Re: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up"

[Against Moderation <antimod@nym.alias.net>]

> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:24:57 -0500 (EST)
> From: aga <aga@dhp.com>
> 
> Well, the fact remains that the homos are instrumental in creating and
> forming a cliquish and censored usenet.  There is just no question
> about that.  Remember the previous cypherpunk who stated that the
> gays "created and run usenet."

No.  Who said that, and why do you think the person was serious, let
alone telling the truth?

> Your assumption that I am a "bigot" makes it you appear uninformed.
> Sexism is good, but racism is bad.   A sexist is not a bigot.
> 
> The only one who qualifies as a "bigot" is a racist.

According to the American Heritage dictionary:
  bigot n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion,
     race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

According to Webster:
  bigot n. One obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his own opinions
     and prejudices

I see nothing that limits bigotry to racial intolerance.

> It is very logical and wise to discriminate on the basis of sex.

Most would disagree, and decide based on that and other statements you
have made that you must be an extremely unpleasant person.

If you want to fight censorship effectively, going around telling
people "You're a shit-eating faggot you fucking cock-sucking homo
censor" in public forums is not going to win you many points.
Instead, it will quickly land you in many people's killfiles, and will
eventually lead some people with bad client software to wonder if it
wouldn't be worth giving up some freedom of speech for the benefit of
not having to see your rants any more.

I'm not saying you don't have a right to express your opinions.  I'm
just remarking that you appear to be more in the business of inducing
censorship than fighting it.  If that's the case, so be it; someone
has to get censored in order for people to fight censorship, and
exposing people's willingness to censor is not necessarily a bad thing
in itself.

Unfortunately, it sort of makes life harder for those who actually
fight the censorship when you pretend to be one of them.  Your
argument seems to run something like, "To protect freedom of speech,
bad all faggots from the net, and especially don't let them run any
mailing lists."  If this offensive and highly noticeable argument
eclipses many of the important, fundamental ones as the censors would
like it too (why do you think your articles make it to cypherpunks-
flames while mine only get as far as -unedited), you will end up not
only inducing censorship but also seriously hampering the efforts of
those who are legitimately fighting that censorship.

> I am not a racist, so therefore I can not be a "bigot," regardless of
> my views on homosexuality.

See above.