HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: theodore-michael@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU (Dr. Disorder)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex
Subject: American Family Association -> Fucking Repressed Assholes
Date: 11 Jan 1993 16:42:21 -0500
Organization: Yale University Science & Engineering UNIX(tm), New Haven, CT 06520-2158
NNTP-Posting-Host: minerva.cis.yale.edu

Just thought you folks might get a chuckle from the full page ad taken out 
by the American Family Association (on the back page of the Week in Review
section of this past Sundays New York Times). These moronic puritans recite
a litany of excuses for censorship that seem like a replay of the Republican
convention, except there is even less logic. How can an organization that
claims to speak for the majority decry the overwhelming popularity of the
things it considers evil? I realize that the intellecual scope of their
arguments are probably beyond my grasp, but doesn't the above seem obviously
contradictory?

	-Michael

PS - I, for my part, wrote them a letter informing them not to presume to
speak for me (and peppered it with a judicious amount of blasphemy and
profanity to make sure there was no ambiguity).

American Family Association, Dept. G10
P.O. Drawer 2440/107 Parkgate Drive
Tupelo, Ms 38803

-- 
Practice random acts of randomness.........
		theodore-michael@cs.yale.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex
From: morton@rtpnet06.rtp.dg.com (John R. Morton)
Subject: Re: Gay Rights--only if it doesn't change anyone else's rights!
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 09:38:28 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation. RTP, NC.

>   Agreed but look at the issue from a minority's point of view.  The
>   heterosexual white male is the one that holds all of the power in this
>   country.

	Now there is an opinion.... I'm a het whitey, and the way I figure it,
	I lost 47 % of my gross to the Fed last year..... and what did they
	do with it.. ? Well, you can be sure that some of it went to people
	who did nothing to get it !
	I think, that's pretty powerful, do nothing and get money !

Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex
From: morton@rtpnet06.rtp.dg.com (John R. Morton)
Subject: Re: Gay Rights--only if it doesn't change anyone else's rights!
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 09:32:55 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation. RTP, NC.

[stuff about discrimination deleted]
Now we have .... "Hate Crimes !"  Also, we have special divisions in the
police department who have gone to a seminar, and know how to tell if
you just committed an act against someone, or if you hated them while you
did it, and if you did, it draws a stiffer penalty.
Don't try to understand it, it's not at all a level field,
any particular attitude is both ethnocentric and racist,
depending on who has it.  
Yes, the whites are getting the bullshit end, they are not allowed
any sort of ethnic anything, it's racism when whites are proud.
But , they deserve what they are going to get, and nobody feels 
sorry for them. Plus, they are dumb, and cowardly, they don't even
realize they are being taken, and if they did, would not admit it.
Long as I got my TV. And My job !!!

Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: drw@riesz.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley)
Subject: Re: Are women morally superior to men?
Organization: MIT Dept. of Tetrapilotomy, Cambridge, MA, USA
	<1993Jan7.001129.9476@dragon.acadiau.ca>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 19:39:41 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.001129.9476@dragon.acadiau.ca> 003316g@dragon.acadiau.ca (Steve Gregory) writes:
   As I don't get this magazine could someone be so kind as to post some of
   the major points?

Sorry, it's far too long to type in, and the essential points can't be
summarized briefly.  On the other hand, it's one of the standard
political magazines, so almost any college library is going to have
it.

Dale

Dale Worley		Dept. of Math., MIT		drw@math.mit.edu
--
...the i860 is a wonderful source of thesis topics.	-- Preston Briggs 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex
From: thumim@nevada.edu (Scrooge McDuck)
Subject: Re: Gay Rights--only if it doesn't change anyone else's rights!
Organization: University of Nevada System Computing Services
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 16:40:57 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.093828.26856@dg-rtp.dg.com> morton@rtpnet06.rtp.dg.com (John R. Morton) writes:
>>   Agreed but look at the issue from a minority's point of view.  The
>>   heterosexual white male is the one that holds all of the power in this
>>   country.
>
>	Now there is an opinion.... I'm a het whitey, and the way I figure it,
>	I lost 47 % of my gross to the Fed last year..... and what did they
>	do with it.. ? Well, you can be sure that some of it went to people
>	who did nothing to get it !
>	I think, that's pretty powerful, do nothing and get money !
>

What does this have to do with money?  How about all of the het whites
on Capital Hill, in the office of the President or any other major
office.  These are the people that hold the power.  Very few women and
minorities hold any office in this country.  I see something very
wrong with this picture.

Peace.
Jon
From: tsv@Unify.com (Tim Vannaman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex
Subject: Re: Gay Rights--only if it doesn't change anyone else's rights!
Date: 5 Jan 93 22:35:13 GMT
Organization: Unify Corporation (Sacramento)

I agree w/ Daniel Rouse 100%.

People have found out that crying 'discrimination', people will listen.
Its the easy way out. (just like people crying 'sexaul harassment' when
there really isn't any)

Tim.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex
From: drw@euclid.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley)
Subject: Re: American Family Association -> Fucking Repressed Assholes
Organization: MIT Dept. of Tetrapilotomy, Cambridge, MA, USA
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 21:50:16 GMT

In article <1ispjtINNjs8@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU> theodore-michael@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU (Dr. Disorder) writes:
   How can an organization that
   claims to speak for the majority decry the overwhelming popularity of the
   things it considers evil?

It's possible for a large number of people to practice something that
even they don't like in principle.  Witness, what fraction of us are
not guilty of theft, at least to some degree?  Yet who would like to
make it legal?

It's also possible to decry what the majority practice.  Who would
like to say racism is a good thing?  Yet, probably a majority of the
American population is polluted by it to some degree.

It's also possible for something to be extremely popular, but
nonetheless be practiced by nowhere near a majority.  Smoking
marijuana, prostitution, and homosexuality are practiced by tens of
millions of Americans, but nowhere near a majority.

Dale
Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex
From: 003316g@dragon.acadiau.ca (Steve Gregory)
Subject: Re: Are women morally superior to men?
Organization: Acadia University
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 00:11:29 GMT

drw@zermelo.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley) writes:

>There is an interesting article in the 28 Dec 92 issue of "The Nation"
>on page 799 titled "Are Women Morally Superior to Men?"  It seems to
>be a reasonably good ventilation of the issue.

As I don't get this magazine could someone be so kind as to post some of
the major points?


>Dale

>Dale Worley		Dept. of Math., MIT		drw@math.mit.edu
>--
>Captain's Log, Star-date 6701.9:  The weather is fine.  Beam down Yeoman
>Rand and a six-pack.
-- 

steve.gregory@acadiau.ca 
Help my .sig file has left me and is seeking a divorce, what should I do ?
< She claims I've been seeing another .sig! >
Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex
From: thumim@nevada.edu (Scrooge McDuck)
Subject: Re: Just wondering...
Organization: University of Nevada System Computing Services
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 16:46:30 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.121330.11764@lds.loral.com> kurnik@lds.loral.com writes:
>>Yes, the whites are getting the bullshit end, they are not allowed
>>any sort of ethnic anything, it's racism when whites are proud.
>
>I know this is off on a little tangent, but...
>
No this is a very valid point.  Unfortunately I don't know the answer.

>Why is it acceptable for black people to where T-shirts that say "Black Power" or
>"Black is Beautiful", but if a white person wore a T-shirt that said "White Power" or
>"White is Beautiful" he/she would be considered racist?
>
We pondered this question in my Business Ethics course last year.
There were a couple of minorities (Filopino, Black, gay) in the class.
The rest were white.  We were tired of always hearing about the Black
Student Association (including the Blacks).  So we wanted to have an
"organizational meeting" to take place at the regular time of our
class for a "White Student Association."  Because the professor was
afraid of repercussions from the administration, we didn't do it.  I
still think it would be a good idea.  We could see how many people
open their eyes to this sort of thing.

On a side note, I am pleased to announce that race relations expert
Jane Elliot will be doing the Blue-eyed, Brown-eyed experiment at the
University of Nevada, Las Vegas in March.  This woman is an excellent
lecturer.

Peace.
Jon
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex
Subject: Re: Just wondering...
Date: 11 Jan 93 18:26:38 GMT
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93


In article <1993Jan8.121330.11764@lds.loral.com>, 
kurnik@lds.loral.com said:

> I know this is off on a little tangent, but...
>
> Why is it acceptable for black people to where T-shirts that say
> "Black Power" or "Black is Beautiful", but if a white person wore a
> T-shirt that said "White Power" or "White is Beautiful" he/she would
> be considered racist?

Because there are some (many?) people out there who honestly believe in
the doctrine that it's literally impossible for oppression to be
performed by anyone who is not a member of a group or class which has
traditionally practiced oppression in the past.  Thus, you get:

   "Only whites can be racist or practice racial discrimination."

   "Only men can be sexist or practice gender-based discrimination."

   "Only straights can be prejudiced along sexual-orientation lines or
    practice sexual-orientation-based discrimination."

and so on.  I've never understood how anyone can believe in that
doctrine, but there it is.  (Of course, since I'm a straight white male,
I'll probably be told that it's _impossible_ for me to understand it
because I haven't been sufficiently oppressed or something.)

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
From: theodore-michael@yale.edu (Dr. Disorder)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex
Subject: Re: Expressions of majority group solidarity
Date: 9 Jan 1993 02:04:59 -0500
Organization: Yale University Science & Engineering UNIX(tm), New Haven, CT 06520-2158
NNTP-Posting-Host: minerva.cis.yale.edu

In article <C0K8Jy.9Eu@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> branwen@sage.cc.purdue.edu ( ) writes:
>      An interesting question:  Why can't whites wear a t-shirt that says
>"White Power", when blacks are perfectly able to wear a t-shirt that says
>"Black Power" without being called racist?
>
>      For the same reason that a women's college can stay a women's college
>with very little cry for change, and no legal instrument to force change. 
>At the same time, a men's college cannot collect federal funding if it does not
>permit women to enroll.  Explicit expressions of favoritism or preferential
>treatment of majorities is illegal.  While noone is very likely to sue the 
>wearer of a t-shirt that says "White Power", according to the law, it is 
>both possible and justifiable. 
 
Hello? Do you really mean this literally? Which law, and would *you* care to
justify it?  IMHO, this society would be even scarier and considerably more
oppresive if one could no longer wear t-shirts saying whatever one wanted.

> The majority have no legal recourse to protect
>their right to express their "majorityhood". 
                ^^^^^^^
Yeah, fuck everyone's right to free speech.



-- 
Practice random acts of randomness.........
		theodore-michael@cs.yale.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex
From: jon@cyclone.MITRE.org (J. E. Shum)
Subject: Re: Expressions of majority group solidarity
Originator: jon@cyclone
Organization: The MITRE Corp. McLean Va.
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 01:15:10 GMT


In article <C0K8Jy.9Eu@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, branwen@sage.cc.purdue.edu ( ) writes:
> 
>       An interesting question:  Why can't whites wear a t-shirt that says
> "White Power", when blacks are perfectly able to wear a t-shirt that says
> "Black Power" without being called racist?
> 
>       For the same reason that a women's college can stay a women's college
> with very little cry for change, and no legal instrument to force change. 
> At the same time, a men's college cannot collect federal funding if it does not
> permit women to enroll.  Explicit expressions of favoritism or preferential
> treatment of majorities is illegal.  While noone is very likely to sue the 
> wearer of a t-shirt that says "White Power", according to the law, it is 
> both possible and justifiable.  The majority have no legal recourse to protect
> their right to express their "majorityhood".  The minority (which is defined
> in terms of numbers and/or relative institutional power) are able to express
> their minorityhood because it is recognized that expressions of solidarity
> are equated with empowerment.
> 
> Karen
> 

Not that this is all that related to the above but I would suggest "Irish
Power" or "Italian Power" or something like them as a more accurate analog
to "Black Power" than "White Power" is.  Kind of puts things in a
more comfortable context, I think.
-- 
<jon@mitre.org>|--24HR Libertarian Party News (900)454-2378 [$1.95 a minute]--
----------------------------------| Libertarian Party            (800)272-1776 
          DON'T BLAME ME!         | 1528 Pennsylvania Avenue SE  (202)543-1988
       I voted Libertarian.       | Washington, DC 20003         (800)682-1776  
Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex
From: drw@zermelo.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley)
Subject: Re: Sex, and Statutory Rape
Organization: MIT Dept. of Tetrapilotomy, Cambridge, MA, USA
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 03:40:48 GMT

Regarding the recent case in Indiana that undermines the statutory
rape laws:

It's certainly interesting.  As far as I know, that is the first time
that a statutory rape charge has been beaten.  Personally, I'm very
dubious about the statutory rape laws, since the bulk of the cases are
parents of a daughter getting back at her boyfriend.

This does raise a political question, though:  If (as feminist thought
generallly holds) a girl of 14 is legally responsible enough to get an
abortion, shouldn't she be legally responsible enough to have sex?
However, I've never heard of a feminist campaign to lower the age of
consent.

Dale
Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Quit Bashing Colorado
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 15:00:35 GMT


In article <1993Jan11.225415.9546@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, 
gjensen@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mountain Man) said:

> Some thoughts,
> 
> Homosexuals decide to be gay.  

Is there any reason to read this guy's article past this point?

I didn't think so.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
From: jlove@ivrit.ra.itd.umich.edu (Jack Love)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex
Subject: Re: Gay Rights--only if it doesn't change anyone else's rights!
Date: 5 Jan 1993 16:03:28 GMT
Organization: /usr/local/trn/lib/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: ivrit.ra.itd.umich.edu

In article <1993Jan4.183518.1@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu> cvafy006@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu writes:
>	All I can say is that while no group of citizens of this country
>deserves to be disciminated against, I hope that the issue of discrimination
>will not be twisted around.  Let's face it, it almost looks like the
>heterosexual white male is being heavily discriminated against.

Almost is the key word. As long as heterosexual white men still have
the best jobs at the best salaries, there is no scientific evidence to
back up your fears. I am a heterosexual white man and I did have the
experience of being turned down for a job I wanted very much on the
basis of that fact. The job winner was a woman who was fired for
incompetence two years later. Perhaps I should be bitter about this
experience. But the fact is that I was able to turn around and get an
excellent job at excellent pay within a matter of weeks, while many
other highly qualified women and people of color were not so able.
Locally, there will be an occasional injustice, but globally we
have to do something about societal injustice.
-- 
________________________________________
Jack F. Love	| 	Opinions expressed are mine alone.
		|	(Unless you happen to agree.)
From: fischer@iesd.auc.dk (Lars Peter Fischer)
Subject: Re: Gay Rights
Organization: Mathematics and Computer Science, Aalborg University
	<1993Jan5.184552.346@newsgate.sps.mot.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 05:00:53 GMT


>>>>> "George" == George Hawkins (hawk@hawk.sps.mot.com)

George> The Bible is clear about homosexual behavior. 

And so what? Lots of people don't care what the Bible has to say about
a particular subject. To me, the Bible is just a collection of sagas
for a particular area in the near east. Great stories, but I wouldn't
want to adopt their value systems. After all, that was thousands of
years ago and this is now.

The sagas of my cultural region (the old norse eddas and so on) advise
taking revenge in blood whenever my honor is challenged. Great
stories, but not my style these days.

/Lars
--
Lars Fischer, fischer@iesd.auc.dk | It takes an uncommon mind to think of
CS Dept., Aalborg Univ., DENMARK. | these things.  -- Calvin
Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex
From: branwen@sage.cc.purdue.edu ( )
Subject: Re: Gay Rights--only if it doesn't change anyone else's rights!
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 12:34:44 GMT

      Regarding the Jack-In-The Box incident--

      If the restaurant is Mexican, there is no discrimination in hiring
only Mexican workers.  This was determined in a case involving a Chinese
restaurant in Massachusettes.  In order to preserve the atmospheric
intentions of an ethnic restaurant, it is desirable to employ those who
possess the ethnic traits that are associated with that ethnic group.
      The same works for women's apparel stores. It is not discrimination
to hire only women to work in a women's clothing shop.  So stop your
white male whiney ass bitching and wake up.  If you are afraid that the
hiring of only hispanics to work in the local Taco-Paco is taking away
your right to seek employment, you are insane.  The local Italian restaurant
here only hires Italians, or people who "look Italian" in an effort to
maintain an Italian atmosphere.  But because these people are white, I guess 
nobody will complain.

      Now, regarding gays--if gays are not permitted to work without fear
of discrimintation, they will be on welfare.  If they are on welfare, they 
qualify for YOUR TAX DOLLARS to sustain their lifestyle.  Further, they will
be exempt from paying taxes, thus giving nothing to the community in return.
Finally, they will be given the opportunity to get goverment subsidized
jobs--in other words, Gays will be getting jobs because they are gay!
      By opposing the anti-discrimination laws, you are contributing to the
systematic employment of gays using your tax dollars!  Chew on that as you
sit upon your Ivory tower picking and choosing who God loves and who He doesn't.
Love the Sinner, Despise the Sin
Let he who is without blame cast the first stone
Judge not lest ye be judged
Do not concern yourself with the mote in your neighbor's eye until
 you have removed the plank from your own.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, and your children, and your
 spouse, and your best friend.

Love your neighbor as you love yourself.

(Quite Biblical--isn't it?!)

                                            Karen,
                                            Believer in Christ as the Savior
                                             and Redemptor

                                            (and lesbian, not my choice,
                                             just my life)
From: byersla@wkuvx1.bitnet
Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex
Subject: I Need Some Info. for Paper!!!
Date: 12 Jan 93 17:11:56 CST
Organization: Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY

 To whom this may concern,
	
	I am in a Health Education class and we are supposed to be
doing a research paper.  My topic is on child abuse/battered children;
I was hoping that somebody could please inform me about the legal
aspects (& other helpful information) of this sensitive subject.  I
will be very grateful for any SERIOUS information!!

	                 Thanks,
	                    Laura A. Byers

Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex
From: jfmcbray@sacam.OREN.ORTN.EDU (Jason F McBrayer)
Subject: Re: Gay Rights
Organization: Oak Ridge National Laboratory
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 04:55:31 GMT

Georgie wrote:

> In case you didn't notice, it still takes a man and
>women to create a child - even if done via envitro.  At least this will
>minimize the impact this "gay rights" generation will have on affecting
>future generations.

	Biotechnology marches on, George!  It seems likely that fairly
soon, genetic material from an egg could be used to fertilize another egg,
so a lesbian couple, at least could have children in the not-too-distant
future.  Okay, maybe that's a snide, irrelevant technocratic aside, but it
brings up something else.
	Your morality was created by and is appropriate to a nomadic tribe
of Neolithic sheep and goat herders.  In that context it's pretty
rational.  But religion is a cultural adaptation for survival in a
particular environment.  Our environment has changed, and our
religion/morality is going to have to.  Otherwise, we're in grave danger
for our very existence.
	In a world as overpopulated as ours, who can condemn homosexuality
on the grounds that it produces no offspring?

Jason F. McBrayer
"Though I am a practicing heterosexual, I must admit that bisexuality
gives you twice the chance of getting a date for Saturday night."
						-Woody Allen

Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex
From: drw@zermelo.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley)
Subject: Re: Gay Rights--only if it doesn't change anyone else's rights!
Organization: MIT Dept. of Tetrapilotomy, Cambridge, MA, USA
	<1993Jan4.183518.1@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu>
	<1993Jan5.213758.9671@nevada.edu>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 03:54:01 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.213758.9671@nevada.edu> thumim@nevada.edu (Scrooge McDuck) writes:
   Agreed but look at the issue from a minority's point of view.  The
   heterosexual white male is the one that holds all of the power in this
   country.

"The heterosexual white male"???  That's a concept worth about as much
as "the black male" or "the woman".  The total group of heterosexual
white males probably has more variation in power, wealth, etc. than
any other demographic group!  If you want to make your argument hold
water, it's better to say something like "It's easier to become
powerful if you are a heterosexual white male."  That doesn't hang up
on the point that the vast bulk of the heterosexual white males have
very little power and not much money.

(Quiz:  Which group owns more wealth:  the men of America or the women
of America?)

You can't consider people to be simply representatives of the
demographic groups that they are members of, unless you mean to
sentence them to being no more than representatives of those
demographic groups.

Dale
Newsgroups: alt.politics.sex