Visible Minority men here chiming in; I find this type of perspective (and the lack of empathy that underlines it) kinda saddening. Most of the argument you are saying are the same we used to make to other minority, "No i didn't mean all of them", "Understand the context in which i make a wide generalization etc..."

> assumed the speaker meant... I am guessing you are not an old person being subject to ageism...

> Context matters a lot

Yes it does, the context in which the statement is made, the person who made it and the context in which the statement is receive. Asking us to only consider on side of the communication ,and making excuse because in certain context the statement is not offensive doesn't seem fair to me.

> such quotes are usually said in reference to a company's leadership team, and there's quite a bit of truth to them

There is truth in any stereotype, that's why they exist. The usual issue is that they are alienating and non inclusive to some people.

> it's overwhelmingly middle-aged/old white men

And the prisons in America are filled with poeple who look like me, should i be okay with generalization on me about that. One thing that it seems that most leftist like me forget is that most CEOs are white , but most white are not CEOs...

> I would consider that just as problematic as the age-discrimination that the article was referring to.

Yes and the first step is adopt an inclusive language, and not make excuse we wouldn't accept on any other protected classes. The fight for diversity is won we get everybody on board. When we start to have a hierarchy of protected classes, some classes where it's kind of okay to discriminate against because X,Y,Z reasons then it starts to look like the exact opposite of what we are trying to achieve

And i guess the most interesting thing is the amount the mental gymnastic we have to do to find this statement okay, instead of just taking the most plausible explanation... It simply reflect the latent ageism in our industry, and the fact that it is still okay to be ageist so long as it's directed at white men...

It's certainly not ok to discriminate on the basis of age/gender/race, regardless of whether the victim is old/white/male or young/black/female. And that's exactly why I think it's problematic that the vast majority of fortune-500 executives are oldish/white/men. It hints at the discrimination faced by other demographics when they try to pursue executive roles.

If someone could demonstrate convincingly that executive roles are being awarded out in a purely meritocratic manner, then demographic-imbalances might be excusable. But let's be honest - executive roles at mega-corps are almost always handed out on the basis of personal relationships and perceptions. I strongly suspect that in a purely meritocratic system, we would see far more diversity in the executive ranks.

It's also curious to see the extent to which many commenters are willing to accept the premise that old/white/men are being discriminated against in some roles, but not the premise that other demographics are being discriminated against in other roles. Is the evidence for the former really all that stronger than the evidence for the latter?

So to sum up what you're saying, you're a hypocrite and no matter what anybody says showing you how much of a hypocrite you are, you're just going to dig in. Got it.

As a 46 year old, 25 year tech veteran, white dude, holding C-positions numerous times, I think what it indicates is that the first hire of certain kinds of positions aren't likely to go to people like me anymore. It closes doors all around, to people of a given demographic.

These things swing to extremes, but harm will come to some. There are still good candidates out there with mortgages, families, etc.

I'm self-employed now and don't expect to ever put myself into someone else's employ (that's my tip to everyone else in the 40+ camp... entrepreneurialism isn't a groovy lifestyle choice, it's the offensive measure to secure your future --- business startup and continuity risks notwithstanding), but the "we need diversity" bell is now mine to ring. That said, I used to dream of creating a startup, building a team, growing a business --- now the dream is zero employees. It's me and my (life) partner, and we won't take on employees if we can help it.

Most Fortune 500 companies were founded by white men -> Most CEOs of Fortune 500 companies are white men.

Is that problematic?

Tax system already penalizes those who are producing wealth in order to subsidize those who are consuming it.

Society vs Anarchy. If you'd like to try an experiment where there is no government and nobody pays taxes, then we'll see how long it takes most of the CEOs to either get killed or to submit to a different CEO feudal lord. The battles to determine who will be King will be quite bloody. Alternatively, we could agree to have a society, in which everyone reaps the benefits. To make that happen we will need taxes. I'm all for libertarianism, but if you want a little fantasy called "Libertarian minimal government, but oh, no, wait, of course I want a police force to enforce property rights so I can keep my millions of dollars worth of stuff", well then suddenly you aren't really against taxes are you? You just want only the benefits that help you.

Except most of the services that are truly useful and needed, like Police, Firefighters, most roads, schools, are actually taxed and handled at the local level.

I dont think most Libertarians want 0 government, but I believe most government is best served locally where people can actually have influence and oversight.

Alternately, the tax system "penalizes" those who lack wealth by advantaging those who make money by owning capital. Pretending like a pre-existing, often un-earned economic advantage implies some sort of inherent moral or economic superiority is an almost laughably privilege-blind perspective.

The latter was a quote[0] from Thomas Sowell[1], who lacks neither qualifications (Being an Ivy League economics professor), nor privilege-blindness (Black man born in 1930).

[0]https://twitter.com/ThomasSowell/status/943248573222850560

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell

"often un-earned economic advantage implies some sort of inherent moral or economic superiority is an almost laughably privilege-blind perspective."

Using your logic (only related to this portion of your post, because as you stated money, does in fact, beget money), one should not work hard for one's progeny to have an inheritance? Should estate law just be modified and have all assets of a dead person go to the state?

Well, yes?

Inheritance is deeply ingrained in most cultures that I know of (so, western first-world cultures), but it had never made sense to me. Inheritance is pure unfairness.

And people far more versed in the economic arcanes than I am have the same opinion: see Karl Marx

> Should estate law just be modified and have all assets of a dead person go to the state?

Why not? Why should a dead person continue to exert their influence in the form of cash after they're done personally contributing to society? Why does someone deserve the fruits of their parents' labor? Do we also judge children by the sins of their father? If someone's money is transferrable, why not blame or shame?

It's unfortunate there is so much wealth inequality but that's a bit of a separate issue. In certain situations there should be a threshold and that's why estate taxes exist. However a lot of us not only work for ourselves but to better our childrens' future station or at least give them a better chance at not being riddled with debt like we are / were.

I think your sin analogy isn't an apples to apples comparison nor does it make sense in this context. However I'll play devil's advocate.

If your father was a felon / committed "sins" then most people in society are going to be skeptical about how you might turn out. It's an unfortunate truth. Not to say you will be a felon but based on the environment you were raised in you have a statistically higher likelihood of becoming a felon / deviant. So yes, you will be judged by the sins of your father whether you like it or not. That's why people leave their home towns for to start new lives or change their names. I'm not saying its right but that's the reality.