4 ms·

> Between 2009 and 2017, only 0.0006% of VC funding went to businesses started by Black women, according to nonprofit advocacy group Digitalundivided. Fearless

by demarq 3y ago

> Between 2009 and 2017, only 0.0006% of VC funding went to businesses started by Black women, according to nonprofit advocacy group Digitalundivided. Fearless Fund aims to help bridge the gap. The case is clear, why go after the little funding available? Is anyone really convinced that white men as a whole are disadvantaged because they can’t get funding from these three black women?

chucksta 3y ago
>In total, three white and Asian women business owners are part of the lawsuit
- demarq 3y ago
  I stand corrected. So three white women felt that out of all the VC funds in the nation, they felt threatened by these three black women? It’s even worse that it’s women going after other women. Of all the startups I’ve worked for I’ve never been able to say that my CEO was a black, white or Asian woman. That’s not some mistake. EDIT: understandably this has been locked for replies (by the powers that be not me). So before asking any question note that I will not be able to reply once the edit button expires. AAAAAND I can reply again. But disappointed tbh, but I understand
  - b59831 3y ago
    [dead]
  - searealist 3y ago
    Why did you drop “Asian”?
    - demarq 3y ago
      Because they don’t seem particularly favoured by any metric (not an advantaged majority in the space), so it's strange she would be behind this. Uniformity or a pattern isn’t a requirement for an argument, consistency is. And I’m consistent about the idea that people who are doing great in one area shouldn’t be pushing down other people trying to get to the same place.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - searealist 3y ago
        > Because they don’t seem particularly favoured by any metric (not an advantaged majority in the space), so it's strange she would be behind this. Ahh yes, it must be the evil white women who put the Asian woman up to this. > Uniformity or a pattern isn’t a requirement for an argument, consistency is. And I’m consistent about the idea that people who are doing great in one area shouldn’t be pushing down other people trying to get to the same place. I'm sure you are quite consistent in your racism.
      - SenAnder 3y ago
        > not an advantaged majority Why would they have to be both advantaged and a majority? Surely just being advantaged would suffice, and white women are also not a majority in VC funding, nor are they advantaged. Women-funded startups received only 9% of investments - even if all of that 9% went to only white women, they would still be disadvantaged. Furthermore, 77.1% of founders were white, and 17.7% were Asian. Since whites are 57.8% of US, but Asians are 5.9%, that makes whites 1.33x over-represented, and Asians 3x over-represented. In other words, Asians are 2.26x more likely to receive VC funding than whites, yet, without citing any data, you claimed they are less favored than whites. Source: https://news.crunchbase.com/venture/untapped-opportunity-minority-founders-still-being-overlooked/ https://news.crunchbase.com/venture/untapped-opportunity-min...
  - VoodooJuJu 3y ago
    >So three white women felt that out of all the VC funds in the nation, they felt threatened by these three black women? You'll notice this with any kind of woke endeavor - white women are almost always at the helm and they won't tolerate being put in the backseat.
    - demarq 3y ago
      Not sure I understand, but also not sure I want to spark racial generalisations of character. I’m not that kind of liberal or conservative.
    - Pat_Murph 3y ago
      This isn't a woke endeavour. It's a racist endeavour. It's the exacr opposite of woke. This group can't stand black people working for other black people and they have to attack them and shut it down. Don't be confused by your anti woke bias. This isn't it.
      - searealist 3y ago
        Both you and the person you are defending use the British "our" spelling of words. Considering you just made your account, I bet you are the same person or know each other.
throwawa14223 3y ago
Is racial discrimination acceptable if you can show your discrimination didn't disadvantage a group?
- demarq 3y ago
  I think that’s a good yardstick. If you don’t mean that I should be able to sue all restaurants with a women’s bathroom because I was disadvantaged when the only stall was occupied. So I like your idea but add the word systemic. What I mean is I can wait 5 minutes to go for the bathroom. So there was a system in the restaurant that kept me from going to the bathroom no matter how long I wait (i.e they only let women go to the bathrooms) I can’t claim I was discriminated.
  - searealist 3y ago
    I love how you are defining these racism rules on the fly. It really shows how you are just trying to rationalize your hatred.
    - Pat_Murph 3y ago
      Wow I think your hatred is very clear here. You haven't even addressed what the commenter actually sayed. Or you chose not to adress it or probably didn't understand. Read it again you mite get it this time.
rendang 3y ago
If the existence of this firm does break existing discrimination law, then the point of the suit may be to indirectly demonstrate that the law is unjust, rather than that the existence of Fearless Fund is undesirable.

by demarq 3y ago

chucksta 3y ago

>In total, three white and Asian women business owners are part of the lawsuit

demarq 3y ago
I stand corrected. So three white women felt that out of all the VC funds in the nation, they felt threatened by these three black women? It’s even worse that it’s women going after other women. Of all the startups I’ve worked for I’ve never been able to say that my CEO was a black, white or Asian woman. That’s not some mistake. EDIT: understandably this has been locked for replies (by the powers that be not me). So before asking any question note that I will not be able to reply once the edit button expires. AAAAAND I can reply again. But disappointed tbh, but I understand
- b59831 3y ago
  [dead]
- searealist 3y ago
  Why did you drop “Asian”?
  - demarq 3y ago
    Because they don’t seem particularly favoured by any metric (not an advantaged majority in the space), so it's strange she would be behind this. Uniformity or a pattern isn’t a requirement for an argument, consistency is. And I’m consistent about the idea that people who are doing great in one area shouldn’t be pushing down other people trying to get to the same place.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - searealist 3y ago
      > Because they don’t seem particularly favoured by any metric (not an advantaged majority in the space), so it's strange she would be behind this. Ahh yes, it must be the evil white women who put the Asian woman up to this. > Uniformity or a pattern isn’t a requirement for an argument, consistency is. And I’m consistent about the idea that people who are doing great in one area shouldn’t be pushing down other people trying to get to the same place. I'm sure you are quite consistent in your racism.
    - SenAnder 3y ago
      > not an advantaged majority Why would they have to be both advantaged and a majority? Surely just being advantaged would suffice, and white women are also not a majority in VC funding, nor are they advantaged. Women-funded startups received only 9% of investments - even if all of that 9% went to only white women, they would still be disadvantaged. Furthermore, 77.1% of founders were white, and 17.7% were Asian. Since whites are 57.8% of US, but Asians are 5.9%, that makes whites 1.33x over-represented, and Asians 3x over-represented. In other words, Asians are 2.26x more likely to receive VC funding than whites, yet, without citing any data, you claimed they are less favored than whites. Source: https://news.crunchbase.com/venture/untapped-opportunity-minority-founders-still-being-overlooked/ https://news.crunchbase.com/venture/untapped-opportunity-min...
- VoodooJuJu 3y ago
  >So three white women felt that out of all the VC funds in the nation, they felt threatened by these three black women? You'll notice this with any kind of woke endeavor - white women are almost always at the helm and they won't tolerate being put in the backseat.
  - demarq 3y ago
    Not sure I understand, but also not sure I want to spark racial generalisations of character. I’m not that kind of liberal or conservative.
  - Pat_Murph 3y ago
    This isn't a woke endeavour. It's a racist endeavour. It's the exacr opposite of woke. This group can't stand black people working for other black people and they have to attack them and shut it down. Don't be confused by your anti woke bias. This isn't it.
    - searealist 3y ago
      Both you and the person you are defending use the British "our" spelling of words. Considering you just made your account, I bet you are the same person or know each other.

throwawa14223 3y ago

Is racial discrimination acceptable if you can show your discrimination didn't disadvantage a group?

demarq 3y ago
I think that’s a good yardstick. If you don’t mean that I should be able to sue all restaurants with a women’s bathroom because I was disadvantaged when the only stall was occupied. So I like your idea but add the word systemic. What I mean is I can wait 5 minutes to go for the bathroom. So there was a system in the restaurant that kept me from going to the bathroom no matter how long I wait (i.e they only let women go to the bathrooms) I can’t claim I was discriminated.
- searealist 3y ago
  I love how you are defining these racism rules on the fly. It really shows how you are just trying to rationalize your hatred.
  - Pat_Murph 3y ago
    Wow I think your hatred is very clear here. You haven't even addressed what the commenter actually sayed. Or you chose not to adress it or probably didn't understand. Read it again you mite get it this time.

rendang 3y ago

If the existence of this firm does break existing discrimination law, then the point of the suit may be to indirectly demonstrate that the law is unjust, rather than that the existence of Fearless Fund is undesirable.