HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Oh, I love it, I love it, I love it!
Date: 12 Aug 92 16:09:04 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

In article <SLAGLE.92Aug10182956@sgi300.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com> slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com writes:

>I cannot speak for libertarians, but speaking for myself, the
>reason I "can't understand the difference" is because there
>is absolutely no necessary difference.  Any such distinction
>is arbitrary and artificial.  Businesses are run by people.
>Businesses do not decide or discriminate, people do.  The 
>burden is on you to demonstrate some meaningful and fundamental
>way in which a persons rights suddenly evaporate when they
>step behind the counter of their store.


I can explain it fairly simply.  Once you are in a heirarchical 
organization, personal feelings go out the door.  I will give an
example.


The company:
billy-bob computing,  50 employees.  President Billy-bob Bigot.

Billy tells his manager, "don't hire no niggers".
Manager, in order to keep his job, does not hire any african americans.
However, when a qualified african american is turned down for the job,
and demands to know why, the manager can say "executive orders".
Billy-bob can then deny bias by saying "oh, he misunderstood what I meant".

In this way, the ownership of bias can be denied.  One's own personal
convictions can be hidden amongst the red tape.

Another case:
Jimbo convenience store, 3 employees.  Owner Jimbo Redneck.

Jimbo tells his employees that "I don't want none of the faggots in here 
but don't tell anyone that I said that, or I'll fire you!" He then goes
into the back room and lives his hateful little life.  In the meantime,
the people working the store start turning away homosexuals.  When 
accuse of being biased, they have to say "we refuse the right to refuse 
service to anyone."  

Now, the libertarians would say that these people are hurting themselves
by exhibiting this bias.  However, with a surplus of people in the world,
bias only hurts the person on the receiving end of the deal, since one
convenience store shopper is much like any other.


I think that people, in one on one encounters, will behave in a rational
fashion.  However, as soon as you can distance yourself from the person,
you can be as hateful and biased as you want, without ownership for the
hatred.  And, despite libertarian philosophy, the only people who suffer
from this hatred are the people who are on the receiving end.


FWA
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers)
Subject: Re: Oh, I love it, I love it, I love it!
Organization: Memes-R-Us
Distribution: ba
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 23:16:47 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:

>>You are walking down a street.  Two African American men are approaching
>>each other from opposite directions.  You are a white person.  The two persons
>>get near each other and say, "Yo, nigger, how you been?"  Would you
>>use the same greeting with either of them?

>Nope, because I'm not suicidal.  Does that mean we should support such
>double standards?

Are you suggesting that everyone should treat everyone exactly the same all
the time ? Why, isn't that < ghasp > _socialist_ ??		(-:

-- richard

-- 
-- richard childers		rchilder@us.oracle.com		1 415 506 2411
         oracle data center  --  unix systems & network administration

                   Klein flask for rent. Inquire within.
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: steveth@rossinc.com (Steve Thomas)
Subject: Freedom Discourages Bigotry  (Was: Re: Oh, I love it, I love it, I love it!)
Organization: Ross Systems, Inc.
Distribution: ba
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 17:57:47 GMT

In article <ofvog6c@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
>
>Now, the libertarians would say that these people are hurting themselves
>by exhibiting this bias.  However, with a surplus of people in the world,
>bias only hurts the person on the receiving end of the deal, since one
>convenience store shopper is much like any other.
>
>I think that people, in one on one encounters, will behave in a rational
>fashion.  However, as soon as you can distance yourself from the person,
>you can be as hateful and biased as you want, without ownership for the
>hatred.  And, despite libertarian philosophy, the only people who suffer
>from this hatred are the people who are on the receiving end.
>

I'll take the very practical side of this argument: when somebody walks
into your retail establishment with intent to buy something, they're about
to give you (you being the owner), some money.  Remember that you keep your
doors open, and you've already payed for the goods on your floor, so this
person buying something from you effectively costs you nothing.  This person
then offers to give you money; you refuse because you're bigotted--you've
just turned down free money.

This is just another example...  In a free society, it PAYS to not be
bigotted (this has been discussed repeatedly here, so I won't go into this).

Are there still going to be bigots that don't care about money?  Sure.
There will be TILL THE END OF TIME.  But you can't OUTLAW "bad thoughts".
Bigottry sucks, no doubt.  Now, you can pick a system that tries to FORCE
people to change their mind by threatening to throw them in jail (this will
never work, you can't change people's minds this way); or, you can pick a
system that gives people money if they aren't bigotted.  A free society is
the only system were IT PAYS TO NOT BE BIGOTTED.  It is a natural selection
process, not a contrived one based on the latest whims of the current
ruling power in congress.

No system will produce a flawless society where every citizen has not a
single prejudice.  Certain people will always do things that are
self-destructive.  But passing a law against such stupidity is more than
just futile, it hurts those who aren't bigotted, and it fuels the flames
for those who are (it gives them legitimate issues to play upon).

||-------
Steve R. Thomas
steveth@rossinc.com

"You'll never go broke appealing to the lowest common denominator."
        - Lisa Simpson
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers)
Subject: Re: The real reason strayts reject gay men (was: Lesbian perspective)
Organization: Memes-R-Us
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 23:23:06 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:

>Excuse me, but why is it homophobic to dislike gays?

Homo' phobic : derived from Latin roots 'homo', meaning 'same', and
		'phobos', meaning fear.

-- richard

-- 
-- richard childers		rchilder@us.oracle.com		1 415 506 2411
         oracle data center  --  unix systems & network administration

                   Klein flask for rent. Inquire within.
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: Abortion Rights = Self Determination
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 06:39:12 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Distribution: ba

In article <athos-180892230420@kip2-7.apple.com> athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:
    >Well, when you believe something is MURDER, then it's a bit
    >hard to get out of your brain. If you've got a solution, or
    >if you can convince me it's not murder, then sure, you'd have
    >a point, but that isn't likely to happen, as we both have
    >acknowledged. Always rememeber: some of us view abortion as
    >murder, and therefore find it difficult to just "forget it."
    >First, we have to be convinced that a fetus is not a human
    >being. Since I know doctors that have differing opinions,
    >it's a bit difficult to have the "human" quality disproven.

Well, Rick, I believe you and I do a lot of things each day that
result in people dying. The fact that you and I do NOT send every $$$
of our income above the absolute minimum needed to just survive and send
those $$$ to feed Somalian children (that are dying in droves right now)
isn't murder.

No one, no cell, clump of cells, embryo, fetus, baby, child, teenager,
adult, old person, has one iota of claim on any other life.

A woman has an absolute right to take those minimal steps needed to
remove ANY living things (embryo, fetus, cells, cancer, worthless boyfriend)
from being a parasite on her life or taking from her things she does not
want to give.

If a woman does NOT have a right to refuse support to a (embryo, fetus,
cells, cancer, worthless boyfriend), then what right do you and I have to not
give every $$$ we can to some starving Somalian child (which, needs it far
more than you and I need, say, a CD).



-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers)
Subject: Re: The real reason strayts reject gay men (was: Lesbian perspective)
Organization: Memes-R-Us
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 19:14:35 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

( Responding to Jeff Dauber's anger at derogatory language describing the
lesbian lifestyle )

>But you seem to view the world, and believe that other people see the
>world, of human beings, as nothing but "fuck objects".

Not true. Jeff Dauber was angry at the person who said this for precisely
this reason. Remember ? They said this woman was a "waste", because she
chose to cavort with women instead of men. A very narrow definition of a
"waste", wouldn't you say ? Surely her lover(s) don't regard her as having
"wasted" her attentions on them. Why, yes, I suspect they have associated
words like 'love', 'intimacy' and 'pleasure' with their relationship. So
where is the "waste" ?

Your attempt to claim the moral high ground is a laugh, Phil.

>Keep it up and I'll start to totally agree with Clayton.

The differences in opinion between you and Clayton are few and far between,
and not worth exploring.

-- richard

-- 
-- richard childers		rchilder@us.oracle.com		1 415 506 2411
         oracle data center  --  unix systems & network administration

                   Klein flask for rent. Inquire within.
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers)
Subject: Re: query
Keywords: them weirdoz
Organization: Memes-R-Us
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 17:47:19 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>For example, other than an attempted slur at around the 1st grade level,
>WHAT if anything have you contributed to rational thought or even just
>plain old reasonable discussion?

Her speculation that you are funded by security agencies has added a bit
of spice to our networked existence.

She's also shown that there are many, many otherwise quiet people who are
beginning to get fed up with your babble.

That's my read on the situation ...	(-:

>You have instead demonstrated an overt lack of self-esteem;
>why else would you have called a few people names and then
>ask the net in a plaintive cry for support, "am I right guys,
>huh? huh?". It is understandable, the nature of an individual
>immersed in PC-dom does react badly to intense debate
>involving ideas and more than one point of view.

Speak for yourself, Phil.

>By the way, the post above is a real example of an ad hominem attack --
>at least if you're going to try anad attack someone, try to do it with
>wit or style, or at least be amusing.

Speak for yourself, Phil.

-- richard

-- 
-- richard childers		rchilder@us.oracle.com		1 415 506 2411
         oracle data center  --  unix systems & network administration

                   Klein flask for rent. Inquire within.
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers)
Subject: Re: Freedom Of Association again
Organization: Memes-R-Us
Distribution: ba
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 22:57:20 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>1. Does a restuarant have a right to enforce a dress code?

If they offer a set of clothing, probably, yes, especially if they have
a theme which the clothing reflects. In general, I wouldn't feel it is
inappropriate to have minimum standards that took into account "public"
perception ( a vague phrase open to abuse ) and more importantly, the
community's health standards - the same standards which apply to custom-
-mers.

I think a symmetry between what is acceptable for customers to be served
and for what is acceptable for their servers should exist, in general.

>2. Specifically, can a restaurant tell you how many earrings you can wear?

No. They can specify "none", but I don't see how they can dictate how many.
They can ask, however, and a 'no' may lead to further disagreement(s).

>3. Can a restaurant not hire you, because in the judgement of the owner,
>   who you are, what you are (etc.) is likely to offend what the owners sees
>   as his/her intended customers?

Theoretically, no. Practically, yes, as long as mental coredumps are not
submittable as evidence in a court of law.

Obviously, people can do one thing and invent rationales for their action,
which they present by saying another thing. This should be nothing new
to the Net.	)-:

>4. Can you be hired / not hired for any damn reason whatsoever?

Theoretically, no. Practically, yes, given the above conditions relating
to the inability to legally establish people's *real* reasons, combined
with an inclination on the part of many people to be dishonest.

)-:

-- richard

-- 
-- richard childers		rchilder@us.oracle.com		1 415 506 2411
         oracle data center  --  unix systems & network administration

                   Klein flask for rent. Inquire within.
From: athos@apple.com (Rick Eames)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Abortion Rights = Self Determination
Date: 19 Aug 92 06:00:29 GMT
Followup-To: ba.politics
Distribution: ba
Organization: Apple Computer

In article <1992Aug18.204535.29028@rossinc.com>, steveth@rossinc.com (Steve
Thomas) wrote:

> Soon you'll have as much chance at getting abortion made illegal as the LP has
> of getting drugs made legal.  The LP, however, does not exhibit this kind of
> bankruptcy, and therefore HAS a future.  The future belongs to those who
> continue to think, continue to innovate, continue to keep an open mind,
> continue to solve problems with new approaches: not those who have "already
> thought the issue over [ten years ago]".

Well, when you believe something is MURDER, then it's a bit hard to get out
of your brain.  If you've got a solution, or if you can convince me it's
not murder, then sure, you'd have a point, but that isn't likely to happen,
as we both have acknowledged.  Always rememeber: some of us view abortion
as murder, and therefore find it difficult to just "forget it."  First, we
have to be convinced that a fetus is not a human being.  Since I know
doctors that have differing opinions, it's a bit difficult to have the
"human" quality disproven.

--
Rick Eames
athos@apple.com
I don't speak for Apple.  Really, I don't.
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Subject: Re: The real reason strayts reject gay men (was: Lesbian perspective)
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 20:01:08 GMT

In article <r19mffm.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:

>The poster has (apparently) an underlying belief that I share -- that
>many, perhaps the vast majority, of female homosexuals are pretty ugly
>in body and/or spirit.

You apparantly do not know many lesbians.  How about the lesbian you love
discussing here at SGI, you know the one.  Is she ugly in body or spirit?
The answer is no.  How about Jodie Foster?  No again.

Another use of stereotypes.  "I know an ugly lesbian, therefore, all lesbians
must be ugle".


>Sure, there are pretty ones, but in my observation, they are few and far
>between.

Wrong.  You just don't recognize them as lesbians because they are "too
pretty to be lesbians".



>Get it?

Yes, you are a bigot.

>Well, it seems to take little to biggle your mind Jeff. But ask yourself,
>what kind of below the belt thinking is involve when the homosexual at your
>company need to place flyers seek acceptance (?) of their SEXUALITY on
>every seat in the cafeteria?

You missed the point.  It was not to seek acceptance.  It was to point out
that we are here and that we are not going to hide behind the facade of
heterosexuality.

Why do you insist on defining homosexuality based on what we do in bed?

> have you ever though that it may
>offend people?


"If you don't like the way I'm living well Fuck You!" - NWA



FWA
From: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: The real reason strayts reject gay men (was: Lesbian perspective)
Date: 13 Aug 92 17:47:11 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

In article <1992Aug13.163538.10464@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:

>1.  Why do you say "scares"?  This is one of the things I find most
>irritating about gay rights activists.  Blacks don't run arround
>calling people who don't like them "negrophobic".

We only call you homophobic when you take your dislike of gay rights
activists and apply them to all homosexuals.  Disliking activists is not
homophobic, I know lots of homosexuals who do not like activists.


>2.  As far as lesbians go, the dominant reaction among straight males
>is that the ugly ones are welcome to do whatever the heck they want,
>but the pretty ones are such a waste.

Sexist asshole.


FWA
From: ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Abortion Rights = Self Determination
Date: 13 Aug 92 18:49:32 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Intergraph Advanced Processor Division - Palo Alto, CA

In article <athos-050892222610@kip2-21.apple.com> athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:

>
>Today the arguement is "It's not a life" and "Yes it is a life with
>Rights."  To me, the issue isn't "taking away the rights of women" but
>rather "taking away the life of a fellow human."
> 

How can you consider, for example, something without a brain to be fully human?


--Al Date
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: jazanopa@ntmtv.UUCP (Patricia Jazanoski)
Subject: How to Profit from Death
Originator: jazanopa@nmtvs264
Reply-To: jazanopa@ntmtv.UUCP (Patricia Jazanoski)
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Distribution: ba
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 00:46:00 GMT

Sign of the time #539: 

In the Merc yesterday there was an article (back page of sec 1)
about the latest financial speculation: buying life insurance
policies from people with AIDS.

How it works: a PWA has a life insurance policy for $100K.
The "investor" pays the PWA a fixed amount of money (say $70K)
then  waits for him/her to die, at which point said investor
will collect the insurance money and pocket a profit.  Of course, 
the key doing being successful is to study the person's health record 
and hope to get somebody that isn't going to last long.

Here's Bush's "gold standard" of health care in action! It only
requires the following:
  1) people who are so desperate for help ($$/medication/food/housing)
     that they will do anything
  2) greedy investors that are able to grab $$ without 
     questioning who they turn a profit on.

Remember all the stink about using fetal tissue for research?
(or selling bodily organs?) This is even worse, since the only
person who profits is the investor. (the goal of research is to
make some medical progress)

Patti Jazanoski

P.S. Did you hear that a rich, white, hetero woman Republican spoke
at the GOP Conv about living with AIDS?  She got it from her rich,
white, hetero, drug-taking Republican husband.  How many more of the
"people with family values"/"cultural underclass" have to get this 
before something is done?

Xref: sparky ba.politics:4674 alt.activism:15092 talk.politics.misc:40639
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Political Correctness (was Re: The real reason strayts reject gay men (was: Lesbian perspective))
Date: 19 Aug 92 19:47:40 GMT
Organization: Oracle Corporation
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1992Aug18.152420.14853@fig.citib.com> glp@fig.citib.com (Greg Parkinson) writes:

>In article <1992Aug15.221404.8652@oracle.us.oracle.com>, mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>|> In article <ohcqfhc@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
>|> >In article <1992Aug13.163538.10464@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:

>|> >>2.  As far as lesbians go, the dominant reaction among straight males
>|> >>is that the ugly ones are welcome to do whatever the heck they want,
>|> >>but the pretty ones are such a waste.

>|> >Sexist asshole.

>|> I'm giving this a slightly wider dissemination because I think it's a
>|> beautiful example of poltical correctness.

>It's actually a beautiful example of a Usenet discussion, and of
>taking something out of context.  

You are lying.  I did  not take this out of context and I challenge
you to prove otherwise.

>|> Look at it.  I state a fact that Dauber doesn't like.  He responded
>|> with a personal attack.  I said something that attacks his view of the
>|> world, therefore I am evil.

>Maybe you *are* evil.

Define evil.

>|> There is also a clear distinction between this kind of political
>|> correctness and just being a liberal.  A liberal response would have
>|> been "Well, it's bad that straight men feel like that and hopefully
>|> they will change over time."

>No, your quote is what a clueless straight man would have
>said.  This is what makes "PC" such a value-free term.
>You define yourself as "liberal" and anyone disagrees 
>you is "PC".  Talk about enforcing conformity!

Please don't insult me.  I'm not a liberal and I would never call
myself one.

I suggest you learn to read.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.