> You're going to end up with a bunch of rich white dudes as founders
Why not just say "rich dudes" ? That is the qualifier. The race might be true too, but it's not what defines the argument.
Why not just say "rich dudes" ? That is the qualifier. The race might be true too, but it's not what defines the argument.
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/most-millionaires-dont-think...
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/11/01/how-wealth-...
https://hbr.org/2018/05/asian-americans-are-the-least-likely...
By the new definition of 'middle class' (which now includes people up to their eyeballs in debt), the middle class would call me a 'rich dude' even though millionaires would tolerate my presence at an event but not be that happy about it. I see this every time I am given bad news about a large bill for the vet or repairs and they are visibly surprised when I just reach for the wallet instead of argue. You are a rich dude, dude.
But I've noticed that I am comfortable in other situations where my white dude peers are not and it's because I belong to other privilege groups that they don't. Like physicality. Which I think speaks to how people react when you point out their privileges, because there is always somebody who has it better off and if you are jealous of other people, it rots your brain. Sympathizing with people who are jealous of you while you are insanely jealous of others takes some internal work that people don't want to do.
[edit] Jesus, this is a real issue one has to look out for when writing and speaking: falling into using easy, worn phrases when they’re less effective at communicating what you’re trying to say than an alternative, and often explains these cases of overreach or somewhat “off” usage with cliché phrases, which was what was asked about. It’s very easy to let one’s fingers type right through a worn rut, once one starts into it, when some reflection might reveal that was a bit off. Struck a nerve for some reason, I guess? I have exactly no idea why.
Also, stuff like this is problematic for diversity - you're pretending that race is somehow irrelevant in discussions of socioeconomic status, when in fact it is very much so. "It doesn't matter that they're white, it just matters that they're rich" very much misses some highly relevant big picture info.
They can’t stop working their shifty job to participate in YC if they lowered their investment. A wealthy black founder very obviously could. Clearly the deciding factor is socioeconomic and not race.
So you’re just wrong to talk about racial diversity when the issue is clearly socioeconomic diversity.
The absolute proof is that increased economic diversity necessarily results in increased racial diversity. Contrarily, increased racial diversity does not necessarily result in socioeconomic diversity.
Because one is the root cause of the other.
Your thinking is what leads to “diverse” organizations where many racial and gender groups are represented but they’re all rich people that attended Ivy League schools. And that is not diversity by any meaningful definition. It does nothing to alleviate systemic unfairness.
That's the problem - you're talking in theory (obviously there are rich black people and they have resources) while ignoring practical reality, which is that race and socioeconomic status are highly correlated to the point where you can't just magically ignore the latter and somehow equitably deal with the former.
Why do you think that race and gender = diverse? They just have different races and gender, but might think the same way = not diverse.
Certainly, but black people are disproportionately less wealthy than white people, so are far less likely to be in that position.
> A poor white person cannot use their whiteness to pay the bills.
This is also true, but they will not face the structural racial discrimination that a black person of their socio-economic standing would.
The trouble with reducing issues of inequality to class alone is that it obscures the systemic biases that make it easier for white dudes to become rich in the first place.
When winning leads to more winning - groups that have won disproportionately in the past (white people) will continue to win more and more unless we find a way to counterbalance.
This is why almost every sport includes some kind of catch-up model for their franchises (better draft picks for performing teams, salary caps) to encourage balance and competitiveness. We accept this in sports and know that it helps, but we don't want to believe it is needed in our economy, which is the most important competitive sport played in the world.