@Patrick >>>>>> "there seems to be a bit of a backlash to critical theory that is replaced with a positive discourse that almost seems like the old axiom, "If you¹re not part of the solution, you're part of the problem².²
@Mez >>>>> "Whatever the magnitude/form, online dialogues appear to be flooded with antagonistic commentary.² The fascinating critique, "Mechanisms of Exclusion," by Mez Breeze just posted on Furtherfield, seems timely in light of our ongoing discussion of ³netartizenship.² Do Mez¹ railings & Patrick¹s response (pointing out the subjectivity of net abuse) suggest there is opportunity to determine what constitutes positive, productive, creative, open and responsible ³netartizenship,² do we even dare go there? I know that everyone has an entirely different view of this, and I¹m sure there are many who consider the notion a futile exercise, given the immensity, diversity, and corporatization of the Net. But where exactly do we stand on the idea of ³netartizenship,² and the resulting norms & behaviors? Do we have responsibilities as ³netartizens,² particularly those of us who are immersed in the practice of the network on both personal and professional levels? Randall Mechanisms of Exclusion by Mez Breeze http://furtherfield.org/features/articles/mechanisms-of-exclusion On 3/5/15, 3:09 PM, "Patrick Lichty" <p...@voyd.com> wrote: >In regards to Mez Breeze' piece on the Internet Rage Machine, I am more >inclined to posit that net.rage has at least two manifestations, as Mez >writes, but is not quite as pervasive as is suggested. Certainly, in many >areas of the Net, rage, trolling, and "Sea-Lioning" (lest I create a very >strange neologism) is more prevalent. In my genre, trolling is well known >in Second Life. Response to certain artists' projects featured in >mass-market blogs have encountered scorn and net.trolling, and in some >ways, >current (and former) staples like Max Herman and Brad Brace seek/sought >response, only to find that much of their semiotic power had long been >exhausted. In contrast, Alan Sondheim's work is nearly daily, but one >learns that it is not intended for irritation at all, but the product of a >wildly creative mind who compulsively creates. I think Goffman's idea of >the mask is very much a cause of this behavior, and a cognitive dissonance >between the commenter and what may be at stake for the content creator, or >there may be a desire to topple the "important" in a near-Futurist >fashion, >except without the ideology. > >But conversely, I also do not feel any negative dialectic should not be >thrown away as trolling or "Sea Lioning". While this is a very fine line, >there seems to be a bit of a backlash to critical theory that is replaced >with a positive discourse that almost seems like the old axiom, "If you're >not part of the solution, you're part of the problem". Not that it's that >simple, but I find a positivity in new work that is either strategic or >naïve in its acriticality which perhaps doesn't sell as well, either >economically or discursively. I see a continuum of positions that are >potentially constructive and disruptive, ones I call the positive, >critical, >jamming, and negation/troll. I take some issue with the culture eschewing >of >anything negative as either possessing the "salesman's smile" or trying to >ignore the news out of fatigue. There is a thin line between critical >discourse and "Sea Lioning" which seeks to dominate a dialogue through >volume or steering the dialogue into solipsistic forms. Trolling vs. the >Tactical can also be a tough call, but again, the former often lacks >ideology, and is done for status or personal enjoyment. > >Ideology and position for me are also a hard call, especially in the age >of >ISIS, who I feel are the world's most masterful trolls who are using the >Net >to spread a viral ideology via the exertion of infopower via media. >Stakes >seem to be the issue, whose and which direction the action is seen from. >For example, I'm sure groups like The Yes Men and Critical Art Ensemble >are >seen as threats and trolls by their targets, but freedom fighters to the >left. By no means do I mean to compare the two cases, as the stakes are >lives and the conventional vision of the nation-state in one case and >money >and corporate reputation on the other. > >Rarely does the future turn out the way we envisioned it, and I purposely >problematize the "we" here. Mez illustrates this, and in my third day of >living solely on the liquid food substitute Soylent, I am not sure whether >some near-future visions are any more "-topian". However, I did take note >when at the EFF Austin party discussion panel at SXSW Interactive, I >witnessed Bruce Sterling cry out, "THIS ISN'T THE FUTURE I WROTE ABOUT!" >If >the oft-dystopian fantastic speculators on the future are protesting the >shape of the future emergent, then I consider Mez' words quite closely. > >_______________________________________________ >NetBehaviour mailing list >NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org >http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
