Re: Tim May's offensive racism (was: about RC4)

[Tim May <tcmay@got.net>]

At 10:55 AM -0700 11/14/97, Anonymous wrote:

>If you don't speak up when someone says something objectionable, you are
>implicitly condoning it.  Silence gives consent.  How many people have
>objected to Tim May's racist comments?  Only one or two.  How many objected
>when William Geiger suggested that more nuclear bombs should have been
>dropped on Japan?  None.  How many have objected to the notion that
>residents of Washington, D.C. should be killed?  Hardly any.

Whomever you are, you don't sound as though you've been reading the list
for as many years as many of us have. People say all sorts of things, some
provocative, some politically incorrect, some even outrageous. Get used to
it.

I have never said "residents of Washington, D.C. should be killed." As I
recall my first comment along these lines, it was, paraphrasing (as I don't
feel like spending 15 minutes sifting through my archived mail), along the
lines of: "I fully expect to wake up some morning and hear that some
terrorist nuke has destroyed Washington, D.C. I can't say I'll be crying."

Big deal. Nothing Tom Clancy hasn't talked about in his novels. (And recall
Clancy's delicious description of a Japanese 747 loaded with jet fuel being
crashed into the main hall of Congress during a joint session, with the
President and cabinet in attendance. It was clear that Clancy was vicarious
relishing this vermin removal effort. Gonna suggest that Clancy has
committed a crime? No doubt Hettinga would.)

>At one time the cypherpunks stood for freedom of speech and protection of
>privacy.  Today they stand for guns, violence, threats of terrorism and
>murder, racism, homophobia, jingoism.

I've been here since the beginning...since before the beginning, actually.
And I can tell you that the "political incorrectness" was the same in
1992-4 as now. Perhaps you recall a little thing called Waco that happened
around that time? Go back and read the traffic.

As for "standing" for guns, violence, racism, homophobia, etc., there is no
Official Cypherpunks Position on _anything_. Individual list members make
individual comments. Some humorous, some angry, some stupid, some
offensive, whatever.

Many of us don't "stand" for freedom of speech if it really means
suppression of racist, homophobic, whatever speech, as it seems to me in
many countries today. The Orwellian "freedom of speech does not mean
freedom to say wrong or offensive things" is a meme that seems to be
spreading.

Ultimately, freedom of speech and of assembly, and privacy itself, is not
something the state can ensure. Technology may.


>It's ironic to see that the kind of off-topic, flaming, irrelevant
>posts which have caused such consternation in the past are now the norm.
>Reasonable people have been largely driven off the list, leaving it to
>supporters of violence and hate.

Perry was saying the same thing several years ago, even arguing that the
very name "Cypherpunks" would send the wrong message to the suits and other
responsible persons. Fine. He eventually went off and formed his own list,
with Perry's Rules of Order. Sounds fair to me.

But this list ain't that list. It doesn't run by _anybody's_ Rules of
Order. Get used to it.

--Tim May

The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^2,976,221   | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."