From: email@example.com (The Pervert)
Message Hash: 8c1bcb1f1a18e7b0e1aed23967d626d1f58613d9faa5073d6453ff4d8e6383d1
Message ID: <9311280336.AA24018@anon.penet.fi>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1993-11-28 03:39:18 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 27 Nov 93 19:39:18 PST
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (The Pervert) Date: Sat, 27 Nov 93 19:39:18 PST To: email@example.com Subject: Sodomy, Homosexuality, and Pseudospoofing Message-ID: <9311280336.AA24018@anon.penet.fi> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Gosh, everyone is such in a tither lately. I suspect it is because the tentacles and snakes are out in full force covering up their nonexistence! Well, I thought I would post some more of my insights into pseudospoofing for everyone's enlightenment. I was thinking how much Pseudospoofing is like Sodomy. I mean, there are a lot of interesting parallels. People are repulsed by hearing about sodomy between people they respect, even though some people think it is acceptable in some private situations, as long as participants they don't advertise it! There is definitely a strong evil tinge associated with Sodomy. The name comes from the biblical sinning capitols of Sodom and Gomorahh. (I wonder if Gonorrhea comes from `Gomorahh'). Sodomy has always been associated with evil. It is only after the Sexual Liberation (Sort of like the CryptoAnarchic Revolution) that people became more tolerant of what was previously considered a sexual perversion. (By the way, the Sexual Liberation has been instrumental in the outgrowth of neat new physical and social diseases, such as treatment-resistant STD strains, the broken home, neglected/abused children, monumental statistics in teenage pregnancy, and perhaps the increased devaluation of women and increased aggressiveness in men.) The idea of unconsensual sodomy of course is revolting. Especially when people are young and vulnerable,with impressionable minds. the Leaders of any great country have a responsibility to protect the innocent from exposures to depravities. The whole idea of the legitimacy of sodomy arose with the idea of `private acts between consenting adults.' Anything beyond that is still considered a perversion by reasonable people. I have noticed an interesting overlap between radical libertarians, cryptoanarchists, psychopunks, and people who promote sodomy. People have sent me mail explaining how laws against sodomy prove the government is a Corrupt Orwellian Oppression. As I understand it the Supreme Court upheld the state's rights to legislate against sodomy. The people in these groups believe this is an example of a worthless law. Actually, to them the term `worthless law' is a `pleonasm', the opposite of an oxymoron, a redundant phrase; every law is by definition worthless; laws are nothing but a corrupt mechanism for a depraved Majority to manipulate and oppress the Trampled and Victimized Minority. The restriction on sodomy is their favorite example: ``Any country where a loving man and a wife cannot perform sodomy in the privacy in their own home is a Corrupt Orwellian Oppression.'' I've never quite understood this implication. But the radical libertarians, cryptoanarchists, psychopunks, and sodomists (or at least the sodomy promoters) are quite an inscrutable, volatile, and inconsistent bunch, to say the very least. They have all sorts of other ways of spraying graffiti on concepts like Democracy and urinating on things like Law Enforcement and Justice. ``Anything that prevents criminals from embezzlements is just another outrageous Unconstitutional invasion of their privacy. Criminals have a constitutional right to embezzle from others!'' (Reminds me of someone who told me, `Pseudospoofing is guaranteed by the constitution!') People may go to great lengths to hide their sodomy from respectable people. This brings me to the issue of homosexuality. Obviously, pretty much any homosexual is a sodomizer. The tinge of evil in homosexuality and `paranoid homophobia' are rooted in the belief in the existence of sexual perversions even among consenting adults. Homosexuals have been persecuted for centuries. They have always had to put on different faces for different people to promote their activities, just like pseudospoofers. In recent times there has been a more open embrace of homosexuality. `homosexuality is liberating.' `people are born to be homosexuals. we should do nothing to let them practice their sodomy in public.' I have mixed feelings about all this! It seems to me that again, homosexuality is only justified in private among consenting adults. If you take away the `unconsenting' or the `private' you just have perversions. (That makes me wonder -- is Cypherpunks considered a private mailing list? I mean, on one hand there has never been any crackdown of all the deceptions and lies that have passed through here. On the other hand, it is advertised publicly, in e.g. the Privacy and Anonymity FAQ, edited by L.Detweiler, posted every 21 days to a lot of respectable newsgroups like alt.privacy and sci.crypt, with a beautiful new Latex version rumored to be out there somewhere.) That word `gay' reminds me of the term, `pseudonym'. Both words started out with completely different, innocuous, entirely uplifing meanings prior to homosexuals and pseudospoofers. `gay' once meant joyous, ecstatic, happy. But now it is taken by some as a homosexual slur like `fairy' or `queer'. Also, even among some gays, the term `gay' has militant connotations. `pseudonym' on the other hand was once something harmless that writers used to protect their privacy or play a harmless joke or prank on a few people. But pseudospoofers have invented the `pseudanonym', a name that is explicitly *mis*represented as that of a real person! Unfortunately, they still don't understand the distinction, and still call their insidious widespread interactive uses of `nyms' for espionage, sabotage, thievery, blackmail, infiltration, treachery, and betrayal `pseudonyms' and `pure anonymity' and `pseudonymity' when it is really `pseudoanonymity'. I am really quite upset at this toxic pollution of the English language, and desperately pray that `pseudonymity' does not become associated with so many pejorative connotations from unstable and quasi-criminal radicals, extremists, and terrorists the way `gay' did. The ideas of sex and identity are very closely intertwined too. When you fall in love with someone, you are falling in love with a person and their identity. Some people manipulate this trust. E.g., a pseudoRomeo romances very many women with fake identities in email, and complains about persecution when he is caught. I think the women have a right to be angry and feel vindictive! (Reminds me of Lorena Bobbit.) When you love someone, the whole idea of exclusivity is involved with romance. Both men and women will feel betrayed if their partner was `cheating' on them with someone else, or hiding evil aspects of their personality from the other, for example drug use. Unfortunately, deception is the name of the game with pseudospoofing. I wonder if anyone has ever fallen in love with a tentacle! I understand this has happened. Medusa is very wily. That would be awfully disappointing and disillusioning and alienating to find that someone you respected was not only a `fake' but a `nonexistent fake' played for you like a puppeteer manipulates his puppet. This is so devastating to psychological serenity that I'll bet that laws are passed against this, just as there are laws about rape and infidelity in breaking a marriage. Hopefully the Cryptoanarchists, psychopunks, radical libertarians, and sodomists (or at least the promoters!) will not object too much to these `invasions' of their `privacy'. Have pity on the people who enact them, who were probably burned badly and essentially mean well. The parallels between homosexuals and pseudospoofers are very strong. They are torn between believing that they are not perverted, and promoting a religion and mythology among themselves about their persecution and righteousness, when the outside public may consider their beliefs nothing but wicked depravity. Surely there is a balance somewhere. I do believe that some progress has been made in attitudes toward homosexuality with the newfound openess and honesty that many homosexuals practice. Pseudospoofers, on the other hand, have not `come out of the closet' yet. Despite little glimmers and glimpses here and there, we are left only to guess how many different identities they are maintaining. The leaders are especially resistant to openness about their practices. They will not even hint about their partners, believing that they will be discredited immediately for their elaborate frameworks of deceptions among even personal friends erected to hide it. So instead their fervent followers attempt to justify their leaders and their own religion with vague propaganda about how homosexuality is not wrong, to the contrary it is refreshing and liberating, growing, and increasingly at home everywhere, no thanks to the McCarthyist Witchunt Inquisition Intoleration and gay-bashing of backward homophobe reactionary Luddites. (I hope that no pseudospoofers are homosexuals are offended by my comments. Please don't think that this prose is actually a long, complex, painstakingly and carefully crafted masterpiece containing thousands of subtle and overt insults and flamebaits intended to throw cypherpunks dialogue into Liberating Anarchy. Please take my metaphors in the most superficial and endearing of terms and the good will I offer them in. There is nothing between the lines just as there is no pseudospoofing on the Cypherpunks list!) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- To find out more about the anon service, send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org. Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized, and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned. Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to email@example.com.