HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Whom Do the Intellectuals Serve?
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 22:14:02 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Jul26.144555.9002@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>
>As I think I said elsewhere already, I think that the
>production of impenetrable jargon is useful in confusing and
>possibly destroying critiques of present political and
>cultural structures that arise out of formerly powerless 
>categories of people, e.g. women and non-whites.  Many of
>these critiques are quite straightforward, and making them
>seem difficult or absurd would help those on top stay on
>top, including those on top of the academic pyramids.

   Ok, agreed.  But all "in groups" develop their own specialized
   slang and jargon (see the _Hacker's Dictionary_ for a description
   of the terms jargon and slang employed by software engineers
   and especially **US** -- denizens of Usenet).

   So are you suggesting that the creation of "impenetrable jargon
   useful in confusing and possibly destroying critiques of present
   political and cultural structures" is done *deliberately* or is
   it just happy (from their viewpoint) happenstance?


---peter

   
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:3116 misc.legal:15177 alt.postmodern:2235 alt.censorship:6479
From: perez@mgr.hjf.org (Charles Perez)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.legal,alt.postmodern,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Date: 30 Jul 92 13:14:12 GMT
Organization: HJF AIDS Research Project, Washington DC

In article <1992Jul29.132135.6685@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>In article <1992Jul28.111014.1@vaxc.stevens-tech.edu> crywalt@vaxc.stevens-tech.edu (Christopher Rywalt, maladjusted cartoonist) writes:
>>
>>	"Beware of altruism.  It is based on self-deception, the root
>>	 of all evil."
>>
>>				-- Robert A. Heinlein
>
>Thanks to the Starship Trooper ("shines the name, shines the name, of
>Roger Young") for clearing this up.  Heinlein uses (unscientific)
>introspection and looks within Heinlein to find disgust and hatred and
>selfishness, and generalizes to human nature in the large.
>
>Anyhow, Heinlein expects (in Starship Trooper and elsewhere) men to
>altruistically sacrifice themselves in war.  Consistency be damned, huh?

'Taint altruism that makes these men (and women) risk themselves in war,
according to Heinlein. It is identitying with humanity in general, and
with their own unit in particular. He discusses the philosophy of
soldiering and citizenship at length in ST.

.sig
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: kwilhite@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (kevin wilhite)
Subject: Rural political parties 
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 19:00:52 GMT

Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.legal,alt.postmodern,alt.censorship
From: grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu (Mike Percy)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Keywords: egnilges
Organization: Clemson University
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 15:22:33 GMT

egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:

>In article <1992Jul27.190001.5960@nocusuhs.nnmc.navy.mil> perez@mgr.hjf.org (Charles Perez) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul25.034520.17957@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>>
>>Which is to say that there is no clear distiction between thought and
>>action, but that contradicts the first part of your statement. Dworkin
>>& Co. *are* interested in criminalizing (not banning - they want to
>>make certain thoughts (or at least their *expression*) crimes, sins
>>even, and then cash in on the guilt) thoughts.

>Completely incoherent.  What do they want to ban?  Thoughts?
>Expression?  And there's at least one unbalanced parenthesis.
 
Geez, Ed, you can't even count.  Two opens, two closes.  Parsed:
[They] *are* interested in criminalizing [A] thoughts.

[A] = parenthetical
(not banning -- they want to make certain thoughts [B] crimes, sins
even, ant then cash in on the guilt)

[B] = parenthetical within the parenthetical
(or at least their *expression*)

Not particularly well written, but hardly "completely incoherent".

Mike Percy             | grimlok@hubcap.clemson.edu  | I don't know about
Sr. Systems Analyst    | mspercy@clemson.clemson.edu | your brain, but mine
Info. Sys. Development | mspercy@clemson.BITNET      | is really...bossy.
Clemson University     | (803) 656-3780              | (Laurie Anderson)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:3151 misc.legal:15289 alt.postmodern:2254 alt.censorship:6538
From: crywalt@vaxc.stevens-tech.edu (Christopher Rywalt, maladjusted cartoonist)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.legal,alt.postmodern,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Date: 31 Jul 92 17:13:01 GMT
Organization: Fairleigh Dickinson University

In article <Bs9CL5.G8u@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes: 
>   But after ANY experience you are different for it; your brain is 
>   different; your life's experience (and hence who you are) is
>   different.   It may be simplistic nonsense to think you can 
>   specify exactly what those differences are, and I think that's
>   the key here.   If modern life and modern science can teach us
>   anything it's that we have to learn to live with great subtlety,
>   uncertainty, and equivocation.  
> 
> 
> ---peter

	This, I think, says it all.  Very well put, Peter.

-- Chris
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.legal
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 20:13:57 GMT

In article <1992Jul25.043658.28680@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:

>That is, if I and the members of my community decide, like St. Paul MN,
>to draft a law, we now have to be sure that NOTHING in that law
>addresses the "content" of speech.  Isn't this a limitation on OUR
>freedom of speech?

Actually, no. The limitation on what the law can do is not a limitation on
what you can say. For example, you could pass a content-neutral regulation
and say "We'd like to pass a law that would allow criminal sanctions for
'hate speech,' but such a law is likely to be struck down." You can also
continue condemning hate speech in all public forums.

>Now, I know that it shall be objected that law is a "performative"
>utterance.

I wouldn't call it one. A "performative" utterance, following Searle and
similar theorists, is one that is self-executing, such as "I promise,"
"I contract," or (in the context of marriage ceremonies) "I do."

The mere utterance of a law doesn't change relationships at all--only its
enforcement does. (Whereas even the nonenforcement of "I do" is irrelevant
to whether a marriage exists.)

It is best to think of written law as communicative rather than
performative, and what it communicates are the rules that will be
(or, at least, should be) followed in cases.


--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,     |"Of the many definitions of poetry, the   
mnemonic@eff.org | simplest is still the best: 'memorable speech.'" 
(617) 864-0665   | 
EFF, Cambridge   |                     --W.H. Auden
From: thant@void.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: In a libertarian society there would be...
Date: 22 Jul 92 23:08:57 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA


In article <1992Jul22.214546.16887@news.clarkson.edu>, walker@sun.soe.clarkson.edu writes:

> Could someone define the term "Libertarian" and "Anarchist" for me, and
> explain how they differ?


A 'Libertarian' is a member of the Libertarian Party.

A 'libertarian' is someone who believes, or has come to the conclusion
that the initiation of force is unjustified.  This, combined with the
axiom of free-will/self-responsibility lead to the emergence of property
rights as a social convention to facilitate human interaction.
Consequently, the sole purpose of government is to protect individuals and
their property from aggression.

An 'anarchist' is someone who promotes the idea of a society with no
ruler.  There are many kinds of anarchists; for example, socialists who
believe in the ultimate achievement of a 'classless' and 'propertyless'
society are anarchists of sorts.  (I've heard them called
'anarcho-socialists.')

A libertarian anarchist is a libertarian who denies that a libertarian
government can exist, at least in any form recognizable as a 'government.'

The idea of 'anarcho-capitalism' (to my knowledge) is best described by
David Friedman's book The_Machinery_of_Freedom.  An anarcho-capitalists is
someone who belives that in the absence of government, the predominant
form of economic interaction will be free markets, and that the
marketplace will provide services traditionally only associated with
governments.

Anarcho-capitalism is different from libertarian anarchism in that
anarcho-capitalists don't necessarily believe that non-aggression can be
institutionalized, although security/legal services provided by the market
will tend toward libertarianism.

thant
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.postmodern,rec.arts.books
From: doom@leland.Stanford.EDU (Joseph Brenner)
Subject: Re: Whom Do the Intellectuals Serve?
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date: 27 Jul 92 02:51:11 GMT

rauser@fraser.sfu.ca (Richard John Rauser) writes:

>jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:

>>As we all know, we intellectuals often disagree among ourselves.
>>In the present case, Gordon Fitch and I disagree about whether
>>the noble effort to save the South Vietnamese from the communist
>>invasion was what I said it was or was something else and whether
>>it was a good idea.  Every reader of r.a.b. will thank me for
>>not rehashing the arguments about that proposition.

>   Look, John, no one's saying you aren't brilliant, and I'm sure we were
>all following your heated debate over Vietnam with intense fascination, but
>do you have any idea how arrogant it sounds to refer to yourself as   
>"we intellectuals"? Debate to your heart's content about whatever subjects
>you choose, but don't try and prove your intelligence by calling yourself
>an intellectual (and then proceeding for three pages to define the word
>in an attempt at justifying the label). 

>    A little humility never hurt anyone...not even an "intellectual". 

This seems awfully silly.  McCarthy wasn't bragging, he was
just being accurate.  He and Finch are both intellectuals. 
Would you claim that you're not an intellectual? 

False modesty and humility are not the same things. 


Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.legal,alt.postmodern,alt.censorship
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 14:36:41 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA
Keywords: egnilges

In article <Bs8vnu.89@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> bzthomps@napier.uwaterloo.ca (Zac Thompson) writes:
>In article <1992Jul31.000130.11572@beaver.cs.washington.edu>, pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:
>> In article <1992Jul30.234156.6391@leland.Stanford.EDU> dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dave Eisen) writes:
>> >In article <1992Jul30.231748.9770@beaver.cs.washington.edu> pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:
>> >>                                             Our experience of real
>> >>life sex does a good job of modifying this view somewhat, but its
>> >>amazing how much of written pornography/erotica/whatever centers on
>> >>the theme of one or more women who are just so desperate for sex that
>> >>they will have it with *you*, right here, right now. 
>. . .
>> >What you describe is a *fantasy* many men have. And that is
>> >why it appears in so much pornography.
>> 
>> My hypothesis is not that fantasies reflect their views of real-life
>> sexuality, but that they *influence* the expectations of sexual
>> relationships. 
>. . .
>
>  Gotta jump in.  Nope, nope, nope.  Not for me, not for most folks
>  I know. I have never changed my expectations of a relationship because
>  of the abundance of supposedly sex-starved women in pornography. 

  OK, I'll jump in on the other side.  I would suggest that prior
  expose to pornography has made me sexually more "adventurous"
  (with my wife!) than I would otherwise have been.  So in that
  sense it may have influenced my behavior and expectations.

  I find it hard to imagine that life's experiences cannot affect us.
  If you spend a few hours reading pornographic writing or looking at 
  sexy pictures you are now DIFFERENT that if you had spent that time
  doing something else.  There are phrases and images in your memory,
  not to mention the memory of your reactions to those, which are now
  in your brain.   If you had spent that time working on your car there
  would be other experiences stored in your brain.

  Now the effects of this might be subtle.  And given the nature
  of complex systems, of which individuals and cultures are both
  instances, the effects are CERTAINLY not as simple as either
  pornography's proponents or opponents like to suggest.  But 
  after ANY experience you are different for it; your brain is 
  different; your life's experience (and hence who you are) is
  different.   It may be simplistic nonsense to think you can 
  specify exactly what those differences are, and I think that's
  the key here.   If modern life and modern science can teach us
  anything it's that we have to learn to live with great subtlety,
  uncertainty, and equivocation.  


---peter




Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:3108 misc.legal:15136 alt.postmodern:2231 alt.censorship:6463
From: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.legal,alt.postmodern,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Keywords: egnilges
Date: 30 Jul 92 02:13:53 GMT
Reply-To: tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation

In article <1992Jul27.230108.10941@Princeton.EDU>, 
egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:

> How about Brandeis for starters, who in 1941 promulgated the "fighting
> words" exception to blanket free speech?  

1) It was Justice Frank Murphy, not Brandeis.
2) It was 1942.
3) The "fighting words" doctrine has never been used to uphold a defendant's 
conviction in any SCOTUS opinion since that case (Chaplinsky v. [I think] New 
Hampshire), which doesn't leave it as an excellent example of jurisprudence.

Terry Carroll - tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com - 408/992-2152
The opinions presented above are not necessarily those of a sound mind.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: walker@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Graham Walker, 227 West Old Main,268-3847,)
Subject: Re: In a libertarian society there would be...
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 21:45:46 GMT

Could someone define the term "Libertarian" and "Anarchist" for me, and
explain how they differ?

														GW

Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.legal
From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 21:19:40 GMT

In article <1992Jul25.201357.18207@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>In article <1992Jul25.043658.28680@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>
>
>Actually, no. The limitation on what the law can do is not a limitation on
>what you can say. For example, you could pass a content-neutral regulation
>and say "We'd like to pass a law that would allow criminal sanctions for
>'hate speech,' but such a law is likely to be struck down." You can also
>continue condemning hate speech in all public forums.

Well, here you just assert without proof that limitation on legal
writing is not limitation on speech, whereas I've asserted the opposite
and presented arguments for it.  Then, later on, you present arguments
that hurt your case.  Mike, Mike, Mike ...

>
>>Now, I know that it shall be objected that law is a "performative"
>>utterance.
>
>I wouldn't call it one. A "performative" utterance, following Searle and
>similar theorists, is one that is self-executing, such as "I promise,"
>"I contract," or (in the context of marriage ceremonies) "I do."
>
Great, you admit, then, that law is not performative, any more than
utterances of John Q. Citizen ("there oughta be a law.")  This is a
strong argument that we should treat law and other texts alike from the
standpoint of the First Amendment.  It looks like I anticipated an
objection unnecessarily, yet I am puzzled as to why, once again, you
present arguments that buttress the case of your opponent.



Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.legal
From: fsars@acad2.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Organization: University of Alaska
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 22:55:31 GMT
X-Posted-From: acad2.alaska.edu
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Jul30.004737.5571@cs.brown.edu>, ted@cs.brown.edu (Tony Davis) writes:
> In article <Bs3oJH.6F6@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>   Look, I have a policy of not
>>   using smileys because intelligent and perceptive readers don't need
>>   them
> 
> Unfortunately, this is simply not true.  I recognized that the statement 
> was not intended as fact, but it did not appear to be humor either.  I
> interpreted it as severe sarcasm intended to tick off its target.
> 
> Network news does not transmit tone of voice or other non-textual cues.  If
> you want humor smileys are required unless you post to rec.humor.*

I've never used a smiley either.  But to support Tony's point, I think
it's wrong to imply that someone isn't intelligent or perceptive, just
because they don't get some piece of irony that you've thrown out. 
I'm very careful about putting irony in something written.  I consider
my audience when deciding whether to include it.

Also consider that many net readers are from foreign countries,
whether they reside in the U.S. or not.  This means that English is
probably a second language, and they are not going to be well versed
in all its nuances.  Since they know a second language (most Americans
don't, including me), they may not be perceptive in this particular
case, but it would be wrong to imply that they aren't intelligent.
                    ==== Al Sparks
From: cedman@714-725-3165.nts.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Subject: Re: Idiotic Subject Lines and the Nolan Chart (was: Re: Parallels between the Nazi's and the Democrats)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Reply-To: cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Date: 28 Jul 92 00:19:30 GMT

Peter Nelson writes
>    Granted, libertarians and leftists and their ilk may consistently match
>    the chart.  But that's because they, in effect, look at the chart first
>    before making a political decision, i.e., they make a conscious effort
>    to be consistent with some political model they learned somewhere.

You mean these outrageous people try to be consistent and deduce their  
political stances from some set of principles ? Now that has to be stopped.  
Can't have any more principled people !

Or is that not what you meant ?

	Carl Edman
   
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.legal
From: ted@cs.brown.edu (Tony Davis)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 00:47:37 GMT

In article <Bs3oJH.6F6@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>   Look, I have a policy of not
>   using smileys because intelligent and perceptive readers don't need
>   them

Unfortunately, this is simply not true.  I recognized that the statement 
was not intended as fact, but it did not appear to be humor either.  I
interpreted it as severe sarcasm intended to tick off its target.

Network news does not transmit tone of voice or other non-textual cues.  If
you want humor smileys are required unless you post to rec.humor.*


Tony Davis
ted@cs.brown.edu

Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:3138 misc.legal:15257 alt.postmodern:2245 alt.censorship:6513
From: pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Keywords: egnilges
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 23:17:48 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.190001.5960@nocusuhs.nnmc.navy.mil> perez@mgr.hjf.org (Charles Perez) writes:
>In article <1992Jul25.034520.17957@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>>and which is often directed
>>against women.  Much of this violence against women arises because of
>>the insane expectations of relationships created by magazines like
>>Playboy and Penthouse.
>
>Says who? Why is the word of a Ted Bundy, who has every reason to
>rationalize his motives, suddenly good when he says what you want
>him to say (answered my own question :-) )? The studies *I* read
>list reading Playboy and Penthouse as counterindications to violence
>against and disrespect of women. Reading Playboy because I *hate*
>women? Really.

I don't believe that Mr. Nilges claimed that readers of pornography as
it appears in such magazines as Playboy actually *hate* women. What he
was drawing attention to was the "insane expectations of
relationships" such publications create. If that isn't clear enough,
think about this for a minute. I'm sure you don't believe that all
women have biographies (or bodies) like those described in Playboy.
However, I submit that most men who have been exposed to Playboy and
similar magazines develop a view of female sexuality which is utterly
at odds even with its highly diverse reality. That view includes, as
one of its central themes, the notion that women who want sex want it
with anyone (or anything), anywhere, anytime. Our experience of real
life sex does a good job of modifying this view somewhat, but its
amazing how much of written pornography/erotica/whatever centers on
the theme of one or more women who are just so desperate for sex that
they will have it with *you*, right here, right now. Yes, I have a few
friends who have gone to nightclubs and met people with whom they have
immediately had sex, but such encounters are rare, and seem to me
inappropriate for a culturally dominant view of sexual relations.

The prescence of such common themes (this is just one example) does a
great deal to create "insane expectations of relationships", and has
nothing to do with hate at all.

-- paul
-- 
"Fun" is a word invented by advertising executives to sell soft drinks.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.legal,alt.postmodern,alt.censorship