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

For me, the discussion of your action here confirms, even more strongly, that not only is the bias real, but also it is sometimes completely opaque to people who hold that bias.

Thanks for unflagging it, otherwise I would have missed it I'm sure.

The problem is that everyone has his own personal experiences. In my surroundings I've seen black women get funding where white men did not. I've seen minorities preferred in hiring.

The world has changed drastically in the last five years. It is white men who feel silenced in the tech industry, by HR, the press, CEOs and activists.

So the article can be true of course, but it aligns less and less with what we see in the field.

I don't believe the data aligns with your anecdotes. While you may feel that is the experience today, I would be surprised if it represented the wider system as a whole.

I see it differently, I recognize that my personal experiences are not in any way indicative of everyone's experiences, and so when I talk to others I try to hear their experiences in similar situations. That helps me understand or at least appreciate the variability in the system.

My earliest experience with this was seeing the difference in how people with college degrees from "good schools", "no-name schools", and "technical college" were treated during hiring at all of the companies where a third party put into place hiring policies.

Each of those people has their own "personal experience" about how easy or hard it is to find a job in the bay area. And those personal experiences are very different than mine.

Why do you think your “personal experience” negates data?

> The problem is that everyone has his own personal experiences.

Everyone has their own personal experience, that's just an unremarkable fact, not a _problem_.

> It is white men who feel silenced in the tech industry, by HR, the press, CEOs and activists.

How are you so sure your observation is specific to white men?

His anecdotes is a way of putting what he's saying down. If it was a minority person saying something about their experiences that you didn't agree with, would you refer to them as their anecdotes?

It's strange for mlpgx from talking about how everyone's experience is unique to declaring a universal silencing of all white men (for all white men, some of whom I'm sure wouldn't agree) based on "what we see in the field."

Who is "we", even?

What you are asking is a diversion -- he's not a minority, he's part of the dominant social group (at least from my reading). I'm not saying his experiences didn't happen, I'm saying they contradict the wider view. It has nothing to do with whether I agree or not -- his feelings are absolutely his feelings, likewise his experiences. They just aren't representative of the wider whole.

Post a strawpoll, see the data, otherwise nobody will believe you.

You didn't answer my question, I notice. Perhaps he's a person who has been or felt he has been, hard done by? Is he not allowed to voice "his truth"?

> You didn't answer my question, I notice.

Correct. It was a bad faith strawman question (I called it diversive above).

> Is he not allowed to voice "his truth"

I then immediately said he's free to voice his experiences.

Maybe you are trying to engage in good faith, if so, you should know it reads as concern trolling.

I'm not going to say what you write, reads as. Suffice it to say that I imagine you don't receive the adulation you feel you deserve.