Re: <nettime> Identity and difference

[tbyfield <tbyfield@panix.com>]

Ian, this idea of 'civility' should be unpacked a bit, because the ~word 
lumps together a disparate range of concerns. At its worst, a lot of 
babble about civility boils down to is tone-policing, which relies on 
etiquette as an all-purpose tool for micromanaging rhetoric — and in 
doing so, limiting and even delegitimizing positions of every type 
(subjective, relational, political, whatever). In other contexts — 
notably, in 'centrist' politics in the US — it serves as a rationale 
for institutionalist pliability: 'bipartisan' cooperation, etc. But 
those two uses are very different from its function as a foil for the 
frightening prospect of outright political violence. These different 
strands, or layers if you like, are hopelessly tangled, and that 
confusion in itself has serious consequences — hence the culturalist 
use of the word 'strategy,' which often is used to get at the nebulous 
realm in which individual behavior aligns with (or 'is constitutive of') 
abstract, impersonal forces. That's a very roundabout way to get at the 
obvious problem, which is the direct way that increasingly uncivil 
political discourse foments violence. And, in a way, that's the problem: 
the left's path for translating ideals into political practices is 
hobbled and misdirected at every stage, whereas for the right it's 
becoming all too direct.

My gut sense is that Land is symptomatic of the left's repudiation of 
force — violence — as a legitimate form of politics. Some, like him, 
sense that and embark a theoretical trajectory that tacitly accepts or 
even actively embraces violence. I'll leave that there, because I don't 
want to debate it or even to see a debate about it on this list. Nettime 
is fragile, and decades of accumulated effort could be poisoned with a 
few, um, 'uncivil' messages. There was a time when the solution was 
widely said to be more speech, but at a time when 'more speech' means 
trollbot networks that systematically and strategically subvert civil 
contexts I think that rule is more problematic than ever.

As for Bard, whenever his mail appears in inbox my first reaction is 
"When's the new book coming out?" But that's a rhetorical question — 
no answer needed, thanks.

Cheers,
Ted


On 28 Oct 2018, at 10:48, Ian Alan Paul wrote:

> Brett - I don't think that the problem of the Left is that we don't 
> spend
> enough time with people who think it's worthwhile to discuss the 
> potential
> virtues of "Candace Owens, Nick Land and/or Adolf Hitler." If 
> anything, the
> Left needs to thoroughly rid itself of the liberal and depoliticizing
> notion that we should all simply get along in the name of preserving
> civility, esp. in a historical moment while fascist gangs are 
> literally
> roaming the streets beating up migrants, synagogues are being shot up, 
> and
> pipe bombs are being mailed to politicians.
>
> I don't think Alexander's ideas are worth engaging with or even 
> refuting to
> be entirely honest, as I hope is obvious to most people on Nettime by 
> this
> point. We live in times that are too extreme and urgent to expend any
> attention or energy dialoguing with disingenuous apologists for the 
> Right .
 <...>
#  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: nettime@kein.org
#  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: