4 ms·

> There is undeniably an advantage (privilege) to bring a Turk in Turkey and not a Kurd. Certainly. And there was undeniably an advantage to being white in Ame

> There is undeniably an advantage (privilege) to bring a Turk in Turkey and not a Kurd. Certainly. And there was undeniably an advantage to being white in America fifty years ago (and even twenty, probably). But we now live in a nation where the stated policy of many institutions is to favor non-whites. And in California, non-Hispanic whites aren't even the largest ethnic group. The assumption that white people have never experienced "race-based disadvantage" seems to be likewise rather flimsy and unsupported by evidence. As for SBF, I suspect that being wealthy and well-connected was far more helpful than being white. Indeed, if he had been black or Hispanic, he would have been celebrated for that reason alone, whereas, as we see in this article, being white is cause for opposition.

hackerlight 4y ago
> As for SBF, I suspect that being wealthy and well-connected was far more helpful than being white. Nobody would argue with this. What they would say is one of the contributing reasons he was wealthy and well-connected is because he was accepted as a member of the racial majority. Which is certainly partly true. Just because there are no laws that are directly de jure racist, doesn't mean there isn't systemic racism (which is partly cultural, not only legal) that reduces the statistical probability of success of people who aren't in the majority group. > as we see in this article, being white is cause for opposition. This is a stretch. My understanding of the article is that it's a cause for explanation. What we go and do with that explanation is up for discussion.