←back to thread

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

(www.bloomberg.com)
677 points saeedjabbar | 6 comments | 16 Jun 20 15:19 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
hn_throwaway_99 ◴[16 Jun 20 21:01 UTC] No.23544053[source]▶
I thought this was a great article. One of the most interesting things to me was how the embarrassment/defensiveness of the white people involved was one of the biggest blocks to the black CEOs in their advancement, e.g. the VCs who "just wanted to get the hell out of there" after mistaking a white subordinate for the CEO.

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.

replies(22): >>23544136 #>>23544188 #>>23544280 #>>23544344 #>>23544345 #>>23544384 #>>23544423 #>>23544456 #>>23544643 #>>23544857 #>>23545414 #>>23545975 #>>23546597 #>>23546614 #>>23546741 #>>23546766 #>>23546819 #>>23547024 #>>23547096 #>>23547756 #>>23548377 #>>23549659 #
GaryNumanVevo ◴[16 Jun 20 21:22 UTC] No.23544345[source]▶
I'm skeptical about Robin Diangelo, I read her book a few months ago, and it only seems to be an advertisement for her services as an anti-racist instructor. Her entire argument frames race relations within the context of the workplace which is problematic because her approach is coercive, not educational. It's more a guide on "how not to get fired for being racist" than anything. There are much better books for foundational education about race.

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.

replies(11): >>23544457 #>>23545054 #>>23545111 #>>23545141 #>>23546105 #>>23546205 #>>23546703 #>>23547183 #>>23547581 #>>23548755 #>>23549491 #
Reedx ◴[17 Jun 20 01:34 UTC] No.23546703[source]▶
Your skepticism is well warranted. Unfalsifiable theory, dogma you can't question, purity tests, good vs evil, original sin, heresy, excommunication, self-flagellation and so on... It's a religion and Kafkatrap, but not yet widely recognized as such.

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

replies(5): >>23546833 #>>23547317 #>>23547473 #>>23547559 #>>23549242 #
avs733 ◴[17 Jun 20 01:54 UTC] No.23546833[source]▶
I find it interesting you choose the word 'explanation' as opposed to 'counter argument'
replies(1): >>23550179 #
DagAgren ◴[17 Jun 20 11:31 UTC] No.23550179[source]▶
He also chose the word "kafkatrap", a word coined by a notorious racist.
replies(3): >>23550326 #>>23552424 #>>23553351 #
textgel ◴[17 Jun 20 11:54 UTC] No.23550326[source]▶
Using a kafkatrap against an opponent you can't beat in debate when they have just pointed out the tactic is probably ill advised; perhaps try something else; Ad hominem or motte and bailey for example.
replies(1): >>23550802 #
DagAgren ◴[17 Jun 20 12:57 UTC] No.23550802[source]▶
"Kafkatrap" is a meaningless term, beyond "stop calling me a racist just for saying racist things".

Acting like it's an accepted logical fallacy is ridiculous. It's a term ESR made up because people kept rightly calling him a sexist and racist and he didn't like it and threw a tantrum.

replies(1): >>23551328 #
textgel ◴[17 Jun 20 13:49 UTC] No.23551328[source]▶
Well lets see... oh that's odd, that meaningless term appears to have a real meaning https://debate.fandom.com/wiki/Kafka_Trap . Now why would you be willing to lie about that?

Seems it's a perfectly accepted logical fallacy; and the only people who deny it are the sjw crowd largely because it is such a favoured tactic within their ranks.

replies(1): >>23551357 #
DagAgren ◴[17 Jun 20 13:52 UTC] No.23551357[source]▶
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/kafkatrap?s=t

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kafkatrap

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/spellcheck/english/?q=kafka...

replies(1): >>23551704 #
textgel ◴[17 Jun 20 14:20 UTC] No.23551704[source]▶
Yes those are dictionary's for definitions of words not a repository of debate tactics; if you'd checked you'd also notice that there's no entry for "motte and bailey falacy", "Appeal to Ignorance" or "appeal to authority"; funnily enough it doesnt prevent those existing either.
replies(1): >>23551891 #
DagAgren ◴[17 Jun 20 14:33 UTC] No.23551891[source]▶
https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/academic_writing/...

Still not seeing it.

replies(1): >>23552019 #
textgel ◴[17 Jun 20 14:43 UTC] No.23552019[source]▶
Well yes if you purely limit yourself to a single college of liberal arts list of definitions then you won't, however search engines are your friend https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

And desperately clinging to any page-not-found of whatever website you can find to display it isn't exactly the most secure display of debate.

replies(1): >>23552058 #
1. DagAgren ◴[17 Jun 20 14:46 UTC] No.23552058[source]▶
Ah yes, Wikipedia, with one source form a libertarian propaganda rag. Very reputable.

Nobody but libertarians looking for excuses for racism use that term, deal with it.

replies(1): >>23552262 #
2. textgel ◴[17 Jun 20 15:03 UTC] No.23552262[source]▶
And at last you've taken my advice

> Using a kafkatrap against an opponent you can't beat in debate when they have just pointed out the tactic is probably ill advised; perhaps try something else; Ad hominem or motte and bailey for example.

Allow my to quote from one your trusted sources: https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/academic_writing/...

> Ad hominem: This is an attack on the character of a person rather than his or her opinions or arguments.

replies(1): >>23552281 #
3. DagAgren ◴[17 Jun 20 15:05 UTC] No.23552281[source]▶
Feel free to provide me wrong by showing a non-libertarian source that takes this term seriously.
replies(1): >>23552465 #
4. textgel ◴[17 Jun 20 15:19 UTC] No.23552465{3}[source]▶
Appeal to authority (points for variety at least) is a logical fallacy that I literally pointed out earlier.
replies(1): >>23553076 #
5. DagAgren ◴[17 Jun 20 16:12 UTC] No.23553076{4}[source]▶
You really don't understand how logical fallacies work at all, do you.
replies(1): >>23553599 #
6. textgel ◴[17 Jun 20 16:51 UTC] No.23553599{5}[source]▶
Well I must admit I haven't had as much practice at them as you have.