Re: words have value, for good or ill
Zooko Journeyman <zooko@xs4all.nl> wrote:
Actually I think we are discussing the morality of words, not of thoughts. Words are actions in my book. (ObDcashPunks: Note that the right words to the effect of "I hereby give you this cash token. Signed, Alice" _are_ the same as the action of giving the person the cash token. :-) )
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? It's hard for me to see how. If the belief is correct, then other people certainly will benefit from hearing it. If the belief is not correct, then other people may be able to enlighten you. In either case, it is preferable that the belief be expressed.
What you seem to be proposing is that Tim May (or whoever) should refrain from expressing certain of their beliefs about the world because they are immoral.
I don't speak for Anonymous (:-)), but what _I_ propose is that the meme of "it was okay/justified/right for me to say it because it should be legal for me to say it" shall eradicated from cypherpunks discourse.
I'm not sure I understand what you are proposing. My dictionary defines "eradicate" in two ways: 1. to destroy utterly 2. to erase or remove I don't believe the meme should be "destroyed" and I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the means that would be required to do this. Nor do I see it as desirable to erase or remove posts which have already been made, if it were even possible. 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. (1) It is interesting to consider a world in which these exceptions are not made. If there were no coercive enforcement mechanisms for contracts, then this exception would not have to exist. The idea of doing business solely on the basis of reputation is not only fascinating, but not very unlike much of the world today. There are two ways in which threats can be no ops. One is if the person being threatened is just a public key whose identity is simply unknown. A threat in that case is irrelevant. The second is if the person being threatened can adequately protect him or herself in which case the threat is dangerous to the threatener. And "intellectual property" is somewhat peculiar and implies a centralized enforcement mechanism. If we are to have "intellectual property" in a worldwide networked environment, it implies a de facto world government. The alternative may be preferable. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm Subject: Re: words have value, for good or ill To: cypherpunks@algebra.com 25BA1A9F5B9010DD8C752EDE887E9AF3 [Cantsin Protocol No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
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."
participants (2)
-
nobody＠REPLAY.COM -
Tim May