I was just thinking last night that, after the kontamination of the k-punk comments box and the hyper-quick descent into ad hominem stupidity of Dissensus, Hyperstition was a site where you could guarantee quality discussion without being hassled by foaming resentocrats.
Sadly, I have been proved wrong by what has happened in the comments thread to the ‘Surfascism’ post.
The oedipod using the nic ‘mark k-p’ was of course not this neurobot. I have re-edited the comments to indicate this.
I would say that this raises interesting questions about the nature of intellectual property and online identity, but it doesn’t really. The name ‘mark k-p’ no more designates a biographical individual than ‘coca cola’ does. It has all the features of a brand name, even if it would be crass to give Kapital all the credit for innovating this impersonalising semiotic technique. But it’s no more interesting or subversive to have some fuming, badly written hatred attributed to mark k-p than it is to open up a can of coca cola and find it crawling with maggots.
The resentotroll has laid a trap that it would be easy for what the body typing this will, for ease of reference, call ‘me’. The ‘real’ mark k-p is supposed to be up in arms about the ‘stealing of his (online) identity’, which in the mind of the resentocrat, would be evidence for his neurotic-subjectivizing conviction that ultimately, really, come on, admit it, everything is personal, it’s all about baboonery and personal feuds, oedipal struggles between men = pathetic antler-rubbing homosocial bonding.
But it really isn’t. Like Sutter Cane, ‘I’ don’t write anything. Mark k-punk is not a biographical individual. It is precisely a name for a writing practice. In other words, Mark k-p does not write, but is written.
I hope that it is evident that the forces writing Mark k-p would not have been instrumental in the production of the resentment-soaked stalker bile produced in the comments box there.
That neurotic oedipalist seems to use 4 IPs:
Banning IPs is a bit of a futile art in my experience. I’ll do it in this case, but what usually happens with underground man onanist haytaz is that their resentment gives them infinite patience to find another way of interposing their jabbing phallus where it is not wanted (i.e. everywhere).
But what do we know about this individual? (Sphaleotas, I’m expecting a file on my desk tomorrow with photos, the contents of his rubbish bin etc. Get to it!) He’s obviously read k-punk long enough to build up enough knowledge to produce a heavy-handed if – to be fair – largely accurate satire of the Cold Rationalist position and enough slavering Rupert Pupkin-type obsessive hatred to be motivated to post on it. He’s obviously aware of Warwick history, which, while hardly secret, would require either first hand knowledge or some level of research. I mean, he knows enough about Nick to be aware that at some time – but surely well over a decade ago now – his name would have been associated with Nietzsche and Bataille. He knows that Nick was my supervisor (I guess he could have picked this up from Simon’s interview)… Hmmmm….
Really, this is no more interesting than having a broadcast interrupted by a Pooteresque Nobody — an interruption of impersonalizing semiotic trade by a committed peronalist —-
And of course, the ‘real’ mark k-p can spell ‘lambast’.