4 ms·

This point would have merit if there was any reason to think Y Combinator systematically gives white men preference over others to run its organization. There'

by m52go 9y ago

This point would have merit if there was any reason to think Y Combinator systematically gives white men preference over others to run its organization. There's no evidence I've seen to suggest that. While women and minorities should be treated fairly, so should white people...they deserve to succeed too. Assuming white privilege is responsible for every white person's success (and incriminating them for it) is just as backward as traditional racism.

sidlls 9y ago
This isn't all or nothing. Your use of "every white person's success" is just contentious: nobody suggested what you argue against. On the other hand, suggesting white privilege is absent (different from completely responsible for) any white person's success is just wrong: that privilege is systemic and gives every white person an advantage, even if it isn't totally responsible for any white person's success. Replace "white" with "male" for a similar argument regarding gender.
falsedan 9y ago
There is a power differential though: white people enjoy many advantages over other groups; black people (for example) do not. I think it's fair and necessary to point out that white privilege gives an unfair advantage, such that a white person could gain a position of influence/power/responsibility in preference to a more skilled non-white person. It's also important to point out that white privilege is the default position for most of the Western world, so we should assume that, when it could be present, it is present, unless steps are taken to reduce its unfairness. > There's no evidence I've seen to suggest that Likewise, there's no evidence that they systemically combat white privilege.
- m52go 9y ago
  I mostly agree with you, but I think there's a fine line between what I'll call white privilege and white preference. White privilege is a complex system of societal advantage. There's nothing Sam (in this case) did to deserve that privilege, but there's also no reason to condemn him for using it to live the best life he can. White preference is a racist dynamic whereby a white person is preferred over a minority solely because of the color of their skin. There's no doubt this exists too, but it's a deeply disgusting offense that's hard to prove. It seems to me that a number of people in this thread are conflating the two. You're right that we don't know what's going on behind the scenes at YC, but I think we can give them the benefit of the doubt that white preference is not at play here.
  - gk_jam 9y ago
    > there's also no reason to condemn him for using it to live the best life he can. Actually, there is. Simply accepting the benefits of this systemic injustice and not actively working to remove it, especially when in a position of power, is not acceptable. If you just use white privilege to live the best life you can, that is participating in the system and is not correct. You have a duty to not only disavow 'white preference' as you call it, but also remedy the inequity of your privilege, not simply use it.
    - m52go 9y ago
      Advocating 'fairness' is easy but living it is different. How many white people should give up opportunities because of this injustice? Not all of them, surely, but just certain ones...which ones? Who decides? What's the criteria? Which opportunities should they give up? What about blacks in professional sports...they're overrepresented in basketball and football. Should they give up their opportunities in professional sports to help get a more 'fair' number of whites and asians in to the leagues? Who decides what's 'fair' here? Etc. Let's make this personal. I went to a good college and got a good job because my parents' values and socioeconomic situation allowed me to. Should I have given up my seat at university, or offered my job to another person who wasn't as fortunate as me? Before you say yes, ask yourself if you would have done that. And regardless of what you say (or what I say) saying you/I would have done something is very different from actually doing it. Recognizing systemic injustice and working to remove it is very different from demanding people change the way they act, when that demand is not something we would ever actually accept ourselves.
      - sidlls 9y ago
        I don't understand why this is being discussed in terms of giving something up. Educating others, being honest about these advantages, and actively calling out people who benefit and deny the benefits are all ways to combat the systemic problems and none of them require giving up what you described. That is one doesn't have to be altruistic to the point of self harm in order to work to remedy the ills that exist.
- makomk 9y ago
  There is also a power differential between journalists - even for rags like Pando - and the people they cover. They have the ability to put their attacks in front of a huge audience, and in general the rest of the press will side with them. Furthermore, that power differential has a very strong racial element to it too, given how incredibly white the staff of most publications are.

by m52go 9y ago

sidlls 9y ago

This isn't all or nothing. Your use of "every white person's success" is just contentious: nobody suggested what you argue against. On the other hand, suggesting white privilege is absent (different from completely responsible for) any white person's success is just wrong: that privilege is systemic and gives every white person an advantage, even if it isn't totally responsible for any white person's success. Replace "white" with "male" for a similar argument regarding gender.

falsedan 9y ago

There is a power differential though: white people enjoy many advantages over other groups; black people (for example) do not. I think it's fair and necessary to point out that white privilege gives an unfair advantage, such that a white person could gain a position of influence/power/responsibility in preference to a more skilled non-white person. It's also important to point out that white privilege is the default position for most of the Western world, so we should assume that, when it could be present, it is present, unless steps are taken to reduce its unfairness. > There's no evidence I've seen to suggest that Likewise, there's no evidence that they systemically combat white privilege.

m52go 9y ago
I mostly agree with you, but I think there's a fine line between what I'll call white privilege and white preference. White privilege is a complex system of societal advantage. There's nothing Sam (in this case) did to deserve that privilege, but there's also no reason to condemn him for using it to live the best life he can. White preference is a racist dynamic whereby a white person is preferred over a minority solely because of the color of their skin. There's no doubt this exists too, but it's a deeply disgusting offense that's hard to prove. It seems to me that a number of people in this thread are conflating the two. You're right that we don't know what's going on behind the scenes at YC, but I think we can give them the benefit of the doubt that white preference is not at play here.
- gk_jam 9y ago
  > there's also no reason to condemn him for using it to live the best life he can. Actually, there is. Simply accepting the benefits of this systemic injustice and not actively working to remove it, especially when in a position of power, is not acceptable. If you just use white privilege to live the best life you can, that is participating in the system and is not correct. You have a duty to not only disavow 'white preference' as you call it, but also remedy the inequity of your privilege, not simply use it.
  - m52go 9y ago
    Advocating 'fairness' is easy but living it is different. How many white people should give up opportunities because of this injustice? Not all of them, surely, but just certain ones...which ones? Who decides? What's the criteria? Which opportunities should they give up? What about blacks in professional sports...they're overrepresented in basketball and football. Should they give up their opportunities in professional sports to help get a more 'fair' number of whites and asians in to the leagues? Who decides what's 'fair' here? Etc. Let's make this personal. I went to a good college and got a good job because my parents' values and socioeconomic situation allowed me to. Should I have given up my seat at university, or offered my job to another person who wasn't as fortunate as me? Before you say yes, ask yourself if you would have done that. And regardless of what you say (or what I say) saying you/I would have done something is very different from actually doing it. Recognizing systemic injustice and working to remove it is very different from demanding people change the way they act, when that demand is not something we would ever actually accept ourselves.
    - sidlls 9y ago
      I don't understand why this is being discussed in terms of giving something up. Educating others, being honest about these advantages, and actively calling out people who benefit and deny the benefits are all ways to combat the systemic problems and none of them require giving up what you described. That is one doesn't have to be altruistic to the point of self harm in order to work to remedy the ills that exist.
makomk 9y ago
There is also a power differential between journalists - even for rags like Pando - and the people they cover. They have the ability to put their attacks in front of a huge audience, and in general the rest of the press will side with them. Furthermore, that power differential has a very strong racial element to it too, given how incredibly white the staff of most publications are.