Re: It goes beyond the Meat Loaf Problem
Am 20.08.19 um 10:01 schrieb Carsten Agger: > If Corbyn becomes prime minister in an interim government to avoid no > deal, he will, on the one hand, actually get to inhabit 10 Downing > Street; on the other, the mission will be strictly that of overseeing > the interim period while figuring out what to do with Brexit, with his > hands tied on his back with regard to the political reforms that are his > (and Labour's, excluding the Blairites) political project. And there will be reelections in which MPs who supported the opposition leader will not be put on the ballot again by their party. If he was serious he had put forward a neutral person to become prime minister and propose a government of unity. Dissenting MPs would form a "Moderate" Group. > Of course, it wouldn't have to turn out that way, but he would indeed be > running that risk. Not to speak of the risk of alienating pro-Brexit > Labour voters by supporting a new referendum. A deep Brexit economic crisis would be helpful for the opposition in a classic setup as the British system is in essence bipartisan. Inviting the governing party MPs for a revolution would require a bit of sacrifice. > As for the other options you outlined in a previous mail - there's no > way around the backstop. If the UK leaves the EU, either it stays in the > customs union, OR there is a hard bord in the Irish sea, OR there is a > hard border between Ulster and the Republic of Ireland. The UK Tories > would never accept a border in the Irish sea, and a hard border in > Ireland could reignite the Troubles and kickstart another ten years of > civil war in Ireland. The EU Commission said the backstop was a backup measure that is intended not to happen, The WA is the start of future relationship negotiations. Boris Johnson says please replace the backstop by "it", otherwise we leave no deal. He has not proposed the "it", the "alternative measures". > Of course, someone like Boris Johnson doesn't really give a shit about > Ireland and would gladly take civil war if it means he can cling on to > an imperial possession, but the UK as such has too much capital invested > in the Good Friday agreement to make a hard Irish border a serious option. No deal means hard border. So regardless what withdrawal agreement you get will be softer border and better. > Hence, the backstop. The problem is that Boris Johnson and the other > right-wing Brexiteers want to eat their cake and have it too. And that > is, of course, impossible. It is technically impossible to have the withdrawal agreement and the transition period after no deal. There a weakened UK could accede to a different settlement without transition period. With the WA they have time to negotiate their third country FTAs. With ND they crash the E/I trade into WTO base line. Trump/Bolton say they will offer an FTA with the chlorinated chicken, Pelosi says they would block it for the Irish question. In any case, the bare minimum for a superfast USUK FTA is three months. China, US, India, EU27, ... how is that going to happen? Post-ND any delay plays into the hands of their negotiating partners. If UK refuses to pay their financial obligations that is the equivalent to state bankruptcy and would affect their bond ratings. It is not food or medical supply, this is what you prepare for and it costs millions. It won't be the Irish border, ok have a hard border then between two nations that actually don't want a border. The real bill will comprise all the unknown unknowns. Here is a known one: data flows. The UK needs an privacy equivalence decision. Given that the UK stole the SIS data the EU would probably not drop this bargaining chip for free. If the UK gets a deep Brexit trade crisis the only quick fix is joining EFTA, dropping its unrealistic red lines. > Which means that the most likely scenario is that the UK WILL leave with > no deal, and, as a consequence, there WILL be a hard border in Ireland. Yes. Though the hard border is still the minor problem. > And it is to avoid this clusterf**k that Corbyn s actually offering to > stick his neck out and take on a premiership that's doomed to fail. I > think he does deserve some credit for that, partisanships aside. How does he make it possible for others to support him? # 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: It goes beyond the Meat Loaf Problem
Partisanism makes the world easier but does not get it right. You have to simply consider this from a political standpoint and just view the moves of the players. a. What does he sacrifice by proposing himself? b. What do MPs sacrifice if they support the opposition? a. nothing at all b. everything It is an "offer" designed to not be accepted but to appeal to his electorate. In particular with an upcoming reelections perspective it is clear why no one could be in. Furthermore, if they get "no-deal" the partisan Labour rejection of the withdrawal agreement would be of Corbyn's responsibility. The reason why minority fractions such as DUP got so much power to derail negotiations stems from the lack of cross-partisan consensus. Here the question is if we blame the UK political system or Corbyn. Why did Labour block the withdrawal agreement adoption? To stop Brexit? Nah... Unlike the SNP or LibDem his position is completely unclear and non-constructive. Am 19.08.19 um 12:57 schrieb Roman Seidl: > > > >> Corbyn proposing Corbyn is no serious offer. He puts nothing on the >> table. It is quite reckless how he abuses the crisis. > Thanks for demonstrating how the demonization of Corbyn works. # 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: It goes beyond the Meat Loaf Problem
There are few roads out: a) do nothing = no deal and then: ??? b) Amendment Treaty : The EU will not reopen the withdrawal agreement. However, an amendment treaty is concluded that replaces the backstop. this treaty is dependent on the withdrawal agreement adoption. c) A change to the political declaration and a positive vote on the withdrawal agreement d) Parliament revokes Art 50 Corbyn proposing Corbyn is no serious offer. He puts nothing on the table. It is quite reckless how he abuses the crisis. Am 17.08.19 um 18:47 schrieb David Garcia: > My friend Racheal Baker just posted the question on FB: "why is a no > deal Brexit is less detrimental than a temporary Corbyn-led gov. What > exactly is it that centrists are scared of? It’s not the fear of the > democratic socialism of Labour’s policy positions (akin to Scandinavia > or Spain). It appears to be the figure of Corbyn himself…" # 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.
Am 01.07.19 um 15:49 schrieb Max Herman: > > Hi André, > > Which of the formerly valuable lists are dead? I'm very far out of the > loop working mostly offline for the last decade. Dear Max, almost all lists I am subscribed to. Simply members are not posting anymore. I still read nettime. I still get lots of newsletters via list infrastructure channels. Inter-Media Transition is normal. We have other means of online communications. telegram groups, facebook groups, twitter, yodel, slack, mattermost etc. Before usenet groups with their odd clients and rude channel rules became obsolete. A simple method to kill a mailing list is spam. Or low quality communications. Or dumping all kinds of communication into the list. Or opening the mail archive to the general public without asking for prior consent (happened on Liberationtech). Open Archives in return could lead to legal risks in Germany, what do you do as a mailing list admin when you face court injunctions to remove copyrighted or defamatory content from list archives etc. You simply can't risk to let removed content pop up again after an archive regeneration etc. Or other kinds of risks with ML public archives, I just recall an exchange with RMS who didn't bother to call out the president of Zimbabwe on a mailing list frequented by free software people of that country where archives were kindly indexed by google. RMS insisted on his right to free speech. Well, how nice to exercise your rights to converse with people when an incautious reply (which your rant incites) could get them killed or set behind bars and otherwise they cannot respond on equal footing plus all you do is put your associates at risk. Mailman still has a horrible user interface. Often moderators don't moderate anymore because there was too much spam, default settings are suboptimal, spam filtering remains sub-standard. I have no idea why no org financed a Mailman replacement or Mailman NG project. You could also observe the same phenomenon of declining list communications on open source developer lists. Occasionally dead communication channels come to new light. Encrypted mailing lists exist. Almost no one uses them. > One aspect of mailing lists is that they are a powerful example of a > free public sphere (and maybe its most essential expression regardless > of technological advancement). You can put a bunch of content in an > email, and it can go to literally everyone on the planet. Yet who is keeping a record? And how to curate email exchanges? > All that said, a listserv is only as good as its content. If no one > creates any content that is relevant, nothing that cannot be gotten > better elsewhere, then why bother with the noisy clamor of a list? Attention is limited. The time people spent to acknowledge and oppose the latest outrage, the daily trump tweet etc., is missing for serious debate and thought. Online speech is Karl Kraus on steroids, always picking the insignificant targets, always declaration of persons as enemies, always hate mobs that try to engage us. Dialogue becomes impossible as we don't talk with each other anymore but to (at times imaginary) third parties. As "Nick Nailor" (Aaron Eckhart) explained in Thank you for Smoking: "Because I'm not after you, I am after them". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLS-npemQYQ 20 years ago there was a common sentiment that open low-censored online debates, even rude ones, contribute to a better and more open society... only if we would spread the technology to ignorant people from the past and institutions. Like in that previous Ito quote everyone had his or her pivotal moment. Best, André # 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.
Most formerly valuable mailing lists are dead, Carlo. Here you find a recent quote from Joichi Ito: “You know that little girl in The Exorcist? That’s what the internet feels like to me,” Ito said. “You have this little girl and you think she’s going to become this wonderful kid and then she gets possessed and starts becoming this demon. And we have to exorcize her and we have to kind of bring her back.” Source: https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/6/26/18758776/joi-ito-mit-media-lab-resisting-reduction-exorcist-kara-swisher-recode-decode-podcast-interview André Rebentisch # 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:
Clock reset Re: It is the table
Excellent. As MPs discussed with Cox legal effects on potential outcomes in the case of bad faith moves by the EU concerning the UK requested backstop, let me raise attention to the following: The UK Parliament could unilaterally revoke Article 50 and - as any member state - could trigger the process again anew. Nothing in the Art 50 says that the agreement has to be reached after 2 years. In fact the UK could have exited a year ago with an agreement. The ambitious deadline is for the hypothetical failure to reach an agreement scenario (informally called no-deal). In fact the UK could revoke Art 50, then reopen the whole "deal" for parliament scrutiny and expand the scope, and once it has an agreed Parliament position in substance trigger Art 50 again to negotiate. That would also allow for new elections in between. As it sounds like reversing Brexit a "clock reset" is delicate but technically feasible. /A Am 13.03.19 um 16:05 schrieb Andreas Broeckmann: > Folks, what a situation!... I like how Stephen Bush writes: > > "[May's] motion, unless amended, has no more force and will have no more > impact than if MPs voted against the forces of gravity. You cannot vote > against falling off the cliff when you have already jumped off the > cliff, which is what MPs did when they voted to trigger Article 50 back > in 2017. You can only vote to open your parachute – that is to say, for > either an ex it deal or to revoke Article 50." > > (at least the British scores in rhetorics and sense of humour remain high!) > > His recommendation: "The only real way to “take no deal off the table” > is with legislation saying that in the event no accord has been ratified > by 29 March, Article 50 will be revoked." > > (... which means that MPs would have to vote that they'd rather have the > UK remain, than leave the EU in a no-deal Brexit; however much I > personally like that idea, it seems less likely to me that MPs would > dare vote to revoke Article 50, and more likely that the laws of gravity > might persist...) > > -a > > > > Am 13.03.19 um 15:40 schrieb David Garcia: >> Hi Keith, many thanks for your kind words.. >> >> I recomend this from the excellent Stephen Bush >> >> https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2019/03/theresa-may-has-been-defeated-again-time-she-isnt-one-denial >> >> >> In this very worrying article about just how far parliament is from >> actually waking up to what it needs to do technically if they are to >> actually take no deal of the table.. >> >> Actually a little thought would lead all involved to realise that as >> no deal is the default position. So ’no deal' can’t be taken off the >> table >> because it IS the table! >> >> Best >> >> David > # 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: -- André RebentischDipl. Kfm. & M.A. Reuterstr. 32 12047 Berlin Germany Fon: +49 30 44 35 78 96 Fax: +49 72 15 09 66 37 69 Cell: +49 16 36 99 23 09 Tw: @agonarch eMail: a...@opentechsummit.netWeb: http://www.opentechsummit.net GPG: 0398FC7B // D9DF D3EB 2E79 9B93 2F31 07EE 15E7 9B66 0398 FC7B Tax ID (Germany): 81 240 539 731 # 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: No evidence of digital wrong-doing...
Whenever you have a deliberative assembly the outcome it predefined by the process. A sausage machine may grant you a right to select meat but the outcome is always sausage, regardless of your selection. Or you get something like a social democratic committee paper, where each sentence has to be vague and is agreed upon by all, or has been previously agreed upon, thus the outcome is mostly baseless or manipulative, e.g. by shifting a principle on one level (all persons should be equal/free) to another level (all net traffic should be equal/all men should be free to shoot their machine guns) etc. Deliberative committees are paper interventions against rocks that are ultimately serving the ones governing the process. Indeed, your process, dear representative tokens, produced a nice agenda plan, but we are the officials and we pick what we want. A deliberative assembly has never the power to command the execution of their consented plan but still expects all participants to take ownership of the mediocre result. What works however well is disjunct scenario planning, e.g. with four scenarios. Then we usually get four "radical" plans. None of them would be executed in a pure form either but we avoid the consent without power and keep the tension, we develop the disjunct ideas to a more sophisticated level. Just as an example: - Hard Brexit on WTO rules. Ordered custom Brexit. Brexit reversal. Norway/EFTA. - Hardborder, Soft border, Irish Union, NI stays in the EU. Wouldn't it be great to have detailed plans for all scenarios? Am 28.01.19 um 21:53 schrieb Brian Holmes: > So the question is: What kinds of social forms can be used to re-mediate > the formation of public opinion? In the recent past we tried forums, not > just online ones, but big online/offline experiments like the global > social forum process. These actually gave tremendous results for the > relatively small number of people who plugged into them, and that's why > we're still able to carry on significant discussions here and in many > other places. But all those micropolitical fora have been too small and > too disconnected from decision-making power. In the present, > nation-states and supra-national formations are threatened with > political breakdown, leaving no replacement strategies except > authoritarianism or Hobbesian civil war. Televised, streaming and > web-archived Citizens Assemblies sound like a great option under these > circumstances. > > OK, the keep-hope-alive department is signing off for the moment, > > Brian > > > > # 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: > -- André RebentischDipl. Kfm. & M.A. Reuterstr. 32 12047 Berlin Germany Fon: +49 30 44 35 78 96 Fax: +49 72 15 09 66 37 69 Cell: +49 16 36 99 23 09 Tw: @agonarch eMail: a...@opentechsummit.netWeb: http://www.opentechsummit.net GPG: 0398FC7B // D9DF D3EB 2E79 9B93 2F31 07EE 15E7 9B66 0398 FC7B Tax ID (Germany): 81 240 539 731 # 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: notes from Brexania in limbo...
Thank you Heiko for opening this discussion. Three anecdotal observations: 1. We had a referendum whether to keep Tegel Airport open. Citizens of Berlin got a letter from the government urging them to vote against. I think this should not happen as a matter of principle and is an abuse of executive powers, however the legal base is a right of the city to inform. I filed a complaint that was dismissed with reference to a court case of another party. When public officials can't see that direct participation in public opinion building cannot be financed by state funds, that casts a bad light on the governance of this city. Of course there is a difference between information and the transgressing call to vote in a specific way. In general politicians seem increasingly unable to grasp the difference of taking a stand as a partisan politician and in an official function. 2. Dictatorships usually use a referendum to lend legitimacy to an abuse of power or an anti-constitutional state of emergency. 3. Tempelhof referendum: Here the public voted for a maximalist stance because in a referendum there is virtually no compromise. As a result one may not build *anything* on Tempelhof air field. The counter proposal was a modest construction permit at the outskirts of the field. Political decisions in Parliament on the other hand are always compromises. Other remarks - There is no written UK constitution. - On Brexit we find a radicalization of the outcome. - For me democracy means the right to contest a rule to which voting is only an instrument at your disposal. The purpose of these instruments is to make citizens the master and to educate the institutions to be their servants. A perfect servant does not ask you unless required but does what you want. As illustrated by a comedy classic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ENZglTjDrA - The notion of sovereignty recently became subject to delusional right wing state concepts which are ultimately ahistorical. Framed as a unrestrained right of the people to govern their own affairs we also find it in left wing discourse and populist criticism of the financial markets. Ultimately democracy also finds its limits in the laws of physics when a democratic majority might suggest icarus deserves his right to fly. Best, André Am 28.01.19 um 03:39 schrieb Heiko Recktenwald: > "Direct democracy", is this a fashion of politicians without > responbibility or a principle of constitutional law of the UK? Like the > sovereignty of parliament. Maybe we should rethink democracy once more. > Is direct democracy good in all cases? Obviously not. # 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: Interview with Richard Stallman in New Left Review (September-October 2018)
Am 30.10.2018 um 21:00 schrieb Carsten Agger: > People who contribute with voluntary work for any kind of project (not > just free software) do so for a variety of reasons. Because it's fun, > because they personally think it's important, because they like being a > part of building this, etc. I think you all follow preconceptions about "work" in the digital context. What is special about software is that administrating, coding and using software are no entirely distinct tasks. Esp. when there is no incentive to keep fixes private. The concept emerged in an environment where business and licensing models provided friction for professional (well-paid) system administrators in a research context who were hindered to adapt software to their organisation's needs and infrastructural change. These models are now history. Software grows organically by being used by professional users. When you think about it more generally there are many examples where consumer actions actually benefit the business model. We do not like empty dance floors... by being there we become part of the product. Some may even get paid to show up. Ironically no one frames Facebook contributions as "unpaid voluntary work" to keep the community platform content-wise up and running to the benefit of Mr. Zuckerberg's advertisement business model. --- A # 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: The California Ideology has a fascist character
Looks like his "class" perception of internet essentiality ironically reflects a "class" background, which he pretended to identify as an issue. "Without an intellectual compass, the road to reliable information that promotes one's own judgment..." Am 26.12.2017 um 22:09 schrieb Morlock Elloi: > Mr Seppmann, to what extent do you think class relations are reflected > in internet usage? > > Werner Seppmann: This is very clear in the Internet as an information > medium. Social differences are not leveled, but reinforced. Education > barriers are not diminished: The son of good home knows because he was > instructed to use the possibilities of the network in knowledge research > and as a learning tool in learning. The daughter of a saleswoman, > however, primarily informs about the relationship of a hit singer and > the terms of a casting show: It duplicates in such a layer-specific > computer use, which is already known from television consumption: That a > deficient education level solidified by the usual selective media use. > > The fact that the Internet could have compensatory effects on class- and > class-specific disadvantages is illusory, especially as the self-imposed > user is in constant danger of losing himself in the vastness of the > Internet, because he lacks the necessary orientation and research > instructions. Without an intellectual compass, the road to reliable > information that promotes one's own judgment is extremely thorny, and > usually in vain. > > "It is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish the essential from > the nonessential" # 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: Can the Left Meme?
Am 16.06.2017 um 00:31 schrieb Florian Cramer: >Even the visual structure of imageboard memes is a 1:1 continuation of >medieval and Renaissance emblems which consisted of a title (motto) >printed on top, an image (pictura) in the middle and a subtitle >(subscriptio) at the bottom. When emblems fell out of fashion in the >18th century, newspaper caricatures took over their structure. Internet >images memes are just the last part of this media history. "Four thousand years ago the Chimaera can have seemed no more bizarre than any religious, heraldic, or commercial emblem does today. ...Only a small part, however, of the huge, disorganized corpus of Greek mythology, which contains importations from Crete, Egypt, Palestine, Phrygia, Babylonia, and elsewhere, can properly be classified with the Chimaera as true myth. True myth may be defined as the reduction to narrative shorthand of ritual mime performed on public festivals, and in many cases recorded pictorially on temple walls, vases, seals, bowls, mirrors, chests, shields, tapestries, and the like. The Chimaera and her fellow calendar-beasts must have figured prominently in these dramatic performances which, with their iconographic and oral records, became the prime authority, or charter, for the religious institutions of each tribe, clan, or city." Robert Graves, The Greek Myths, Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1955 Best, André # 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: Can the Left Meme?
Am 15.06.2017 um 12:05 schrieb "Prof. Dr. Tilman Baumgärtel"@mx.kein.org:
> I would argue that this type of activity has been highjacked by the
> alt-right in a similar fashion as concepts of "Gegenöffentlichkeit",
> alternative media etc. I don´t think that there is anything intrinsic
> right-wing about memes. It is just that the alt-right-trolls - because
> of their nihilism/cynicism - can create memes that are atrocious
> enough to stand out even within the current race to the bottom on the
> 4chan-segment of the internet and elsewhere.
As a thought experiment: The concept of a bipartisan political landscape
is, I would say a fairly recent Western conception to sort political
complexity and it served us well.
Yet, many political conflicts in our world do not fit into this
simplified bipartisan model.
Imagine we just assume for the sake of it that Trump was "left wing" and
then redefine progressiveness. How would we even falsify that the
"alt-right" is not left?
Our conception of the left is shaped by a series of established
positions, modes of operations, historical anchors, a certain humanism
etc. and an origin, an evolution of positions from a left wing branded
discourse.
>From a European perspective it is not too difficult to make up the
narrative that the Democrats are right wing and the republican party
does not even fit in our landscape as Timothy Ash once convincingly
pointed out when he described euroconservatism as old chaps who go hunting.
Am 15.06.2017 um 23:16 schrieb t byfield:
> But that content is
> arbitrary: there's nothing intrinsically sinister or violent about Pepe
> the Frog or any other right-wing -eme, visual or verbal. On the
> contrary, the right's approach is precisely to assign esoteric and even
> occult meanings to phrases, punctuation ("((()))"), images, rhetorical
> forms, gestures, anything. To the extent that "memeing" means anything,
> most of its meaning boils down to that process.
Still you need an observer or a third party value position. The whole
process cannot be imagined enemy-free. Traditional policy agendas could.
What is the "positive" agenda that emerges from this discourse? What do
they stand "for"? Difficult.
--- A
# 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: Can the Left Meme?
Let's suppose meming, as well as the political joke, is simply counter-cultural - a kind of mirror device. When the mainstream is conservative memes become progressive, when the mainstream is predominantly progressive memes become reactionary. Thus, memes jump on the trampoline of a dominant narrative as antithesis. Or in the mirror metaphor, they show different images depending on who looks into it. I found a book of N. Hartmann insightful to this end: Hartmann, Nicolai, Das Problem des geistigen Seins, 2nd edition, Berlin: de Gruyter, 1949 p. 191 "der Gemeingeist als solcher ist nicht Gemeinschaft, er hat nicht die Form des Kollektivums, ist weder als Summe noch als das Ganze der Individuen zu verstehen." --> "The common spirit (Gemeingeist) as such is not community, it does not take the form of a collective, is neither sum nor the whole of individuals." p.182 "Wie der vielzellige Organismus keine Summe von Zellen ist, so ist auch der Gemeingeist keine Summe personaler Geister. Hier wie dort ist die Gestaltung des größeren Ganzen ein ontisches Novum" --> "Just as a multi-cell organism is no sum of cells, the common spirit (Gemeingeist) ist no sum of personified spirits. Here and there the design of the greater whole is an ontic novum" p. 220 then very useful reflections on the superindividual of language with the key thought: "gemessen an dem, was der Einzelne übernimmt - der überkommenen Sprache, "die für ihn dichtet und denkt" -, ist das, was er von sich aus hinzufügt, minimal. [] Niemand ist in der Lage diese "geistige Masse" preiszugeben und durch eine neue, selbst geschaffene zu ersetzen" --->"judged by what the sole person takes over - from inherited language which "verses and thinks for him" -, whatever he adds by himself is marginal. [] No one is capable to abandon the "mental mass" and replace it by a new self-creation." From a theoretical perspective it may be useful to reconstruct a framework of "Geist" theory in a playful manner to address the meme phenonemons and its relation to the general stream of consciousness or the autopoesis within a society. When you look at the meme as the stage diver on the public mind you also need some sort of model of that public mind "Gemeingeist" that carries the memes. All this may involve playful use of "reactionary" biologisms and downplay the role of technology but the term meme presupposes that anyway. Am 12.06.2017 um 00:20 schrieb Gabriella "Biella" Coleman: > https://www.textezurkunst.de/106/notes-toward-memes-production/ > > Lots of good bits in here covering the nitty gritty mechanics of the > alt-right and their stellar command of media manipulation in light of > theories of art and cultural production. Worth a read. -- André RebentischDipl. Kfm. & M.A. Reuterstr. 32 12047 Berlin Germany Fon: +49 30 44 35 78 96 Fax: +49 72 15 09 66 37 69 Cell: +49 16 36 99 23 09 Tw: @agonarch eMail: a...@opentechsummit.netWeb: http://www.opentechsummit.net GPG: 0398FC7B // D9DF D3EB 2E79 9B93 2F31 07EE 15E7 9B66 0398 FC7B Tax ID (Germany): 81 240 539 731 # 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: merkel, macron: europe on its own
(I do not share a derogatory notion of occupation per se.) The diplomats who supported what you call occupation had their strings cut. The Chancellor power game is that audiences may read into statements whatever they like to, or what suits their views. Policy is incoherent but afterwards it will look just if there had been a line or long game. Am 31.05.2017 11:36 vorm. schrieb "Morlock Elloi" : > One has to look at the foundations of the current European relationships, > beyond theatrical posturing and politbabble: > > Germany: 0 nukes > UK: 215 nukes (5 operational) > France: 300 nukes > USA:6800 nukes > Russia: 7000 nukes > > Germany was and is effectively occupied after it lost the war, and is not > going to do s*it without US permission. # 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: Little Atoms > Robbins > the myth that British data
State of the art slicing voters in segments defined by ethnic and social similarities failed in the US elections and the 90ths campaigning strategies of pandering to them. So comes CA and says, you didn't lose to an idiot, Trump uses the sophisticated new slicing techniques based on psychological (wack)science. Greetings from Neukölln, André Am 01.02.2017 um 15:51 schrieb Frank Rieger: > There is one hypothesis that the various "this can all not be > true"-pieces are ignoring: It might as well be that the "trait"-based > social media manipulation techniques work best if applied to dissuade > people from going to vote, but make little difference when applied with > the goal of encouraging people to go vote for a specific candidate. This > would fit the known data. # 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: Protocols and Crises
The more common match term for "protocol power" as coined by the abstract seems to be the anglo-saxon "multistakeholderism" governance model. It is deeply embedded in their political culture. I assume it stems from a more corporatist past. /A Am 31.01.2017 um 06:58 schrieb Morlock Elloi: > Isn't the primary (and only?) purpose of these protocols to reduce the > number of protocoliriat (TM) (the number of people involved), and > simplify the control? # 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:
