Request to mailing list cryptography rejected

[juan]

On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 13:07:15 +1100
Zenaan Harkness <zen at freedbms.net> wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 09:09:54PM -0300, Juan wrote:
> > On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 19:57:40 -0400
> > grarpamp <grarpamp at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > What are your suggestions as to recourse?
> > 
> > 	No point in talking to people who do not listen. LIKE YOU.
> > 
> > 	So when you let me know that you actually read and thought
> > 	abpit what I wrote to you, I might continue. 
> 
> I think grarpamp reactively missed your apropos rhetoric "Your
> recourse against scum like metzger or any other censor
> is...what...use a FREE channel?" - perhaps since you emboldened the
> word "FREE" and so he missed that you were NOT doing reverse
> psychology and simply pointing out the obvious irony that now he's
> using a free (uncensored) comms channel.

	Yes, maybe he missed that point. It's actually a rather
	'technical' and factual issue.

	We know there's censorship in metzger's list because that
	information can be freely communicated here. But if we follow
	the 'logic' of 'private' censorship, and all media are
	controlled by the alleged 'owners' then we would never know
	about censorship or about being in the matrix...

	Likewise, arguments with censors are meaningless since the
	censors can control what their opponents say.


> 
> Which is in fact the solution, and yes, which grarpamp seems to be
> missing - The Ministry's programming is so powerful, that even
> "logical" thinkers like grarpamp miss the obvious (I'm guessing he
> still wants censorship, does not want the responsibility of being a
> censor himself, so wants someone else to do the censoring, but wants
> them to censor in just the way he wants the censoring to be so
> censored - namely, that he personally does not get censored).


	If you listen to fake libertarians they love to rant about how
	there's only 'property rights' and hence no free speech.

	It's a sophism that's convenient for lazy people. If you own
	your house, then people in your house can only say what you
	want to hear. LOLWUT. Oh yes, because "your house, your rules"
	again, lolwut. 
	
	It's just conservative garbage, but people have been
	brainwashed into believing it's a 'sound argument'. When in
	reality, it is technically a non-sequitur. 

	From "house ownership" it doesn't follow "you have the right to
	dictate what people in your house say" 

	Just like, if someone is standing in your lawn and tresspasing, 
	it doesn't follow that you have the right to execute him in
	'self defense'. etc. 




> 
> Yes, it is hilarious.
> 
> Grarpamp could start a brissdowner fork, with his royal self the
> censor to show how censorship should REALLY be done - He only needs a
> great title to give authority to His Royal Self so the plebes bow
> low, massa, very low!
> 
> How about
> 
>   Grarpamp, Royal Hilarion of Sublime Censorship
>