Catch up Canada!
96 karma · joined May 7, 2018
Catch up Canada!
I'll give it a go. I first want to say something about the worldview required to do this sort of racial discrimination.
There is no way of quantifying the relative advantages and disadvantages between identity groups. How much is one group oppressed over another? Suppose that a simple tax would suffice to even things out, exactly how much should that tax be? There is no way of knowing precisely what that tax should be. Our attempts to define oppression are never going to be rigorous. They'll always be vague, which I believe is dangerous, since it will be enforced by some large bureaucracy. We need definition, but there will never be definition accurate enough. Feel free to argue me on this, but I don't see how you can do it.
Second, in separating people into these identity groups, you deny my individuality. Every time I speak, I speak as a member of my group, for my group. My actions are actions of and for my group, as well. With the world view taken here, I cannot speak or act without the presupposition that I'm doing it as a move in a power game between my identity group and other identity groups. Should we accept that a person's ethnicity and gender must always qualify their speech and actions?
I agree that in conversation, one can observe the race and gender of the other person - but the merit of their words is still paramount. You may know that a book author is from Spain or Russia, but that does not affect how you read the book. However, in the worldview in which a racially discriminatory VC fund is socially acceptable, people are defined as members of groups among other groups, constantly vying for power and oppressing one another.
Notice I'm not really going after the racially-discriminatory VC fund itself. I'm explaining the worldview in which the fund was conceived, and in which it is socially acceptable. It boils North America down from a melting pot of ambitious individuals trying to do great things with each other, into identity groups that are constantly holding power over, and suffering under the tyranny of, other identity groups. Obviously, the dominant narrative here is that white males are oppressing women of color founders. But you have no idea about the individual biases of the white males you're decrying. And you also have no idea whether or not they achieved funded status based on their competence. Yet you still assume the system is broken, and you still rob them of their individuality, still knowing nothing of their biases and nothing of their competence.
> Keep in mind that not doing anything doesn't seem to fix these things.
Why must we do something? Where is the evidence that people are not choosing to be founders of their free will? How can you be sure that the lack of founder diversity is evidence of a flaw in the system? I say that the system is operating in a very healthy manner.
Efforts to move power to the disadvantaged that disregard individuality has had tragic, deadly results in history (China, Vietnam, USSR).
The reason why the majority of funded founders are white men is because white is the majority color in places where there is the most VC money, and men are less risk averse, especially in the more extreme male personality types.
The truth is this: To have equality of outcome across race and gender in entrepreneurship is impossible. It's unclear why anyone at all is interested in taking extremely high risk positions as founders of start ups relying on fast growth and with a small amount of burn; to segment that group by racial and gender identity is to shame and belittle the ones deemed "to hold the power". And when they cry out that they are being discriminated against on the basis of race, you are one step ahead of them: Your convenient re-definition of racism to be an act only committed by those of power denies the shamed their rightful defense.
The malicious commits:
https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/commit/e6db0eb4
https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/commit/afcdc03b
https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/commit/49464b73
https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/commit/fdd8da2e
https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/commit/e6db0eb4
I'm making a joke, but your analysis is exceptionally weak.
Just for fun, what is your underlying moral framework?
Mine would be population and economic growth, environmental protection, and disaster avoidance.
1) They are competent at wealth accumulation, which indicates some level of aptitude and intelligence
2) They have a large mass of capital with which to fund new businesses and ventures, and are likely to pick good candidates because of 1)
So, I don't see the problem here. It seems to me like they have an enormous good thing to offer society.
So. I think that the idea that we should tax the high earners of their entire income is a very bad idea! Would it not destroy the motivation of those top earners to work hard, to keep innovating, and to strive for success? It also makes the assumption that, should we take the income away from the top earners, that the state will do a better job at putting that money back into the economy. I think that assumption is incorrect. A person who has figured out how to make 5M a year, whether it's through advertising or a manufactured product, is probably better at capital allocation than a bureaucrat or politician.
You also mention that "the root cause needs to be addressed." Unfortunately, we don't know what the root cause of wealth inequality is, and all historical attempts at "fixing the root cause" with wealth redistribution have ended in catastrophe; we really do need to remember that because your comment is quite similar to Marx's famous quote "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". In fact, unequal distribution of resources is a natural law, called the Pareto Principal, and it is everywhere: The height of trees, number of progeny of chimps, number of players that win Monopoly in a given game... Inequality is not an evil force, it is a natural force that has been fought historically at the great peril of the populations that decided to fight it.
Now, perhaps there is some variation of this progressive tax law that encourages investment. Perhaps that is even suggested in your comment. I would be open to something that allowed people to have 5M/year in income, but above that, they were heavily incentivized to invest.
7. I saw that the only group of people able to preserve a
minimum of humanity in conditions of starvation and abuse
were the religious believers, the sectarians (almost all of
them), and most priests.
29. Russians’ uncontrollable urge to denounce and complain.