Request to mailing list cryptography rejected

[Robert Riviere]

My bad Juan,

Im fucked.


On Sat, Mar 24, 2018, 11:17 PM juan <juan.g71 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 4234 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20180325/f26394dd/attachment.txt>