HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hasn@midway.uchicago.edu (Sheheryar Hasnain)
Subject: Get over it!
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 19:10:53 GMT

I think this group has been, at least ever since I subscribed to it, in search
of a villian.  First they (meaning all the people that bonded by speaking not 
as "I" but "we" and"us",meaning the standardized  white american republican 
brotherhood I assume!) found me (or I found them!) and then they discovered 
the elequent Mr. Nilges.  Women rarely subscribe to this group so they are 
spared the title "villianness"(even though these guys would rather refer
to woman as villian since the male in their respectable op. is the neutral).In
a lot of ways this group displays the failure of the American educational
system (and forget the fact that an embarrassingly small percentage of 
American's can actually "divide" when starting college or have no clue where
India is located.  Those are systems and facts that can be learned.) and to 
an even greater degree the failure of the moral system.  The invisible hand 
of self interest has literally made people look out only for themselves and
"their kind."  Unfortunately the invisible had was not so invisible when
handing out the opportunities so a majority of white males are also the 
majority of middle class people in this "melting pot."  This is not the most
unfortunate part either.  What puts the cherry on top is the defensiveness
this selfish system has built into these minds.  If one were to accept the 
racist and sexist nature of this society without running a regression analysis
(factored subjectively ofcourse!), we could move forward and communicate.
But alas for these boys, racism is whining and sexism is "she was asking for 
it."  If only the American educational system made most of its followers 
think for themselves!  
   
Xref: sparky alt.politics.correct:5147 alt.censorship:7168 misc.legal:16477
From: tcox@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (Tony Cox)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct,alt.censorship,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Nilges
Date: 27 Aug 92 01:26:34 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.correct
Organization: Stanford University

In article <1992Aug26.144839.30931@m.cs.uiuc.edu>,
	kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> Here is the law, as I understand it, with references.
> 
> ......................................... The Surpreme Court has said
> that the speech restrictions tied to federal money are OK in the case
> of health care (where speech is not so important) but would not be
> allowed at a university (where speech is important).
>

Perhaps they should clue in Stanford University. Last year, Stanford forced
the resignation of an assistant professor who advocated (illegal) drug use.
I believe the Drug-free schools and Universities act (1987?), which Stanford
clearly still believes binding, was used by the (then) Drug Tzar as the
appropriate threat to get the fellow dismissed.

Tony Cox, Stanford official Drug-Free University, CA.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy)
Subject: Re: The return of vaudeville. (was: Re: Nilges)
Organization: DigiBoard Incorporated, Eden Prairie, MN
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 21:20:42 GMT

egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.170120.28442@samba.oit.unc.edu> Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi) writes:
>>	So I ask you, are these guys the Gallagher and Shean of the Politically
>>Correct, or what?  Who says vaudeville is dead?  It LIVES!
>>"Absolutely, Mr. Gallagher?"
>>"Positively Mr. Shean!"

>Your racism is showing, for you have revived the 19th century vaudeville
>portrayal of Irish names as intrinsically laff-producing in a disgusting
>attempt to marginalize Sherheryar, who you, as a racist, found amusing
>and marginal because of an Arabic sounding name.

IRISH!?  Al Shean, the German Jew, uncle of the Marx Brothers (Leonard[1],
Adolph[2], Julius[3], Milton[4], and Herbert[5], and the long-forgotten
Manfred[6]) Irish?  His real name was Shoenberg, I think.  He changed it
so it'd be less funny.

Actually, I think you two are intrinsically laff-producing because of the
stupid things you say.

---
Merlyno LeRoy

Footnotes:
[1] Chico
[2] Harpo (he legally changed it to Arthur in the 1930s)
[3] Groucho
[4] Gummo
[5] Zeppo
[6] Manfred, the oldest, died about age 12, according to Groucho, if he
wasn't pulling all of our legs, which I wouldn't put past him.  I suggest
a nickname of "Crypto", since he's dead.
Organization: Senior, Mathematics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
From: regeorge@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Robert E George)
Subject: Woody Allen ? Was Re: Male Bashing
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 16:00:40 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.103824.16417@doug.cae.wisc.edu> sean@cae.wisc.edu (Sean R
utledge) writes:
>I read an article in the 8/30 Chicago Tribune with the headline
>"Woody's out of line, even by male standards."  As if male standards
>were so low, that it is nearly impossible to violate them.  It also
>ignores that it takes two people, therefore ignoring any standards
>that Soon-Yi Farrow Previn may have.
>
>Were I to write an article "Mia's out of line, even by female 
>standards", I would be jumped on by every feminist in America.  But
>male bashing is OK.
>
>BTW, the article was written by a male reporter for the Chicago Tribune,
>Frank James.
>
>
>sean rutledge                              murphy was an optimist!!!
>sean@cae.wisc.edu

Mike Royko, to my mind the best columnist in American journalism today,
wrote an article late last week in which he ridiculed the different
perceptions created by Allen's relationship with a woman twenty years
his junior and Elizabeth Taylor's relationship with a man twenty years
her junior.

g acs.clari.features.mike_royko

will let you see that article if your system has clarinet, otherwise
go to the library and get the Chicago Tribune for Thursday or Friday.

Robert George
(speaking only for myself)

"The very essence of individual freedom is equal justice under a rule of
law, a law to which every man shall be subject and which no executive
can modify."
    Senator Robert Taft , March 11, 1944
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: odin@world.std.com (Hank Roth)
Subject: The Big Lie (PC)
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 16:51:31 GMT

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS: What it really means.

Political Correctness (PC) is the Big Lie campaign. If you are 
against racism, abortion clinic bombings, union-busting and 
imperialist war--then maybe you're just too "politically correct" 
and a dangerous enemy of the state. As ludicrous as it may sign, 
given the present climate of right-wing triumphalism and 
some "liberal" collaboration, George Bush railed against a 
"notion of political correctness" in a speech he gave at the 
University of Michigan in May, a year ago, and accused the left 
of conductiong an "inquisition," "censorship" and bullying." He 
gave the presidential seal of approval to the race-haters and 
like the Willie Horton propaganda smear campaign, he started this 
witchhunt against this new bogeyman, "political correctness."

Who are the targets. You and I, and a few professors and courses in 
Black and women's studies. Grabbing the mantle of free speech to 
champion the right of punks to hurl words like "nigger" is to 
profane the purpose and spirit of free speech. 

They still remember Vietnam and it haunts them when campuses were 
organizing centers for political protest and "breeding grounds of 
subversion." Now with a New World Odor, campuses but most 
particularly the LEFT must be brought firmly into line and one 
way to do it is to label what we say as "politically correct" and 
therefore unacceptable. How utterly absurd. Do you know what PC 
really is: Ed Herman writes in his doublespeak dictionary, it is 
"The callenge of dissidents and minorities to traditionally 
biased usages and curricula, as perceived by the vested interests 
in existing usage and curricula and those seeking a basis for 
attacking the current challengers." Whereas, "really correct," 
that which is acceptable to the RIGHT is: "The status quo in 
politicized language and curricula; also, whatever line the 
government and establishment wants to take on an issue." 

What these attacks from the Bush camp, petty-bourgeiois students 
and the fascist far RIGHT are doing is inciting straight-out 
racist violence with their forcible repression of independent 
thought and action.....in a LOCK STEP march to total *CONFORMITY.*

The PC hunters rail about constraints on their "free speech", 
----but consider this: Who owns the country and who owns the 
media? If they want to yell "nigger" and threaten Jews and Gays, 
they do so and no one denies that they have that right--but this 
also makes them enemies of the LEFT and it makes their accusations 
that anyone is PC who challenges them for their insensitivity and 
ignorance a ploy by them in effect sustaining their fascist 
witchhunt. 


                        Hank Roth

////------------------------------------------------------------/////
** Peace & Justice **  ** People Before Profits ** ** End Racism **
////------------------------------------------------------------///

Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: sean@cae.wisc.edu (Sean Rutledge)
Subject: Male Bashing
Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering
Date: 30 Aug 92 10:38:23 CDT

I read an article in the 8/30 Chicago Tribune with the headline
"Woody's out of line, even by male standards."  As if male standards
were so low, that it is nearly impossible to violate them.  It also
ignores that it takes two people, therefore ignoring any standards
that Soon-Yi Farrow Previn may have.

Were I to write an article "Mia's out of line, even by female 
standards", I would be jumped on by every feminist in America.  But
male bashing is OK.

BTW, the article was written by a male reporter for the Chicago Tribune,
Frank James.


sean rutledge                              murphy was an optimist!!!
sean@cae.wisc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: sean@cae.wisc.edu (Sean Rutledge)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: Woody Allen ? Was Re: Male Bashing
Date: 31 Aug 92 14:48:51 GMT
Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering

In article <1992Aug30.232101.11299@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>In article <1992Aug30.160040.7494@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> regeorge@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Robert E George) writes:
>>Mike Royko, to my mind the best columnist in American journalism today,
>>wrote an article late last week in which he ridiculed the different
>>perceptions created by Allen's relationship with a woman twenty years
>>his junior and Elizabeth Taylor's relationship with a man twenty years
>>her junior.
>
>Taylor met her husband when he was in his late 30s.  Allen has been
>Farrow's lover for 12 years and presumably a father figure to her
>stepchildren during that time.  So, Allen met his 21 year old lover
>when she was 9.
>
>If those situations are very similar, you see things much differently
>than I do.

I have a very twisted view on things.  I believe that what two consenting adults do 
behind closed doors is very much their business, and none of anyone else's business.
This is the same criteria I apply to gays, suicides, drug addicts, ....

As long as they are consenting adults, I wouldn't care if they were father-daughter
by blood.  It is none of my business!


sean rutledge                              murphy was an optimist!!!
sean@cae.wisc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: The "his", "he" Issue
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 20:21:43 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.081735.8761@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>In article <1992Aug18.085217.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu> mzener@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:
>>  Using the male form as the neutered form _includes_, not excludes, the
>>female gender. Why not change the neutral form to "she?"  Why change it in the
>>first place?  Our language has evvolved in this way -- let it stand.  There's
>>no particularly good reason to change it (Sherheryar thinking it would be cute
>>doesn't qualify as a good reason).
>
>Let's see.  I once read an article which said something to the effect
>that, "Like all other mammals, man breastfeeds his young."  Now, given
>that the chances of a man breastfeeding his young are very small, is
>this the proper use of the generic masculine?  If breastfeeding is a
>distinctly female trait but it's still legit to use generic masculines
>when talking about it, is it equally legit to talk of his pregnancy or
>his uterus? 
>
Don't stop there, a Hysterectomy should become a Hersterectomy.
See?  This is what is at stake, the decline of the English language.
The foolishness of following social whims to define the language is
what we are debating and allowing minority special interest groups 
such as feminists define our language is far from acceptable.

I don't have any problem with the use of "she" or "her" except where it
makes the language less precise.  If the use is clumsy or awkward I don't
want to see it used, and this can be the case simply due to our culture.
You may night like it but there are many cases where the use of "she"
just sounds awful, and yes this is a cultural result since we are brought
up hearing phrases and reading books which use the same phraseology.

Only the Thought Police would seriously consider what effect the use of
the male as the neuter has on the thoughts of our citizens.  This is 
wholy un-liberal and yet the modern Liberals espouse it quite often.

Further, the presumption that the use of the masculine to represent the 
neuter case is making us sexists is incomplete.  This theory does not
address the possibility, for example, that the field of medicine is
dominated by men or that nursing is dominated by women.  When someone
mentions an NBA basketball player dunking the ball do you think of a
black man or an asian?  We categorize by nature so the use of his or her
is often more precise depending on the subject.

People who use the female gender instead of the traditional male gender
are denying their culture, purposely confusing the issue, and are 
considered to be fringe activists.  In my opinion only of course ;)

Mike Best {mcdphx|asuvax}!anasaz!best

PS. How about the changing of history to herstory?  Don't laugh, it's the
    study of womYn's affairs.  Never mind that "histor" comes from the
    Greek language and means learned or knowing.  This is the stuff that
    makes the language less precise and is therefore wrong-o.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Woody Allen ? Was Re: Male Bashing
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 92 23:21:01 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.160040.7494@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> regeorge@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Robert E George) writes:
>Mike Royko, to my mind the best columnist in American journalism today,
>wrote an article late last week in which he ridiculed the different
>perceptions created by Allen's relationship with a woman twenty years
>his junior and Elizabeth Taylor's relationship with a man twenty years
>her junior.

Taylor met her husband when he was in his late 30s.  Allen has been
Farrow's lover for 12 years and presumably a father figure to her
stepchildren during that time.  So, Allen met his 21 year old lover
when she was 9.

If those situations are very similar, you see things much differently
than I do.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: The "his", "he" Issue
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 92 21:01:36 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.082210.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu> mzener@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:
>farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>> And yet, most Americans speaking English don't think it does.  So,
>> what are we to do?
>
>   Are you sure about that?

Studies have repeatedly shown that when presented with a sentence such
as, "Every student should turn in his homework.", most people
visualize a male student.  Are we just to assume from this that male
is normal and female is not?  

Take a stroll through any newsgroup.  You'll find reasonably educated
people using plural pronouns when singular should be used, not because
of some "PC-ness" but because the generic (or neutered if you prefer)
masculine doesn't sound right.

>> .....  I only begin to suspect sexism when I see the
>> defense of generic masculines being so strenuous.  (Unless I've managed
>> to run across a bunch of anal retentives who get upset when they see
>> the word "ain't" used.) 
>
>   If you can present a cogent explanation why someone using the masculine form
>as the neutered form, when all the major dictionairies claim that it's proper
>English to do so, is inherently sexist, I will be very impressed.

I don't assume that everyone who uses the generic masculine is sexist.
I do begin to wonder about motivation when there's such strenuous
opposition to using either plurals or both singulars.  It reminds me
of some whites calling African Americans Negro and then being
irritated when they're told that's not the term of choice.

> I think I have discovered the source of your confusion.  The term
you have >chosen is quite revelaing.  "Generic masculine" instead of
"neutered pronoun."  >Using the term you have chosen reveals that you
cannot see the word "he" as >being gender non-specific -- hence your
objections to its neutered use.  Your >objection is valid, given your
premise that "man" must imply "male," butI doubt >the language should
be changed because you have failed to make the conceptual >leap
involved in seeing "man" as a neutered noun.

And what I'm saying is that most English-speaking Americans don't make
that conceptual leap either.  And you can drag out your books of
grammar and your dictionaries, but the usage is changing just because
of that.

>   So yes, the sentence you quoted is correct, even if it sounds silly.

Correct, but silly.  And that's probably why you're fighting a losing
battle, for most speakers and writers will avoid sounding silly and
continue to be incorrect.
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct,alt.censorship,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Nilges
Date: 26 Aug 92 14:48:39 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL

Here is the law, as I understand it, with references.

Doctors and abortion: Bush has changed his policy to allow doctors,
but not other health care professionals, to talk about abortion at
federally-funded family planning clinics. The Surpreme Court has said
that the speech restrictions tied to federal money are OK in the case
of health care (where speech is not so important) but would not be
allowed at a university (where speech is important).
[I don't defend this decision; I'm only trying to fairly describe it.]

Employment: In most states you can be fired for any reason or not
reason. There is no nationwide, comprehensive whistleblower
protection.

Overthrowing the government: Your words are protected unless they are
intended to produce 'imminent lawless action' and it is 'likely to
produce such action.'

As to freedom being all or nothing: I believe in degrees of freedom.
[Sorry, no reference for that one.]

ANNOTATED REFERENCES

(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)

=================
law/rust-v-sullivan
=================
The decision and decent for the so-called abortion information gag
rule case. The decision explicitly mentions universities as a place
where free expression is so important that gag rules would not be
allowed.

=================
civil-liberty/campaign-92.aclu
=================
The American Civil Liberties Union's planks for its "Campaign for the
Bill of Rights '92". The planks are 1) a national campaign against
bigotry and racism, 2) constitutional protection for a woman's right
to choose, 3) a realistic approach to crime and punishment, 4) a Bill
of Rights for all working people.

=================
law/brandenberg-v-ohio
=================
In e-mail, a correspondent expressed the view that there was no right
to speech that advocated violence. This response is based on U.S. law.
It is a summary of the ACLU's Bill of Rights Briefing Paper #10:
Freedom of Expression. The Supreme Court's standard is that speech may
not be suppressed or punished unless it is intended to produce
'imminent lawless action' and it is 'likely to produce such action.'

=================
=================

These document(s) are available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):

  pub/academic/law/rust-v-sullivan
  pub/academic/civil-liberty/campaign-92.aclu
  pub/academic/law/brandenberg-v-ohio

To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):

send acad-freedom/law rust-v-sullivan
send acad-freedom/civil-liberty campaign-92.aclu
send acad-freedom/law brandenberg-v-ohio

--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct,alt.censorship
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: The "his", "he" Issue
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 92 21:12:33 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.182219.15475@access.usask.ca> bickis@skmath3 (M. Bickis) writes:
> Whether this is "correct" is not an absolute question.  That is the way
>that educated people (of both sexes) have spoken and written.  Languages
>and conventions change.  Today, many educated people (of both sexes)
>shun such usage--primarily for political reasons.  I personally do not
>like constructions like the singular "they", and I find "he or she" can
>get tedious after a while.  Although I am not PC, I do find that I am
>saying and writing "he or she" when talking about a generic person, and
>I will frequently use "she" when talking about a hypothetical person of
>otherwise unspecified gender.  I dub this being PT--"Politically
>Tactful".  Given that certain groups in our society have made this
>he/she, man/person thing an *Issue*, what is to be gained by provoking
>their ire?  After all, the purpose of language is communication, and if
>someone is going to *misunderstand* my use of the masculine gender as
>*excluding* women (whether deliberately or negligently), then why should
>I not avoid the misudnerstanding by adopting another convention?

Ed Falk (I believe) made a post to soc.women a month or so ago which
showed that plural pronouns instead of the grammatically correct
singular ones have been used as far back as Shakespeare.  

I think more and more people use plurals instead of the generic
masculine not for political purposes, but for the simple reason that
the generic masculine doesn't sound right.  The reason it no longer
sounds right probably stems from the influx of women into education,
business, the professions, and politics.

I use s/he and her/him when I write and they when I speak.  I don't
find it especially tedious to write both, but it sounds awkward when
speaking.  As far as being assumed to be uneducated when I speak using
plural pronouns, I'll just live with that.  Heck, 90% of the PhDs I
know say "between you and I" and I don't think they're stupid.