Re: words have value, for good or ill

[Tim May <tcmay@got.net>]

At 12:59 PM -0700 12/4/97, Monty Cantsin wrote:

>It looks like we lost some context across the Atlantic.
>
>In the United States when we are discussing free speech there are
>usually some common assumptions that are used to simplify the
>discussion.  Usually when free speech is being discussed, we do not
>mean contracts, coercive threats, or copyrighted works.  Strictly
>speaking, of course, those are speech, but that usually isn't what is
>meant over here. (1)
>
>The speech I am talking about is the kind of things which Tim May has
>been writing.  To keep things simple, let's consider the statement
>"McVeigh did the right thing."  It is not a contract.  It is not a
>threat.  It is not copyrighted.
>
>It is simply a belief which Tim May considered and posted to the list.
>I think we've fairly settled that it is not immoral to have this
>thought.  So the question really is, if you have such a thought, is it
>immoral to express it?

Indeed, my original point was not that others should support what I was
saying for "free speech" reasons. Whether they agree with me or not is
unimportant.

I repudiated the notion that I should "apologize" or "withdraw" my
statements. "Anonymous" had attempted to shame me into apologizing or
withdrawing my statments, and I refused to.

And whether Bryce agrees with Anonymous or not is of little concern to me.
I simply _assume_ that many people will have many views on this list. I
don't apologize because someone was bothered by my views.


>If you don't like somebody's ideas, I would suggest that you don't
>read their messages.  If you don't want to see a particular idea,
>perhaps you could hire somebody to remove the posts from your mail
>queue that contain it.  If you don't like other people hearing certain
>ideas, I recommend you get used to it.
>

Sounds good to me.

Over the several years of this list, there has generally been very little
of the "Joe should apologize and withdraw his remarks" kind of
argumentation. For good reason. Most people are too smart to be affected by
this lame sort of argument.

Look around. How often do people change or alter their views because
someone says "You should be ashamed of yourself"? Not often. To withdraw an
opinion because Anonymous or Bryce thinks an opinion is wrong or immoral is
a sign of cowardice and lack of confidence.

To compound the debating style errors made by Anonymous and his
supporter(s), Anonymous also misrepresented my views about McVeigh and OKC.
In a series of posts a few months or so ago, I made my position clear: that
I could "understand" McVeigh's actions, in the same way one can understand
someone snapping under pressure. I also pooh-poohed the "human tragedy"
aspects of the OKC story in the same way any warrior must pooh-pooh
specific cases where innocents, alleged or real, die in battles. Finally, I
was not involved in the bombing of the Murrah building, and had no causal
link to it, and did not do it, and probably won't be bombing any buildings
in the foreseeable future. So any attempt to somehow link me to this
bombing, or to claim that my failure to declare McVeigh to be Satan
Herself, etc.. consitutes complicity is magical thinking at its worst.

This same kind of leap in logic occurred in the "I won't weep if D.C. is
nuked" ---> "Tim is planning to nuke D.C." logical leap.

Complete nonsense, compounded by the "If you don't plan to nuke D.C., then
denounce your earlier views and apologize to the list" crap.

Methinks Anonymous and Zooko are steeped in the "self-criticism" style of
Maoist ideological purification.

Personally, I hope to see D.C. purified in a 30 megaton burst of cleansing
fusion. Think of how may problems it would solve. The leech state of
burrowcrats and a million welfare addicts all wiped out. Imperial capitals
need to be sacked for the subjugated serfs to breathe freely.

(The museum stuff in D.C. is is mostly either not all that important or is
already adequately preserved in other ways. We'll get by with the copies
archived in Seattle and environs, in the "other" Washington, ironically
enough.)

So sue me.

--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."