On 1/31/16, shakeitoff@ghostmail.com <shakeitoff@ghostmail.com> wrote:

...

...

Cypherpunks defines government as “a home for bullies masquerading as a collective defense.” Interestingly, that is how I would describe your above approach.

These two sentences are approaching incoherent. Would you like to try again? It is probably not constructive for me to respond to incoherence - there is perhaps some truth or pain or seeking which has not been expressed clearly, which I would hope you feel confident about expressing, or re- attempting to express - such is in our collective interests.

The main worry is when “gleeful roasting” slips into bullying and irreversible harm. It's easy for a collective group to shout someone out for the wrong reasons.

Censorship is not the answer to this. But having plain, honest, thoughtful conversations might be.

Feel free to continue such.

...

...

Look around. Do the people around you look like you? Think like you? Come from the same background as you? This is a problem.

So say you. Making you assertion is presently an island waiting for supporters - nothing more than a political position in search of part members. This is not the place for such superficiality. I personally seek deeper conversation.

If you create an environment that is conducive to only one socioeconomic class, you lose individuals who are strong technologists, but whom don’t fit a certain race/gender/economic profile.

Is it possible that you are misunderstanding cypherpunks? Is it possible you have misunderstood some particular conversation? Seems you are flailing at windmills... by all means, flail away, but don't expect others to jump onto jobs you imply need to be done, and assume have failed to be done - down that path lies madness, so I suggested taking a deep breath and, whatever it is you're trying to achieve, try again. Haven't seen your address round these parts before, so your various presumptions of existential "problems" are a little hard for me to stomach...

It is a loss for the community when strong technologists leave because they do not fit the socioeconomic culture of the majority.

Straw man, followed by ...

Especially when considering what this group is fundamentally trying to resist.

ego stroking. All in generic terms, with no substantiated facts. Forget scraping the barrel - take a deep breath and step back for a bit.

From my own personal experience- when a group is diverse, one’s own race/gender/economic background matters less and fades into the background.

ditto

This is the ideal- to not even have to talk/think about socioeconomic issues, and focus on common issues- on how to reverse the end of privacy, on writing code, on ensuring strong cryptography.

ditto

...

Do you assert that you would like a particular communication space to exist, which does not currently exist, but which is somehow similar to cypherpunks mailing list, but perhaps a little different?

No, there is nothing begrudging. I’m here because I want to be useful to ensure that privacy and personal liberty and privacy continue to exist. And to learn.

Frankly, I'm yet to see that (in any substance) in your words I have ever read.

This is the ask: don’t let this be a space where someone has to struggle between alignment to the cypherpunks ideology (writing code, ensuring privacy and liberty, preserving cryptography) and alienation because of one’s socioeconomic background.

Never has been. If it is, name it, point it out, other than that, not interested in your straw men.

Also, let us not forget who the real enemy is.

I say you have demonstrated good sense to tone down, from aggression ("how fucking elitist is that") to polemic. It's a start, yet lacking any substance. Please, do feel welcome :) Zenaan