But as you note, you used race to discriminate, and someone who otherwise would have been qualified who wasn’t black (apparently), lost not due to some skill gap or the like, but apparently purely due to the color of their skin. At least that is how I read it.

At some point (when growth is not infinite), there are a limited number of positions after all.

Or did everyone evaluate the candidate without awareness of their color, and come to the decision?

Same as someone who was black, but otherwise qualified, would have if someone discriminated against them, yes? Like the folks who never got considered because they went to the wrong college. (Though notably, you apparently did get hired despite going to that college correct?)

Why shouldn’t those ‘angry white dudes’ be angry? Really?

Anymore than a black dude be angry when the same happens to him?

Because they ‘already had enough’? When should they stop being angry then? When they no longer have enough? Who decides that? And why should they let someone decide that for them?

I’m not saying either choice is good - I’m saying this is why making those choices this way fundamentally causes the problems it does.

But I’m also under no illusions that will change anytime soon.

The strong do what they will while they are strong, and it’s a fool that lets someone make them weak enough they are no longer strong eh?

And the weak will do what they can to be strong, and it’s a fool who lets themselves get talked out of that too.

The difference is if ‘us’ means people with a common nation, or a common color, or gender, or sex, or religion.

In your personal situation, how long would it take of not actually having opportunities before you’re willing to get angry enough to do something? Or lost potential income due to better opportunities you could have had, but didn’t.

Some people are less patient, and more violent than you likely are. And apparently, they just won the elections.

Frankly, they often do.