3 ms·

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...