[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

No Subject


 15 Nov 97 at 0:45, Anonymous wrote:

> 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. 

No it does not.  Silence may mean you are to appalled to even post!

> >>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? 

Maybe the little marine was right about that.

> >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: [email protected]
> : From: Tim May <[email protected]>
> : 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

> 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?

No way.  But I feel, at times, it's bad enough to be *reading* that 
stuff let alone posting about it!

> 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.

I think "nuke DC" has become almost a turn of the phrase, these days.
 
> 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. 

OK.  Here I go.  I come down on the complaining side.

> Apparently everyone with an ounce of moral sense has left the list
> long ago.

Nope.  Just lurking.
 
> >>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.

Those things all go hand in hand.

> >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.

I first signed on in 1994.
 
> 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.

Well, I used to say Kill Them All And Let God Sort Them Out back when 
I was in the military.

NoMongerHere