[generalizations]

It seems like what you're saying is entirely possible. However, where I disagree is that you seem to expect us to simply "face the truth" that the discrimination exists; you're deploring the existence of alternate possibilities!

> Some even venture into the possibility that a black person complaining about being passed over for promotion might just not be good enough for the job and then just blame discrimination rather than facing the truth (pure gaslighting). [emphasis mine]

Let's consider the possibility, but please don't expect us to just accept it's true. And please don't expect us not to consider other possible alternatives.

[aparsons]

This is the problem posed by “SJW” entities in a nutshell. Of course racism exists, and AAs have been one of the big targets for decades.

But even considering another alternative explanation to something related to discrimination gets you on the list of racists/deserving-of-cancellation/etc. There is always room for debate, especially in a case like this where information is sparse. Forcibly shutting down anyone who wants to exercise their thinking is just socially acceptable censorship.

[aspaceman]

But no one is being forcibly shut down here.

The debate is happening. It occurs. But then someone makes a comment like above: “is all this debate really necessary?” and the response is “this is censorship”.

I would agree that some viewpoints are silenced in public contexts. But insofar as this conversation, I don’t see anyone being cancelled or shut down for an opinion. That just seems like a defensive reaction to me.

[xvector]

> But no one is being forcibly shut down here

But they are. If you are skeptical of the claims in the article, then apparently you have taken a “depressing” (incorrect/intolerant) stance.

[enumjorge]

Describing a stance as “depressing” seems like a ridiculously low bar for something to count as a forcible shut down.

[heavyset_go]

Sounds like you're upset that people are allowed to have opinions about your opinions, which would be pretty ironic.

[JacobSuperslav]

people get very defensive when others say their opinion isn't valid.

[arolihas]

That’s not what being forcibly shut down means. Somebody disagreeing with you isn’t oppression.

[RestlessMind]

> But insofar as this conversation, I don’t see anyone being cancelled or shut down for an opinion

Because this conversation allows me to be anonymous. I simply don't dare expressing my thoughts with my real identity attached. Who knows whether I will get cancelled or fired.

The people working on suppression of certain viewpoints have hurt themselves in the long run. Now I am seeing candid discussions happening only in small trusted circles or on anonymous forums. That can be another reason why we saw embarrassing polling errors in 2016/2020 - openly supporting Trump can be a very risky move for someone.

[tptacek]

Could you show me this list of racists you're referring to, with regards to this HN thread and the dangers of disputing the racism of Coinbase's management?

[baryphonic]

This is an odd sort of response. Shouldn't the people claiming that HN is chock full of racism be the ones enumerating exactly which users are engaging in racism and exactly what behaviors they're doing that promote racism? All I see are exceedingly vague accusations, most of which seem to operate from particularly uncharitable assumptions that equate any disagreement as another manifestation of racism.

Ironically, this is not dissimilar to how Zed Shaw treated you. We could either have just believed his accusation that you defamed him, or we could ask for evidence. (My interpretation is that you were making a sarcastic joke at Shaw's expense, mostly because of his extremely opinionated personality, and not making some sort of serious evaluation of his work. And, besides, literally speaking, what you said is probably true.)

If people want to argue that instances of racist behavior exist (at Coinbase, on HN or elsewhere within and outside the industry), few are going argue. The problem is that anecdotal instances do not imply systemic issues unless there is evidence of systemic issues themselves. When the most common response to "show me your evidence of systemic racism" is "you're a racist," then don't be surprised when some of us conclude that the issue is largely overhyped nonsense.

[spamizbad]

I think the point here is “you can’t say certain things or you get put on a no-hire list” is nothing more than a boogieman for adults.

Lists that usually do exist in private tend to be ones like “Don’t work for X company/person” which have a plethora of motivations that may or may not have anything to do with discriminatory behavior. But these are circulated and composed by people at the bottom rather then the top so nobody gets fired: the biggest risk here is you lose out on talent.