So is it a mixture of shielding identity as form of saying what they want without impunity and possible repercussions, and a kind of Deleuzean posturing that 'oh look, we have shed our faces'?
-
-
also in the mix is a certain pushback against web 2.0’s interlocking of everyone’s web experience with their social life, nostalgia for baked-in anonyminity of 90s web chat culture. i just use my name backwards which is admittedly weak crypto. always already doxxed is the move.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @nollidruj @NegarestaniReza and
‘xenofeminism reserves the right of everyone to speak as no one in particular.’
2 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
This always reminds of DG's dictum: To reach, not the point where one no longer says I, but the point where it is no longer of any importance whether one says I. Replace I with the word personal identity.
1 reply 0 retweets 11 likes -
Yeah, I'd say it's basically chan culture and oh so Deleuzian attitudes (at least for me). It's nice to step out of your meatspace costume, I guess.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
But there is something important here for me. Can one actually step of his/her meatspace costume by just adopting online anonymity? You see, I think of this in terms of people who say that oh we don't believe in self but then they go on and become the most egotistic people.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @NegarestaniReza @great_old_ones_ and
I think you're missing some gradient here, R. Being faceless is just one element anons use to get to the point of writing in order to have no face.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @tobias_ewe @great_old_ones_ and
Care to elaborate? Shedding face to me is not the outcome of wearing an online mask but the result of a personal struggle with oneself that finally brings you to this ethical conclusion, that having a face is not important. It's redundant.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @NegarestaniReza @tobias_ewe and
I think the basic disagreement stems here: you see facelessness as the outcome of a subjects' bildungsroman, you are a hopeless dialectical fanatic. A lot of people here read facelessness as abrupt exit and ex nihilo reinvention, not the consequential outcome of their struggle.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @great_old_ones_ @tobias_ewe and
It has nothing to do whatsoever with dialectic. Look at the history of ethics, Cynics, Confucians, Stoics, etc. To shed one's face take time. It has nothing to with dialectics.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
It seems to me there is this resurrected illusion which is actually quite religious its base, that if we had the right moment and means either given by nature, god, internet or capitalism, we could remove our faces and dissolve the ego. Unfortunately, this is not how it works.
-
-
Replying to @NegarestaniReza @tobias_ewe and
Nope, I'd say that it all boils down to how much importance you give to the pre-conscious subroutines of face-building. Some people believe that they are crucially important and even the most quotidian loggin on gnaws at your face somehow. It's clearly not your case.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @great_old_ones_ @tobias_ewe and
What do you mean by pre-conscious subroutines of face building? If neuroscience gives us one and only one lesson is that humans are not good at tapping into these sub-routines.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 11 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.