4 ms·
" I view the assertion that being a risk-taker in the startup world is synonymous with being privileged as absurd and adolescent." Just being in the position t
by bootload 10y ago
" I view the assertion that being a risk-taker in the startup world is synonymous with being privileged as absurd and adolescent."
Just being in the position to ^take risk^, is privilege itself.
- aminok 10y agoIt does not automatically mean one is more privileged than those who choose to work for startups, which is what the article implies.
- crawfordcomeaux 10y agoWould you agree it does often mean that? More specifically, for what percentage of startups would you consider it fair to say?
- aminok 10y agoI have no idea, but a statistical correlation does not justify the blanket characterization made by the article, where "risk-taker" is essentially held as a synonym for "privileged".
- crawfordcomeaux 10y agoWhat's the harm?
- aminok 10y agoIt diminishes the accomplishments of entrepreneurs, and the sacrifices they've made. If they only have large equity stakes in the companies they founded because they're "privileged" it casts them as undeserving of the wealth they acquired.
- crawfordcomeaux 10y agoOk. And what's the harm in that?
- aminok 10y agoIsn't it self-evident? It harms their standing and reputation, in being cast as in possession of wealth they are not morally entitled to. It's defamation.
- crawfordcomeaux 10y agoPrivileged =/= undeserving Can you show an example of damage done by this sort of "defamation"?
- aminok 10y agoPrivileged clearly implies undeserving.
- bootload 10y ago"does not automatically mean one is more privileged than those who choose to work for startups," It does in a way. Founders eating ramen, working long, odd hours, for an idea that may not pay off at all; Who can walk away from a startup and brush it off as experience. An employee doesn't get that opportunity. An employee also doesn't take the risk. They may never have the opportunity to take these kinds of risks.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]