HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: 00cmmiller@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: alt.discrimination = alt.caucasian
Date: 12 Jan 93 02:44:30 GMT
Organization: Ball State University, Muncie, In - Univ. Computing Svc's

dowdy jackson (i think) writes:

"I really don't care what you think because it won't change the fact
                                                                ^^^^
that whites hate blacks and blacks hate whites because of the horrid
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
way in which they are treated by whites"


how dare you make such a blanket generalization!!!  how the hell
can you say how *I* feel about blacks and how *I* treat blacks?!!
what a ridiculous statement.  so you hate me (even though you have
never met me and you don't know the first thing about me) because
i'm white?  i thought one of the major goals of civil rights was
to end racism and hatred!  what do you think *you're* doing?!!
you're pre-judging me based on my skin color.  if i hadn't told
you i was white, if i had replied favorably to you, you would have
had no idea that i was white.  what the hell is your problem?!!!!
From: Terry.Parks@launchpad.unc.edu (Terry Parks)
Subject: Re: Institutional racism in education
Organization: UNC Office of Information Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 02:11:52 GMT

>>I thought the party line was that whites are 3 to 5 times more likely to
>>be hired than blacks. It would better serve the pro-racism forces to
>>get their propaganda in sync.

>Get your common sense "in sync."  The two statements aren't mutually
>exclusive.  For any one position, a white is more likely to be hired.

Could you name any of these mythical positions which give racial preference
to Caucasians? I hear about their existence all the time but no one
can ever point one out. I often do hear about racial preferences being
given but always against Caucasians.

>For any one worker, a black is more likely to be *recently* hired.
>
>Take the example of a company that didn't hire any blacks until 1970,
>and then started hiring blacks that year, but is still less likely to
>hire a black than a white.  If it lays off workers by seniority, blacks
>are more likely to be laid off than whites, even though whites are
>more likely to be hired than blacks. 

Let's see now, Company A has a 1970 workforce of 100 Caucasians and for
each succeeding year hires 7 Caucasians and 1 Blak. In 1993, this
workforce of 284 is reduced by 24. In this layoff based on seniority,
21 Caucasians and 3 Blaks are laid off. Seven times as many Caucasians
were laid off than Blaks.

Stick to the usual pro-racism red herrings, few people will buy this
notion that Blaks are never getting hired and yet always getting laid
off (from jobs they don't have because they are never hired).

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: johnhall@microsoft.com (John Hall)
Subject: Re: Institutional racism in education
Date: 08 Jan 93 20:27:46 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Followup-To: alt.flame
Distribution: usa

In article Terry.Parks@launchpad.unc.edu (Terry Parks) writes:
| >| >For any one position, a white is more likely to be hired.
| 
| >Since whites outnumber blacks by 7 to 1, absolutely no 'racial
| >preference' is required for the original statement to be true.
| 
| By definition, a person cannot be given preference because of their
| race without there being racial preference. With no racial preference,
| by definition a "white" is not more likely to be hired.

By definition, without racial preference the odds of a job being
fulfilled by a given ethnic group are[1], on average, their percentage
of the population times the percentage of those in the population
qualified for the job.  Since a labor pool composed soley of
whites and blacks will be about 85% white, a white will most likely
be selected for the job if the white population qualified for the
job is more than 15% of the proportion of the black population so
qualified.  [The black population would need to be more than 7 times
as likely to be qualified for the odds to swing their way.]

| 
| >Terry, your presence on these forums strengthens all arguements
| >for AA by illustrating just how irrational and bigoted some
| >whites can be.
| 
| And such a racist remark as this shows who the AA supporters are.

I am white and don't support AA at all.  There is a rational
reason to oppose AA (lots of them).  However, you have shown no
ability to present those in a reasoned manner.  Instead, you come
across as either a blithering idiot or a malicious racist.  Have
you noticed that you get 10 times the responses to a post of yours
as Ted Frank, H Rubin, Jason, or I do?  It is because you are such
an easy mark.

The people who believe in AA like having you around.  


[1] Yes, it is simplified.  Ok?  I'm talking to Terry.

-- 
-------------------------
My comments are my own.  They are independent and unrelated to the
views of my company , relatives or elected representatives.
From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Subject: Why AA is wrong.  Was: Re: Very interesting JOB offer
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 14:55:07 GMT

In article <4JAN199317471830@rigel.tamu.edu> olw7845@rigel.tamu.edu (Zeke E. Pez) writes:

			.......................

>In short, the official and mandatory paperwork asked nothing of my ability
>and only wanted my EEOC info.

>Did I get hired because of my skin colour?

It would be very surprising if this did not have a great deal to do with it.

>I got the job (should I care about how I got the job)?

This is up to your conscience.  If you are qualified, there is little you 
can do about it.

>How can I find out if there has been some foul play?

You probably cannot, at least not until you have advanced well up in the
organization of the firm.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This part is not addressed to you; you seem to have a reasonable grasp
of how AA is working in practice.  But to those who seem to have no problems
with blatant discrimination under the guise of AA, this is exactly what is
happening all over the place.  We have far too many incompetents in jobs
as it is.  We have far too many people without either knowledge or ability 
getting scholarships.  At a time when our colleges are greatly weakening
their courses because of inadequate students, quite bright whites and Asians
are being turned away, or denied financial support,  because they happen to
be the wrong color.

This may be giving jobs to those in the "disadvantaged groups," and putting
money in their pockets, but it will do nothing to get them out of the rut.
Unless the members of these groups are willing to compete as individuals,
they will remain disadvantaged, no matter what is given to them.
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@snap.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!snap.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination
From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Subject: Re: Affirm/Action is WRONG!!   So is Charles Larue!!
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 20:39:26 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.074716.27824@msc.cornell.edu> hillyard@msc.cornell.edu writes:
>From article <C0JyxE.H2K@cs.dal.ca>, by kumar@ug.cs.dal.ca (kumar yelubandi):

>> 	Now, to my second point.  You are a racist Charles Larue.  It is
>> not merely my saying so.  To suggest that blacks don't care to play
>> tennis or hockey, is a severe ignorance of the economics involved in
>> partaking said sports (you might throw in golf here, too).  Blacks 
>> tend to play basketball, not because they like hoops better than nets, 
>> BUT because given lesser economic circumstance than whites as a class
>> of people, 'blacks' tend not to have money to purchase the expensive
>> accoutrements of the wealthier sports,ie. ice time in an indoor rink,
>> memberships at golf courses, tennis courts, the expensive hockey gear,
>> $200 tennis racquets, $500 golf clubs, $1000 attitudes, etc.)

The big bucks are not in tennis or golf, but in the team sports.  SOME of
the top stars in tennis or golf make a megabuck a year; even the figures
given are exaggerated, as this is gross winnings, and unlike the major
ball sports where the athletic clothing, equipment, travel, etc., are
provided, much it not most of this is not provided in these individual
sports.  

BTW, there was a case near Cleveland, Ohio, where the judge tried to 
impose quotas for blacks in high school baseball and whites in basketball
because of the known "misproportion" of racial participation.  It did get
overthrown.
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@snap.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!snap.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination
From: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Subject: Re: Affirm/Action is WRONG!!   So is Charles Larue!!
Originator: hillyard@tiger.msc.cornell.edu
Reply-To: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell-Materials-Science-Center
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 07:47:16 GMT

From article <C0JyxE.H2K@cs.dal.ca>, by kumar@ug.cs.dal.ca (kumar yelubandi):
> 
> 	Now, to my second point.  You are a racist Charles Larue.  It is
> not merely my saying so.  To suggest that blacks don't care to play
> tennis or hockey, is a severe ignorance of the economics involved in
> partaking said sports (you might throw in golf here, too).  Blacks 
> tend to play basketball, not because they like hoops better than nets, 
> BUT because given lesser economic circumstance than whites as a class
> of people, 'blacks' tend not to have money to purchase the expensive
> accoutrements of the wealthier sports,ie. ice time in an indoor rink,
> memberships at golf courses, tennis courts, the expensive hockey gear,
> $200 tennis racquets, $500 golf clubs, $1000 attitudes, etc.)

I'm not sure I buy this arguement (perhaps for golf, not the others).  After
all, a big market for $100 basketball shoes is the inner city, and surely the
equipment for hockey is not any greater than that used for football.

It does indeed seem more a population effect to me.  Looking at
hockey, most of the players are from Canada, or Minnesota (land of 10,000 
lakes and sub-zero weather, how much ice time do you need?); places not
with a high black population.  As I posted before, top tennis players seem
reasonably representative of the population that plays it (Europe, the US and 
Australia).

SEH
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 06:40:08 EST
From: <KRB104@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination
Subject: RE: Larue is not a racist

>Organization: Penn State University
>Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 06:32:07 EST
>From: <KRB104@psuvm.psu.edu>
>Message-ID: <93012.063207KRB104@psuvm.psu.edu>
>Newsgroups:
>Subject: Re:
>References:  <>

 In article <1993Jan11.221946.17868@msc.cornell.edu>, hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
 says:
 >
 >From article <C0pFIz.2Eo@cs.dal.ca>, by kumar@ug.cs.dal.ca (kumar yelubandi):
 >[...]
 >>               Basketball, on the other hand, relies solely on the
 >>       recruitment process of colleges, ie. only those that are talented
 >>       and lucky enough to be spotted by scouts are admitted, and unlike
 >>       the tremendous variation seen in the price range of tennis equipment
 >>        - ie. the rich buy quality racquets and the poor, less than
 >>       adequate ones -  the price variation of basketballs (not that
 >>       great to begin with) does not determine if one player is better
 >>       than another.  I could go on, but...you get the drift.
 >
 >Question.  If a $200 racket is so out of bounds for those in the inner city
 >who love tennis, then why is there such a big market there for $100
 >basketball shoes?  (Noting that a racket is going to last longer than
 >shoes are, so you'll probably end up spending less on rackets in long run.)

       I wish people would get off the media's perceptions of the inner city.
 Myth #1:  All inner city youths possess $100 basketball shoes.  Truth:  I play
 hoops on a lot of inner city courts, and the expensive sneakers are far from
 the norm.  There is no question that there is a big market for these expensive
 sneakers within the drug community, and only by those who are the sellers, the
 buyers spend all their money on drugs, they don't worry about how they look,
 all they are concerned about is the next high.  Now for those inner city
 people who aren't within the drug subculture, they are more concerned with
 putting food on the table.  Teenagers buy these sneakers, but only if they
 have
 a job and can afford them.  The parents are too worried about food on the
 table
 then to worry about "Air Jordans".  Do you have any statistical evidence of
 inner city inhabitants being a major market for these sneakers or are you
 speaking from what you hear in the media?  When was the last time you went
 on an inner city basketball court and looked at the sneakers on the players.
 I play in a lot of basketball leagues, and the people that I see with those
 expensive sneakers are middle to upper class white yuppies.  They absolutely
 love them, in my experiences.
   Stop believing everything the media tells you about Black people, the
 majority of it is simply not true or exaggerated.
From: unhealth@mcl.ucsb.edu (Kristian Dunn)
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination
Subject: Anybody for 'Ethnic Cleansing'?
Summary: Nuke 'em
Keywords: Kill 'em all
Date: 9 Jan 93 01:37:41 GMT

To whom it may concern:
	
	Well I am sure I have you looking at this posting, because of the bril-
	liant little title! Now I shall engage into a little philosophizing.
	Why is 'social darwinism' of the late nineteenth century so villified
	in the history courses that I have taken? Is it because the liberal
	history professors, wish to denigrate the idea of racial superiority?
	I believe it is! Therefore I celebrate all forms of ethnic cleansing
	existing from tribal warfare in Africa all the way to the 'Final Sol-
	ution' presented by Hitler and his cohorts! I am curious to know what
	you people think, so drop me a line or post your follow up response!
	By the way for more racial controversy tune into alt.skinheads!
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 07:09:02 EST
From: <KRB104@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Discrimination against whites is rampant
Distribution: usa
 <93004.080247KRB104@psuvm.psu.edu> <4JAN199312424225@zeus.tamu.edu>
 <1icioiINN3rr@debussy.crhc.uiuc.edu> <5JAN199316310894@zeus.tamu.edu>

   OK, let's see if we can explain this more carefully.  There is no question
that Blacks are over represented in basketball and football as compared to the
numbers in the general population.  But to equate sports and being a CEO is
night and day.  The original poster seems to think that if AA is used in the
corporate board room (which it isn't, AA doesn't apply that high on the chain),
then it should be used in sports.  He thinks that because whites aspire to be
professional athletes, as Blacks do, then there must be some type of "reverse
discrimination".    Charley asks the question "What is the difference between
the white man who aspires to play sports and the Black man who aspires to be
a CEO?"  Well Charley, it is time that you opened your eyes.  Sports is one
of the few fields (I think I have said this three times now) in which Blacks
are allowed to compete according to ability.  Sports is, for the most part,
what society should be like, each man competing on the basis of his/her ability
with no special favors because of race.  If a white man aspires to be a pro
hoops player, and is good enough, he will make it (I don't need to name
specific people here), and the same for a Black man.  In sports, this has been
the case since 1947 in baseball, 1952 for hoops and even longer for football.
  In the board room, we have not gotten to that point yet.  If a Black man is
good enough to be a CEO, there is no guarentee that he will be chosen to get
that position, at least not yet.  Remember, our society as a whole has not been
integrated as long as sports has been.  Take football for instance.  It has
only been since the mid-80's since the coaches have allowed Blacks to become
quarterbacks and the late-80's before Blacks were allowed to be "CEO's" (or in
popular jargon, head coaches).  And football has been integrated since the
1940's.  This society has been integrated since the late 1960's, so if the U.S.
were to follow football's lead, then we still have about 10 years until we
start seeing more Black CEO's.
  My point is that whites' paths to pro sports are not BLOCKED.  If one is good
enough, then one makes the pros.  The same still cannot be said of the Black
person in the board room.  That is why the analogy doesn't work.  Blacks have
been allowed to compete on the basis of ability in sports but not in the
board room.
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination,alt.politics.correct,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: Terry.Parks@launchpad.unc.edu (Terry Parks)
Subject: Re: Affirmative action is dead
Organization: UNC Office of Information Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 02:36:08 GMT

>Interesting theory. How many liberals realise that the University of
>california at Berkely has an affermative action program for whites.
>Although they disguised it by calling it AA for rural citizens.

Arn't you glad that you can gain access to it (regardless of your race)
by moving to the country. And if you want to take advantage of the
many programs restricted to Blaks you can...

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: phase@cybernet.cse.fau.edu (Phase)
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination
Subject: "Affirmative Action" sucks
Date: 9 Jan 93 23:51:12 GMT
Organization: Cybernet BBS, Boca Raton, Florida


 I oppose "Afirmative action" on the grounds that I believe
racial discrimination is morally, spiritually, and ethically
wrong, peroid. There is not excuse.
 I am not an angry white person stamping my foot, jealous that blacks
have it much easier getting scholarships and jobs, and college admission.
I quote one person, when it comes to discrimination based on race. Martin 
Luther King Jr. when he dreamed of the day when:
   "Children would be judged not by the color of thier skin, but by the 
content of thier character..."
 Would Dr. King support minority scholarships, racial quotas, and 
"affirmative action"? If he did, he'd be a hipocrite. He spoke very 
strongly against racial discrimination in ANY circumstances, not just 
when people think discrimination might have some positive effects.
People who donate to "minority scholarships" are no better morally, than 
those who contribute to the KKK.
   I'm a high school journalism student, and the reality of this 
"Affirmative Action" bullshit hit home, when, I was told I was not 
allowed to apply for a summer apprenticeship at a local newspaper
because I was white. "For Minorites Only" it read at the top.
When I called and demanded an explantaion, I was told politely that I 
could not apply because the private donors said thier money was to be 
used "For Minorites Only". It's thier right to do so, but that kind of 
discrimination is morally just as wrong as not allowing blacks to use 
public restrooms. 
    May the Affirmative Action hipocrites burn in hell, cause they're the 
only ones who are keeping Dr. Kings dream in the dark. Treat people as 
people, and say NO to racial discrimination (i.e "affirmative action")
 Period.

          phase@cybernet.cse.fau.edu
From: bugsy@theoasis.Corp.Sun.COM (Lavonne)
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination
Subject: Affirmative Action Is Necessary
Date: 6 Jan 1993 20:42:49 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: bugsy@theoasis.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: theoasis.corp.sun.com


I would like to make a point about AA.
AA applies to everyone regardless of color- If your being discriminated-thats a problem.
But the sad truth is discrimination is still
happening today, and it is best for the government to say, 
"Wait a minute, Mr.Company- I know there are several qualified
black, latin or oriental, female candidates. Why are these people under
represented in the (management, technical, (you selection) fields???)"
Addressing the management-CEO type of positions, AA is necessary
to maintain a fair balance (which still isn't happening), and to 
open the doors not only too an upper-middle classed white male.

The point is this-  People usually hire people like themselves.
People usually will feel confortable interacting with someone that
is on the same "wave-legnth" as themselves. Just like high school
in the business world, there are cliques. An interviewer may
select a person (even though he/she is lacking in qualifications),
because, they have beautiful blue eyes, he plays a good game of golf,
he/she went to the same school as them, he/she reminds me of my nephew.
This is why you can the same "business man-CEO" protype.
On the other hand, you may have an Indian man that went to the best
business colleges, years of supervisory experience, but he may be 
looked over for a management position-because he doesn't look like one??
Also, it would be hard for this minority to hang out with the guys after
work at their local country club-for a game of golf..

Bottom line, people have to start streching themselves. Give the girl
with the pierced nose, or the guy with the long hair and an unshaven face,
or the black man, or the Indian with the accent- THE CHANCE!!!


Laovonne

DISCLAIMER: THESE VIEWS ARE OF MY OWN!!!
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination,talk.politics.misc