HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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: 29 Jul 92 18:38:25 GMT
Organization: Fairleigh Dickinson University

In article <Bs5pps.A0K@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
> 
>  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  

	I'm almost insulted, but you were nice enough to divorce your
	comment on science fiction from my quote.  I chose that quote, not
	because Heinlein said it, therefore it must be true, but because
	I felt it to be true and he said it better than I could.  You're
	right, anyone could say it, and to me it would still be true.

	I personally don't look to science fiction for spiritual guidance;
	I look at the world around me (including Rand, Heinlein, Nilges, and
	everything else I run into) and choose from that what I feel is
	worth considering.  All else I discard.  Then I think about it,
	examine it, and finally attempt to place it in my own context, 
	possibly revising or reinforcing previous acquisitions.

	This is how a reasoning human being goes about finding spiritual
	guidance.



-- Chris

%SYSTEM-F-ACCVIO, access violation, reason mask=00, virtual address=00000000, PC
=0000BFEF, PSL=03C00009
%TRACE-F-TRACEBACK, symbolic stack dump follows
module name     routine name                     line       rel PC    abs PC
                                                                                
SIGNATURE	main				 2226      00000107  0000BFEF
From: B645ZAW@UTARLG.UTA.EDU (Stephen Tice)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Solitary Vices  (was Perot's Family Threatened)
Date: 28 Jul 92 04:27:00 GMT

{talk.politics.theory          }
{Re: Perot's Family Threatened }   

nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) catches up....
|
|In article B645ZAW@UTARLG.UTA.EDU (Stephen Tice) writes:
|>Naturally I've been thinking of Perot. I'm satisfied in my own mind that
|>he probably chickened-out due to fears of his family being hurt, which
|>if true I can understand -- though I still feel betrayed. I wouldn't be
|>surprised though if he had received serious and plausible threats against
|>his family which caused him to quit.
| 
|   This is truly nutty.   I think the stress of backing Perot and having
|   him pull out suddenly has pushed poor Mr. Tice over the edge.
 
[PN's opinion deleted]

Hey hot shot, if your conclusion is so obvious, then why'd *you* bother
to bring this issue back up a week later? 

More to the point. If you want to argue or practice rhetoric, 
talk.politics.misc is a much more suitable forum -- no holds barred
there.

But if you just want to gloat about Perot... well I reckon everyone is 
guilty of ego-masturbation from time to time. Whatever trips your trigger.

 /                 \     |     / The short memory of American voters     \
(  Stephen D. Tice  ) -- S -- (  is what keeps our politicians in office. )
 \                 /     |     \                        - Will Rogers -  /
From: tedrick@whistle.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Whom Do the Intellectuals Serve? (careerist charlatans)
Date: 24 Jul 1992 10:52:37 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: whistle.berkeley.edu

Depends on which people you call "intellectuals". Most of the 
people you might call "intellectuals" I might call "charlatans
masquerading as intellectuals in order to further their careers."
So I would include them in the "working class" :-)

I think intellectuals serve the cause of truth (or else I
wouldn't call them intellectuals :-)

-- 
"An army is composed of idle and inactive men. Unless the general has a constant
eye on them this artificial machine will fall to pieces. If my soldiers began to
think, not one would remain. All that can be done is give them 'esprit de corps'
and keep them more afraid of their officers than the enemy" -Frederick the Great
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:3139 misc.legal:15261 alt.postmodern:2246 alt.censorship:6515
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.legal,alt.postmodern,alt.censorship
Subject: Girly Political Discourse (was: Re: <None>)
Date: 31 Jul 92 03:00:52 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

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 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? 
-- 
Gordon Fitch | gcf@panix.com | uunet!cmcl2!panix!gcf 
*       1238 Blg. Grn. Sta., N.Y., N.Y. 10274      *
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.postmodern,rec.arts.books
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Whom Do the Intellectuals Serve?
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1992Jul25.003035.8717@oracle.us.oracle.com>
	<1992Jul26.144555.9002@panix.com>
Date: 26 Jul 92 14:10:39

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.

Another issue which I won't rehash is closer to questions about
intellectuals - namely, who was obscuring his position by misusing
language and who was calling a spade a spade.  Fitch and I won't
agree about that either.

If one wants a common meaning of the noun "intellectual", one had
better not tie it to the source of a person's income but rather to the
fact that an intellectual occupies his time with research, thinking
and writing about his thoughts - in various proportions.  If he is a
professional intellectual that is what he is paid for.  The source may
be (1) royalties from books and other writings, (2) salary as a
policy-related Government official, (3) salary as a university faculty
member.  This last may be subdivided according to the motivation of
those who decide to pay the salary.  These include (1) the hope that
he will produce ways of making better products (2) the belief that
scientific information is a good thing - both satisfying the
collective curiosity of humanity and often leading to practical
results (3) promotion of culture, e.g. by supporting a poet or painter
or critic in residence (4) teaching the young what they need to
know for their future professions (5) teaching the young what
they need to know to have more satisfactory lives or to become
better people.

There are two factors that affect the use of obscurantist jargon -
as opposed to mere technical terminology.  (1) commitment to a
cause that has some authority but is otherwise having a hard time
convincing people  (2) confused thought leading to a taste for
jargon for its own sake.

--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:3054 misc.legal:14907
From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Date: 27 Jul 92 14:39:21 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU

In article <1992Jul26.233435.2240@ncsu.edu> hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) writes:
>In article <1992Jul26.215327.26343@Princeton.EDU> 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."   ...
>
>  Oh, I heard rumors about this - but I don't think you have it
>quite right.  Your manager, your manager's manager, and your
>manager's manager's manager had a double booth in the Exhibit Hall
>with a large sign "Please Enter Complaints about Ed Nilges' Behavior"
>overhead.  The rumor is that they were very disappointed that this
>large expenditure only netted a couple of complaints.

Henry, this is a deliberate lie.  You have not included a smiley, and
your story obscures an incident that really happened in which some
progun posters deliberately attempted to silence me by approaching my
manager at a conference.  

Because you lie, I am not dialoging with you any longer.  This is
terrorism, as I've gone on record as agreeng with Lyotard that
terrorism is dialog termination.  But a lie is also terrorism.  Welcome
to MY kill file. 

Yes, kill files are a form of censorship; but I have gone on record as
disbelieving in the very existence of the libertarian "freedom of
speech."

Sign in a zoo: "warning: this animal is dangerous: it defends itself
when attacked."
From: hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Organization: Computing Center, North Carolina State University
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 18:06:13 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.143921.20340@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
> ...  this is a deliberate lie.  You have not included a smiley, and
                                                          ^^^^^^
  For an expert in deconstruction to need a smiley to recognize
sarcasm is even more ridiculous than your previous postings.

>your story obscures an incident that really happened in which some
>progun posters deliberately attempted to silence me by approaching my
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>manager at a conference.  

  This is indeed strong evidence - evidence of paranoia, that is.
> ...
>Sign in a zoo: "warning: this animal is dangerous: it defends itself
>when attacked."

  Your likening yourself to an animal in a zoo is very revealing.
Your interpretation of being attacked and needing to defend yourself
(ahem, by killing) adds to the same story.

  Sorry you won't be reading this.

--henry schaffer  n c state univ
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:3055 alt.postmodern:2198 rec.arts.books:13177
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.postmodern,rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Whom Do the Intellectuals Serve?
Date: 27 Jul 92 13:50:48 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

In article <1992Jul27.040624.11754@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:
| In article <doom.712205471@elaine36.Stanford.EDU> doom@leland.Stanford.EDU (Joseph Brenner) writes:
| 
| >This seems awfully silly.  McCarthy wasn't bragging, he was
| >just being accurate.  He and Finch are both intellectuals. 
| 
| Indeed. I'd be suspicious of any definition of "intellectual" that did
| not include these two.

Finch, eh?  I wonder who _he_ is.  Anyway, I don't regard
myself as an intellectual in the sense I was using the word.
John might be.  As far as the economic system and the ruling
class and all that are concerned, I'm just a computer
programmer -- or "software engineer" as they now call us,
and a commercial one at that.  If someone wants to hire me
to think about the higher things, though....

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.     

I say "were" because intellectualism is becoming less
a profession and more a hobby as the structure of our
society decays, or at least becomes more confused.
Hence people thinking of me as an intellectual, when
once the term certainly would have to have been
prefixed by a pseudo- or a quasi-.
-- 
Gordon Fitch | gcf@panix.com | uunet!cmcl2!panix!gcf 
*       1238 Blg. Grn. Sta., N.Y., N.Y. 10274      *
From: rjbodkin@theory.lcs.mit.edu (Ronald Bodkin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Date: 25 Jul 92 23:21:40 GMT
	<1992Jul25.034520.17957@Princeton.EDU>
	<1992Jul25.043658.28680@Princeton.EDU>
Organization: MIT Lab for Computer Science

In article <1992Jul25.043658.28680@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
   One thing all sides of the "hate speech" debate have ignored up to now
   is the fact that in spite of the professed dedication of opponents of
   "hate speech" laws have to freedom of speech, this dedication is NOT
   extended to one ancient and honorable form of speech.

   This is the making of LAW.

   That is, if I and the members of my community decide, like St. Paul MN,
   to draft a law, we now have to be sure that NOTHING in that law
   addresses the "content" of speech.  Isn't this a limitation on OUR
   freedom of speech?

   ...

	Now, I know that it shall be objected that law is a "performative"
   utterance.  However, all utterances, unless uttered in isolation, are
   "performative."

	There is a great distinction between the performative aspects
of such things as making a law, entering a contract, or planning a
crime and that of speech that might happen to cause a person to behave
in a certain manner.

	Even if you do not accept this important distinction, I
believe your point still falls.  There is no (legal) penalty attached
to passing an unconstitutional law; it is just struck down by the
supreme court.  So unless you want to make enforcement of a law part
of the speech (which would indeed be perverse, especially if you do
not believe the above distinction), this speech is definitely allowed.

		Ron
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:3090 misc.legal:15034 talk.politics.misc:36396
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.legal,alt.postmodern,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: <None>
Date: 30 Jul 92 13:32:07 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

| >In article <1992Jul29.031843.4563@panix.com>, gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) 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

egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
| 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 ....

I'm quite familiar with the assumption of victimhood as a
kind of prize, and I've written about it.  But that is not
what I'm doing here.  I'm pointing out who is exploiting
whom, and how, in the production and consumption of soft-
core pornography.  All I have done is follow the money 
and report its path, and speculate on the circumstances.

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.

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

Fine.  Demonstrate it.
-- 
Gordon Fitch | gcf@panix.com | uunet!cmcl2!panix!gcf 
*       1238 Blg. Grn. Sta., N.Y., N.Y. 10274      *
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.legal,alt.postmodern,alt.censorship
From: dale@dale.CAM.ORG (Dale Wharton)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Whom Do the Intellectuals Serve?
Date: 29 Jul 92 00:58:07 GMT
Organization: private

In article <1992Jul26.144555.9002@panix.com> gcf@panix.com writes:

>                              ...they keep pretty quiet about
> their purposes, since their purposes aren't very nice.  When
> I was in school in 1960, I was approached by a fellow who
> told me that I could make my way in the world quite
> advantageously by getting involved in a project that was
> going to develop small business ventures in Southeast Asia.
> (This was at a prestigious Eastern university where
> involvement with cloak-and-dagger stuff was quite a
> tradition.)...

Now quit your teasing, Gordon.  Tell us what you're talking about.
--
dale@dale.cam.org         M O N T R E A L         Te souviens-tu?
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:3084 misc.legal:15000 alt.postmodern:2212 alt.censorship:6379
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: 28 Jul 92 16:10:14 GMT
Organization: Fairleigh Dickinson University

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.  Whereas feminists aren't in it for the big bucks.
> Do you seriously claim that MacKinnon is as rich as Bob Guccione?
> 
> We all act from a mixture of motives, but this is a laughable equation.
> Penthouse and Lotus are motivated exclusively by money; it's a part of
> the creed.  Whereas part of the critique of feminism is that feminists
> are starry-eyed idealists and altruists.

	"Beware of altruism.  It is based on self-deception, the root
	 of all evil."

				-- Robert A. Heinlein

-- Chris
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:3087 misc.legal:15028 talk.politics.misc:36386
From: rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Keywords: egnilges
Organization: University of Virginia
Distribution: world,local
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 14:58:56 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.141822.10527@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:

>
>>  2.  The overturning of the St. Paul ordinance amounts to an endorsement
>>      of cross-burning on the lawns of anyone at all, and lets Viktora go
>>      free.  (Viktora is still facing an assault charge; same NYT.)
>
>This is your fabrication.  Viktora is only facing an assault charge as a
>sop to people outraged at the dropping of the hate speech charge.  In
>the absence of the hate speech law, his behavior would have been treated
>as a prank.  In other words, the existence of hate speech laws allows
>Viktora-style pranks to be plea-bargained down to assault whereas in the
>absence of such laws it's too much trouble for the justice system to
>prosecute for assault (unless it's a case of BLACK youths Mau-Mauing a
>WHITE neighborhood, in which event Katy bar the door.)

Ed, one question. Do you realize that the hate crimes statute struck down
by the sc was a MISDEMEANOR OFFENSE?? That means that it was not bargained
DOWN to assault. If the law had stood, Viktora would have gotten off 
lighter than he will now.

Have you read the decision, Ed?

Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:2978 misc.legal:14680
From: fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.legal
Subject: Re: The Bogeyman in Pop Movies
Date: 22 Jul 92 19:37:49 GMT
Article-I.D.: acad3.1992Jul22.113749.1
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

In article <1992Jul22.153714.3914@cs.ucla.edu>, reiher@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (Peter Reiher) writes:
> 
> Reagan's appropriation of the term "Star Wars" for the Strategic
> Defense Initiative was over George Lucas' pummelled body.  Lucas
> tried very hard, even investigating a lawsuit, to prevent the
> use of the term for the SDI.  It may well be that Lucas was 
> concerned with damage to his property by association with a
> controversial measure, but it may also be that Lucas did not
> want to be associated with it because he disagreed with it.  (Particularly 
> since it was slightly reminiscent of the Death Star.)  This point is no 
> better than guilt by association, and perhaps worse, since Lucas tried hard 
> to break off the association.

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
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:3101 misc.legal:15091 alt.postmodern:2228 alt.censorship:6435
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: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 13:21:35 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.111014.1@vaxc.stevens-tech.edu> crywalt@vaxc.stevens-tech.edu (Christopher Rywalt, maladjusted cartoonist) writes:
>
>	"Beware of altruism.  It is based on self-deception, the root
>	 of all evil."
>
>				-- Robert A. Heinlein

Thanks to the Starship Trooper ("shines the name, shines the name, of
Roger Young") for clearing this up.  Heinlein uses (unscientific)
introspection and looks within Heinlein to find disgust and hatred and
selfishness, and generalizes to human nature in the large.

Anyhow, Heinlein expects (in Starship Trooper and elsewhere) men to
altruistically sacrifice themselves in war.  Consistency be damned, huh?


Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:3136 misc.legal:15252 alt.postmodern:2243 alt.censorship:6509