HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Taking Our Own Outing Initiatives: One Lesbian Perspective
Date: 13 Aug 92 06:49:05 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1992Aug12.234134.11466@novell.com> cast@novell.com (Neal Castagnoli) writes:
    >So are these societal values then?
    >
    >If they are, do you support the right of parents of children
    >to engage in Digger tribe activity or not?
    >
    >If you don't, then don't you support the right of society to
    >impose itself were it doesn't belong (i.e. you support
    >society's right to be coercive)?
    >
    >If you do, then don't you support the right to molest
    >children?

Very good. At least one person sees a few of my points.

Society does not have values. There is no such volitional
entity as a society -- hence it can't have values.

And, it wouldn't be molestation, you Western Kulture Bigot you :-).

After all, don't YOU value the values of other, non-Western cultures?!
Tsk, tsk, tsk ...

I do not support the right of a society to initiate coercion (unless of
course it is an immediate necessity to prevent a larger initiation of
coercion).

Molest is relative -- and is defined by the dominant groups in a culture.
When Jerry Lee Lewis went to England, and they found out he was married
to a 13-year old (or was it 12?), the English had a fit -- they wanted
to arrest him. In theur culture, that was child molestation. In the
U.S. State they got married in, it wasn't.

The whole point of the Digger tribe example is that whether you or I
like it, a dominant group IS going to set cultural norms. And if any
sub-group or individual violates those cultural norms, he or she
is going to get into trouble.

The best I can hope for is to build a STRONG tradition of live and
let live, mind your own business, and don't initiate coercion.

And that means it must work both ways. To grab the coercive right
to force yourself upon another person (a date, a job, a customer,
whatever) is to set and maintain the precedent for them doing the same to
you. AND IF YOU ARE IN A "MINORITY" CULTURE, SOONER OR LATER YA' IS
GOING TO GET IT.



-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: The real reason strayts reject gay men (was: Lesbian perspective)
Date: 20 Aug 92 06:28:44 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1992Aug19.195523.15868@queernet.org> rogerk@queernet.org (Roger B.A. Klorese) writes:
    >In article <=75mtmb.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil
    >Ronzone) writes:
    >>In article <ohcqfhc@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff
    >>Dauber) writes:
    >>>In article <1992Aug13.163538.10464@oracle.us.oracle.com>
    >>>mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
    >>>>2. As far as lesbians go, the dominant reaction among
    >>>>straight males is that the ugly ones are welcome to do
    >>>>whatever the heck they want, but the pretty ones are such a
    >>>>waste.
    >>>>
    >>>Sexist asshole.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>Why is this sexist or an "asshole" remark. It is a true
    >>remark to the best of my knowledge.
    >>
    >Because it suggests that women are there only for the sexual
    >satisfaction of men, and that any other use of them is a
    >waste...
    >
    >And while the entire statement (about "the dominant reaction
    >among straight males") is likely true, the fact that the
    >author saw fit to share it was the motivation for the "sexist
    >asshole" remark.

Oooohh, what a Politically Correct asshole. To be specific, the original
poster (Michael Friedman) posted an observation that is, to my knowledge
correct. Nobody has argued against that.

When the transmission of an accurate observation, i.e., someone speaks the
truth or someone speaks factually, and some lavender-necked goose-prancing
moron gets up and calls him an insult, you have the very flower of
being Politically Correct. As well as, in this case, being wrong.

So now if someone makes a remark that "is likely true", the very desire
to "share it" entitles you to call them names.

Egads, if there is an asshole around here, it aint't Friedman.

So tell me Roger, how long have you had this dislike, ur, er, excuse me,
this PHOBIA about the truth and facts?

BTW - lavender-neck is the new homosexual version of red-neck
      goose-prancing is like goose-stepping (as in, what's the difference
      between a fascist and a liberal? nazis wear jackboots, liberals
      wear earth shoes). I.e., these are political insults.




-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Xref: sparky ba.politics:4701 alt.activism:15165 talk.politics.misc:40884
From: jbuck@forney.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Political Correctness (was Re: The real reason strayts reject gay men (was: Lesbian perspective))
Date: 20 Aug 92 22:12:38 GMT
Organization: U. C. Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: forney.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Aug20.153423.9418@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>>>>>2.  As far as lesbians go, the dominant reaction among straight males
>>>>>is that the ugly ones are welcome to do whatever the heck they want,
>>>>>but the pretty ones are such a waste.

and then argues that this statement is some kind of ordained truth, and
that anyone who disagrees is afraid of the truth.

I do not doubt that there are a large number of men who believe this; it's
certainly a strong prejudice in our culture, and in many others, that the
most important thing about a woman is her physical appearance.  But I very
much doubt that this is the "dominant reaction", since there are several
competing prejudices, like the fundie one that says that all lesbians are
evil, so that the "ugly ones" are NOT welcome to do what they want, and
the "Basic Instinct" reaction, that's they're all evil psycho killers, as
well as several others (like "they're all welcome to do whatever the heck
they want", which is probably still a minority opinion, has a large number
of adherents).

Since you don't have poll data to back you up, what you're really doing is
spouting your own personal prejudices, and using the "most straight males"
line as an excuse.  Given that this judgment is based on thinking that the
only thing that matters about women is their sexual attractiveness to you,
and given your history on the net, I would agree with the

>>>>Sexist asshole.

remark.


--
Joe Buck	jbuck@ohm.berkeley.edu
From: jlbrand@pb2esac.UUCP (Jack Brand)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Taking Our Own Outing Initiatives: One Lesbian Perspective
Date: 14 Aug 92 06:13:42 GMT
Reply-To: jlbrand@pb2esac.UUCP (Jack Brand)
Organization: Pacific*Bell ESAC, Oakland, Ca.

In article <s75ms2d.phil@netcom.com= phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
=No, I do not support the "right" of parents to harm their children in
=any fashion.
=But, I do not support the overly large and growing are of "harm"
=as defined by the State, nor do I support the right of the State
=to even define harm.

Surely you must have seen this one coming: Who defines "harm?"

jb
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Pro-abortion's view on life
Date: 15 Aug 92 04:45:13 GMT
	<1992Jul30.080109.17499@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
	<1992Aug13.011647.13766@clipper.ingr.com>
	<1992Aug13.235251.1902@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
Distribution: ba
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
In-reply-to: c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU's message of 13 Aug 92 23:52:51 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.235251.1902@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>, c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:

> In article <1992Aug13.011647.13766@clipper.ingr.com> ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date) writes:

>>People need to take responsibility in all aspects of their lives, but 
>>it is fruitless to try to punish them for past indiscretions.  It
>>simply doesnt work.  

> Okay.  We should make rape legal, murder legal, drugs legal, child
> abuse legal, etc.

No, no, yes, and no.

> It is fruitless to punish them for past indiscretions,
> right?  Maybe we should even abolish jails.  Or even abolish parents
> for putting restrictions on their children when they do wrong!

Oh, I see now.  What you want then is for the woman to
be punished for her past "indiscretion."  Being forced
to give birth to the child is her punishment for having
sex, according to what you have just said.
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
From: c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Pro-abortion's view on life
Date: 18 Aug 92 04:22:03 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley

In article <SLAGLE.92Aug14214513@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com> slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
>In article <1992Aug13.235251.1902@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>, c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
>
>> In article <1992Aug13.011647.13766@clipper.ingr.com> ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date) writes:
>
>>>People need to take responsibility in all aspects of their lives, but 
>>>it is fruitless to try to punish them for past indiscretions.  It
>>>simply doesnt work.  
>
>> Okay.  We should make rape legal, murder legal, drugs legal, child
>> abuse legal, etc.
>
>No, no, yes, and no.
>
>> It is fruitless to punish them for past indiscretions,
>> right?  Maybe we should even abolish jails.  Or even abolish parents
>> for putting restrictions on their children when they do wrong!
>
>Oh, I see now.  What you want then is for the woman to
>be punished for her past "indiscretion."  Being forced
>to give birth to the child is her punishment for having
>sex, according to what you have just said.
>--

I wasn't necessarily "linking."  It was the idea in relation to itself, and
not to any other issue.
From: dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: The real reason strayts reject gay men (was: Lesbian perspective)
Date: 13 Aug 92 23:19:52 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

In article <!75m-ta.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>It's the excessiveness that is most disgusting. I find in the same way
>the guy at a hot dog eating contest that scxarfed down 30+ in a hourt
>very disgusting to.
>
>So hey, if you want to eat 30 hot dogs in an hour, or have 30
>sex parners in a hour, go ahead, it's your right. But,
>a lot of us would find it pretty disgusting.

The point of the matter is, people do not behave this way any longer.
For that matter, I have never behaved in this manner.  Why do you keep
labelling me as disgusting?


And, if I have never done these things that you object to, why do you insist
on keeping me out of all the establishments that you patronize?



FWA
Xref: sparky ba.politics:4697 alt.activism:15160 talk.politics.misc:40873
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Political Correctness (was Re: The real reason strayts reject gay men (was: Lesbian perspective))
Date: 20 Aug 92 15:34:23 GMT
Organization: Oracle Corporation
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1992Aug19.212852.26630@amhux2.amherst.edu> twpierce@amhux1.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>In article <1992Aug15.221404.8652@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>>In article <ohcqfhc@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
>>>In article <1992Aug13.163538.10464@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:

>>>>2.  As far as lesbians go, the dominant reaction among straight males
>>>>is that the ugly ones are welcome to do whatever the heck they want,
>>>>but the pretty ones are such a waste.

>>>Sexist asshole.

>>I'm giving this a slightly wider dissemination because I think it's a
>>beautiful example of poltical correctness.

>What is "political correctness?"

See the sentence below...

>>Look at it.  I state a fact that Dauber doesn't like.  He responded
>>with a personal attack.  I said something that attacks his view of the
>>world, therefore I am evil.

>Did you not invoke personal attacks by saying that the only purpose of
>a woman is to serve a man sexually?

No.  Please work on your reading comprehension.  I did not say that.
Someone asked what males thought about lesbians.  I told him what most
males thought.

>Where do you get off spouting
>such idiocies, and then whining that people don't like you?

Actually, Tim, I don't care if you and Jeff don't like me - personally
I prefer to keep both of you at arms' distance or further.  As for
'idiocies', I suggest you reread my statement and then tellus again
whether or not you think it is correct.

>Actually, don't tell me where you get off.  I don't think I want to
>know, as long as you don't do it on my computer screen any more.

Well, Tim, I certainly prefer what I get off on to what you get off on.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: ba.politics
From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Freedom Of Association again
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 16:58:24 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Distribution: ba

Interesting news article in yesterdays SJMN. A waitress was given notice
to remove her 11 earrings in one ear or quit. She wore the earrings on
the interview and the first week of the job, but then several customers
complained about being served by a "punk" waitress. The waitress decided
to remove the earrings and keep the job.

Consider several implications.

1. Does anyone deny the each one of us if free to patronize or not
   patronize any restaurant, for any reason whatsoever? That if you
   or I did not want to be served by a waitress with 11 earrings
   that we are free to do so by not going back to that restaurant?

   I don't think there is anybody that would disagree with the above.

2. Almost all restaurants seek to make as much money as possible. To
   do so, they cater to what they see as their most revenue enhancing
   revenue. Note that for many restaurants this does NOT mean getting
   as many customers as possible. Spagos in LA deliberately restricts
   the allowed-in customers so as to promote "exclusivity", McDonalds
   in some inner cities is now turining away gang color dressed people.

3. Freedom Of Association is the right, often violated by the State,
   of a restaurant owner to hire on any basis whatsoever. If the
   restaurant owner thinks his/her business would be best served by
   hiring/not hiring homosexuals, blacks, left-handed Latvians, then
   he/she can morally do so (immoral laws may of course intefere with
   this).

   If I were to own restaurants, I would discriminate in this way. For
   example, if I owned an inner-city fast food joint, I'd try and hire
   predominatly from the racial types in the immediate community. I.e.,
   no whites in an Oakland McDonalds if I owned it.

4. Many people get very upset at this. It is bizarre. On the one hand,
   they would likely acknowledge that people are free to patronize a
   restaurant for any reason, yet, they deny the restaurant owner freedom
   to offer people a choice, as in not hiring waitresses/waiters that
   their intended customers would feel uncomfortable about.



So in any case, a few open questions:

1. Does a restuarant have a right to enforce a dress code?

2. Specifically, can a restaurant tell you how many earrings you can wear?

3. Can a restaurant not hire you, because in the judgement of the owner,
   who you are, what you are (etc.) is likely to offend what the owners sees
   as his/her intended customers?

4. Can you be hired / not hired for any damn reason whatsoever?




-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: The real reason strayts reject gay men (was: Lesbian perspective)
Date: 19 Aug 92 04:30:17 GMT
Organization: Oracle Corporation
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <omkcv8k@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
>In article <1992Aug14.221015.8775@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>>In article <ohcqfhc@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
>>>In article <1992Aug13.163538.10464@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:

>>>>1.  Why do you say "scares"?  This is one of the things I find most
>>>>irritating about gay rights activists.  Blacks don't run arround
>>>>calling people who don't like them "negrophobic".

>>>We only call you homophobic when you take your dislike of gay rights
>>>activists and apply them to all homosexuals.  Disliking activists is not
>>>homophobic, I know lots of homosexuals who do not like activists.

>>Excuse me, but why is it homophobic to dislike gays?

>You are homophobic if you decide that
>you do not like homosexuals as a group.

Maybe I'm not making myself clear.  Why the suffix 'phobic'?

>>>>2.  As far as lesbians go, the dominant reaction among straight males
>>>>is that the ugly ones are welcome to do whatever the heck they want,
>>>>but the pretty ones are such a waste.

>>>Sexist asshole.

>>My, my aren't we impolite today.

>No, I still think that you are a sexist asshole.

PC rides again.  I state an unpleasant fact that Jeff doesn't like
(does anyone out there want to claim I'm wrong?  Jeff hasn't even
tried that.) and Jeff responds with a personal attack.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
From: ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Abortion Rights = Self Determination
Date: 13 Aug 92 18:52:05 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Intergraph Advanced Processor Division - Palo Alto, CA

In article <athos-050892223014@kip2-21.apple.com> athos@apple.com (Rick Eames) writes:

>
>I would hope that any court would try me for murder if I, say, attacked a 6
>month pregnant woman and intentionally "killed" the "thing" growing within
>her.
>

You see no difference between that and a woman deciding to abort her
own fetus because she has found that it is hopelessly brain dead?


--Al Date
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Oh, I love it, I love it, I love it!
Date: 14 Aug 92 21:33:32 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Oracle Corporation
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1992Aug13.081810@wsl.dec.com> gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil) writes:
>In article <1992Aug13.005940.18875@oracle.us.oracle.com>, mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:

>|> So let me get this straigh.

>|> A can say "XYZ" and it's OK because it is with friendly intent, but if
>|> B says "XYZ" then he can be penalized because it is not with friendly
>|> intent.  I'm kind of uncomfortable with this.  Rules are supposed to
>|> be for everyone.

>Hypothetical:

>You are walking down a street.  Two African American men are approaching
>each other from opposite directions.  You are a white person.  The two persons
>get near each other and say, "Yo, nigger, how you been?"  Would you
>use the same greeting with either of them?

Nope, because I'm not suicidal.  Does that mean we should support such
double standards?
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
From: glp@fig.citib.com (Greg Parkinson)
Subject: Re: Political Correctness (was Re: The real reason strayts reject gay men (was: Lesbian perspective))
Originator: glp@merlin
Organization: Citibank IBISM
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 15:24:20 GMT


In article <1992Aug15.221404.8652@oracle.us.oracle.com>, mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
|> In article <ohcqfhc@fido.asd.sgi.com> dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
|> >In article <1992Aug13.163538.10464@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
|> 
|> >>2.  As far as lesbians go, the dominant reaction among straight males
|> >>is that the ugly ones are welcome to do whatever the heck they want,
|> >>but the pretty ones are such a waste.
|> 
|> >Sexist asshole.
|> 
|> I'm giving this a slightly wider dissemination because I think it's a
|> beautiful example of poltical correctness.

It's actually a beautiful example of a Usenet discussion, and of
taking something out of context.  Had you been insulting Jeff
before this?  Had you been flame-baitingly clueless?  Anyone who
has been reading here for any amount of time knows that these sort
of cut-and-paste whines are worthless for any sort of reasonable
evaluation. 

|> Look at it.  I state a fact that Dauber doesn't like.  He responded
|> with a personal attack.  I said something that attacks his view of the
|> world, therefore I am evil.

Maybe you *are* evil.
 
|> There is also a clear distinction between this kind of political
|> correctness and just being a liberal.  A liberal response would have
|> been "Well, it's bad that straight men feel like that and hopefully
|> they will change over time."

No, your quote is what a clueless straight man would have
said.  This is what makes "PC" such a value-free term.
You define yourself as "liberal" and anyone disagrees 
you is "PC".  Talk about enforcing conformity!

Sorry your feelings are hurt, really I am.

|> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|> I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.

yea, and your product stinks.  Neener neener neener.  Wow, being
PC is *fun*!

-- 
Greg Parkinson                  Phone: 212-657-7814  Fax: 212-825-8607
Citibank,111 Wall Street        E-Mail: glp@fig.citib.com
New York, New York  10043
The opinions expressed are my own and not those of the big 'ol bank.