For black CEOs in Silicon Valley, humiliation is a part of doing business

I've recently been reading/watching some videos and writings by Robin Diangelo on systemic racism - here's a great starting point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7mzj0cVL0Q. She also wrote the book "White Fragility".

Thinking about that, I'm just wondering how different it would be if one of those people who mistook the employee for the CEO instead turned to the CEO and said "I'm sorry, please excuse me for the instance of racism I just perpetrated against you, I promise it won't happen again." I realize how outlandish that may sound writing that out, but I'd propose that the fact that it does sound outlandish is the main problem. Everyone in the US was raised in an environment that inculcated certain racial ideas, subconsciously or not. We can't address them if we're so embarrassed by their existence as to pretend they don't exist.

That doesn't sound outlandish to me at all. For what it's worth, it doesn't have to phrased in a stilted manner like that. A quiet "That was racist and I have no excuse. I am sorry, and will do better in the future." is fine.

I suspect that most people who want to "get the hell out" rather than apologize for racism have little to no experience with making sincere apologies and trying to genuinely mend fences in general. This probably has a significant overlap with people who claim that you should immediately leave your employer rather than speak out about any of their policies that you disagree with.

Racism doesn't imply intent either. It absolutely can be the case that someone unknowingly makes a racist inference even with the best of intentions.

Anti-racism is about taking on the powers and material structures that reproduce racism in our society to put an end to that reproduction. It’s what the multiracial coalition is doing right now, in the streets, forcing changes to laws and policing.

All of this has little to do with your boss paying someone to lecture you about why you’re bad/biased/ignorant. In fact, it’s contrary to anti-racism, because it positions your boss, who controls your life and buys her classes, as the arbiter of what is and isn’t racism.

People would be better off studying the life and work of Fred Hampton.

In some circumstances, it's not harmful to assume the person wearing a suit is the CEO, though you might not always be right. The person in the suit might also be head of sales, while baggy clothes is CEO. Generally, it's better not to assume at all unless you're forced to. Just ask.

But inferring that someone isn't the CEO because they're black? I'm sorry, but that's racism pure and simple. Stereotyping is one form of racism (not the only one). You have no reason to make the inference, and it's highly insulting if you make a mistake. And to assume that feelings wouldn't be hurt is... tremendously naive and blind to the reality of racism.

While I completely agree that the stories in this article are hugely problematic and represent issues that need to be solved, I think books like "White Fragility" are not helpful in solving them. This is due to a focus on group identity, and describing "White" as if it's a monolithic group of people, all with the same culture, emotions, and reactions.

Another interesting aspect I identified while reading the book was it's description of the emotions that one can expect to see when confronting white people about race issues: the description could have been used to describe any human being you will ever meet when you accuse/blame them for something that they did not personally do. It really does read like a horoscope in that sense.

I find it ironic that people on HN, who are typically super data driven, get on board with works like "White Fragility". Diangelo is one of many academics from the humanities departments who are incredibly pseudo-scientific. Data is incredibly scarce, measurements and studies even less so. Statistical knowledge isn't present in the vast majority of these folks. Typically, the "scientific method" is reading and writing essays/novels. When you don't attempt to quantify a problem, you can't propose solutions and then measure their results. You instead just keep yourself busy finding ever more ways to describe the water to the drowning person.

Even within her book she claims that no amount of training will solve the issue, it seems that "White Fragility" is just another way for White people to tamp down the anxiety of race relations in the United States, rather than take any meaningful action towards changing it.

If your goal is to truly understand the Black american experience, it's best to start with actual Black authors. The House That Race Built by Wahneema Lubiano is a great set of essays about race and class structures.

If a certain type of discrimination of perception arises due to stereotypes, but by and large affects certain racial groups, then is it racism ? It also affects women as it does those who do not abide by personality traits of the valley's cargo cult or the Ivy MBA.

> just accept the correction and move on

Yeah. I think in such cases a sincere apology is at the minimum warranted.

I would honestly suggest watching the video I linked by Robin Diangelo. I think that level of embarrassment/defensiveness would be common to the vast, vast majority of white people of a particular social class in the US, regardless of their broader experience making sincere apologies. Putting the frame of reference of "Look, only people so inexperienced with socialization that they can't make sincere apologies" in my opinion takes away from the more likely reality that the belief that "only bad people can be racist" is what is limiting forward progress in these areas.

One area to look is politicians apologizing for being wrong and the extent that is treated a weakness by their political opponents.

I think a society where the better choice of action is to own up to a mistake makes for a better society.

It can be both.

"Women drive badly" is a sexist stereotype, but not racism.

"Black people drive badly" would be both a stereotype and racism.

As if two human beings who both happen to be white are the same, when one was born in a trailer park and the other a high-rise in Central Park West. I was pretty irritated to see her book getting promoted by my HR department, who is filled with people who proudly brag about "math not being my thing."

That creates a catch-22 for anyone who commits a faux-pas (like mistaking the black CEO for a subordinate). Either admit to racism and cast oneself in with the cross-burners, or bail out of the situation ASAP.

We have the same kind of problem with the label of "sex offender." It's a category that runs the gamut from "guy who got arrested for public urination while walking home drunk from the bar one night" all the way to Jeffrey Dahmer.

Scott over at Slate Star Codex has a fantastic piece that covers this phenomenon [1]. The core idea has to do with the tension between central and non-central examples of a category:

Remember, people think in terms of categories with central and noncentral members – a sparrow is a central bird, an ostrich a noncentral one. But if you live on the Ostrich World, which is inhabited only by ostriches, emus, and cassowaries, then probably an ostrich seems like a pretty central example of ‘bird’ and the first sparrow you see will be fantastically strange.

I'm glad we're having this conversation in society. I honestly don't know what to do about it though.

[1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/12/weak-men-are-superweap...

I admit I only just started reading her book, so can't comment on that, but I would say that's not the takeaway I got from any of the online videos or interviews I've seen of her, most definitely not from the youtube one I linked.

A better example would be, "women aren't passionate about driving". That's a stereotype, likely a correct one (i.e. substantiated by statistics... I mean, I'm not certain, but that would be my prior, but I'm very open to changing it), and most importantly: not harmful. It's just a stereotype.

I'm not denying that things could be harmful (racism, sexist, ...). But not all stereotypes are. Like guessing that "Alex" is probably a guy.

Interesting. My response to your recommendation of Dr. DiAngelo's work elsewhere in this thread was critical of her treating "white" as a monolith.

Which particular social class of whites do you think this applies to?

This also brings up another criticism I have about what I view is an absolute lack of scientific rigor: "White Fragility" is a phrase that can't be generalized to humans as a whole who are members of the dominant ethnic group of their respective societies. One would expect an urban, ethnic Han Chinese person to react in a similar pattern when confronted with their privilege in their own society. Think Japan as well.

Again, no measurements, or attempts to quantify. Which is convenient, when you realize that her workshops on anti-racism training feature an approach that has never been scientifically validated for efficacy in solving the problem.

I really hate to harp on this so much, but I am deeply interested in ACTUALLY SOLVING THE PROBLEM, and that makes me extra wary of people who sell snake oil cures to absolve HR departments of liability.

To be honest - everyone, no matter who they are, makes judgements and has biases.

How about just not making any assumptions at all and ask and support people, be it white, black, male, female, trans, etc?

Citation on those not being harmful? Stereotypes like that seem to be a driving factor in why STEM fields are very male dominated.

"Girls don't like cars; go find some dolls to play with."

That's a major criticism I have of the crusaders against "systemic racism." While I think the term is intended to capture the accumulated, "death by a thousand cuts" set of disadvantages that are faced by marginalized groups, it characterizes the problem in such a way that it makes it seem intractable. This is a perfect framing for politicians and activists, whose focus (IMHO) is on getting people mobilized by describing/raising awareness about problems, rather than actually solving them.

To me, when somebody describes specific examples of "systemic racism", I am immediately able to suddenly identify specific actions that can be taken to address each tractable problem. Replace "America is inherently racist" with "End Qualified Immunity" and "ensure public schools share funding across regions", etc. I think framing things like this makes the problems more solvable and far less politically useful for the demagogues.

Why would the person on the victim end of this feel humiliated? I suspect,at least in part the body language offense and humiliation contributes to the awkwardness. Now, if they insist on treating the guy with less melanin as the boss even after being corrected...yeah, who wouldn't be pissed.

Apologies, in 2020 USA, just put a giant target on your head and don’t seem to be making much of a positive impact. Change that, you change the game.

People like their scalps too much right now.

No, it's my experience showing. I grew up being basically ostracized (and also bullied) for being a geek. Little did I know it would turn out to be an extremely lucrative career. Simply, while other boys were out playing sports, or indoors playing computer games, I was programming. Because I was interested.

Having said that, I think it's also the case that some people are discouraged from doing what they want, because parents/society. I don't think I'm doing that though. If anything, I'd be more curious about someone doing something unusual (not even in an anti-stereotypical way, but like, generally - such as archery, or spear fishing, or (until recently) bread-making).

> How about just not making any assumptions at all and ask and support people

I definitely support people doing pretty much whatever. But experience shows that it's often better to e.g. lead conversations into interesting topics, rather than play a questions & answers game to find a common interest. The more you're able to do that, based on quick inferences, the better conversationalist you are (on average).

You think that my response epitomized the thing I was complaining about. You are welcome to that opinion.

I think that your comment epitomizes the problem I was talking about, which is that this philosophy espouses that every thought in my head or word from my mouth is impossible to separate from my ethnicity. My ideas are beholden to and a product of my group identity in this worldview. I find that to be dangerous and regressive.

I should also add that "White Fragility" didn't "instantly" make me uncomfortable. I purchased and read the entire book. I was open minded about it, until the complete lack of scientific rigor and opinionated, essay-type qualities became clear.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/apr/28/minecraft...

[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQvL7YH0L_o

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

In this type of situation, the empathetic resolution would be to apologize for causing the victim's embarrassment, which most likely exceeds your own.

It's akin to just memorizing a list of microagressions like curse words and never saying them for fear of being fired. Anti-racism provides the tools to contextualize and understand why certain phrases are racist or biased.

Meanwhile, a central point of the book is one that should be self evident. Talking about racism makes white people[1] uncomfortable. I know this to be true from experience. And we can't make progress as a society until we own that discomfort and are willing to have frank conversations about racism.

I don't see how you need "statistical power" to recognize this or adopt this strategy.

Also, this:

> ccuse/blame them for something that they did not personally do

That's not what the discomfort is about. Of course none of us are _personally_ responsible for the systemic racism in the US. But if we can't even talk about it without getting uncomfortable, how are we going to fix it?

1: If this doesn't apply to you, great, I wasn't talking about you [2]

2: Except if this topic makes you annoyed enough to disagree then yes, I probably am talking about you.

I’m over forty and and upper middle class. It’s a true stereotype that we don’t tend to be passionate skateboarders, but someone that met me in a skatepark would not draw the conclusion that I’m not interested based on my age and socioeconomics.

[0]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Kafkatrap

If you're a VC coming to a first meeting with a startup CEO and their team, none of whom you have met in person before, making an inference at all is simply unprofessional. You should be asking. The fact that the VC's inference was that the white person must be the CEO just adds the further insult of racist stereotyping to the insult of unprofessional behavior in this context.

My main takeaway from the article was not "lots of people in the startup world are racist" but "lots of people in the startup world are unprofessional assholes". I think the latter problem is what needs to be fixed.

This seems like a key moment to... cite data? Since you are broadly making pseudo-mathy sounding claims while complaining that others aren't as mathematically/statistically/factually rigorous as 'people on HN'.

Why wouldn't they? Being unfavorably stereotyped is almost universally frustrating and humiliating, regardless of any systemic concerns about racism and the like.

Wrt. the case mentioned by parent, it seems clear to me that the person involved should definitely apologize for their social faux pas and mistaken assumptions-- and that seeing them refuse to address the issue for fear of being regarded as racist or whatever would only result in even more frustration.

It's humiliating for the "victim" because this probably happens on a daily basis. Tell me that wouldn't kneecap your confidence to constantly have to correct people and massage their egos and reassure them you're not offended just so they give you money. It's forcing the victim to perform the emotional labor of remediating the offense. It's wrong and we let people off the hook far too easily for it.

Those "associative generalizations" are racism, sexism and homophobia in a nutshell. You (not you in particular, but yeah, kind of) have certain associations bound to race. Acknowledge it, confront those feelings, and deal with them. It's your problem, not theirs; yet we constantly give people a pass on their own internalized racism because the people who are systemically oppressed by said racism aren't really in a position to call them out.

I'm not saying you should be fired from your job or anything; just that you should acknowledge that your generalizations do harm to people. Educate yourself on the things they go through to build empathy. Don't make them do the work you should be doing yourself. And don't assume that because they're exhausted from dealing with this daily and so don't act offended that they're not harmed by it.

The anti-racism movement is about white people not giving other white people a pass for casual racism. We have forced marginalized people of color to do the work on this front for too long, when it's a problem within the white community. Expect to be called out aggressively on this stuff from here on out until you educate yourself on why it's harmful.

I am all for having frank conversations, but I think the topic needs to be broader than "racism". It needs to be "systematic inequality of treatment". Or even better, "systematic violations of basic human rights". Then we can focus on why our society, which is supposed to be based on everybody having the same basic human rights, is not achieving that in practice, and how to fix it. Focusing on one particular group of people whose rights are being violated only distracts from that overall objective.

If you expect some kind of people to be in charge rather than others, it is a symptom of widespread racism/sexism in your environment. You doing the "mistake" does not mean you necessarily, actively, try to cause harm. But you still do, and this wouldn't happen if not for racism.

> Why would the person on the victim end of this feel humiliated?

For the person doing the mistake, it was one particular case of embarassment, for the victim it was Tuesday. The constant rate of mistakes make it humiliating.

It's not easy to say "sorry i was racist to you" and then briefly go on to talk about how you think their offer is bad and proposr something less (is it your racism again? ). It's a two way street is what I am saying, most people would see an apology as a weakness they can exploit.

It's difficult to design a study around. Calling it post-modern is just a slur. It's easier to say that you don't believe it.

Are the only important problems universal ones?

And citation for that citation, ad absurdum.

At some point, we have to agree on what is actually going on in this world. We can't solely rely on citations, because I can just say that those citations are a result of an oppressive patriarchy and as a result, I don't accept your citation as valid.

Where do we go form here?

The basis for any possible discussion is solidarity - society doesn't work if people are constantly being pitted against each other.

If it doesn't promote solidarity - it's anti society, pro anarchy. If you want guns in the streets and children screaming, we're well on our way. I just don't know if those creating anarchy (all of corporate media including social platforms) are even aware of what they've done - they're undermining the foundation of society that makes their existence possible and they don't seem to care.

I'll be contrarian and recommend Thomas Sowell's "Black Rednecks and White Liberals" instead.

> Why wouldn't they? Being unfavorably stereotyped is almost universally frustrating and humiliating,

I'd say because feeling humiliated is a completely wrong feeling but maybe something is lost in translation?

Here is my attempt, note that I'm not a native English speaker and I also haven't been in the US for long enough to understand all American customs but I read a lot of English and write a lot English:

- if someone does a mistake in front of others the perpetrator will normally feel embarrassed

- if this happens often enough the victim will feel annoyed and frustrated

- humiliated on the other hand is when someone tells others about something dumb you did.

is this correct?

It's also problematic because the workplace inherently has an underlying adversarial quality that can provide a never-ending supply of "microaggressions" and various forms of otherings that effectively sow more division than actually get non-whites anywhere.

The author is particularly clever for writing a book for the target of anti-racism, because the market for "look who's racist" media is thoroughly saturated.

Since race is becoming a greater and greater issue, I imagine it will continue to become a get-rich-quick scheme for some adept to the English language, or the language of CorporateSpeak.

The fact that she was standing on the customer side of the counter would probably be a bigger factor than her gender.

Can you expand on this a little bit? It sounds a lot like:

>It's akin to just memorizing a list of microagressions like curse words and never saying them for fear of being fired

With extra steps. What are these tools and how do they avoid accidentally putting the cart in front of the horse in terms of goals vs. reality?

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=thomas+sowell

If you had done that while she was on the other side of the counter or if she was wearing some kind of obvious uniform you'd have a point. However, if she was on your side of the counter and had no obvious signs of working there, there would be no reason to think she was anything but a customer.

The alternative would be to address all the customers as if they worked there, and that's just not practical.

From my limited understanding of this position, it sounds like the goal is a dismantling of police and courts which form the backbone of a civil rule of law society.

The whole point of OP's article is to say nope, this is quite wrong. There's still a lot of unwarranted shame and, yes, humiliation attached to even something as ordinary as being CEO of a business-- if you happen to be Black. It's not an easy problem to solve, and most naïve, even well-intentioned suggestions don't necessarily help.

> Everyone knows that testosterone makes young men orders of magnitude more violent

You're using hyperbole but yes it's commonly understood that there's a link between testosterone and aggression, however you extend that claim to something completely different

> why is it inconceivable that they could also be 4 times more interested in more mechanic play? It’s been observed even in almost newborn chimpanzees for Gods sake.

I counter that this second claim is related to the first, is it that testosterone makes young males more likely to play with mechanical objects? There are a few articles that reference this study from 2008 [1]. It refers to rhesus monkeys not chimpanzees and their hypothesis at the end is much more nuanced

>We offer the hypothesis that toy preferences reflect hormonally influenced behavioral and cognitive biases which are sculpted by social processes into the sex differences seen in monkeys and humans.

Furthermore there is at least 1 meta-analysis from 2017 [2] that highlights

> Gender differences in toy choice exist and appear to be the product of both innate and social forces. > Despite methodological variation in the choice and number of toys offered, context of testing, and age of child, the consistency in finding sex differences in children's preferences for toys typed

Note they do not make the claim that testosterone is the cause of these differences. Scientists try to be careful about the language they use, we should be just as careful.

1: Sex differences in rhesus monkey toy preferences parallel those of children - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2008.03.008

2: Sex differences in children's toy preferences: A systematic review, meta‐regression, and meta‐analysis - https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.2064

I thought “fundamentally understanding the lived experiences of the black community” was impossible for non-black people. What white person has achieved this goal? If none, is it impossible for a white person to be “anti-racist?”

I acknowledge racism is a real issue but think it’s reasonable to disagree what the best solution is. This stuff (white fragility etc) just smells way too much like “original sin” and “we are all sinners but must strive towards holiness, however unachievable” to me.

To expand on the bit about Social Security, farmworkers were excluded, since farmworkers tend to be not white. It was a nice sneaky way to be racist without coming out and doing so explicitly.

It is not racist to assume that the person in the room most like the other CEOs you have met, is also the CEO. If I was in a foreign country, I would assume the CEO is the person most like the other people in that country. I never made any assumption about competence. Half the time I think the least competent person in the room is the CEO. Sadly that's how business works. There would be nothing racist - intentional, or unintentional - about my assumption.

When the basic premise of the argument is that white Americans are born irredeemably flawed[1], you're unlikely to win many white supporters other than the most guilt-ridden.

I suppose the tactic is to impart as much guilt as possible. But that doesn't make the argument a good one.

[1] https://twitter.com/DisrnNews/status/1266857347567190016

I’m not sure I fully appreciate the point your making with breaking down the idea “America is inherently racist.” Outside of Twitter I’ve encountered exactly zero conversations that start and immediately end with such a statement. Of course things like qualified immunity and equitable education come into play - these topics have been heavily discussed in the public sphere for decades! To link them in this case to speak to a community’s broader experience seems both reasonable and necessary.

For a light hearted analogy — say I get a burrito from a taqueria on Monday and shit my pants and then go back Tuesday for tacos and shit myself again. When I’m retelling that story on Wednesday over sushi, you’d better believe I’m using the name of the restaurant.

The group which can self-identify as biased is probably much larger (fortunately?). The challenge is that by naming/labeling the big discussion systemic racism, its possible for a much larger (and perhaps more influential) group of people to blissfully ignore the big discussion being had about both systemic racism and systemic implicit bias - the latter of which to a certain extent the original article seems to be about.

The idea of "dismantling of police" does not mean we do not offer protection. It just means that the current organization "police" is not providing the services it's customers want. Years of "tweaking" the police orgs have failed to provide results. It's time to create a new way to protect citizens.

Why are they doing more harm than good? Because, after a claim like that, the conversation is over. There's absolutely no point in talking to someone who makes claims like that. And it makes you less likely to be willing to talk to the next person, either. So the net amount of whites willing to learn and talk about race and racism goes down when people say stuff like this.

(It's also factually untrue, blatantly unfair, and bigoted...)

* GI Bill: adopted in 1944, expired in 1956.

* Social Security: adopted in 1935, unclear what the impacts were at the time. Unclear what the impacts are today.

* Redlining: created in 1934, illegal since 1977.

As an immigrant that landed in US post 2000 with $1000 to my name and a tenuous F1 situation, all this sounds like ancient history. Much more stringent appear, in no particular order and not pretending to be exhaustive:

* the whole F1/H1B situation, which depresses the domestic labor market in technical jobs, especially software, but also research at large

* global competition, especially with China

* the over financialization of the economy

* the profits accumulating at the very top since the 2008 Great Recession

* the explosion of real estate market in big cities, way above what we pretend the inflation rate is

* manufacturing decline

* offshoring of entire industries to East Asia

* right now, the covid19 lockdowns which are destroying the service economy, which was supposed to be the future of jobs

* the decimation of small business America due to same covid19 lockdowns.

* specifically for the black community, the lack of academic achievement

* the rise of the gig economy and Amazon warehouse jobs

* the opioid, homelessness and suicide crisis

* the obesity crisis, and the related food deserts

Again, not a young black guy or gal. But if I'd were, there'd be 10 high priority items on my worry list before I'd get to the Civil Rights Era. As a nation we seem to have abandoned the middle and working class of all colors. The public discourse is obsessed with Instagram influencers and race histories half a century old if not older, sometimes much older.

Violence being the language folks use after all else fails.

Starting with violence means you don't really care about solving the problem and just want the incident to go away

Did you pick this idea up somewhere else or think of it yourself? I've not heard that concept, and it makes way too much sense.

There is 0% chance that all police departments will all change in 2020. I'm happy to voice my support that some cities are willing to try new things. If it works great. If not, back to the drawing board.

It's not. The goal is to demand equal protections under the law for all, eliminate racial bias in policing, judging and sentencing, and make police themselves follow the law.

Don't be misled by the "defund police" mantra. It's just a way to divert resources to community engagement programs and/or get out of contracts with police unions. It doesn't literally mean "shut down the police department and courts".

> From my limited understanding of this position

At least you're honest about it. I'd encourage you to educate yourself instead of just relying on soundbites and scare-mongering media headlines (not saying that's what you've been doing so far).

> Rule #1 of negotiation is never negotiate from a position if weakness. As the original comment suggests, this is indeed fragility, you feep weak for being wrong and you would feel a lot weaker if you said it out loud.

In my comment, I said that an apology would have been the proper resolution:

> In this type of situation, the empathetic resolution would be to apologize for causing the victim's embarrassment, which most likely exceeds your own.

And frankly, since you have called me a "radical" and a "commie" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23544865) because I had made two comments stating that an apology would be the correct approach in the situation, your perception of the Overton window needs some serious adjustment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

any position that doesn't losslessly compress into a chant or a rally cry or 240 characters is effectively censored by its own unfitness for the infrastructure of mass propagation.

this ultimately favors certain corners of the anti-censorship crowd, for you can be vocally against censorship while knowing full well that it is the most overbroad, reductionist and populist strains of messaging that prevail under such conditions.

I know at least one person who has.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2011/oct/27/black-like-me-...

I know it's not possible for everyone to do what John Howard Griffin did, but reading that book and living that experience vicariously can be a start.

I'm sorry, but your opinion here does not match with either practical, common, or academic definitions for racism.

People have internal biases all the time that cause them to be averse to particular racial groups -- particularly disadvantaged racial groups. They may not even realize they are doing it, but that doesn't mean that it's not racist. (For example, resumes with White names are more likely to receive callbacks than those with Black names. There may be no intent by the resume reviewer.)

Another example, asking to touch a Black stranger's hair is othering, which is a type of racist behavior. The person asking usually isn't intending to be racist, and is 'just' trying to satisfy their own curiosity. There's no ill intent, but that doesn't mean it's OK.

An example:

- I run into a white friend and call him Dave (another white guy I know), when his name is Mark. It happens, I apologize as I'm terrible with names.

- I run into a black friend and call him Dave (another black guy I know), when his name is Mark. It happens, I apologize as I'm terrible with names.

In the 2nd instance, you can guarantee someone will accuse me of bring racist.

Basically, people make mistakes and say rude things all the time. But throw race in there and suddenly everything is viewed in the worst possible light.

Anti-racism is being against making judgement based on race. Nothing more. No laundry list of buzz words or actions.

Understanding 'the Black community' doesn't even make sense at all. Like all Black people are part of this community where if you truly understand and experience the worst pain only then you can start to find racism in society and yourself.

Racism can come from anyone and be directed to anyone or group.

You haven't been exposed to a very broad range of parents. I've seen parents who very tightly control which toys, clothes, and grooming choices their kids make because they don't align with the parent's gender expectations. It's frustratingly common in the US.

In the end the only the rich would have protection. Probably not the best path. For an example see the private police in London. They answer to no one.

If you learn anti-racist behavior and perform it only to manipulate, eventually you're caught, with ramifications for your life or your legacy.

In any case, white America certainly needs to try to understand black America better, but also of great importance is that they begin to understand themselves better. Their history (e.g., "The Lost Cause" is a myth), their personal and communal psychology (e.g., white fragility and guilt), and their behavior (e.g., white flight and opportunity hoarding); and to square that with what they claim are their higher ideals.

Same thing happened after me too where many men were afraid to risk power for a real life hookup with the risks involved and have opted out for paided (where legal) risk free transactions. Which in turn has reduced the amount of relationships in general and made everyone lonely.

I’ve always been a “treat others as you would like to be treated” person. But a lot of this anti-racist concept is appearing on all my pod casts. And now I have to see race?

I’m in Australia and I think these are largely US concepts. Frankly I wish we’d stop importing US culture. Australia isn’t perfect but we largely agree on things like universal health care and getting rid of guns. So I think we can combat racism without having to look at the US for guidance.

Who offers the protection? Ultimately the are going to be people tasked with stopping criminal behavior, with force if said criminals resist. This isn't a dismantling of the police it's a rebranding.

Is it plausible to assume that STEM fields and female participation is a case where stereotypes have very little effect? I think I'd need some pretty strong evidence for the idea stereotypes had little effect on any kind of career choice. Even less so for fields where any mention of stereotypes and gender imbalance garners a furious insistence that the stereotype is [i] irrelevant to anyone's advice or decision making [ii] also such an accurate representation of biologically-driven preferences it would be unfair for the gender ratio to change

In the situations described in the article (VC pitch, sales pitch), just make introductions like a normal human being. "Hi, I'm triceratops nice to meet you <hold out hand, other person states their name in turn>"

If there are multiple people in the room, follow a fixed, consistent order. Options include nearest-to-farthest or left-to-right or starting from the head of the table.

This doublespeak, which reminds me of the whole "Kill All Men" issue, which itself was quickly followed by a rush to say "Noo you stupid man, we don't mean kill all men, just some men", makes my skin crawl.

Let's take a quick look at the dictionary:

Defund:

verb

prevent from continuing to receive funds.

If you are failing to use the language correctly, correct yourself. Don't attempt to gaslight people and twist the meaning of established terms.

Would-be spoilers get educated about their own unrealized bias, racism continues to be a huge problem in this country, activists are vindicated and the world moves on.

Because of the reason given in the article. It starts the meeting off on a bad note by making the VC aware of their bias and embarrassing them. Often they just want to get the hell out ASAP to save face, which means the black CEO doesn't get a "fair go".

I don't disagree that some my find stereotypes alienating. But you're making a very big leap to claim that it's a "driving factor" as far as gender representation in STEM.

1. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/02/the-more...

> Everyone in the US was raised in an environment that inculcated certain racial ideas, subconsciously or not

I’ve always noticed the opposite. Americans are a lot more forgiving of race than any other country. Even places like Sweden has serious problems with racism whereas US has lead so many positive changes and civil wars about racism.

Growing up in US white suburbs, we were taught by parents to be cognizant of racism and even small things like “African Americans, not black people”. Always had many immigrants and people of color in school. Race is at the center of America as it is the biggest melting pot of cultures in the world for over 2 centuries.

It's great that in your mind you also realized you had an implicit bias ("you just don't see women in those roles a lot"), but it doesn't seem like your implicit bias colored your interaction.

Murders are down 50% from then, it's still not a nice town or anything but it's not the worst town in America anymore.

Regardless of the obstacles faced in the second half (which are still more numerous than the competition's), can't you understand why runners would still look back at that first half to explain their fatigue, anger, and feelings of injustice? Particularly when looking ahead and thinking, "Oh God, this crap /again/??"

The marathon in this example actually spans multiple generations, but even the horrible segregation of the 50's was experienced first hand by the parents of black people still in the workforce today.

Sounds like you came into the race halfway through. As an immigrant you're still facing those unfair obstacles in front of you, but just remember that you don't have the fatigue of carrying the baggage from the first half.

You're misunderstanding my point. I'm not saying we have to fix everything at once. I'm saying that the "one thing that's bad" is not racism; racism is just one particular way the root problem manifests itself. The root of the problem is corruption: people in positions of public trust misusing the power they are granted to indulge their personal prejudices, whatever they are, instead of serving the public. Even if you could wave a magic wand and remove all racism from the world forever, that wouldn't fix the corruption problem; corrupt people in power would just find different excuses for violating people's rights. You have to fix the corruption.

And you won't fix corruption by focusing on one particular prejudice that the corrupt people happen to have, even if historically it has been the most common one (which, btw, I'm not sure is actually true--I think religious prejudice is at least as common historically if not more so--but I'm willing to assume it is for the sake of this discussion). The problem is not the particular prejudice the corrupt people have; the problem is that corrupt people are in power in the first place.

Is that really true? What do you think will happen if we put it up for a vote? Something like: defund police - yes/no?

Restaffing he police is a vastly different measure than dismantling the police or abolishing the police, which is what many activists are pushing for.

Furthemore, the idea that this was an instance of dismantling the police to reduce police abuses doesn't seem to hold up to scrutiny [1]:

> With the city under duress, over the objection of Camden community members, local officials partnered with Christie to enact a plan to disband the city’s police force and replace it with a regional county force. The goal was to dissolve the local police union, which would allow for a cheaper force that would enable more policing, not less.

> The new force embraced broken windows policing. In the first year of the new force, summonses for disorderly conduct shot up 43 percent. Summonses for not maintaining lights or reflectors on vehicles spiked 421 percent. Summonses for tinted car windows similarly increased 381 percent. And farcically, summonses for riding a bicycle without a bell or a light rose from three to 339. It was straight out of the Giuliani handbook.

> Unsurprisingly, these moves provoked tensions between the community and the police producing a parallel rise in excessive-force complaints. These tensions were still bubbling in 2014 when a particularly harsh and disturbing arrest was caught on video with officers using violent techniques similar to the ones that killed George Floyd in Wisconsin. When pressed about the incident, Camden County Public Affairs Director Dan Keashen said that an investigation showed it to be “a good arrest.”

1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/06/16/camden-nj-...

[1] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/08/19/the-fight-to-r...

Based on that statement alone I think I can accurately conclude you are not an indigenous Australian (aboriginal).

Seems they share quiet a lot in common with native Americans from stealing of their lands/displacement, mass killings, enslavement By colonists, to ongoing racism that continues to carry on today.

If you eliminate funding for an existing police department, firing all of the employees, and divide all of its functions, including dealing with violent criminals, and performing investigations, up among other departments (both existing and new), isn't "defund" accurate? That's the most extreme position on the spectrum along which police reform plans lie. "Defund police" is a pithy catchphrase, an opening position for negotiations. I don't think the language is what needs "correcting". It's important to educate oneself on the issues instead of assuming the worst about anyone you disagree with.

I believe strongly these are more valuable than non-black corporate anti-racist consultants...

When several city depts don't seem to feel like they have to take orders from elected government, drastic measures start looking more reasonable.

Specifically to quote your post: "toy preferences reflect hormonally influenced behavioral and..."

At what point will you be convinced that you need to start over? Because removing corruption is like removing an invasive species: you don't solve it by taking a half-assed attempt with trimming and call it a day.

A more apt analogy may be a marathon where there are bystanders who latch on to half of the runners and keep telling them, "you cannot make it, you need us to help you, the race is unfair".

You want to broaden the topic but by doing so, you're erasing all nuance and approaches for solving a problem.

Well, it's not. In living memory:

>The wealth of black Americans was halved by the 2008 financial crisis, in part because of predatory lending practices which specifically targeted them by race and misrepresented their creditworthiness

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2015/01/24/t...

>A million black farming families essentially had their wealth-producing land stolen from them: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/09/this-la...

https://www.revealnews.org/episodes/losing-ground/

>Multiple black activists pushing for more advantageous policy have been imprisoned and assassinated, with allegedly some incidents as recent as the last few years.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Martin_Luth....

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hampton

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE#1985_bombing

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/puzzling-number-men-tie...

>Black students have become subject to levels of segregation - and associated disparities in educational quality - at levels rivalling those of pre-Brown v Board America

https://www.propublica.org/article/segregation-now-full-text

https://projects.propublica.org/miseducation

>Because many black workers were exempt from the initial impementation of Social Security and the GI Bill, their children (Silent Gen and Baby Boomers, currently in the process of passing on their inheritances) and grandchildren (Gen X and Millennials) are suffering the consequences in lost wealth-building opportunities

>Countless black Americans have suffered from poor healthcare based on apathy and stereotypes

https://features.propublica.org/diabetes-amputations/black-a...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/20/black-american...

https://www.heart.org/en/news/2019/02/20/why-are-black-women...

>Black Americans have watched a completely different and profoundly more compassionate response to the white people affected by the opioid epidemic than they experienced in the crack/cocaine epidemic

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/08/crack-h...

https://thewitnessbcc.com/crack-epidemic-opioid-crisis-race-...

>Marijuana, long a a drug whose sale and use was the pretext for the overpolicing of black communities, and which provided off-the-record income for many marginalized from the mainstream economy, was legalized in several states, under schemes that made sure that the overwhelming majority of those who profited were white.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/02/22/marijuana-...

https://qz.com/1194143/even-after-legalization-black-america...

https://psmag.com/economics/the-green-rush-is-too-white-hood...

>Historical atrocities were buried until after those afflicted were unable to see justice in their lifetimes

https://tulsa.okstate.edu/news/shedding-light-local-history-...

And, of course, bare-naked discrimination exists across aspects of American life, including employment, compensation, educational opportunity, freedom of movement, criminal justice, real estate, and on and on and on. When these and many more injustices were not directly impactful, they served as poignant examples of the extreme apathy, if not antipathy, American society has had for black Americans. On top of it all, black Americans still live under the specter of police departments nationwide, which have been allegedly infiltrated by white supremacist organizations, and which assuredly indoctrinate officers with racist training and policy, and root out anti-racist individuals.

I'll leave you with

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/05/29/...

a response to Ta-Nehisi Coates' seminal work, The Case For Reparations (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-cas...), which reopened the intellectual debate on racial justice with a focus on the subject above: racial injustice affecting living black Americans, however rooted it may be in the events of 50-60-70-150 years ago.

FWIW, I think reading it would help some people understand.

If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union...

Lincoln freed the slaves because it was expedient to do so. But it was a great act and certainly the right thing to do.

You were taught to be cognizant of racism because our country was a racial caste system for hundreds of years. Moreover, Jim Crow was less than a lifetime ago, racial redlining was legal as recently as the 1970's, and the crack-cocaine sentencing disparity existed as recently as 2010. Race is at the center of America because America put it at its center, time and time again.

Everyone just hang out more with people "different" from you and recognize we're all part of the human race.

I've heard this before and don't understand it.

Why should talking about racial issues make people feel like they're being accused of something? I am a man. I have not be catcalled or threatened for rejecting someone's advances. I can't recall any prominent examples of witnessing a woman being threatened for rejecting a man's advances. But when a woman tells me that it happens to her, I don't feel guilty. So I don't understand how someone telling you about their experience leads to feeling like being accused or blamed for something you did not do.

If you internally take a guess which is the CEO based on race, it may or may not be racist but it generally isn't harmful. If you make it clear that you guessed that? (as opposed to keeping your guess to yourself) That's harmful as well as just stupid.

I really do get tired of dealing with this as a self taught white software developer. People have an expectation of how things should work and when that expectation is shattered or when it puts their reputation in question everything there after becomes defensive or a straw man. This is so prevalent and frustrating that I prefer to write software only as a hobby, discuss software in exceedingly delicate terms, and often desire to hide from it all by returning to the military (military is a part-time secondary employer for me). After a certain point this defensiveness and insecurity defines everything about the work.

As an example try to mention you are writing some fantastic new application that executes in the browser. The very first question, always, is what framework does it use. If the answer is none people have already stopped listening or begin attacking either your credibility or the capabilities of the application. So I have had to learn to tip toe around these sorts of conversations but it completely ignores the problem/solution aspect of the software which should be the center of conversation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microaggression

Further explanation:

https://newdiscourses.com/2020/06/intellectual-fraud-robin-d...

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/12/why-third-...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/jonathan-haidt-on-the-cultural-...

https://unherd.com/2020/01/modern-politics-is-christianity-w...

http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html

Also, I would think that the person that claims discrimination would have the burden of proof.

20 years ago its easy to see how the vote would have ended up, but now with tons of cell phone footage and large scale protests its interesting to see which side people will land on now.

There is nothing racist about confusing two people for each other based on them having the same skin tone. A two year old child might do it. This should be enough proof for anyone that the cause is not racism but the brain's pattern recognition system failing.

Accusing someone of racism used to be a serious charge. Now its used by many against anyone who makes any misstep where race is involved. This is diluting the charge the point of meaninglessness which provides cover for actual racism. It also repels people who see through it.

If someone mistakes two blonde people for each other, no reasonable person accuses that person of being bigoted against blondes on that basis. Their brain simply lumped those two people together using an inaccurate heuristic.

A black person without much exposure to asians might have trouble telling asians apart. A white person without much exposure to black people might make the same mistake.

In neither case is there even a hint of racism. Ignorance is not racism. It's perfectly okay not to have exposure to people of any race. Not living in a "melting pot" does not make someone a bad person.

It's also perfectly okay to have a brain that isn't great at distinguishing between people. This is just how human brains are and is nothing to be ashamed of. It is not grounds for guilt. And it's not grounds to accuse anyone of something as serious as racism.

Yes it’s an embarrassing. But to me, it’s like when meeting someone and you reach to shake their hand using your right hand out of habit but you don’t realize their right hand is full thus creating a awkward handshake interaction (especially if they don’t quickly offer a twisted left and laugh it off).

I’d prefer to focus on the problem (underrepresented black CEOs) instead of a symptom (subconscious “racism”).

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/08/crack-h....

https://thewitnessbcc.com/crack-epidemic-opioid-crisis-race-....

Great post and you brought up a few things I hadn't considered. Just curious about this one though. America in general has gradually shifted towards a view that drug addicts are sick people that need help. The shift was already taking place before opioids and methamphetamine addiction reached epidemic levels. How much of an impact do you think systemic racism had on the response to the opioid epidemic and how much can just be attributed to the fact that we have gotten smarter about drug addiction in general?

I'm not super educated on the opioid epidemic, but is there evidence that even now the resources allocated for a response are being distributed unfairly?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23470187

https://twitter.com/jduffyrice/status/1270380991178321921.

But it seems racism in the US has a lot of deeper cultural implications so they came up with anti-racism. Australia needs to figure out what equality means to us and make our own cultural changes. Not copy the US.

So, you think that only people who do not believe in discrimination will vote "no"?

Person A has illiberal views on race but is very good at recognizing black people's faces.

Person B has liberal views on race but is very bad at recognizing black people's faces.

From your point of view: Person A is not apparently racist and person B is a confirmed racist!

This is a good example of how mistaken the illiberal left has become on these issues.

Everybody is a product of the past. Hell, Anglo-Saxon’s are still worse off then Normans in the UK 1000 year after William the Conqueror.

There are people who never lived under communism who have to deal with the stain and prejudice of being an Ossi in modern Germany.

Why do right-leaning libertarians always have to pretend they're being contrarians?

It would be clearer to just say something like "if you're interested in a conservative take on this issue, check out Thomas Sowell."

> This narrative may be appealing to its target audience, but it doesn’t seem to offer much to anyone else. At least, that’s my interpretation, and perhaps DiAngelo will be grateful to hear it. After all, I am what she would call a person of color, and whatever I write surely counts as “feedback.” Maybe that means she is, indeed, doing well.

I found this book review [1] to be spot-on with my reading of the DiAngelo book, and this is also where I learned of the above estimate from the Washington Post.

> As a business journalist, however, I’ve chronicled the slow progress people of color have made in the corporate world, even as companies spend, by one measure, more than $8 billion a year on diversity initiatives.

[0]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/despite-spending-bill...

[1]: https://newrepublic.com/article/156032/diversity-training-is...

I am particularly attracted to Kendi's point of view because I am coming from an academic background in which there are people who love to theorize and self-flagellate about sexism and racism and then dump all the service commitments and big first-year classes on women and faculty of color. "Oh, we need you to be a role model to these 450 freshmen; I'll sacrifice myself and teach this graduate class to my six graduate students instead." Academics are wonderful at knowing the right words to say, and just as shitty as anyone else when it comes to actual equity. Kendi has it right: from the article, “We have been taught that ignorance and hate lead to racist ideas, lead to racist policies,” Kendi said. “If the fundamental problem is ignorance and hate, then your solutions are going to be focused on education, and love and persuasion. But of course [Stamped from the Beginning] shows that the actual foundation of racism is not ignorance and hate, but self-interest, particularly economic and political and cultural.” This quite closely mirrors the actual phenomena I see in academia and industry.

contrarian =/ smart. Sometimes you are objecting for the sake of objecting.

Just a coincidence that this shift happened as more white people started suffering from such addictions?

Honestly to make such a post, one would have disregard network effects and intergenerational wealth transfer to a malicious level.

Sanitizing discussions of race is something people have always done when it comes to Afrian-Americans. Notice the progression goes from African-Americans -> Systematic Inequality of Treatment -> Systematic Violations of Basic Human Rights -> Everybody. The intersection between race and power in this country is textbook White Fragility, so the go-to move is to "All-Lives-Matter" it

>Gender differences in toy choice exist and appear to be the product of both innate and social forces.

Gender seems to make some sort of difference but social factors also seem to make a difference. There is no claim to which is stronger, just that there is a difference. Taking this a step further I hypothesize that social forces could be enough to meaningfully change the gender difference.

Hiring more black people, funding more black people, buying from black owned businesses, providing education opportunities to black people, making police accountable for how they treat black people, are all ways we can help black people.

The only thing that "making white people uncomfortable" accomplishes is making more money for white women like Robin DiAngelo selling their books and consulting services.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defund_the_police#Public_opini...

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/64-americans-oppose-defund-p...

The term is, somewhat ironically, often applied in a reductionist manner.

No the "go-to move" is to refuse to realize that we as a society have been trying to "fix" racism for decades now (arguably centuries), and it's not helping. The very people all the landmark civil rights laws and court decisions were supposed to help are worse off now than they were in the 1960s when those laws were passed.

So instead of continuing to do this not-working thing, maybe we should ask whether the root problem is something else, and work on fixing that instead.

Why would that help? Did you start the meme?

> isn't "defund" accurate?

Yes. That's the whole point. "defund the police" is wildly unpopular, so people have started to change the very meaning of those words so the other people won't hate them quite so much. It's not working.

> an opening position for negotiations

I can't tell if you actually believe that or if you're arguing in bad faith now. Nobody believes the people saying "defund the police" aren't extreme and serious. Killing people and burning down their homes and businesses is not the beginning point of a negotiation. It's a hostage taker's demand.

You're looking at it backwards. The inequality black people face is systematic inequality. (I would argue that it's actually as much based on culture and poverty as on race.) But you can't fix it by focusing on the racial aspect of it. You have to focus on the systematic aspect, because that's the root problem.

> You want to broaden the topic but by doing so, you're erasing all nuance and approaches for solving a problem.

We've been trying "all nuance and approaches" based on the racial aspect for decades, if not longer, and it hasn't helped. The systematic problems, if anything, are worse now than they were in the 1960s when the landmark civil rights laws were passed. If those laws, plus the huge structure of regulations, affirmative action, and so on that has grown up around them, hasn't fixed the problem in more than half a century, maybe it's time to consider the possibility that the root problem is something else, like the system as a whole being corrupt, and try to fix that instead.

And yeah, I think it's a potential contributing factor (one of many). Kids in many parts of the country are socialized that certain things are only for certain genders. It sucks. Let kids like whatever they want.

"In Defense of the Status Quo"

"White Silence is NOT Violence"

"A Principled Statement of Opposition to Critical Race Theory"

"Eight Big Reasons Critical Race Theory is Terrible for Dealing with Racism"

Further investigation shows the site owner, James Lindsay makes his entire living being an activist against gender studies and critical race theory. There's an extraordinary amount of resources dedicated to pushing back against the Robin Diangelo. Having heard her speak and having read at least a bit of her book, most of it is showing white people that all the things that we've tried over the past 10, 20 years are clearly not working. There's little improvement in inclusiveness in traditional white/male dominated cultures, such as the engineering teams at FAANGs for instance. Its insisting that you do something actually about it rather than patting yourself on the back for doing what you think is the right things. It takes a great amount of twisting about to ignore the main points, and all of the writers you linked have done so.

What you call the "dogma" of dealing with a racist culture I call people lived experience. Its heartbreaking to me how very conservative-minded and flat out defensive on issues of inclusion and race the HN community has been when the subject of race is allowed to be a thread.

Its also the only place in adulthood where people willingly or unwillingly must work together with people different than them and not necessarily of their choosing to reach a common goal.

I doubt your definition of "right leaning libertarian", belongs to someone who adheres to pragmatism, meritocracy, multiracialism and Asian values or communitarianism, right?

Sorry, what? "Racism" is not a word with a clear definition over time. It didn't exist at all in popular usage until the past few decades.

I think what you're trying to say is that "racism" is supposed to connote direct discrimination, like support for segregation, slavery, stuff like that. And sure, lots of people use the word that way. Most of those people are the same people who want to argue that "racism is a solved problem", so it's easy to see why this definition is attractive to mostly-male, mostly-white, mostly-conservative people.

But it's not the way a lot of other people use the word, where it connotes broader injustice in society and not just individual opinions.

Basically: you're making a senseless semantic argument. Even if you win the dictionary war about what "racism" means, you're still not responding to the actual concerns being expressed.

Back in the 1960s, yes, that was a reasonable approach, and we took it. In your coding analogy, we believed there was a specific bug and started applying patches to address it.

But we've been doing that for more than half a century now and it hasn't helped. So now maybe we should consider whether the actual bug might be something else, requiring different patches to fix.

Should be in relative terms to other aspects, like health care or should it be in absolute values?

There are places in Europe (mostly southern) where racism isn't even discouraged, still.

America draws the headlines because of it's violence, but it's progress on integration put Europe to shame. Not to say that both places have a lot of work to do, they do.

Most of society now empathizes with drug addiction because its hit white society a lot and the race of users can't be used as a political scapegoat. As long as you're white, the richer you are, the less likely you are to go to jail for it. Rehab is for rich people.

We haven't gotten smarter about drug addiction in general, which is why we have the largest prison population in the world.

> is there evidence that even now the resources allocated for a response are being distributed unfairly?

Given a huge percentage of the "response" is police and prisons, and police and prisons dramatically discriminate against people by race, yes.

P(Alcoholism|Denial of Alcoholism) = P(Denial of Alcoholism|Alcoholism) * P(Alcoholism) / P(Denial of Alcoholism)

Pop in any reasonable numbers for those terms and it becomes readily apparent that denial of alcoholism does not constitute meaningful evidence of alcoholism.

This is more or less obvious given that the top 10 grossing movies in 2019 took in ~ $13B in global ticket sales and < $2B of that went to non-US studios. (Also nuts is the percentages of 2019 global ticket sales attributable to the Avengers franchise and Disney.)

In 2017 US film industry revenues were ~$43B according to

https://deadline.com/2018/07/film-industry-revenue-2017-ibis...

If I were to meet/know/whatever 100 CEOs and 99% of them were not black and for example wore an expensive suit in a specific setting/environment, then is it racist to assume (based on my past experiences) that a particular black person wearing an expensive suit in this particular setting/environment is not the CEO? I honestly fail to see how making assumptions based on personal experiences and whatnot is racist. This is not equivalent to claiming that someone who is black cannot be the CEO, there is the possibility, most definitely. Denying this possibility based on race or skin color is what I would rather have a problem with.

This is bolder than I think you think it is. It's maybe evasive, too -- which ideas, exactly?

"I'm sorry, please excuse me for the instance of racism I just perpetrated against you, I promise it won't happen again."

There's no doubt the person in question should apologize, but what "racism" has been "perpetrated"? (A) there are and have been few black CEOs in America. (B) the guy/girl in your example does not expect a black CEO as a result. (C) Guy/girl commits extremely awkward faux pas.

Where is the racism? Where is the "inculcated idea" about race, besides an expectation based on ... there being literally very few black CEOs? I'll even grant you that (A) might be the case in part because of historical racist behavior in the US. Surely it is! It still doesn't make the guy necessarily racist. He doesn't tell us that he believes that human characteristics are determined by skin color, for example, nor does he tell the room e.g. that by golly he didn't know blacks could handle being a CEO, or that they were even allowed to do so, or some such actually racist BS.

I think the definitions of a lot of things have expanded since the childhoods of people of a certain age, and they're grappling with those changes. I certainly am. Racism doesn't seem to mean what I've long understood it to mean. Racism exists, and it ought to be fought, but I'm not sure how productive the current mood is going to be for that. I kinda hope I'm wrong, but I'd also be worried to be wrong, if people like Do Angelio are a sign of what's to come.

The tactic is to get people to actually listen so that they might agree its an actual problem and then actually do something about it.

Legalization and decriminalization of Marijuana is still a relatively recent phenomenon. It seems to me like it will eventually get legalized by the federal government. If that happens, wouldn't we expect this to get better? The right thing to do would be to release everyone that was in jailed on marijuana related charges as long as they weren't also convicted of something more serious (like violence). Maybe I'm being too optimistic.

I think a lot of Americans realize how insane it is that we jail more people than any other country. While progress is always slow, it seems like we're hearing more politicians talk about doing something about it.

That said while I haven't read the DiAngelo book the scenario I imagine for situations like this is generally not someone waking up and saying I will write something to get some money out of these people but rather I will write something about this situation, later getting offers of more and more money and then behaviorism takes control of the journey.

It is difficult to get someone to change what they're doing once they start getting paid for doing it.

This is of course all separate from whether I might agree with the book if I read it. I can still agree 100% with someone and think that their perspective is constrained by how they have begun to profit from it.

As far as I'm aware, the majority population in any country, irrespective of skin color is intolerant to various degrees toward minorities, ranging from genocide and internment camps to harassment and minor discrimination.

The US is certainly not leader of the pack, but not exactly terrible either, when one looks at the constant amount of outrage. It seems to me that a group of people in the US concerned about the topic of race in their country is projecting its distorted view of things on the planet and has furthermore chosen an approach which is doomed to fail. Good luck with that, but maybe this time the US could try to not also damage the rest of the world in the process of fighting a war on abstract nouns.

Edit:

Someone in a nuked comment said "Why on earth does one have to make a broad comparison of cultures to rank badness at racism before dealing with this instance? And are you saying 'inclusion' is quantitative or something? "

Because by doing this comparison one can check if the problem of bias is universal (yep) and ingrained (yep), therefore suggesting that focusing on black vs. white in the US is counterproductive. Instead we should do research into individual and systemic biases and see how those could be kept under control.

Punishing individuals is hilariously bad. In fact there's a direct parallel between this and safety engineering, where clueless organizations will punish an employee which made a mistake while they continue to lumber from incident to incident.

Questioning those things is basically mainstream conservative discourse. You’re questioning them right now.

It doesn't take a single prejudiced person to enact it. It's built into the laws and the systems and considered "neutral".

(Also FYI, it's not about opposing institutional bias, it's about signaling and corporate power games.)

Can you give any specific examples of these rules and laws? I assume you mean rules and laws that are actually written down.

I'm interested because while it's easy to find rules and laws that are explicitly 100% to the advantage of non-whites over whites (affirmative action, Gladue in Canada, etc), I've not been able to find any that work the other way around.

(Also worth noting "more likely to end up dead for no reason at all" isn't actually true[0]; there's no statistical evidence that cops kill blacks more than whites in comparable situations.)

[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/upshot/surprising-new-evi...

This is particularly grating when considering that white people are a very diverse group and the experience of a white male in Iran is completely different to the one of a white upper-class female in the US or a lower-income white male in the US.

The US media and social-media have infected Europe with this us-vs-them attitude and are ironically fueling racism against white people.

It's evident by "who" make these movements trend and then de-trend them. Language now is controlled by a small minority group. It's always the rich white people that it's not funny anymore.

Robin DiAngelo explicitly said "Biologically, race isn't real. But socially, race is a very real set of socialized worldviews shaped by segregation and superficial anatomical features. The white experience of both the majority and systemically powerful is one which normalizes a rejection of the existence of our own bias and enables us to ignore the existence of radically different lived experiences."

A bias towards normalizing whiteness and being blissfully ignorant of the lived experience of others is being blamed, not genetics.

Having faults and making mistakes is part of being a person that happen in life.

However, today, it’s extremely easily to only put faults under a microscope, reach an immediate determination, and then amplify that conclusion to the world.

Beyond a little embarrassment, it’s setting up living in fear of making any mistake and incentivizing avoidance. Suddenly one mistake, even a small one, could be someone’s last. Rather than breaking barriers that’s more like living with the KGB.

It would be dumb to assume this doesn’t impact managers hiring decisions, conciously or unconciously. Olds can just think of it as culture fit.

Even more, Americans assume that sexism elsewhere must be the same as sexism in America. They just seems to be completely confused about other countries having somewhat different gender stereotypes and different expectations on genders. The end result is that local sexism is combined with American version of sexism - end result is not more equality, it is less of it.

Nope. Alot of people keep attempting to change a definition that is older than any of us alive, and nope. You have to make up a new word. I don't mind "Institutional racism" or "systemic racism" so much, because they're more descriptive expressions, and lead to useful discussion, but to infantilize whole groups of people by making them incapable of a part of the human experience (to be personally racist towards people whose skin is a different color than theirs) is simply absurd.

You can identify the problem without making your language a personal attack on every individual. And attempting to accuse every individual, DOESN'T solve the problem does it? It doesn't unmake the laws. It doesn't unbuild the institutions. It doesn't drive people to talk about how laws unfairly target blacks, like the "war on drugs". But it most certainly makes enemies. It's a useless and impractical approach.

There is NO statement you can make that is true of all humans, nor even any particular "group" of humans, for whatever that means, because NO "group" of humans is remotely meaningfully homogeneous. Except for very broad strokes like "humans must breathe to live", no universal statements are true.

When transgendered Vietnamese Jane Doe got assaulted and robbed, racism and homophobia was at play

But not when it happened to Andy Ngo.

Certain animals are better than others and thus get to set the feeding time tables, ya?

https://www.thedailybeast.com/antiracism-our-flawed-new-reli...

But other places in the country have a different political bent (right). Chick-fil-A's anti-LGBT stance actually increased its sales (for a time, anyway). [1]

You can see this effect play out similarly when Trump says something that rankles the Twitters of Silicon Valley and New York, but which gets him even bigger approval ratings in the red states. All this to say - your points might feel like activism in the Bay Area, but that doesn't make the above poster's claim that it's mainstream conservative discourse false.

1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_and_LGBT_people

You've never catcalled. You've never been catcalled. You've never been threatened for rejecting someone's advances and you've never threatened when yours were rejected.

That same woman comes to you and says "All men are sexist and do not respect women, and that includes you. You are horrible. You deserve to know how I feel."

How would you respond? I would think "favorably" would not be high on your list.

THAT is the type of discourse being used about race. It is not helpful. It doesn't identify the problems. It doesn't empower people to fix them. It doesn't inspire them to. I'm truly not sure what people think they are accomplishing to be honest.

And if you really want to put a strawman for anti-white-racism up there, use some of the actually happened atrocities against white land owners in some Africna countries after de-colonisation. Obviously without the historic context, because it wouldn't work otherwise. Don't pick Iran, besides being the current boogey man for conservative circles, it really is a bad example for racism. Unless you want to go deep into the shiit-suunit conflict in the Arab World. Which would obviously totally off-topic for this thread.

> awkward faux pas

Just stop downplaying it. You are judging the "good intentions" here and ignoring the real and serious repercussions for someone who will have to go through this every day. A good intention would be to catch yourself and others perpetrating a "faux pas" and let them know that it is a serious mistake to dismiss someone because of their race.

what is so hard about treating people decently.

https://1776unites.com/featured-essays/the-1619-project-perp...

Almost no one lives in fear of organized crime like the mafia in Italy, PCC, Comando Vermelho or Terceiro Comando in Brazil, the FARC in Colombia, the Sinaloa cartel in Mexico, etc. this list is very very long.

Americans life very safe lives with relatively low crime and this is largely the result of very effective law enforcement. Is it perfect? No. But to claim it isn’t providing a service people want is pure ignorance.

Law enforcement in the US is so effective at stopping crimes that we aren’t even aware of the value they provide.

I'm surprised there are any natives left there at all, the way they have been treated.

This doesn't seem to aplly for the otherside. People like Alex Jones make a load of money representing the opposite opinion. For him, making money all of a sudden isn#t a problem anymore.

Buying some books can feel like the lower friction option.

Its literally just talking about the US here. There's no projection elsewhere - this isn't just "minority rights", this is attempting to break away from a culture of systematic oppression that half the country up until last month didn't believe was a thing!

Sowell has the advantage of being black, which makes his view closer to home than the vast majority of anti-racism activists, who seem to frequently be white people telling other white people what black people find offensive (see: comments on the GitHub master/main discussions).

Sowell also ends up on the receiving end of genuine racism, at least according to his own claims, in particular racism of the form "why are you conservative and telling black people to solve your own problems when you're black?", as if being black actually requires him to be on the left, or makes him some sort of race traitor if he isn't.

And it seems that majority of people is supporting the current protests and BLM movement.

The sex offender thing looks a lot like a straw man argument, so. When I think about racists, yes KK Nazis and so on come to mind. But more often I think about the daily, systematic racism white folks show towars people of colour, migrants, other religions. More often than not accompanied by discriminating women and the LGBTQ community.

And there seem to be quite a lot of people willing to implement said solutions.

Iirc, in the UK, around half of victims of race hate crimes are white.

This is exactly what's happening these days as white people are all put into one bucket and blamed for all the injustice in the US.

Iran is a good example. Turkey too or any country that has a different religion/political system but where a part of the population is in fact "white".

Mexico's another good example.

I am white for most people aside from some racists. The real ones that think skin color to be indicative of quality.

If that comment makes you feel anything, it was probably directed at you.

For them it seems to be pretty important to enter a room in hierarchic order. That means the boss goes first followed by rank of employees. It was hilarious to see them fall over their feet to adhere to these rules.

If you had a meeting they always came into the room in the same order. I invited them in after the first employees arrived but they insisted on waiting for their colleagues. After the gang had assembled, they entered in the predicted order.

If you visited another place, you should give them some room to reorder themselves. Otherwise it seems chaos ensues.

Any concrete evidence of this? How was that conclusion derived?

The US is an immigration society where many white people from countries which weren't involved in US slavery and now they're all painted with the same brush. It's not reasonable for someone from say Russia to be attacked for the deeds of American slave drivers hundreds of years ago. And as far as I know white immigrants were strongly discriminated against in the US in the past two centuries.

Well yes, if stereotypes or discrimination play any role it at all in career selection, it rules out the possibility that the highly variable ratio of male to female computer scientists is determined solely by biology. This strikes me as a much stronger claim requiring much stronger proof than a statement to the effect that [the well-established existence of] stereotypes is amongst the driving factors in career selection; particularly given that the ratio of male to female computer scientists varies hugely by place and time in ways which would be very difficult to attribute solely to biology.

Many parents of black children tell them to be wary of police. Police sees more crime in these areas and we have a self reinforcing problem of distrust. Additionally there are clueless white people talking about being their personal savior.

"People are recommending a book by an author." Fixed that for you.

I'll give you the BLM, that's an instance of necessary discrimination. The rest ... if the authors advice is wrong, criticise it, if the book or person does something bad, criticise it. Don't just pick out the skin colour of the author, or of someone recommending the book, and use that as a reason why it's bad. That's racist.

[Please note I haven't read the book, and do not know the author, and am categorically not promoting either.]

It means your behaviour is informed by racial profiling of an individual.

It means that you're not treating someone as an individual, but rather based on membership of a racial group he happens to be born in, which has statistical characteristics (e.g. lower chance of being a CEO) that do not necessarily have any bearing on the individual at all.

We define treating people distinctly like that because of their racial membership, as racist. That's really just the definition. You can have a discussion about whether you think racism is justified or not, and make your own value judgement. You could say that even if membership of a group does not necessarily say something, odds are that it can be a good way to infer things. And that's true, group-membership (e.g. your ethnicity) has many useful correlations from which to infer things. But to say it's not racist simply isn't factual, it is racist according to how we define it. What's left open for discussion is whether racism is okay or not.

Of course as a society we have indeed had that discussion and fortunately decided that racism isn't justified, not okay, and should be prevented as much as possible. I'm happy about that. Because even if group membership (e.g. race, ethnicity, gender, sexual preference, religion etc) has correlations with all kinds of outcomes we may wish to approximate, as a society we agree that it is only fair to judge people on their individual merits, and not on the group that they belong to.

- Percentage of adults affected by hate crime by ethnicity 2015/16 to 2017/18: White 0.1, Mixed 0.5, Asian 1.1, Black/African/Caribean/Black British 0.6 and other 1.0

- Same, by religion: Chistian 0.1, Buddhist 0.1, Hindu 0.7, Muslim 1.5, other 0.5, none 0.1

All adults: 0.2

Conclusion: White christian are by any number underaffected by hate crime in the UK

Additonal numbers form London's MOPAC for victims of racist hate cimes in the 12 months up to June 2017: 56% male, 30% black, Asian 25%, White-North European 25%. Obviously, percentages cannot be summed up here. Again, whites are underaffected. perosnal view: Numbers in London might be higher than elsewhere for whites, I don't have a source for that, so.

Anyway, both numbers are an order of magnitude away from the 50% you mentioned.

Which country are you in? Have you checked that statistic or did you assume it?

1. We make judgements on “group membership” all the time, and to the extent they’re correlated to the outcome (i.e. true) that’s not wrong or -ist. Example would be, do you avoid stepping in front of a car because you infer that the car might run you over, or do you just take your chances and hope that this individual car will stop. Ok, contrived example. How about this: people generally accept that men are more dangerous than women (e.g. when it comes to rape, stranger danger, domestic violence, courts, jails, ...) even though the vast majority of men aren’t violent at all! Is this sexist? Yes, to some extent, in particular when the state does that (e.g. always arresting men in case of domestic violence call). But at the same time, that kind of “prejudice” might just save your life; how wrong can that be?

2. Even if there’s no correlation to the outcome, not every inference is -ist. Example I mentioned downthread is, assuming that “Alex” is a man. Is that really wrong?

3. Which brings me to, you write that “treating people distinctly” is -ist. But what is treating? Again, people make inferences (that’s literally what intelligence is, short-term prediction engine). Sometimes that’s even embedded in the language (e.g. in Slovenian, you have to assume gender, unlike in English). But as long as we remain open to change, that’s fine! If the woman tells me that actually she’s “Alex”, the only actually sexists way would be if I refused to call her by her (masculine-ish) name.

TL;DR: if everything is racist, then racism cannot be immoral.

That group is perhaps ironically the most racial diverse group one could conceive.