5 ms·

While I enjoyed the article, something about labeling a group of people by their gender and race really irks me (White men, with a capital W). I can't help but

While I enjoyed the article, something about labeling a group of people by their gender and race really irks me (White men, with a capital W). I can't help but feel it betrays the original message, which is a small proportion of super wealthy are getting even wealthier at the expense of everyone else, but why feel the need to bring race and gender to it? It almost begs people to spring into action against "White men", which can be disparaging for those white men who are not on the wealthy side of the spectrum.

maxxxxx 9y ago
Agreed. This article has some good thoughts but the "White" thing is annoying. There are plenty of white people whose life is not golden. In the end it comes down to wealthy vs not wealthy. Race or gender doesn't matter.
- caseydurfee 9y ago
  For anyone who didn't read the entire article, this is the part that these comments are complaining about: > Since all new creativity is held hostage in the hands of insensitive investors who promote the development of White business leaders to the exclusion of any other forms of creativity. Seventy five percent of all investment dollars are placed into the hands of White men. In the tech industry, most companies are run by, lead by, and pay the bulk of their company’s value to White men, the primary beneficiaries of such investment effort. 1. This certainly doesn't posit that all white people live perfect lives. 2. This is 74 words out of a 2600 word long essay, for crying out loud. 3. He's not wrong. If you're concerned with "wealthy vs not wealthy" it's entirely relevant that one particular cohort is far more likely to be in the wealthy group rather than other cohorts. I get so tired of people looking to get offended by things like this.
  - Chaebixi 9y ago
    > This certainly doesn't posit that all white people live perfect lives. However, using a loaded term like "White men" is unnecessary and just serves to distract people with polarized culture war stuff.
- Apocryphon 9y ago
  The implication is that a key demographic of the elite is enlarging their preexisting wealth. There's something feudal about a traditional noble class entrenching its power, no?
  - Chaebixi 9y ago
    > There's something feudal about a traditional noble class entrenching its power, no? The "traditional noble class" is not "White men." In fact "White men" aren't even a class in that sense.
    - Apocryphon 9y ago
      But they're the primary demographic that the class was composed of. The article used it as shorthand. In a broad way, sure, something more precise could've been "East Coast old money WASPs"
      - Chaebixi 9y ago
        It's still very sloppy thinking.
- bllguo 9y ago
  Seems to me you're all irked by facts? Sure, plenty of white men aren't prospering. Irrelevant. A disproportionate amount of them are succeeding in the "algorithmic economy." I don't see why this is so taboo to point out. If race or gender doesn't matter, why do 75% of investment dollars go to white men? I personally doubt 75% of people in the "algorithmic economy" are white men. But I'd love to be corrected about this.
  - maxxxxx 9y ago
    That's all fine. Let's say you somehow make more investment go not to white men then wealth will still be concentrated in the hands of a few, maybe less white but still only a few. To me the fact that only a few really profit is the real problem.
    - bllguo 9y ago
      I agree fully actually, and I don't want to distract from that. I just don't think we should shy away from talking about the makeup of this "feudal elite."
      - maxxxxx 9y ago
        I am not offended by the mentioning of white people but I think it's a distraction. If we make the feudal elite more diverse it's still a feudal elite and that's the real problem in my view..
    - owebmaster 9y ago
      There are 2 scenarios: 1. wealth concentrated in the hands of a few white men 2. wealth concentrated in the hands of a few In the first scenario, it is difficult for white men to join the elite club while virtually impossible for non-White men (and women) to do so. In the second scenario at least one problem is fixed, as it gets equally difficult (not impossible) to everybody join the elite club, which is good enough to start.
      - maxxxxx 9y ago
eregorn 9y ago
I don't think we can ever get away from this nowadays. Did you see the latest comment of that article that's basically "No, its the Jews!"? I'm getting the suspicion that we have reached a stage where people start pushing beliefs they don't actually have but use them to defend themselves from the opposite extreme. Otherwise, the message gets coopted in their favor.
djohnston 9y ago
I understand your concern, but I thought "White" implied those white people who are alternatively called "the man." Or, as Tony Soprano would call them, "Wonderbread WOPs." It's the difference between white people and Whiteness.
xkcd-sucks 9y ago
If a White Man isn't doing well for himself, even with all that privilege, the only reason is he's a total degenerate and ought to be culled for the good of society
- owebmaster 9y ago
  Don't forget the Black man trying harsh to do well for himself but never gets there, the only reason is he's a total degenerate and ought to be culled for the good of society.

maxxxxx 9y ago

Agreed. This article has some good thoughts but the "White" thing is annoying. There are plenty of white people whose life is not golden. In the end it comes down to wealthy vs not wealthy. Race or gender doesn't matter.

caseydurfee 9y ago
For anyone who didn't read the entire article, this is the part that these comments are complaining about: > Since all new creativity is held hostage in the hands of insensitive investors who promote the development of White business leaders to the exclusion of any other forms of creativity. Seventy five percent of all investment dollars are placed into the hands of White men. In the tech industry, most companies are run by, lead by, and pay the bulk of their company’s value to White men, the primary beneficiaries of such investment effort. 1. This certainly doesn't posit that all white people live perfect lives. 2. This is 74 words out of a 2600 word long essay, for crying out loud. 3. He's not wrong. If you're concerned with "wealthy vs not wealthy" it's entirely relevant that one particular cohort is far more likely to be in the wealthy group rather than other cohorts. I get so tired of people looking to get offended by things like this.
- Chaebixi 9y ago
  > This certainly doesn't posit that all white people live perfect lives. However, using a loaded term like "White men" is unnecessary and just serves to distract people with polarized culture war stuff.
Apocryphon 9y ago
The implication is that a key demographic of the elite is enlarging their preexisting wealth. There's something feudal about a traditional noble class entrenching its power, no?
- Chaebixi 9y ago
  > There's something feudal about a traditional noble class entrenching its power, no? The "traditional noble class" is not "White men." In fact "White men" aren't even a class in that sense.
  - Apocryphon 9y ago
    But they're the primary demographic that the class was composed of. The article used it as shorthand. In a broad way, sure, something more precise could've been "East Coast old money WASPs"
    - Chaebixi 9y ago
      It's still very sloppy thinking.
bllguo 9y ago
Seems to me you're all irked by facts? Sure, plenty of white men aren't prospering. Irrelevant. A disproportionate amount of them are succeeding in the "algorithmic economy." I don't see why this is so taboo to point out. If race or gender doesn't matter, why do 75% of investment dollars go to white men? I personally doubt 75% of people in the "algorithmic economy" are white men. But I'd love to be corrected about this.
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  That's all fine. Let's say you somehow make more investment go not to white men then wealth will still be concentrated in the hands of a few, maybe less white but still only a few. To me the fact that only a few really profit is the real problem.
  - bllguo 9y ago
    I agree fully actually, and I don't want to distract from that. I just don't think we should shy away from talking about the makeup of this "feudal elite."
    - maxxxxx 9y ago
      I am not offended by the mentioning of white people but I think it's a distraction. If we make the feudal elite more diverse it's still a feudal elite and that's the real problem in my view..
  - owebmaster 9y ago
    There are 2 scenarios: 1. wealth concentrated in the hands of a few white men 2. wealth concentrated in the hands of a few In the first scenario, it is difficult for white men to join the elite club while virtually impossible for non-White men (and women) to do so. In the second scenario at least one problem is fixed, as it gets equally difficult (not impossible) to everybody join the elite club, which is good enough to start.
    - maxxxxx 9y ago

eregorn 9y ago

I don't think we can ever get away from this nowadays. Did you see the latest comment of that article that's basically "No, its the Jews!"? I'm getting the suspicion that we have reached a stage where people start pushing beliefs they don't actually have but use them to defend themselves from the opposite extreme. Otherwise, the message gets coopted in their favor.

djohnston 9y ago

I understand your concern, but I thought "White" implied those white people who are alternatively called "the man." Or, as Tony Soprano would call them, "Wonderbread WOPs." It's the difference between white people and Whiteness.

xkcd-sucks 9y ago

If a White Man isn't doing well for himself, even with all that privilege, the only reason is he's a total degenerate and ought to be culled for the good of society

owebmaster 9y ago
Don't forget the Black man trying harsh to do well for himself but never gets there, the only reason is he's a total degenerate and ought to be culled for the good of society.