
> [...]
>
> - The role of mass and social media in anti- or pro-lockdown or vaccine
> propaganda, political polarization and forms of media virality (eg. via
> covid-19 memes)
>
> [...]
>
> - Mandatory vaccine rollouts as assaults to the feminist appeal to bodily
> autonomy
>
> [...]
>
> - Ethical considerations regarding mass experimentation, moral shaming and
> lateral citizen surveillance
>
> [...]
>
> - Teleological and theological narratives of science as salvation (eg. via
> vaccinations)
>
>
>
> All beautiful examples of a "Querfront" discourse where extreme right
> positions are packaged  in left-wing rhetoric. Not a single point, however,
> on minorities and vulnerable people and communities endangered by
> anti-vaccer egoism, and neo-Darwinist politics - for example in the UK,
> Sweden and the Netherlands, of "herd immunity" through survival of the
> fittest.
>
>
>
> You should invite Dutch experts Willem Engel and Thierry Baudet as keynote
> speakers.
>
>
>
> -F
>
>
> #  distributed via : no commercial use without permission
> #is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
> #  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
> #  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
> #  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
> #  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
#  distributed via : no commercial use without permission
#is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
#  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: