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

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

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.

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."

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...

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

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

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

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

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...

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.

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

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

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

That is my point. People were having a discussion with content and you dropped into a stock political response.

Leave your baggage out of it with your claim that people espouse anti-racism for the money, your shots at high tax countries and your need to link to political dogma.

I get that it's free karma on HN, but it lowers the quality of the discussion.

... very cautiously, very anonymously.

But it's disingenuous to believe that activists 1) will not see what "obsess" them everywhere (that's a common psychological bias) and 2) will not try to make their cause as important as they can by inflating the numbers.

Well-off white women from elite colleges run the diversity-and-sensitivity racket like the 17th-century Dutch ran the tulip racket, like the De Beers cartel used to run diamonds. They’re is getting paid.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/06/the-revolution-comfor...