Re: Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it.
Thank you, Tomasz, for chiming in. Your definitions are interesting. But if we take them as a starting point, I find myself still struggling to understand Frank's intended put-down, as well as his complaint. This list serves no real purpose beyond a kind of digital entertainment at a virtual social gathering. I'm not dismissing it's value in that context, but as a group (however loosely constructed) we are not self-consciously engaged in the active process of "changing" anything except our own minds through dialogue. (Or not changing them, as is likely often the case.) So, Frank, if that definition of bourgeois suits you, and if you agree with Tomasz's framing on the connection to free speech, then why are you here? For those of us who do live in places where speech can create trouble--and no doubt many of us do, and more of us may yet soon--then it would seem a gratuitous swipe at the speech they post here to dismiss it that way -- and to suggest that the moderators are ill-equipped to manage it or understand it in that context. As for my "feeding" habits, indeed, quite right. If anything my media intake is polymorphously perverse. Sascha On 6/7/19 3:07 PM, Tomasz Rola wrote: On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 01:18:23PM -0400, Sascha D. Freudenheim wrote: I resemble that remark, and I object to it strenuously! WTF is a "consistent bourgeois misunderstanding of contextless 'free speech'"? And what makes that misunderstanding "bourgeois" in nature? For me, "bourgeois" is equivalent to "middle class", whatever this one means. In parts of the world where "bourgeois" constitutes a dictating majority, "free speech" is, IMHO, equivalent to casual speech and is a way to entertain during social gatherings. In other places, this is a way to put oneself in a troublesome situation (with degree of troublesome varying from ostracism to execution). [...] As for the ideological monoculture... I don't know what to do about that except go back to my list filtering and lurking. To avoid ideological monoculture, per analogy to avoiding eating monoculture, feed yourself from different sources. # 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: Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it.
I resemble that remark, and I object to it strenuously! WTF is a "consistent bourgeois misunderstanding of contextless 'free speech'"? And what makes that misunderstanding "bourgeois" in nature? As the moderators have heard me say before, my two issues with this list remain that it is (a) too much a monoculture of ideas and (b) relies too heavily on jargon. Jargon that impedes comprehension, while at the same time softly slandering those "we" (used loosely) dislike (c.f., "bourgeois"; also the use of "neoliberal" in the initial post). Solzhenitsyn (are we allowed to reference him, or is he too much of a conservative to be taken seriously here?) wrote, in his stellar book "In The First Circle," about the concept of the Language of Maximum Clarity. We should strive for this (and it's certainly the opposite of "bourgeois"). As for the ideological monoculture... I don't know what to do about that except go back to my list filtering and lurking. Sascha On 6/7/19 12:08 PM, frank tigrero wrote: OK, I'll bite, as someone who has posted much less than others, but been a member forever. This new policy as is as shallow and milquetoast as YouTube's reluctance to ban actual nazis, misogynists and white supremacists from its platform and all the subsequent mess that has been roiling social media over the last week. Now, there aren't too many outright types of these people on nettime (a few, like Morlock and others) but this consistent bourgeois misunderstanding of contextless "free speech" and a libertarian fetish for nonintervention is really galling, especially on a list that strives hard to understand the social and political and ideological underpinnings of what is ostensibly neutral (eg technology). I urge you to actually start moderating again. Frank. - Original message - From: "nettime mod squad - nett...@kein.org" To: nettim...@kein.org Subject: Nettime is in bad shape. Let's see if we can change it. Date: Friday, June 07, 2019 10:41 AM Nettime is in bad shape, don't you think? It has still a lot of goodwill, and more generally there's renewed interest in formats of exchange and collective thinking that aren't defined by the logic of social media. But the dynamics that social media companies exploit are hardly limited to a handful of platforms. For example, nettime has its own 'influencers' -- a 1%, so to speak -- who generate the vast majority of list traffic. That's been true for years. The discussions they sustain may variously seem interesting or annoying, but either way they've become somewhat formulaic. An attentive reader knows more or less what to expect based solely the subject and the sender; and even meta-discussions about whether the list is dominated or by this or that tendency are largely dominated by the same few people. Some might argue the debates that have animated nettime over the last year -- the trajectories of postwar society, neoliberalism, the 'digital,' complexity, surveillance and big tech, Brexit, media and elections, Assange, even the Anthropocene in all its terrifying inclusiveness -- are the defining issues of the day. Maybe so. But if the nettime project had settled for a consensus model of the defining issues of the mid-'90s, it would never have gotten off the ground, and it certainly wouldn't exist almost 25 years later. The challenge, we think, is to maintain a space that attracts ill-defined ideas and uncertain issues -- things and not-things that don't quite exist yet and yet haven't been buried under torrents of authority and theory. So, what can we do? In the past, we've asked people to think about outreach -- say, inviting new people from new contexts. It seems like that's had limited success; but at a time when nettime has been limping along, it's hard to get excited about inviting people to join an environment so heavily defined by habit. We've also joked that shutting it down before it fades into complete senescence might be best. But that joke wasn't really funny, in part because it wasn't meant to be: it was a way of expressing serious concerns about the list's increasingly parochial status. Now, we have a simple proposal: let's switch roles. It goes like this: If you've posted more than others to the list in the last 60 or 90 or 120 or 180 days -- the math matters less than the spirit -- take a break. Let others define nettime, a space made up of nearly 5000 subscribers. If you haven't posted to the list -- say, because it seemed like your ideas, concerns, or whatever you want to share wouldn't fit with nettime's habits -- maybe that will change. Think of it as an un-grand experiment: a way to see what else might happen, who else might speak, what less familiar ideas, perspectives, or styles might spring up. Maybe the list will fade into silence, and we'll be left with a paradoxical object, a list composed *entirely* of lurkers -- not such a bad non-end for nettime. Or maybe not. There might be many ways to
Re: The Geert thing
This. 1000% this. Sascha > On Dec 13, 2018, at 5:29 AM, Joseph Rabie wrote: > > Morlock Eloi has a very provocative take on things. > One might not always agree but it furthers one's own thought. > A world without provocation is a tedious place. > Best - > Joe. > > > >> Le 13 déc. 2018 à 08:38, Morlock Elloi a écrit : >> >> Dear Geert, >> >> Please publish your official veteran-approved nettime posting guidelines so >> that you can be spared from having to do ad hominem outbursts when you get >> agitated. I'll be careful not to violate them. >> >> I would also like to ask the wider nettime audience - not the 6 veterans - >> about acceptability of out-of order postings on a quiet maillist. >> >> m. >> >>> From: Geert Lovink >>> To: Morlock Elloi >>> >>> There are five Morlock Eloi postings to nettime in a row. Is the problem >>> back? Let’s not repeat the blues, OK? Best, Geert >> # 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: # 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: apropos of nothing
As one of the (very?) few conservatives on this list—by which I mean conservative relative to the list as a whole—and someone who has been on the list for something like 20 years, I have a few observations: — Overall, I am impressed with the degree to which the move away from active moderating did not negatively affect the overall quality. I say that not to take away from the work of the moderators, but just as an observation on the community as a whole. — At the same time, two components have been an active and essential part of my experience with nettime: a filter on my email that files all messages automatically, and the delete button. — The filter because it makes it easier to manage the flow, especially when someone exhibits troll-like behavior or is simply too passionate to let go. — The delete button because it is crucial to any digital experience. I do not consider myself obligated to read every post, to feel inflamed by every trollish post. I consider it, rather, my right to delete them and move on. So while I think putting Bard on moderated status is the right call, I find the idea that this list is a home to potential fascists to be ludicrous and, in and of itself, a fairly fascistic take on freedom of thought. How about just using your delete button once you realize someone is a troll who should be ignored? Lastly: Bard’s remarks about Charlottesville were awful. However, we kid ourselves if we think that he is alone in thinking he can stand outside that fight. Putting him on mod status does not change the fact that many people—too many people—find something appealing in Trump’s statement that there were “good people” on both sides. Muting him only mutes our collective awareness of their existence, it does not change the fact that they are there. Sascha Sascha D. Freudenheim sas...@sascha.com > On Nov 6, 2018, at 10:36 AM, tbyfield wrote: > > I'd like to go back to lurking, but a few replies below. Mainly, this: Bard > occupied too much space, so I hope we de-occupy it with more forward- or > outward-looking things. Nettime does best when mods are seen and not heard. > >> On 6 Nov 2018, at 15:22, Nina Temporär wrote: >> >> A Nazi gets granted that status only after a long week and many hate mails >> with many crossed lines, but I was already >> On moderated status….for what exactly? >> >> For softly criticising Felix a few months ago, funny enough, on a related >> topic, when he totally out of the blue used the Defence of a women as a line >> of argumentation against someone else? > > Nina, you aren't on moderated status. Several messages were delayed, as I > said, for some technical reason, mostly because of some difference between > the subscribed address and the sender. I didn't take notes, so I'm not sure > what the issue was in the case of your mail — but it wasn't delayed > deliberately in any way. > >> On 6 Nov 2018, at 15:32, Menno Grootveld wrote: >> >> Although I certainly do not share all of Alexander's notions and ideas, and >> although I do not discount the possibility that he actually is one of these >> 'trolls', I don't support banning him from nettime permanently. I have to >> admit that I am a bit shocked by the eagerness with which some people seem >> to be wanting to 'shut him up,' as I do not consider this a productive way >> of having a discussion. The problem remains of course that a lot of people >> feel offended by his posts and that the discussion I am referring to has >> gotten out of hand recently, so the best solution would probably be to put >> him temporarily on 'moderation watch'. > > Menno, I set Bard to mod status rather than kicking him off the list. If we > call it temporary, we'd need to set up some kind of criteria for switching it > back. If Bard wants to initiate a private discussion about that, he can do so > of course, but I don't think it's the best focus for the list right now. If > he sends any messages, we'll review them at some point — but since his > destructive style thrives on speed, we'll do it on our own time. > > Cheers, > Ted > # 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: Unlocking Proprietorial Systems for Artistic Practice | By Marc Garrett.
Ermahgerd, where to start. How about... The cultural, political and economic systems in place do not work for most people. They support a privileged, international class that grows richer while imposing increasing uncertainty on others, producing endless wars, and enhancing the conditions of inequality, austerity, debt, and climate change, to own everything under the rule of neoliberalism. It seems to me that these two sentences fall victim to exactly the thing you're bemoaning. Under the well-established political theory of "It Takes One to Know One," this reads like a statement from someone belonging to the privileged, international class. (That's not as harsh an accusation as it may sound, as it comes from someone who also belongs to that class.) I will happily admit that yes, the scales of wealth distribution are significantly out of whack. So significantly that "significantly" is an understatement. And yet ... by nearly every agreed-upon measure, the "cultural, political and economic systems in place" have contributed to what can be called--with equal understatement--a significant reduction in global poverty rates. A 74% reduction since 1990 by some estimates. Also, those "cultural, political and economic systems in place" have contributed to the creation of a vast ecosystem of tools and technologies that allow people to communicate, to create, and even to travel, across great distances and at significantly lower entry costs than ever before. (And yes, yes, the financial/market processes around some of these tools have also have contributed greatly to the wealth gap.) Also, those "cultural, political and economic systems in place" have created massive classes of people who--despite their iron cages!--have decided that fuck it, certain work is beneath them. We've seen a fair number of examples of this in the U.S. (and elsewhere), where the natives (so to speak) don't want to take tough jobs in slaughterhouses or working in the fields. The pay can be high and it doesn't matter; it's beneath them and so they won't do it. So immigrants, legally arrived or not, will happily take their place... ...but it hardly seems fair then to basically blame the hard-working immigrant for creating the iron cages for all those disaffected/uppity poor nationalist natives who don't like the jobs that the "cultural, political and economic systems in place" are offering them, despite the fact that they're ... jobs. Am I saying that things are not tough for many, many people? Absolutely not. The debt load for many people is too high. The price of higher education is both insane and nonsensical. The climate change challenges are broad, unresolved, and frankly, unknown (and thus terrifying). But to pretend that despite all of that, *everything* is in the shitter, that everyone is in a cage--or in that cage because of "neoliberalism," as opposed to any and every other ism that has ever been tried--is just total balderdash. Sascha D. Freudenheim sas...@sascha.com @SaschaDF On 7/6/18 7:39 AM, marc.garrett wrote: Hi all, It's rare that you'll see any posts from me on this list. However, I thought, perhaps some of you may be interested in the subject of 'Proprietorial Systems', and my take on it. As some of you may know, I've been working with Furtherfield for over 20 years now. The context of the paper reflects a small example of my autoethnographical PhD, at Birkbeck, London. I am now in my write up period, and will be spending the next 6 months in it until it's all finished. Wishing you well. marc Unlocking Proprietorial Systems for Artistic Practice | By Marc Garrett. "Proprietorial domination is the presumption of ownership not only over our psychic states of existence but also through the material objects we possess and use daily, and this extends into and through our use of digital networks every day." http://www.aprja.net/unlocking-proprietorial-systems-for-artistic-practice/ Introduction The cultural, political and economic systems in place do not work for most people. They support a privileged, international class that grows richer while imposing increasing uncertainty on others, producing endless wars, and enhancing the conditions of inequality, austerity, debt, and climate change, to own everything under the rule of neoliberalism. David Harvey argues that the permeation of neoliberalism exists within every aspect of our lives, and it has been masked by a repeated rhetoric around “individual freedom, liberty, personal responsibility and the virtues of privatization, the free market and free trade”. (Harvey 11) Thus; legitimizing the continuation of and repeating of policies that consolidate capitalistic powers. Pierre Dardot and Christian Laval in Manufacturing the Neoliberal Subject, say we have not yet emerged from “the ‘iron cage’ of the capitalist
Re: Paul Mason: Trump is a symptom of the new globaldisorder, not the cause
Loving the framing here--or is that ironic?--of 40% of the vote as a success. Woot! So close to a governing majority! (Except for not even being close.) Yes, moving left and becoming a class party is a sure path to ... ... defeat actually. Think the record of that is really very clear. Here in the U.S., and also in the U.K., and elsewhere. That 1891 document is charmant und lieblich, and when I was a 19 year old studying my political history and philosophy, it would have been endearing. (Of course there was no web back then so I would have been reading it in a book.) As a middle-aged owner of a small business? The parts of it that are based on values still resonate (e.g., "4. Abolition of all laws that place women at a disadvantage compared with men in matters of public or private law."). The parts of it that are about class/identity politics fall flat or are, worse, downright unappealing. (You really think you can legally restrict my right to work beyond eight hours a day? Hahahah.) Marx needs a stake through the heart. It's long past time. This is not the path to victory, it's the path to a permanent 40% minority. Sascha On 6/24/18 4:04 PM, Richard Barbrook wrote: Hiya, It would be really great to hear more detail about the Corbynites' analysis of the international situation and how they translate that into a domestic policy program (Barbrook, where are you?). We were visiting Berlin to tell the SPD about Labour's digital campaigning during the 2017 election campaign. I emphasised that our success was due to politics not technology. If the SPD also wants to win 40% of the vote, it should move left and become a class party! https://www.marxists.org/history/international/social-democracy/1891/erfurt-program.htm Richard p.s. John McDonnell - Labour's finance spokesperson and Jeremy's Number 2 - is on the executive of DiEM25. === Dr. Richard Barbrook Dept of Politics and IR, University of Westminster 32-38 Wells Street LONDON W1T 3UW England +44 (0)7879 441873 Skype: richard.barbrook Facebook: Richard Barbrook Twitter: @richardbarbrook https://www.digital-liberties.coop http://www.cybersalon.org http://www.classwargames.net http://www.politicsandmediafreedom.net http://www.imaginaryfutures.net http://www.imaginaryfutures.net/other-works 'Clause 5: That as the laws ought to be equal, so they must be good, and not evidently destructive to the safety and well-being of the people.' The Levellers, The 1647 Agreement of the People for a Firm and Present Peace Upon Grounds of Common Right. On Thu 14/06/18 11:16 PM , "Frederic Neyrat" fney...@gmail.com sent: Dear Brian, As always your emails are illuminating. I've one question: to you, what are the parties, social formations, social forces that could enable " dispersed transformation of the energy and agricultural systems accompanied but pervasive reworking of the patterns of inhabitation and entirely new forms of ecological stewardship, based on the logic of ecosystem services (which needs to be amplified by a new concept of human services to ecosystems)"? And maybe a secondary concern about the term "service" that you use: with a configuration of other managerial terms, it has replaced -erased - first "source," then "ressource," I mean it's a term completely integrated in the system that produced the environmental disasters - I know I go quickly from service to disaster, but, to make a long story short, it seems to me that the word service is a denial of any eco-systemic reality (I try to explain that in La Part inconstructible de la Terre, to be published in English as The Unconstructable Earth at Fordham UP). Best, Frederic On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 12:07 PM, Brian Holmes wrote: Mason really captures the intensity of the breakdown, not only of neoliberalism, but of the post-WWII interstate system. He also manages to keep Asia in the picture, which is essential, because it is the emergence of the China-centric economy that destabilized the former Trilateral hierarchy of the US, Western Europe and Japan. However I have always found Mason's prescriptions incoherent, and in this case he goes off into some fantasy about Keynes that is totally invisible on the actual political landscape. Except maybe in the UK itself? If that's true, as David suggests, it would explain what I don't get about the article. It would be really great to hear more detail about the Corbynites' analysis of the international situation and how they translate that into a domestic policy program (Barbrook, where are you?). In the US there is no broad discussion about the need for what Alex calls a "new pact," and the reason for this is that, quite unlike the situation in the 1930s, the economy is currently booming and there is (as yet) no credible threat of authoritarian control over the prosperous sectors. The professional-managerial types of the digital economy, yesterday's "new class," have firmly hitched their fortunes to the
Re: morlock elloi
To paraphrase from the old joke, Long-time lurker, first-time writer here... (Ok, not quite first time.) I found Felix's and Ted's responses both instructive and engaging, and want to respond to two specific things: 1) Both Felix and Ted mention concerns about insularity. As a long-time reader, and without being too glib, I would like to reassure you of the correctness of your concerns. :) The discussions here on Nettime often remind me of all the old jokes about how academic fights are the fiercest because the spoils are so small. There is, in my view, little incentive for getting involved. And the few times I have offered a perspective of my own, well, let's just say it has not encouraged me much further. If the list of subscribers is in the hundreds, let alone the thousands, one would never know it based on the number of consistent voices here. Likewise, I share the concern about tone, tendencies towards (very!) fixed perspectives on particular subjects, etc. Again, not especially conducive to widening the circle of participation. You might (rightly) then ask: why stay on the list? Well, I'm omnivorous in my consumption of information. While I may only read 1% of what comes through, that 1% is certainly interesting. That's something. 2) It would overstate the case to say that I "long" for the days of moderation. But I share what I gather is Felix's own nostalgia for it. The flow of responses under moderation was different, and perhaps better. Never having had the responsibility for moderating the list, I make no claims as to the ease of the process; it was clearly a significant responsibility and one for which I was always grateful, as a reader. Removing the moderation merely means we must all be better digital citizens, to reflect the community we want to have. (If only it were so simple, right?) Sascha On 4/8/18 4:15 PM, Felix Stalder wrote: When we turned off moderation a couple of months ago, we did so because we perceived that nettime was limiting itself by too many implicit rules that had accumulated over time. So we decided to break one, abolish our position as moderators, as an invitation others to break a few more in the hope to make room for some new voices/ideas/styles etc. Kinda worked... For me, the value of the list has always been that it creates a collective space for reflection. That's a delicate thing. If it becomes too cozy, it turns into an self-reflective in-group, if it become to confrontational, then there is little change of actually thinking together, rather everyone digs in their heels. I still like the non-moderated flow, but I dislike the sucking noise of real-time. It turns out, at least for me, one of the best things that moderation did was to induce semi-random delays, simply because we never worked on a fixed schedule when to do the manual work of moderation. Sometimes a few hours would pass, sometimes more a full day before the message got approved. We were thinking about ways to introduce that delay again, without reverting back to moderation. Of course, it could be done, but we didn't do it. So, lets see where this goes. We can break a few more rules if it helps to push forward our collective attempt to understand and do something in the present -- whatever that is for each the 4500 people on the list. Felix On 2018-04-08 21:18, tbyfield wrote: Hmmm. morlock's style has struck me as problematic at times, but other problems concern me much more: the obstinate gender bias, the prevalence of a few voices, the lack of experimentation, and sedentary/habitual tendencies in subject, style, regional focus. I get that his/her/their mail might be a frequent low-level irritant for some people, the kind of thing that sparks eruptions. But for me the nature of that eruption matters more than the cause: ad-homimen attacks, people ordering each other around, and people who've never tired of letting the world remember that they 'founded' nettime decades ago leaping to the barricades in private mail to un-propose a "permanent ban." If we're going to take any drastic action, it'll be to permanently ban anyone who proposes permanently banning someone else. Felix and I have spent twenty years tending to this list, so our views are, at the very least, well informed. Felix can speak for himself if he wants, but I think the tendencies above are a more serious threat than the pace or tone of any contributor. If it's true that one person "is killing the list," then this list is dead already. If it's not true, then it says a lot that such a claim would go unquestioned. Not about the person who said it (more boring ad-hominem stuff, bleh) but about deeper shifts — for example, in whether people trust that an environment like this can change organically or instead needs draconian 'leadership.' If it does, it's dead. A year or two or three ago, I thought the list was pretty much dead. But it has a funny habit of rising from the grave and
Re: January 23, Trump Question
To answer the last question first, I don't know precisely, but impeachment won't start until the Republicans in Congress feel that they have an acceptable rationale lined up, one that will be unambiguously clear to the 60+ million people who--despite everything, despite overwhelming evidence of his incompetence, narcissism, and boorishness--nonetheless voted for Trump. Three days in, that rationale isn't there yet. But what really struck me in your email was--again--the obsession on this list and elsewhere with the idea that all of this signals the death of capitalism. This is hogwash. It's magical thinking. Just based on the march I attended in New York for four hours on Saturday: 99% of those people were not protesting capitalism. Sure, there were a few people carrying signs about the "corporate oppressor." (I counted three of them.) But most of those people seem to like the choices that capitalism offers them. They just want it better. Kinder and gentler if you will. And the march was four hours of one day. None of the people I know, anywhere in the world--and I have friends around the world--are looking to move to a system that offers a certainty of basic comforts with none of the benefits that also come with taking risks. Maybe you'll say "Well, that's all they've ever known." True. But I don't see any evidence at all that our society, or any other, is looking to put an end to the system of independent market-based decision-making that capitalism offers. Do they want fewer oligarchs? Yes. Do they want more basics provided based on the wealth that the capitalism provides (like healthcare)? Hell yes. But actually getting rid of capitalism--and Uber, and AirBnB, etc.--nope, don't see it. But, hey, maybe this group wants to start a Kickstarter campaign to fund Ending Capitalism. :) [Sebastian, apologies: you're not my target here. Heck, I don't even know you! You just triggered the outpouring.] Sascha On 1/22/17 9:48 PM, sebast...@rolux.org wrote: January 23, Trump Question So let me play the inverse of devil's advocate for a moment: Lets assume this is all on track. Market capitalism is coming apart, just like state capitalism around 1990. Ruthless financialization has finally broken the century-old bond between deterritorialization and reterritorialization, and what we're witnessing - in Brexit, in Trump - are simply the death throes of the reterritorializing forces, the moment when there is no more territory left, and not enough fuel. "Late capitalism" wasn't jargon, it was a correct attempt at periodization, all the time, and this is the end, a desperate final assault, of male white corporate oppression. Even the inverse devil's advocate will have to concede that death throes can last forever and cause immense collateral damage, and that the most likely successor to market capitalism is a mix of feudalism and fascism, but at the same time, there may be unforseen openings, and a sharp increase in willingness to take actual political risks. So lets assume that 2016 was just a ruse, a sick joke of history: once as tragedy, ten times as farce, and then this. As will become obvious in hindsight, Donald Trump (and the same applies to Boris Johnson) was a once-in-a-century occurence of blind luck, an absurdly fortunate constellation of dominoes. To have him take down two of the most insurmountable impediments to political change in the United States, the Bush and Clinton dynasties (plus destroy much of the establishment of both political parties, and maybe even paralyze a large enough faction of the Christian Right) with a single lucky punch, and then having to figure out how to impeach the guy, is going to reveal itself as a way more plausible path out of this mess than trying to achieve the same result the other way around. <...> # 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: nettime crowd-funding on nettime
I agree. Sascha On Mon, August 27, 2012 8:59 am, Keith Sanborn wrote: I would prefer not to have them on Nettime. I believe they abuse the function of the list, which has been a reasonably civil exchange of ideas, insights, intuitions, fads and nonsense. Solicitations for funding shd go elsewhere; they are attempts to persuade people to part with their money. I frankly consider them unwanted spam, however worthy their intentions or projects or participants otherwise might be. My 2 cents. Keith Sanborn # distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission # nettime 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
Re: nettime Why I say the things I say
This whole chain is increasingly silly. Because while Brian and others complain about things like... When people start defending the Koch borthers, or the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, or privatized universities and museums because they're excellent and they have such good art, I admit it, I sometimes freak out: I think I'm be hearing the ventriloquized voice of the enemy. And write other things like: Translation: At some point, you gotta say to those around you: Stop defending the rulers for their poison gifts. Start attacking them because they are a clear and present danger. And still other people complain that using the word complex is some kind of intellectual trickery... Well, by my count a significant portion of the people on this list seem to work in or for those privatized universities. It's the radicalism of the keyboard you're practicing. Oh, go ahead, tell me you're working to change things from within. Tell me! You're happy with yourselves because here on nettime you're (secretly? or is that openly?) biting the hand that feeds? Come on. All of this intellectually dishonest. Bullshit is really the right word. And it isn't exactly changing the world. I don't pretend to be anything other than a working stiff who has chosen to work in a field I like, for institutions I believe in--arts institutions; high art institutions; fancy educational institutions. I believe in them *in spite of* the Kochs and the Conards. I believe in them because I have seen people inspired by art and ideas and go off to do great things as a result. And I remain in awe of people--like those in Wisconsin as reported on nettime so effectively by Dan Wang--who have in specific instances worked hard to effect political and social change. And I greatly enjoy the posts of those on this list who share ideas, actual ideas, about art, or politics, or religion, but do so without pretending that every keystroke is one step closer to revolution. But all of this other stuff, this I'm a radical, you're not and you clearly don't get it, Sascha D. crap? It's like play acting. You're as boxed in as most people, Brian Holmes. You're just kidding yourself if you think otherwise. SDF # distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission # nettime 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
Re: nettime The insult of the 1 percent: Art-history majors
I think you have to view Conard in context. Or a variety of contexts. One of those contexts has to be the announcement today that David Koch has made a $35 million gift to the Smithsonian to fix their (very old) dinosaur halls. Koch, it must be noted, is: (a) Generous: he's given $100 million to NYC's Lincoln Center -- for their ballet theater, no less! -- as well as millions more to other museums and arts-focused non-profits. (b) Considered one of the Great Right-Wing Satans by many on the left. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/03/koch-gives-smithsonian-35_n_1474389.html My point is that I don't think over-generalizing from Conard's absurd comments is necessarily very helpful. He's one guy. He's entitled to his opinions, however ignorant we think they are. But there are people with significantly more complex relationships to the world(s) of ideas, art, culture, and wealth. Koch is one of them. I don't agree with most of his political views, but he is evidence that there are people whose motivations as part of the 1% are not as simple-minded as Conard's--and not as simple as the rest of us often assume. Sascha Sascha D. Freudenheim Doubt is humanity's best friend. http://www.thetruthasiseeit.com/ http://www.sascha.com http://twitter.com/SaschaDF On 5/3/2012 2:43 AM, Brian Holmes wrote: Edward Conard works for Mitt Romney's firm, Bain Capital. He is part of the .01% and he is true to his class. A New York Times reporter interviewed him on the occasion of his soon-to-be-released book (which you should probably steal if you want to read it) called Unintended Consequences. As usual, it declares that the superrich do us all a world of good, even though all they want is more for them. In Connard's case, he already has enough to crush us like flies. Check out his world view, as reported by Adam Davidson: # distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission # nettime 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
Re: nettime The insult of the 1 percent: Art-history majors
Wow, Brian! Nothing like an ad hominem attack to take the discussion to the next level of intellectual heft and seriousness. With my middle initial included no less! I think your conclusions are absurd, both of my position(s) and about the environment you're supposedly examining so clearly. Yes, I did (apropos Occupy Student Debt) argue against that movement. I don't think it's a moral obligation for spoiled kids to pay for their expensive educations. I think people have a moral obligation to pay their debts and not just walk away from them because they've intellectualized a rationale for why they shouldn't have to owe the debt any more. Nor do I think there isn't a problem in (higher) education--I just don't think that abandoning debt is the answer to that problem. It's pretending that Robin Hood-ism is the same thing as actual social change. But that's the last battle. In this one, I'm not neutral. Far from it. I just find some of the attitudes and positions articulated here and elsewhere to be a whole lot of intellectual wankery--more words than actual action to help the people who really need help. It's a lot easier to attack verbally people like Conard than it is to close the laptop and go out and find someone who needs help and actually help them. Sascha Sascha D. Freudenheim Doubt is humanity's best friend. http://www.thetruthasiseeit.com/ http://www.sascha.com/ On 5/4/12 11:15 AM, Brian Holmes wrote: On 05/03/2012 04:40 PM, Sascha D. Freudenheim wrote: My point is that I don't think over-generalizing from Conard's absurd comments is necessarily very helpful. He's one guy. He's entitled to his opinions, however ignorant we think they are. But there are people with significantly more complex relationships to the world(s) of ideas, art, culture, and wealth. Koch is one of them. I don't agree with most of his political views, but he is evidence that there are people whose motivations as part of the 1% are not as simple-minded as Conard's--and not as simple as the rest of us often assume. You know, Sascha, I am afraid you are the very example of the person whose opinions should no longer count in intellectual debates. Because you are unable to take a stand. You are unable to even see the ground you are standing on. ... # distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission # nettime 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
Re: nettime Debt Campaign Launch
I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous--and offensive. I agree that income inequality is a huge issue in our country. I also agree that the cost of private college/university tuition is (too) high. And certainly one can make a cogent argument that schools (such as NYU, Harvard, etc.) with endowments in the billions, could do more to offset the cost of education with some of that banked money. But if one opted to go to an expensive school over, let's say, a lower cost state school--and one agreed at the outset to the contract involving loans because you believed it was worth it--I don't have a lot of sympathy for a movement to arbitrarily not pay back that debt. That money may seem outrageous to the debtor but it's also connected to the broader economics of our society. The consequences of not paying it are more than just less-debt-for-you and stiffing-the-rich-school-you-went-to. The school, after all, already got paid. Much of that debt is subsidized by the taxpayers, the 99%, through lenders who (yes) make money off that subsidy. This is where my sympathy for the Occupy [you name it] goes down the drain. Plenty of people in the 99% were looking for free money when they took out mortgage and other loans they *knew* they couldn't afford to pay back. Are the banks guilty of predatory practices? Sure. But that doesn't excuse individual people from poor (or greedy) decision-making. So, I'm sorry but Occupy Student Debt just proves the worst things about right-wing perspectives on this whole series of movements: that it's not about the 99% taking some responsibility for the mess they're in, but instead trying to explain why they should claim no responsibility for anything. Sascha Sascha D. Freudenheim Doubt is humanity's best friend. http://www.thetruthasiseeit.com/ http://www.sascha.com/ On 11/20/11 9:59 PM, Andrew Ross wrote: Occupy Student Debt! National Campaign Launch www.occupystudentdebtcampaign.org # distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission # nettime 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
Re: nettime Debt Campaign Launch
The funny (?) thing is I don't disagree with much of this. Or, to put that in the positive, I agree with a lot of this. At least as far as rhetoric goes. You may see education as a consumer good for which one must pay - I don't agree - but the current system of nearly enforced higher education, huge tuition fees and cost of living expenses and predatory loans is completely unsustainable and something that earlier generations did not have to abide. It must be changed, and this campaign is the first step towards changing it. So it's that last sentence that I find not quite right. For me, it doesn't change the fundamental problem: walking away from a current commitment people have made, namely: to pay their student loans. If everyone walked away from every obligation they've made every time they feel like the future doesn't actually look like what they thought it would or should, we would have social collapse in a very different and even more troubling sense. We can see that in the places where it does occur: I think I'm ready to be a parent. Ooops, just kidding, children are expensive and, frankly, frustrating, plus they demand attention all the time. Let's hand them to someone else! Or, I think I'm ready to be a homeowner. Ooops, just kidding! Houses/apartments are expensive and demand attention, plus, actually, it's not really the kind of space I wanted after all, so I'm just not gonna pay that loan back! If current college students wanted to drop out next semester en masse in protest: I'd say f**k yeah! That's a protest. Make a statement by not incurring more tuition debt. Bring NYU and every other place to a halt by making a statement about how you think education is a public good, shouldn't be a commercial commodity, etc., great. My problem is calling a strike for something that people willingly agreed to--taking on loans. Agreed to. By choice. Maybe not the best choice in the freest of universes, but still, a choice. Not like, say, Selective Service or the draft of the 1960s--not a choice at all. So this feels less like a protest of and for the 99% and more like entitlement under another name. Sascha Sascha D. Freudenheim Doubt is humanity's best friend. http://www.thetruthasiseeit.com/ http://www.sascha.com http://twitter.com/SaschaDF # distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission # nettime 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
