2 ms·

The flaw in this argument is that it makes the implicit assumption that having more startups founded by black or hispanic founders is good just because there ar

The flaw in this argument is that it makes the implicit assumption that having more startups founded by black or hispanic founders is good just because there are more startups founded by black or hispanic founders. That there is underrepresentation with respect to a minority is indicative of that minority generally having lower socioeconomic status, and perhaps prejudices against it. To try to combat whatever those prejudices may be, the suggestion here is that "diversity is good" and that just having more minorities will help the problem. The difference is that it actually won't, because now you have a perception of people being given opportunities they don't deserve, just because they are a minority. A much, much better way to try to deconstruct the sorts of prejudices or minority disadvantages, which this initiative is ostensibly trying to do, is to make these sorts of initiatives open to anyone disadvantaged (such as the poor), and invest in programs targeted at children in poorer (disproportionately minority) communities.

mindcrime 11y ago
The difference is that it actually won't, I disagree. I think having more companies (especially successful ones) founded by black and hispanic founders will help everyone broadly, for this reason: It will provide young, potential founders, who might not otherwise have pursued entrepreneurship at all, with positive role models, and will show them actual live examples of how success can be achieved. My feeling is that this promotes entrepreneurship in general among increasingly larger portions of the overall population... and if you believe that technological progress in general is basically a net positive for humanity (a position which I admit is not without controversy, BTW, although I personally adhere to it) then this is a Good Thing. More smart people working on new ideas, and creating things to solve problems? Yeah, I can accept some private companies engaging in a little "affirmative action" if it supports that. is to make these sorts of initiatives open to anyone disadvantaged (such as the poor), and invest in programs targeted at children in minority communities. Having grown up "white but dirt poor" I mostly agree with you, in the sense that I think addressing poverty - regardless of race - is also a valuable thing. I'm just not sure one approach is more or less important than the other. I think both are valuable things to do.

mindcrime 11y ago

The difference is that it actually won't, I disagree. I think having more companies (especially successful ones) founded by black and hispanic founders will help everyone broadly, for this reason: It will provide young, potential founders, who might not otherwise have pursued entrepreneurship at all, with positive role models, and will show them actual live examples of how success can be achieved. My feeling is that this promotes entrepreneurship in general among increasingly larger portions of the overall population... and if you believe that technological progress in general is basically a net positive for humanity (a position which I admit is not without controversy, BTW, although I personally adhere to it) then this is a Good Thing. More smart people working on new ideas, and creating things to solve problems? Yeah, I can accept some private companies engaging in a little "affirmative action" if it supports that. is to make these sorts of initiatives open to anyone disadvantaged (such as the poor), and invest in programs targeted at children in minority communities. Having grown up "white but dirt poor" I mostly agree with you, in the sense that I think addressing poverty - regardless of race - is also a valuable thing. I'm just not sure one approach is more or less important than the other. I think both are valuable things to do.