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

[Anonymous <nobody@REPLAY.COM>]

Tim May writes:
>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.
>...SNIP...
>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."

Try this:

: To: cypherpunks@algebra.com
: From: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
: Subject: Snickering at the Compromisers
: Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 16:03:37 -0800
: 
: For the 3rd or 4th time, I have never advocated terrorism, at least not of
: a physical sort. I have said I hope to see D.C. nuked, which is hardly the
: same as "advocating" terrorism in any meaningful sense (not even the "will
: no one rid me of this corrupt city?" sense, given that I have no
: Beckett-like powers).

You admit here that you've said you hope to see D.C. nuked.

Do you really hope that D.C. gets nuked?  Do other list readers agree?
How many people would this kill?  Over half a million live in the city
proper, with millions more in the surrounding areas.  You have now said
that you would hope to see many of these millions of people killed.

It is this kind of support for depraved violence which has poisoned
discourse on this mailing list.  It is unconscionable to support such
an act of cold-blooded terrorism.

You're not even the worst.  Other posters have supported this kind of
sickening violence even more openly.  No one complains.  Apparently
everyone with an ounce of moral sense has left the list long ago.

>>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.

You seem to think that the only problem with Waco is that the wrong
innocents were killed.  You have no problem taking out innocents
in Washington D.C. if it lets you get at your enemies.  You are no
different from the agents who killed the men, women and children in Waco.
You have no right to set yourself apart from them.  You are as ruthless
and violent as the worst of them.

This list reeks of death and violence.  Apparently there is no problem
which can't be solved by killing.  Kill the innocents of D.C.  Kill the
children in the day care center in Oklahoma City.  Drop more bombs on
Japan.  Cheer the cold-blooded murder of a government agent.  Kill the
children who scrawl graffiti on your mailbox.

>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.

Of course you have the right to post what you like.  But when you spew
garbage, I have the right to say it stinks.  It seems that other posters
have lost their sense of smell.  They say that's what happens when you
spend your time wallowing in sewage.