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.
-
-
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 -
Replying to @NegarestaniReza @tobias_ewe and
Wouldn't you claim that this model, at an extremely banal and basic level, is the idea behind Hegel's work on subjectivity, and even ethics?
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes
No, I don't think so. Hegel's idea of the subject is completely tethered to self-consciousness as a matter of practical achievement.
-
-
Replying to @NegarestaniReza @tobias_ewe and
And isn't that precisely your point? Otherwise I don't get your point honestly.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @great_old_ones_ @tobias_ewe and
Perhaps, we are getting into a circle of misunderstanding. Can you enumerate your points as if they were axioms?
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
End of conversation
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.