undefined | Better HN

0 pointsleereeves3y ago0 comments

There's an important difference: he knows what happened to him. You have no idea. So unless you have some conflicting evidence, the reasonable thing to do is listen to him about his own experience.

Or to put it another way: his own testimony is a form of evidence.

Whereas this entire diversion, starting from your comment, has added no new information. I think we should stop now.

0 comments

lamontcg3y ago

You're actually allowed to have skepticism about someone else's personal claims, offered decades after the fact, without any corroborating external facts.

leereevesOP3y ago

What's the basis of your skepticism here? Is it rooted in fact, or in bias?

random3143y ago

Its rooted in the fact that this behavior is illegal and managers are explicitly trained to not make any such communication.

1 more reply

dragonwriter3y ago

> You have no idea

Exactly my point in regard to the upthread question:

“Is it now well known that Dilbert exists solely because Scott Adams was told - as a young executive - that he would not be promoted further because he is a white male?”

I have no idea if that occurred or if it is why Dilbert exists, though I certainly know that is part of the story that Adams tells about it.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse