HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: The Bogeyman in Pop Movies
Followup-To: alt.stupidity
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 01:46:47 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.234930.3208@cfa.harvard.edu> Louis Blair <lb2e+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>A brief response to part of the note of Ed Nilges:
>
>Ed Nilges writes: 
>>the Star Wars trilogy, of course, gave its name to the Strategic
>>Defence Initiative.
>
>My understanding is that Lucas has consistently protested against the
>use of the name of his movie in connection with SDI.

Ed's never let facts get in the way of a good story.
-- 
                      ....................................
                      ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
                      the university of chicago law school 
                      official member of the cultural elit
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.legal,alt.postmodern,alt.censorship
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 15:29:52 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

 crywalt@vaxc.stevens-tech.edu (Christopher Rywalt, maladjusted cartoonist) writes:
>
>	"Beware of altruism.  It is based on self-deception, the root
>	 of all evil."

  The fact that Heinlein said this  doesn't give it any more weight or claim
  to "truth" than if I, or Ed Nilges, or Gordon "Finch", or Ron Dippold 
  said it.   Heinlein had a right to his opinion but the height of the podium
  (metaphorically speaking) is not related to the truth of the words.
  
  I don't know what Mr. Rywalt's political persuasions are so this isn't
  relevant to his particular postings, but has anyone else detected a 
  peculiar facscination with certain pulp-literature writers such as
  Robert Heinlein and Ayn Rand among the libertraian sect here on 
  Usenet?    I mean not only is this stuff fiction, but it's science
  fiction at that.   I read science fiction too, but I don't think
  of it as great literature and I certainly don't suggest it as a
  source of spiritual guidance.
        

---peter  

Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:2989 misc.legal:14719
From: lee@wang.com (Lee Story)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Date: 23 Jul 92 17:20:50 GMT
	<1992Jul18.215536.17874@Princeton.EDU>
	<1992Jul21.234433.1970@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>
	<1992Jul22.144223.26403@Princeton.EDU>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Wang Laboratories, Inc.

In article <1992Jul22.144223.26403@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
   In article <1992Jul21.234433.1970@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
   >P.S.  One hint for future posts:  Tone down on the vis-vis's, je
   >june's, a la's, reifying's.  You lose and offend half of your intended
   >audience right off the bat.  Some of what you have to say is fairly
   >enlightened and important.  It makes us think.  But, if you want to
   >masturbate intellectually, do it somewhere else.  We know you are
   >well-read already.  OK, Dude?

   Why should I privilege "Dude" over "vis a vis" and other foreign
   phrases?  I'm 42; when I hear "dude",like Jack Nicholson in Easy Rider,
   I ask "dude ranch?"  "Reifying" is a more succinct way of saying "making
   a thing out of."  "Jejune" characterizes Mike Godwin's posts more
   succinctly than "adolescent."  As to losing an audience, the way people
   learn words is contextually, so it is inaccurate to say that people
   will see some of the more Latinate and foreign words and conclude that
   they cannot understand the post without a dictionary. 

   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.)

Right on, Dude!  Indeed, I assumed that the mocking postscript on
Aaron's otherwise-rational reply was merely a bit of irony, and was
surprised that Ed took it seriously.  I'm glad he defended "reify",
though---a lovely word!  Then again, there are people who advocate an
800-word vocabulary for written English, so perhaps Aaron is serious,
and anything that drives him to a dictionary becomes "intellectual
masturbation".  It _is_ a strange world.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Lee Story (lee@wang.com) Wang Laboratories, Inc.
              (Merrimack Valley Paddlers)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: peercy@dopey.crhc.uiuc.edu (Mike Peercy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: In a libertarian society there would be...
Date: 22 Jul 1992 17:46:42 -0500
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
NNTP-Posting-Host: dopey.crhc.uiuc.edu

walker@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Graham Walker, 227 West Old Main,268-3847,) writes:

| Could someone define the term "Libertarian" and "Anarchist" for me, and
| explain how they differ?

The following is in the context of free-market libertarians/anarchists,
so that I avoid the vocabulary pitfall from the beginning.

'Libertarian' refers to the belief that what is best for persons
is for them to live in a society where the rights of life, liberty,
and property are completely respected and where no one may initiate
force, or threat of force, on another.

'Anarchist' refers to the political belief that the only government
which will stably guarantee a libertarian society is no government.

So, the former doesn't explicitly specify what mechanisms exist to
ensure a free society, while the latter explicitly mistrusts government
to do so.

(Those who wish to, please do not hesitate to clarify or correct me.)

Mike
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.postmodern,rec.arts.books
From: rauser@fraser.sfu.ca (Richard John Rauser)
Subject: Re: Whom Do the Intellectuals Serve?
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 00:37:20 GMT

jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:

>As we all know, we intellectuals often disagree among ourselves.
>In the present case, Gordon Fitch and I disagree about whether
>the noble effort to save the South Vietnamese from the communist
>invasion was what I said it was or was something else and whether
>it was a good idea.  Every reader of r.a.b. will thank me for
>not rehashing the arguments about that proposition.

   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"? Debate to your heart's content about whatever subjects
you choose, but don't try and prove your intelligence by calling yourself
an intellectual (and then proceeding for three pages to define the word
in an attempt at justifying the label). 

    A little humility never hurt anyone...not even an "intellectual". 

--
Richard J. Rauser       "Sonic 2!"
rauser@sfu.ca                 -what Guile says
WNI
   
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:3145 misc.legal:15270 alt.postmodern:2250 alt.censorship:6529
From: perez@mgr.hjf.org (Charles Perez)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.legal,alt.postmodern,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: <None>
Date: 31 Jul 92 13:27:32 GMT
Organization: HJF AIDS Research Project, Washington DC

In article <1992Jul30.133207.1373@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
[Gordon Fitch & Ed Nilges back and forth...]
>Women are exploited in many ways, but the direct victims
>of Playboy and Hustler are their readers, in the manner I
>described.  Or so I think.

Oh, No! I am a horribly exploited victim of the vicious, money-grubbing
skin-mags! Seriously, Gordon, speak for yourself.

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

Hozabout demonstrating that Playboy or Hustler "exploits" either gender
to its detriment, eh?

.sig
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.legal,alt.postmodern,alt.censorship
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Keywords: egnilges
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 01:21:13 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.230108.10941@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:

>Penthouse et al. makes millions of dollars as do the companies (like
>Lotus) funding EFF.

Lotus is funding EFF? This is news to me. I don't think EFF is Jim Manzi's
cup of tea.


--Mike





-- 
Mike Godwin,     |"Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a law-
mnemonic@eff.org | breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every
(617) 864-0665   | man to become a law unto himself. It invites anarchy."
EFF, Cambridge   |         --Brandeis, J., dissenting in Olmstead v. U.S.  
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:3035 alt.postmodern:2190 rec.arts.books:13115
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 23:24:45 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.131412.25945@nocusuhs.nnmc.navy.mil> perez@mgr.hjf.org (Charles Perez) writes:

>'Taint altruism that makes these men (and women) risk themselves in war,
>according to Heinlein. It is identitying with humanity in general, and
>with their own unit in particular.

"Altruism" is commonly  (although not exclusively) understood to refer
to the latter notion.

But since a certain group has decided to make "altruism" a dirty word,
they've redefined it so as to exclude the very phenomenon it was 
intended to represent.


--Mike





-- 
Mike Godwin,     |"Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a law-
mnemonic@eff.org | breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every
(617) 864-0665   | man to become a law unto himself. It invites anarchy."
EFF, Cambridge   |         --Brandeis, J., dissenting in Olmstead v. U.S.  
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:3096 misc.legal:15071 alt.postmodern:2220 alt.censorship:6417
From: B645ZAW@UTARLG.UTA.EDU (Stephen Tice)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: -=> NO CONTRACT -- NO VOTE <=-  (Ezra Pound)
Date: 24 Jul 92 18:39:00 GMT

{ ref: talk.politics.theory, Re: -=> NO CONTRACT -- NO VOTE <=- }

(lee@wang.com), on 7-21, Lee Story wrote:
|

|Incidentally, I've been rereading Pound and Williams, and the extent
|to which these "kooky" nonprofessionals predicted, or at least
|envisioned, today's government debt crisis is quite remarkable.

Well I'm intrigued Lee, and would welcome pointers (or quotes) to some
of the more notable passages as you go along?? Actually I'm envious --
it would be nice to take the time to read the Cantos... (since I'm just
starting to get a working overview of the 6000 years of recorded human
history). No doubt there are plenty of instructive parallels to our modern
`big-whatever' problems.

|------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  Lee Story (lee@wang.com) Wang Laboratories, Inc.
|              (Merrimack Valley Paddlers)
|------------------------------------------------------------------------

  / Stephen D. Tice \     |     / Member of the 300th Generation \
 (                   ) -- S -- (                                  )
  \ Arlington Texas /     |     \   in recorded human history.   /
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: crywalt@vaxc.stevens-tech.edu (Christopher Rywalt, maladjusted cartoonist)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.legal,alt.postmodern,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Date: 31 Jul 92 15:50:14 GMT
Organization: Fairleigh Dickinson University

In article <1992Jul31.012035.20581@panix.com>, gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
> perez@mgr.hjf.org (Charles Perez) writes:
> | [ Heinlein pans altruism .... ] 
> | 'Taint altruism that makes these men (and women) risk themselves in war,
> | according to Heinlein. It is identitying with humanity in general, and
> | with their own unit in particular. He discusses the philosophy of
> | soldiering and citizenship at length in ST.
> 
> Heinlein and Rand use an extremely unsophisticated view of
> altruism -- either because of the peculiarities of their psyches,
> or because they needed a straw man to knock down.  It's obvious
> that altruism, as communal feeling, had an important role to
> play in our evolution -- was necessary to our survival -- or
> it would have been bred out of our species, and all the other
> species which exhibit it.  We'd all be as selfish as Rand et al.
> want us to be.

	altruism
		1:  unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others
		2:  behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may
		    be harmful to itself but that benefits the survival of
		    the species.

				-- Webster's Ninth New College Dictionary

	I think that, given the second definition, Heinlein probably would
	have said that altruism was a fine thing, given that it benefits
	the survival of the species.  Remember that he wrote "the only
	universal morality is survival."  On the other hand, the first
	definition implies no such thing, and therefore is what I think
	Heinlein (and Rand) had against altruism.  Sacrificing yourself
	for no benefit (evolutionarily speaking) is a very bad thing.

	Recall that Rand and Heinlein both reserve their deep hatred for
	those who can do, but choose not to.  Altruists would help these
	people, regardless.  I have a problem with this; it weakens the
	species as a whole.

	Before I sound like I only see things from the long view, and ignore 
	individuals, let me point out that I am an individualist, and this
	is definitely an individualist view.  There is an old adage, from
	the Catholics I grew up with, which says, "God helps those who help
	themselves."  I believe this, although not literally.

-- Chris
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:3137 alt.postmodern:2244 rec.arts.books:13522
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.postmodern,rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Whom Do the Intellectuals Serve?
Date: 31 Jul 92 01:22:42 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

[ Oxonian "anti-intellectuals" ]
I can't think of anything more intellectual than "anti-
intellectualism."  Is someone going to wake these poor
souls up, or is it better to let them dream?
-- 
Gordon Fitch | gcf@panix.com | uunet!cmcl2!panix!gcf 
*       1238 Blg. Grn. Sta., N.Y., N.Y. 10274      *
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:2990 soc.culture.african:3700 soc.culture.african.american:8229 soc.culture.usa:6183 soc.culture.canada:5207
From: jturner@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Jeffrey Turner)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,soc.culture.african,soc.culture.african.american,soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Ethnicity
Date: 23 Jul 92 17:59:53 GMT
	<1992Jul20.004043.3817@panix.com> <Brp2r3.6ED@newcastle.ac.uk>
Followup-To: talk.politics.theory
Organization: College of Engineering, Northeastern University
In-reply-to: Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk's message of 20 Jul 92 15:52:14 GMT

|In article <Brp2r3.6ED@newcastle.ac.uk> Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:
|   I just thought that one possible extension to this thread might
|   have to do with "Intellectuals in general serve the dominant class."
|   This isn't quite right.  In the stable political structures (!)
|   that have been developed, I'd call the dominant class mainly
|   conservative; those that have, wish to preserve it and pass it
|   on to their kin or classmates.  They tolerate intellectuals as
|   a kind of social pet, analogous to canaries in coal mines, to
|   sing and provide amusement, and to warn of possible dangers.
|   That is, intellectuals set the agenda for political discussion,
|   without actually having access to the handles of political and
|   economic power.
|
|   Because intellectuals are often trendy followers of fashion, they
|   can lose touch with reality, and fail their watchdog role (arguably,
|   this happened in the '80s).  But in any case, their motive is not
|   to serve the dominant class, and the dominant class doesn't see
|   them as serving (they see them as bloody nuisances, trying to
|   upset the apple cart).

	Right now the dominant class in both the US and UK
is primarily conservative.  So are many "intellectuals".
Conservative intellectuals do serve the interests of the
ruling class by generating theoretical underpinnings for
the wishes and preferences of the rulers.  These
intellectuals are recompensed by jobs with "conservative"
think tanks, honoraria to speak at conservative meetings,
etc.  Thus they ARE servants of the dominant class and
are seen to be such by that class.  Liberal intellectuals
serve the (smaller) liberal section of the dominant class
and are similarly paid for their services.  The small
group of Marxist or socialist intellectuals are generally
ignored and refused entry into many of the main channels
of "the free interchange of ideas" (i.e. the mass media).

	To argue that most, if not all intelectuals are
liberal and/or Marxist/socialist is disingenuous and/or
a deliberate attempt to further the cause of the ruling
class.

					--Jeff

Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.legal
From: zog@world.std.com (Chris L Downs)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Organization: just me
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 01:13:09 GMT

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

>In a discussion in the gun group a few years ago, a couple of
>progun posters approached my manager at a conference in St. Louis to
>"complain", as they put it, about my "behavior." [...]
> [My job] could have been
>seriously endangered by this, and I ask, where's this vaunted freedom?

You are so right. If there is one thing wrong with this country (and,
believe me, there is!) it has to be the way people go around blatantly
abusing their freedom of speech by *complaining*! How can there be
true freedom of speech for me, Al Franken, when it turns out that
degenerate ararchist scoff-laws are allowed to complain *whenever they
feel like it*?

>How many viewpoints are unexpressed on this net by those with access,
>with views, who are afraid to express same for fear for their jobs?

Any way you look at it, it seems, one's words *and actions* have
consequences that depend on other people. One such unfortunate
consequence that my right to poke anything I want with a pointy stick
is limited by your right not to have your eye poked out. Another is
that your right to speak is "limited" by the fact that others might
choose to excercise their right to speak, perhaps even in ways that
you do not like.

>Where's the freedom?

You tell me.

--zog

"Freedom is Slavery."          -- Enscribed on the Ministry of Truth, in _1984_.
"Obedience to Law is Liberty." -- Enscribed on the Worcester, Massachusetts,
                                  County Courthouse, in *real life*.
"I am not making this up."     -- Dave Barry.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:3164 misc.legal:15306
From: riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Girly Political Discourse (was: Re: <None>)
Date: 31 Jul 92 19:34:32 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.theory,misc.legal
Organization: LNK Corporation, Riverdale, MD

In article <1992Jul31.030052.23737@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs) writes:
>| ...
>| 	Instead of either accepting or rejecting the terms of the
>| debate, Ed simply buries Gordon's thesis inside of tub of ideological
>| lard. 
>| 
>| 	Ed, me bucko, I've had some real set tos with girly men in my
>| Usenet career, and let me tell you, you're no match for them. Go find
>| some allies who know what they're talking about, and try to learn
>| some Men's Movement dogma before making a fool out of yourself here again.
>
>I've never seen the phrase "girly men" before.  As I admire 
>women and many of the distinctive ways they (appear to me to)
>think, I've tried to emulate them, and now I'm not sure
>whether I'm here being held in contrast or as an example, with
>Ed as a better or worse comparand.  

	In fact, the reference has nothing to do with Gordon.
I guess you have to follow Asa Baber's writings closely to
encounter the phrase "girly man". It essentially means a man
who is ambivalent as to his sexuality, one who might be attracted
to Men's Movement activities, or the writings of John Bly. It
also has some connotations of midlife crisis. Ed's announcement
that he's leaving for Outward Bound, and his sixties war 
stories tend to lead me to believe that I was shooting
in the right direction, even though I was essentially shooting
in the dark. Bottom line: I don't think Gordon qualifies as a
"girly man" (He seems too self-assured for that). I'm not sure
Ed can cut the mustard in girly man boot camp, but we'll see
how he does in Outward Bound.


>
>In particular, I didn't have trouble understanding Ed's
>criticism of my article, although of course I disagreed with
>it, and have already noted that disagreement in a previous
>article.  Does this mean that he and I are feminine, 
>effeminate, "girly" thinkers?  How so?  Is it good or bad?
>Can someone explain? 

	It is certainly not either effeminate or worthy of
criticism for men to discuss sexual/political issues openly.
But I suspect that Ed's state of consciousness is so cramped
that he hasn't yet realized the dialectics of the process he's
been participating in, lo these many years. Ed's problem is not
that he thinks like a middle-aged man; he thinks like an old man,
in a world that doesn't exist anymore.


	Bill R.


	"My opinions do not represent those of my employer or any
government agency."









-- 
Bill R.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:2982 ca.politics:5947
From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 14:52:33 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.033613.7109@informix.com> proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts) writes:
>In article <1992Jul18.215536.17874@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>>
>>However, Mark Crispin Miller (Miller 1990) crystallized my unease by
>>pointing out that Lucas, Spielberg and other popular filmmakers of the
>>1980s were far from being the liberals that the populace believes they
>>are.  Spielberg, for example, voted for Reagan, and the Star Wars
>>trilogy, of course, gave its name to the Strategic Defence Initiative.
>
>But didn't George Lucas (or Spielberg?) go to court to try to get an
>injunction preventing Administration spokesmen referring to the
>Strategic Defense Initiative as "Star Wars", because it was bringing
>his movie into disrepute?

Lucas (not Spielberg) was ambivalent, like most Baby Boomers who turned
from being wildass revolutionaries in the late Sixties to being
neoconservatives in the Nineties.  And to sue because you are afraid
your movie will be boycotted by those people so sensible to condemn Star
Wars (many of whom, like David Parnas, condemned it for reasons that
were more technical, relating to issues of complex and untested
software, than political) is merely a business decision.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.legal,alt.postmodern,alt.censorship