Re: CYPHERPUNK considered harmful.

[tcmay@got.net (Timothy C. May)]

At 1:58 PM 9/15/95, K. M. Ellis wrote:

(quoting my response)


>> We fill a certain niche which is useful to have filled, a more radical
>> facet of things. If we didn't exist, or renamed ourselves "Concerned
>> Citizens for Cryptographic Protection," CCCP, then somebody would have to
>> _invent_ the Cypherpunks!
>>
>
>True, but if the majority of active participants see an alternative
>agreeable to them, they may just switch and start calling themselves
>something else.  If the list owner likes it and changes the name of the
>list, then what of the cypherpunks unwilling to change?  It would appear,
>then, that they would be the ones who would have to find somewhere else
>to go.

Indeed, if a majority of folks on this list start calling themselves
"Martians" or "Crypto Tools," then I suppose this list will _gradually_
adopt that name. Though even then there are no guarantees, as this list is
run on a machine not controlled by a list democracy.

Go for it! If you wish the folks on this list to call themselves "Concerned
Citizens for Cryptographic Freedom," then start calling yourself that.

What I think would be a waste of everyone's time is a drawn-out series of
proposals for new names, a debate which is unlikely in the extreme to
result in a new name.

>Better than a vote (and more effective in western culture, where only 39%
>of the population votes anyway but just tends to go with the flow) is to
>propose an alternative, flat out, adopt it for yourself, and whoever
>prefers it will follow your lead.  If nobody likes it, then the
>cypherpunks are simply here to stay.

Indeed, some people here have been calling themselves by various names
("CypherGeek," "Crypto Rebel," etc.) for a long time. Personally, I despise
the terms "geek," "dweeb," and "nerd," and think anyone who calls
themselves by these insults is not "reclaiming and deconstructing the
labels of the oppressor class," as the slogan goes, but is merely insulting
themselves. Blacks who call themselves "niggers," homosexuals who call
themselves "queers," and computer programmers who call themselves "geeks"
and "dorks" are all playing the same game.

>"long-haired wierdo".  I think a slightly more conservatively named
>organization similar to the cypherpunks would be a good thing, however,
>simply because I like the idea of having something more low-key to compare
>c-punks with, sort of like the IRA to Sinn Fein.  I'm just offering some
>humble advice, knowing full well that I am for the most part an unknown
>lurker without much reputational weight to throw around.  It's also part
>of a leadership dynamic that is, I feel, underused.  (Furthermore, if it
>works, I could use it as a paper topic for my social psychology class ;). )

The problem is not a "leadership dynamic," the problem is that name changes
are not easily arranged. With 700 people on this list, many of whom appear
to _like_ the name, how long will it take before enough want to change to
make it so? And who says democracy is such a good thing? What if 200 want
to change, 100 don't, and the rest don't care or don't "vote"?

A better approach is for the "conservatives" who want a "more conservative"
name to simply do what I suggested: form a new group and name it what they
like. They wouldn't have to quit this list, they would just be able to
cleanly recruit for their new list.

Seems simple to me. And honest. And less devisive than trying to change the
name of a group with a long history (by modern standards) and with several
well-known achievements.

--Tim May

---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
Corralitos, CA              | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^756839      | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."