Seems to me you're all irked by facts? Sure, plenty of white men aren't prospering. Irrelevant. A disproportionate amount of them are succeeding in the "algorithmic economy." I don't see why this is so taboo to point out.
If race or gender doesn't matter, why do 75% of investment dollars go to white men? I personally doubt 75% of people in the "algorithmic economy" are white men. But I'd love to be corrected about this.
Since Hollywood exists where it is - in California - due to WASP discrimination in New York state (where the film industry started) it's not just OK, it's necessary, to understand past wrongs.
I know that, but, if you take the approach that having a prevalence of one group in some positions is a wrong, then you have to ask: is a wrong from 130 years ago a valid justification for a wrong today?
Lets try this in a different context - is this truthful change still acceptable?
Seems to me you're all irked by facts? Sure, plenty of Jewish people aren't prospering. Irrelevant. A disproportionate amount of them are succeeding in the "algorithmic economy." I don't see why this is so taboo to point out.
If race or gender doesn't matter, why do 25% of Harvard places go to Jews? [1] I personally doubt 25% of people in the "algorithmic economy" are Jewish. But I'd love to be corrected about this.
That's all fine. Let's say you somehow make more investment go not to white men then wealth will still be concentrated in the hands of a few, maybe less white but still only a few. To me the fact that only a few really profit is the real problem.
1. wealth concentrated in the hands of a few white men
2. wealth concentrated in the hands of a few
In the first scenario, it is difficult for white men to join the elite club while virtually impossible for non-White men (and women) to do so. In the second scenario at least one problem is fixed, as it gets equally difficult (not impossible) to everybody join the elite club, which is good enough to start.
As long as the wealth is concentrated in the hands of 1% or whatever it doesn't matter who is in that group. The 99% are still screwed. Make the top 1% only women. The large majority of women won't notice a difference. Neither would the large majority of men.
You are not considering that when women and black men have a way to get into the 1% it changes a lot of things, because a large part of the inequality goes away: everybody can get into the 1%, it is only still very difficult, but a lot more difficult to white men, and this is the problem.
I agree fully actually, and I don't want to distract from that. I just don't think we should shy away from talking about the makeup of this "feudal elite."
I am not offended by the mentioning of white people but I think it's a distraction. If we make the feudal elite more diverse it's still a feudal elite and that's the real problem in my view..
If race or gender doesn't matter, why do 75% of investment dollars go to white men? I personally doubt 75% of people in the "algorithmic economy" are white men. But I'd love to be corrected about this.