HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dave Eisen)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Keywords: egnilges
Organization: Sequoia Peripherals, Inc.
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 01:09:31 GMT

In article <1992Jul31.000130.11572@beaver.cs.washington.edu> pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:
>>>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. 
>>
>My hypothesis is not that fantasies reflect their views of real-life
>sexuality, but that they *influence* the expectations of sexual
>relationships. 

Do you think this fantasy comes from pornography? Do you think
the expectation or hope that this fantasy could be reality
does either? 

I don't.

I think any expectations along these lines can be explained
*very* simply without porn.

Women's sexuality doesn't work this way. Horny women won't
fuck you just because you're around.

But men's sexuality does. At least the sexuality of male
adolescents does. I know that when I was 16 or 17 I would
have fucked anything that moved, I would not have much
cared what species it was, let alone whether or not she
and I had similar views on existentialism and the role
of computers in society. I doubt that I am alone in this.

So it is not a great leap for men to think women work
like this. The default assumption is that men and women
are alike unless we have reason to suspect otherwise. So
why *shouldn't* the woman sitting over there waiting for 
the bus want to go with me to a back alley for a quickie?

Men would be fantasizing about easily available women
even if Hugh Heffner and Bob Guccione had been carpenters.



-- 
Dave Eisen    dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU   Sequoia Peripherals: (415) 967-5644
          	Some of my best friends are men.
        --- Lisa Nee in "American Women Deserve a Tax Break."
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:3040 misc.legal:14861 rec.arts.cinema:109
From: unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (tuu)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.legal,rec.arts.cinema
Subject: Re: The Bogeyman in Pop Movies
Date: 26 Jul 92 19:15:37 GMT
Reply-To: unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (tuu)
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz


In article <1992Jul21.212901.2144@cfa.harvard.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
}egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes: 
}>they are.  Spielberg, for example, voted for Reagan, and the Star
}>Wars trilogy, of course, gave its name to the Strategic Defence
}>Initiative.  I realized with a shock upon reading Miller that what I

	It seems like you're connecting Spielberg and Star Wars, which
have no connection...

	But anyway, George Lucas actually tried to sue (I don't know
WHO he tried to sue) to make the media use "Strategic Defense
Initiative" rather than "Star Wars").  He lost the suit.. It may have
even been thrown out before it went to court..  Unfortunately the
Republican boneheads have tarnished the wonderful Star Wars name.

	And no, I don't deeply care what the politics of the creators
of something I like are, although it is interesting for curiosity's
sake. (That is, it's interesting but makes no difference whether or
not I like something)

	Hell, Tom Selleck does ads for the National Review (is that
the right name?), yet I still like Magnum PI.


[Moderator's Note: Please note that this article is cross-posted to
rec.arts.cinema, which is a moderated newsgroup.  If you intend to
reply to this posting, please be sure to direct your posting to the
most appropriate newsgroup(s).  -- Manavendra Thakur, Moderator,
rec.arts.cinema.]

-- 
/unknown@ucscb.ucsc.edu   used ADB trackball WANTED          Apple II Forever!\
\Mail me:Get INFOCOM GAMES RERELEASED,ULT VI GS done,for UNIX GS&CHEAP CD info/
What the world needs now is another folk singer like I need a hole in my head.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.legal
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Keywords: egnilges
Organization: my opinions only
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 22:39:18 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.144223.26403@Princeton.EDU>
egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:

>The media consistently ignores and mocks
           ^^^^(1)^^^^^ ^^(2)^^     ^(3)^
There's a slight contradiction there.  Or perhaps Ed is redefining
"consistently".  (I get annoyed when people misuse words for emphasis.
"Literally" is the most common example.)

> the more theoretical legal
>feminists.

>In a global network, this move for language purification is folly, and
>crypto-racist.  If le  mot juste happens to be foreign (whether directly 
>or in derivation), I  say use it, and confusion to Strunk and White 
>(The Elements of Style, whence many folks get this condemnation of 
>non-AngloSaxon words, is answered quite well by Richard Lanham's book 
>Style, an Anti-Textbook.)

If someone wants you to use words that he understands, how is that
crypto-racist?  For that matter, what does "crypto-racist" mean?  (I'm
quite familiar with cryptography, having published in the area, and I
can't see how it would apply to racism.  Perhaps burning a
DES-encryption of a GIF of a cross?)

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Idiotic Subject Lines and the Nolan Chart (was: Re: Parallels between the Nazi's and the Democrats)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 13:32:48 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <2A749292.23523@noiro.acs.uci.edu> cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman) writes:
>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 ?


  The latter.

  All I'm saying is the main value of the Nolan Chart is to describe 
  the political choices of people who *already* use the chart, or its
  internal mental equivalant to guide their choices.   Most people
  don't, so it's useless to describe the general population.  Most
  people are driven by other things, such as cultural training, 
  perceptions of self-interest (such as the hypothetical Ohio utility
  worker I mentioned earlier), personal loyalties, etc.

  Remember, these are principles, too.  There is no cause for saying
  that someone who supports a candidate because he gets a good rating 
  from the American Taxpayers Union (i.e., is consistent with a 
  political standard) is any *more* principled than one who supports
  a candidate out of personal loyalty or because he feels that this
  would enable him to keep his job and support his family.

  I *do* resent the suggestion by some effete intellectual snobs (or
  is it mindless myrmidons?) (anyway, _not_ Mr. Edman)  that pointy
  headed political intellectuals (such as us?) who actually study
  all this political philosophy and read the signs and portents and
  study the entrails behind the Democratic national bus tour, etc
  and read Utne Reader and National Review and New Republic and
  carefully researched books on history, politics and economics,
  and waste our time posting here, have any more "principles" than
  some someone who gets his news from Dan Rather or USA Today and
  is mainly concerned with providing for his family or getting laid
  next Saturday night, although I agree that we can write longer
  one-sentence paragraphs.


---peter

  
  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: SCIENCE%MITVMA.BITNET@ohstvma.acs.ohio-state.edu
Subject: Maoist articles available
Organization: The Ohio State University Department of Computer and Information Science
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 02:12:21 GMT

You can get a copy of an interview with Comrade Gonzalo
from Sendero Luminoso in Peru on soc.culture.latin-america or by
writing here.  Also check soc.culture.hongkong for articles
about June 4, 1989 in China and comrade Gonzalo.

If you would like articles about Korea, see soc.culture.korean.

Other articles on Albania, our literature list, China etc.
are available direct from us: science@mitvma.mit.edu

      --Maoist Internationalist Movement
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.legal,alt.censorship
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Subject: The Critique of Pure Censorship (Was:Re: Hate Speech Okay, ...)
Followup-To: alt.censorship
Keywords: egnilges
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 18:43:10 GMT


[highly rational and informative article deleted]
	Well, this just about says it all, IMHO.  It's just about the clearest
indictment of the ultimate futility of attempts to use the power of The State
to deal with "thoughtcrime" that I have seen in some time.
	Thanks.  It was a refreshing change of pace.
Chuck
No .sig, no frills, no foolin'

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:3103 misc.legal:15097 alt.postmodern:2230 alt.censorship:6441
From: rjbodkin@theory.lcs.mit.edu (Ronald Bodkin)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Organization: MIT Lab for Computer Science
	<RJBODKIN.92Jul25182140@laennec.lcs.mit.edu>
	<1992Jul26.043241.5916@Princeton.EDU>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 03:52:24 GMT

In article <1992Jul26.043241.5916@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
   ...  However, law is still a form of speech and the
   dislike many libertarians have for legal speech undercuts (runs across
   the grain of) (deconstructs) their professed dedication to speech of all
   kinds.
	I do not believe that favoring free speech implies
appreciation of all speech, or anything of the sort.  Libertarians
happen to dislike legal speech (or speech advocating legal action)
that leads to impositions on their definition of liberty.  But many
people are opposed to the government acting in various ways (the
abortion issue alone probably gets most people one way or the other).
Are these people also acting against free speech?  I believe that
libertarians are probably more consistent in wanting to prevent
government intervention against certain behaviors, but that is all
they want: no implied endorsement of all behaviors is given and it is
only this that could be "undercut."
	Ron
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: re: Whom Do the Intellectuals Serve?  (was: Re: Ethnicity)
Reply-To: pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 18:56:29 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.012423.11007@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:

>Of course, we may be speaking of different sets of people
>here.  I think of "intellectuals" as not just anybody who
>may read the New York Review of Books, but of people who
>make their living by playing an intellectual role, e.g.
>someone who _writes_ for the NYRoB, or a university
>professor.

You have left out a *very* important group, namely the population
of the various 'think tanks', such as Brookings, Heritage, AEI,
Hoover, and so on. These are possibly the most influential
'intellectuals' around, and they are explicity in the service
of the Liberal and Conservative elites...

>Gordon Fitch | gcf@panix.com | uunet!cmcl2!panix!gcf 


Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.

Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:2993 misc.legal:14735
From: fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.legal
Subject: Re: The Bogeyman in Pop Movies
Date: 23 Jul 92 22:02:49 GMT
Article-I.D.: acad3.1992Jul23.140249.1
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

In article <1992Jul23.034439.13932@informix.com>, proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts) writes:
> In article <1992Jul22.113749.1@acad3.alaska.edu> fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks) writes:
>>
>>I always thought that the "Star Wars" term was appropriated by the
>>opponents of SDI since, in the end, it was used to mock the program. 
>>I think that one backfired on Reagan.  === Al Sparks
> 
> There was a column by Dave Barry in which he wrote:
> 
>  `` ... Star Wars, or (as it is more popularly known), the
>     Strategic Defense Initiative ... ''
> 
> which I thought was quite clever. (i.e. "the reality is that this is a
> ludicrous unworkable project; the popular fallacy is that it is a genuine
> hi-tech research venture.")

Exactly.  That phrase came to mind when I posted the above.  The
network anchors were using that phrase on their evening newscasts. 
=== Al Sparks
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.legal,talk.politics.guns
From: hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: Computing Center, North Carolina State University
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 15:47:50 GMT

In article <1992Jul26.044342.8108@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
> ...
>Sounds like the boundary between speech and action shall be moved at the
>SC's will.  For if flag and cross burning is protected "speech", then
>(just as I announced last week that knocking over convenience stores was
                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>the way I spoke, registering my disapproval of economic exploitation) I
>hereby declare that I enforce laws as part of my "speech."
> ...

  Once again egnilges picks a fight with the NRA and the rest of the
firearms community which have been against criminal use of firearms.  
This time he is saying that by being against criminal acts that they 
have deserted the cause of free speech.

--henry schaffer  n c state univ
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: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 20:28:08 GMT

In article <1992Jul26.064106.3512@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
>In article <1992Jul26.044342.8108@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>
>
>You seem not to have read the Supreme Court's decisions concerning
>symbolic speech. There is no legal analysis that supports the argument
>'that I enforce laws as part of my "speech."'

I'm aware of that, Mike.  Had there been such, I'd have been sure to
give references to it.  However, the fact that legal scholars are either
narrowly educated (and hence unacquainted with the more general
philosophical implications of SC decisions) or unimaginative or both
should not be an argument.  I've already stated that my purpose is not
to get law enforcement allowed in as symbolic speech, it's to show that
today's supporters of "free speech" are more supporters of the profits
of media corporations and crypto-racists, who'd rather support mentally
disturbed punks than their local government.

Here's what Richard Pildes of the University of Michigan's law school
has to say about the real agenda of one of today's supporters of free speech, 
Edward de Grazia, in a review in today's (July 27) New York Times:


     In recent years, courts have interpreted the [first] amendment
     to stymie campaign finance reform, give largely unbridled
     rein to advertisers, enable corporate advocacy to drown out
     political opposition, and grant substantial immunity to
     violent pornography created for new, vivid electronic
     technologies.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.postmodern,rec.arts.books
From: francis@oas.stanford.edu (Francis Muir)
Subject: Re: Whom Do the Intellectuals Serve?
Organization: Stanford Exploration Project
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 16:45:21 GMT

Gordon Fitch writes:

	In regard to the the remark about "intellectual" being a
	term of high status and social approbation: in many
	quarters it's quite the opposite.  In fact, we had a 
	thread running in alt.postmodern recently discussing why
	"intellectuals" were disliked so much, which is quite
	relevant to this one.  My theory was that intellectuals
	were recognized by working-class and lower-middle-class
	people as servants of the bourgeoisie, that is, the
	people who exploit them, or try to, and to whom they
	generally feel they are in opposition.     

When I was up at Oxford there were two words that were anathema -- at least
with the pack I ran with. One was "student" and the other was "intellectual".
I think we associated both words with Dangerous High Purpose. They were
Germanic, and therefore unEnglish. We associated English intellectuals with
the Thinking Left; the Wedgie-Benns of this world. Persons we took -- probably
quite wrongly -- to be driven more by guilt than much else. They were often
Upper Middle Class, and it was was their Hell that they were never trusted
by those they sought to understand and represent, the Working Class. It is
his glory that perhaps the one that managed to break down all the class
barriers and end up truly respected by all was George Orwell. I mentioned
his *The Road to Wigan Pier* the other day, abd for fiction I might mention
*Keep the Aspidistra Flying*. For those who care about these things, Wigan
Pier is a complex English notion. There is no Wigan Pier, but everyone knows
what it means -- rather like Mornington Crescent.

							Fido

Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.legal,alt.postmodern,alt.censorship
From: bzthomps@napier.uwaterloo.ca (Zac Thompson)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Keywords: egnilges
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 08:31:05 GMT

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.
> 
> I stand utterly corrected. I should have referred to this viewpoint as
> one held in fantasies. However ...
> 
> 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.  I never in my life expect to meet a woman who will have sex with me the instant she meets me.  I don't even expect anything resembling that.  Such women do not exist in my real world.
	I don't know if you read it, but HUSTLER (tm) ran a spoof a while back about what it's like to have an affair with a centerfold.  Full of jokes like, during oral sex, staples can be a problem.  Funny, well maybe, but the point is these women only exist as swinging, sexy, single bombshells IN THE MAGAZINE.  And everybody understands that.  It's nice to look at an attractive woman you don't even know and think how nice it would be if she wanted to have sex with you right there.  But it stops at "would be ni




ce."  I think it would be nice to fly on my own power without aid, too, but it doesn't change my expectations or even lead me to disappointment in the real world.  I keep my fantasies separate, thank you.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.postmodern,rec.arts.books
From: twain@milton.u.washington.edu (Barbara Hlavin)
Subject: Re: Whom Do the Intellectuals Serve?
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 17:07:34 GMT

In article <rauser.712197440@sfu.ca> 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.

>   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"? 

Most scholars and many writers are intellectuals, and I see nothing 
immodest in referring to oneself as such. 

Now, if John had said "We philosopher-kings..." 


--Barbara, who has intellectual tastes

=======================================================================
"I say, if your knees aren't green by the end of the day, you ought to 
seriously re-examine your life."  -Calvin, my kind of guy








Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.legal,alt.postmodern,alt.censorship
From: dliebman@nyx.cs.du.edu (david liebman)
Subject: Re: <None>
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 06:55:52 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.153516.19266@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Prince
on.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>In article <1992Jul29.110318.1@vaxc.stevens-tech.edu> crywalt@vaxc.steve
s-tech.edu (Christopher Rywalt, maladjusted cartoonist) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul29.031843.4563@panix.com>, gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fit
h) writes:
>>> First, let's remember, as we should know from the low-Q
>>> newsgroups, it is men and not women who are exploited by the
>>> likes of Playboy and Hustler.  That is, the male nervous system
>
>Your "exploitation", Gordon, is less a reality than a mysterious object
>which has for you become a prize.  A prize cannot be shared, it must be
>held by the superior term in a relationship.  The absurdity of making
>victimhood a prize or privilege is projected on feminism by antifeminist
>writers in a technical sense, for their imagination runs no further than
>things like BMWs and bank accounts in a dysfunctionally individualistic
>society.  BMWs and bank accounts cannot be shared, so
>hyperindividualists subconsciously reason that victimhood must be such a
>prize, and they fantasize that it confers advantages (which is logically
>self-contradictory, for victimhood is by nature disadvantageous.)
>
the left hand...


>I suggest to you that BOTH men and women are exploited by Playboy, but
>women MUCH MORE than men.  

and the right.

 

Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:3102 misc.legal:15095 alt.postmodern:2229 alt.censorship:6438