HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: maltese_r@cubldr.colorado.edu
Subject: (try again)Re: Question of Category
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 05:18:45 GMT

oops, hit the wrong key.  Anyway.  About claiming membership in the
most oppressed group of the moment.  What is the official hierarchy
of oppressed groups?  I have 3 beautiful little nephews who have
equal amounts of Mexican and Cherokee blood (1/4 of each) and the
other half is European/Mediterranean potpourri.  When they get old
enough, which descent should they highlight the most?  (i.e. which
is more oppressed, Hispanic or Native American? [Obviously the Euro/
Mediterraneans have never been oppressed by anybody (tongue planted
firmly in cheek) and don't count.])
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: exujeff@exu.ericsson.se (Jeff Thompson)
Subject: Re: What is "politically correct" ?
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 17:08:56 GMT

In article <exujeff.5.711997223@exu.ericsson.se> exujeff@exu.ericsson.se (Jeff Thompson) writes:
>From: exujeff@exu.ericsson.se (Jeff Thompson)
>Subject: Re: What is "politically correct" ?
>Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 17:00:23 GMT

>In article <1682E9F65.MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu> MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:
>>From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
>>Subject: Re: What is "politically correct" ?
>>Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 15:20:03 GMT

>>In article <1992Jul24.033232.8891@uoft02.utoledo.edu>
>>dweddin@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>> 
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> >   "-American."  Black is African-American.  Oriental is Asian-American.
>>>>> >Latino is Latin-American.  Some people now say Woman-American.  Anyone not
>>>>> >using an "-American" term _must_ be racist, according to PC doctrine.  An
>>>>> >important note:  whites are not European-American.
>>>>>
>>>> Please!!!! That should be Womyn-American (or is it Wimmen-American ?)
>>>
>>>
>>>   i thought it was supposed to be Vagino-Americans
>>>
>>>
>>No. Women are now people. Men, however, are to be referred to as either
>>"Differentially Genitalled" or "Vaginally Challenged"

>It would really be a miracle if people would get off the idea of the "SAME-O 
>SAME-O" crap.  It's all over....WOMENS LIB, MINORITIES, WORLD GOVERNMENT.
>Everybody, Every Culture is different thats what makes life so interesting 
>isn't it?  Yet here we are, everybody wanting everybody to be the same and 
>have the same things.  Lets get a little individualized in our thinking, 
both >small scale and large scale.
>jman	
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Signature file under construction...            Ericsson Network Systems, Inc
>                                                              P.O. Box 833875
>                                                    Richardson, TX 75083-3875
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Signature file under construction...            Ericsson Network Systems, Inc
                                                              P.O. Box 833875
                                                    Richardson, TX 75083-3875
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: briggs@jed.atmo.arizona.edu (William Briggs)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
Subject: Question of Category
Date: 24 Jul 92 21:58:56 GMT
Organization: Department of Atmospheric Physics


  Perhaps someone can help me.  On a recent survey I was asked to fill out, 
there was a blank to indicate race.  There were perhaps twenty choices.  Now this
confused me.  I wasn't sure which to choose.  I did a little digging into my
geneology and came up with this:

          Nearly equal parts: Polish, English, Irish, Cherokee, Austrian,
                              French.

          A Smattering of God knows what else (relatives can't remember).

          Also, I was born in Detroit.

  What shall I call myself?  Thank you in advance for your courteous reply.

  matt briggs
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: zeus@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Mark Gansle)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct,alt.discrimination
Subject: One good reason to keep women out of combat
Summary: Differences between women and men
Date: 30 Jul 92 17:12:48 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.correct
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

From the 29 July 1992 issue of _Conservative Chronicle_, Samuel Francis writes:
--->
    ...are women even able to meet the demands of armed conflict?  Col. Ripley
says no.  There is "a documented lack in strength and body physiology"
among women that render them unfit to perform the tasks that combat requires.
    Journalist Brian Mitchell concurs. He points out in his book _Weak Link:
The Feminization of the American Military_, that, "Tests of men and women
entering the West Point class of 1980 found that, on average, the upper body
strength of women is 56 percent of the strength of men, their leg strength is
80 percent, and their gripping strength is 69 percent... After eight weeks of
intensive training, male plebs demonstrated 32 percent more power in the 
lower body and performed 48 percent more work at the leg press than female
plebes."
<---

In the same issue Walter Williams writes:
--->
    ...At West Point, the M-14 rifle spring has been modified to make it easier
for women.  Army fitness standards call for 80 push-ups for men and 56 for
women; men ages 17 to 25 must run two miles in 17 minutes and 55 seconds;
women are given 22 minutes and 14 seconds; Marine men must climb 20 feet of
rope in 30 seconds; women are given 50 seconds.
<---

The presence of women in combat units *hurts* the overall effectiveness of the
unit; in light of this fact and the Tailhook fiasco, it seems obvious that
women should not be in combat units.

Remarks?

+-------------------------+-------------------------+
|Cloud-gathering Zeus     |Think globally.          |
|                         |Act locally.             |
|zeus@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu  |Eat my shorts totally.   |
+-------------------------+-------------------------+


Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: M19249@mwvm.mitre.org
Subject: Berkeley Free Speech Monument Graffiti
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 16:26:55 GMT

Can any of our UCB readers give us an update on the "scrub/don't scrub"
decision?  What a dilemma!  ;)
-DW
"Standard disclaimer here"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: draughn@iitmax.iit.edu (Mark Draughn)
Subject: Re: What is "politically correct" ?
Organization: Illinois Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 00:21:28 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.104856.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu> mzener@eagle.wesleyan.edu
writes:
>ivanov@vadier.gr.osf.org (Eric Ivanov) writes:
[...]
>   "-American."  Black is African-American.  Oriental is Asian-American. 
>Latino is Latin-American.  Some people now say Woman-American.  Anyone not
>using an "-American" term _must_ be racist, according to PC doctrine.  An
>important note:  whites are not European-American.  

Not true.  It is improper to use terms such as "white" when refering
to European-Americans.  If all other groups are referred to as
"<something>-Americans," but European-Americans are called "whites,"
it implies that European-Americans are the default against which all
other groups are compared.

Or so I've heard...
-- 

Mark Draughn    | <draughn@iitmax.iit.edu> or <SYSMARK@IITVAX> on BITNET
----------------+ Academic Computing Center, Illinois Institute of Technology
+1 312 567 5962 | 10 W. 31st Street, Chicago, Illinois  60616
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: hasn@midway.uchicago.edu (Sheheryar Hasnain)
Subject: Re: The PC Issue
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 14:28:30 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.233021.24594@athena.mit.edu>,Avik S. Roy writes:

> 
> Here's a spontaneous list of nationally prominent "oppressed" PC-haters:
> 
> African-American
> ----------------
> Barbara Jordan
> Glenn Loury
> Thomas Sowell
> Shelby Steele
> Clarence Thomas
> Walter Williams
> 
> Vaginal-American
> ----------------
> Lynne Cheney
> Elizabeth Dole
> Elizabeth Fox-Genovese
> Carol Iannone
> Barbara Jordan
> Camille Paglia
> Christina Sommers
> 
> Communist-American
> ------------------
> Eugene Genovese
> 
> Other Victims
> -------------
> Dinesh D'Souza
> Andrew Sullivan
> 
> This is offhand.  If I have failed to adequately represent a certain group
> proportionally to its representation in the population, please flog me
> immediately.
> 

And I spill my (as Avik puts it so well) first class sewage (!):

> You forgot Dan Quayle!  
  God you must really be screwed up if you think listing off
"prominent" western people who hate PC legitimizes your argument.  Think for
yourself.  
The system has primarily served white men.  Go see some income or education
statistics to see that.  All PC calls for is to view the other parties
with the same respect.  Something they have not received in the past in the
US.  If your family has gone through major racism in the US, you in particular
should know that PC is about one persons responsibility to another.  We are
social beings you know.  But maybe you're the type that blames your family
for the racism you faced and have therefore repress it  by taking the opposite
position. 
Peace
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: The PC Issue
Date: 30 Jul 92 12:46:02 GMT
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT

In article <1992Jul29.221908.27365@midway.uchicago.edu>
hasn@midway.uchicago.edu (Sheheryar Hasnain) writes:
 
>Actually I do pretty well after having gotten my graduate and undergrad
>education without paying a penny.  You may attribute it to this "great"
>nation (great for whom?) but the fact that I came from an extremely well to
>do family (and so had the benefits of a really recognized high school
 
Ever notice that there are oh-so-many wealthy Marxists? And they all want
to share *our* money, but not their own?
 
>education _ have you heard of Karachi Grammar School?)  was key.  In any case
 
No.
 
>the "pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps (a la Clarence Thomas)"
>argument is totally crap.  Go into some ghettos (you'll probably stick out
 
Another wealthy elitist tells us to go into the ghetto. How would he know?
I spent about 10 years living in Detroit's Cass Carridor. Damn few Marxists
there, other than the displaced white suburbanites preaching revolution.
 
>as an elite and probably get mugged!) and think how much of this misery was
>brought upon by these wretched and how much the system is responsible
>for.  Sincerely.  With a "real" unemployment rate of about 10% (even though
 
Backwards. The rate went *up* as people have been *entering* the market,
even though the total number of jobs is up.
 
>the official one is a little over 7% because a lot of people have dropped
>out of the job looking area) imagine being someone who has never had the
 
The rest is deleted as I'm suddenly very tired of hearing an wealthy foreigner
from an unbelievably racist society lecture me about morality.  --mike
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: regeorge@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Robert E George)
Subject: Re: Semantics
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 00:10:52 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.214043.26157@linus.mitre.org> jon@mitre.org (J. E. Shum)
writes:
>
>     Since the word "politically" is an adverb that renders it's
>object, in this case the word "correct", in relative terms, how
>is it that only left-of-center causes seem to be the ones called
>"politically correct?"  Wouldn't the term apply to any
>politically motivated behaviour that was consistent with the

>particular political point of view of the person exhibiting the
-----------------------------------
>behavior?
[deletions]
How about replacing the underlined phrase with "political aspirations"?
An action could be "correct" by some criterion, while "incorrect" by
another. For instance, cutting certain areas of the Federal budget
might be "correct" from an economic point of view; while doing so would
be politicaly suicidal. I *know* what "political correctness" has come
to mean; but if I didn't know, and had to guess by the meaning, I would
think "political correctness" meant:

    "Actions or statements calculated to be politically expedient
     and not necessarily beneficial in any other sense."

Robert George
(speaking only for myself)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Subject: Re: One good reason to keep women out of combat
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 16:49:15 GMT

In article <1992Jul31.144056.21829@midway.uchicago.edu>
hasn@midway.uchicago.edu (Sheheryar Hasnain) writes:
 
>
>I reply:
>
>Not enough at all.  My sister in law who is in the army could probably
>bring  most men down in a few seconds (I really don't know about arm
>wrestling since their bad breath may give her a disadvantage!).  The reason
>that she is so tough is because she's been trained and has worked at it.
 
Which proves that there is at least one woman who is alleged to be able
to outwrestle most men. That's what, a .0000001% sample?
 
>If most women were encouraged to do the heavy duty stuff from childhood
>versus giving them barbie dolls you may see quite a different picture
>in a few decades.  Our bodies and genetics
>are more flexible and adaptable than you think. Your argument doesn't float.
>
Absolute ignorance. While it is always possible to find women who are far
stronger than the average male, the average male is stronger than the
average female, and the strongest males are far stronger than the strongest
females. The reason is genetic. Females do not put on muscle bulk in the
same way men do, as they do not have the same hormones. Testosterone is
the primary culprit here. It is possible to put on bulk artificially via
hormones and steroid therapy, but the bulk dissapears when the drugs do.
You've seen those women in the body-building magazines with delts and pecs
that make Arnold look like a graduate student? Women don't develop that kind
of definition and bulk without drugs. Then again, a lot of men don't, either.
 
>And with regard to the line backer issue, it seems that the only difference
>between a football player and a women athlete (or any normal human being)
>I can make out is "weight".  Maybe American Football concentrates more on
>mass than on skill.
 
No, there's also strength. Ask someone who's played. Ouch. I quit in high
school, but I have a pal who's an ex- Detroit Lion. Even after 10 years
off the squad he can crush small grad students in his bare hands. Scary.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dave Eisen)
Subject: Re: What happens in 2000?
Keywords: politically correct
Organization: Sequoia Peripherals, Inc.
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 22:53:15 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.215529.16966@exu.ericsson.se> exubern@exu.ericsson.se writes:
>
>What happens when, in the year 2000, the so called minorities
>become majorities? OR vice-versa? Who will the laws apply to then?

You don't have to wait. "Minorities" includes women and they
form a majority all by themselves.

The laws will continue to work for the benefit of blacks and
women and hispanics at the expense of whites and Asians. Even
more than they do now because the benefitted groups will have
even more pull in the ballot box than they already do.



-- 
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."
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: jon@mitre.org (J. E. Shum)
Subject: Semantics
Originator: jon@cyclone
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 21:40:43 GMT


     Since the word "politically" is an adverb that renders it's
object, in this case the word "correct", in relative terms, how 
is it that only left-of-center causes seem to be the ones called 
"politically correct?"  Wouldn't the term apply to any 
politically motivated behaviour that was consistent with the 
particular political point of view of the person exhibiting the 
behavior?
-- 
<jon@mitre.org>|--------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------| Libertarian Party  
  Andre Marrou    Nancy Lord for  | 1528 Pennsylvania Avenue SE  (202)543-1988
  for President   Vice-President  | Washington, DC 20003         (800)682-1776
From: aviksroy@athena.mit.edu (Avik S. Roy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: The PC Issue
Date: 28 Jul 92 23:30:21 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

hasn@midway.uchicago.edu (Sheheryar Hasnain) writes:

) Ironically enough (although to be expected) all the people that responded
) to the "What is PC?" posting earlier in a negative fashion were,
) assuming from their names, white 
) male ( & probably straight)!  Political Correctness is meant for the benefit 
) of the "oppressed", not insecure white males who feel threatened in their 
) quest for absolute power!

I'm not a straight white male, but I am a sensible, sane, and non-bigoted human
being, unlike this guy.  What a loser.  I and my family have endured racism
enough to recognize it when I see it, and Hasnain's comments are first-class
sewage.

BTW, here's a spontaneous list of nationally prominent "oppressed" PC-haters:

African-American
----------------
Barbara Jordan
Glenn Loury
Thomas Sowell
Shelby Steele
Clarence Thomas
Walter Williams

Vaginal-American
----------------
Lynne Cheney
Elizabeth Dole
Elizabeth Fox-Genovese
Carol Iannone
Barbara Jordan
Camille Paglia
Christina Sommers

Communist-American
------------------
Eugene Genovese

Other Victims
-------------
Dinesh D'Souza
Andrew Sullivan

This is offhand.  If I have failed to adequately represent a certain group
proportionally to its representation in the population, please flog me
immediately.
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (WHAT'S A MATTER YOU?)
Subject: PC
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Distribution: usa
Date: 25 Jul 92 04:36:52 GMT

	I just want to put in my $.02
I think that political correctness has more to do with the collapsing
(collapsed) liberal movement in America than anything the Conservatives
have ever done. This is why.
	If you look up liberalism in the dictionary you will find
as one of the first definitions "Broad-minded". Somehow political
correctness has attached itself to liberalism. These two concepts
are incompatible. You can't be broad-minded and fit into a narrowly
defined concept of what is correct.
	As you might have guessed, I have liberal tendencies. But
when someone tries to be PC around me I feel like...doing something
extremely tastless and rude. 
	This is just my opinion. Bring on the flames.

Garrett@Ingres.com

Disclaimer: My opinions do not reflect those of my employer
	    or any other broad-minded person.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct,alt.discrimination
From: hasn@midway.uchicago.edu (Sheheryar Hasnain)
Subject: Re: One good reason to keep women out of combat
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 20:31:59 GMT

In article <76811@ut-emx.uucp>, zeus@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu Mark Gansle writes:
> 
> From the 29 July 1992 issue of _Conservative Chronicle_, Samuel Francis writes:
> --->
> ...are women even able to meet the demands of armed conflict?  Col. Ripley
> says no.  There is "a documented lack in strength and body physiology"
> among women that render them unfit to perform the tasks that combat requires The presence of women in combat units *hurts* the overall effectiveness of the
> unit; in light of this fact and the Tailhook fiasco, it seems obvious that
> women should not be in combat units.
> 
> Remarks?
> 
  I can just see Colonel Ripley teaching a course on social anthropology!  
  I wonder if he'd carry around an empty bottle to spit his chewing tobacco
  into!
  And worse still I wonder what would happen 
  if somebody (god forbid) asked him a question ?!
	 
  What a laugh!  (Really)
> 
> 
> 
>
From: hasn@midway.uchicago.edu (Sheheryar Hasnain)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: The PC Issue
Date: 29 Jul 92 22:19:08 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <1992Jul29.201624.20623@athena.mit.edu>, Avik S. Roy writes:
> 
> Maybe you're the type of person who is too lazy to get off his/her behind and
> accomplish something in life, and feels that wailing about victimization is far
> more fun.  It's people like you who have wrought misery among many members of
> minority groups in the same way that Lenin and Stalin wrought misery among three
> generations of Soviets.  The racial spoils system of "civil rights leaders" has
> crippled blacks and other "victim" groups in this country, and continues to do
> so, no thanks to PC apologists.
> 
> America remains the greatest nation in the world when it comes to equality of
> opportunity for members of all races and both genders.  I challenge you to name
> another country where there is as much opportunity for as many kinds of people.
> 
> 

I reply:
Actually I do pretty well after having gotten my graduate and undergrad 
education without paying a penny.  You may attribute it to this "great"
nation (great for whom?) but the fact that I came from an extremely well to
do family (and so had the benefits of a really recognized high school
education _ have you heard of Karachi Grammar School?)  was key.  In any case
the "pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps (a la Clarence Thomas)" 
argument is totally crap.  Go into some ghettos (you'll probably stick out
as an elite and probably get mugged!) and think how much of this misery was
brought upon by these wretched and how much the system is responsible
for.  Sincerely.  With a "real" unemployment rate of about 10% (even though
the official one is a little over 7% because a lot of people have dropped
out of the job looking area) imagine being someone who has never had the 
privilege of going to school, let alone all the PhDs and Masters degree
holders that are unemployed.  And somehow the unemployment rate for blacks
and hispanics and other minorities stands out.  Coincidence?  I fear not
my friend.  The US may be good to me and you but we have already gotten
the initial push.  We need to strive so that others get that first push.
Only I don't think we can do it by blaming the poor for their poverty.  Lets
put it his way, no one chooses which family their going to be born into: 
the queen's or a crack addict's.  Lets try and make sure that that, along side
the color of their skin or gender,  doesn't determine their fate.
Peace.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: exubern@exu.ericsson.se
Subject: What happens in 2000?
Keywords: politically correct
Reply-To: exubern@exu.ericsson.se
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, USA
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 21:55:29 GMT

Lots o'bandwidth about _minorities_ ... and their "rights".

What happens when, in the year 2000, the so called minorities
become majorities? OR vice-versa? Who will the laws apply to then?

I heard (hear-say) somewhere, that by the year 2000, 
adult male who doesn't fit into any other "minority" categories
(such as non-white, not-incarcerated, and not totally disabled)
will only make up 12% of the work force...

Could this be true?

---
-Bernie
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
If the opposite of "pro" is "con",
what is the opposite of "progress"?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct