41–50 of 59 posts
The title of this article is pretty offensive. I don’t want to read it. Is there some context that makes the racial slur appropriate here? Or we allow it because racism against white people is in vogue?
Quoted post unavailable.
Being white doesn't mean you know what every white person experiences.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting quote from this article: “ As a student at Penn, I received a crash course education on the finer nuances of whiteness. The Fraternity system allowed the groups of same-caste whites to congregate together. There were Jewish, Southern White, WASP, and International White frats. While they didn’t put a billboard up saying “if you are not this or that, please don’t apply”, everyone surmised pretty quickly wh…
There is something to the “not the right kind of white” take, though it isn’t so much white as a cultural elite which happens to be 99.99% white. Consider that Nouriel Roubini, who is the right kind of white by Hayes def (academic, child of elites) hasn’t tried to publicly accuse SBF of fraud, while having gone further against CZ and Arthur. Consider that Brian Armstrong, not being the right kind of white, has gotten…
I'll take it over the discourse I normally hear but my standards are low.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting quote from this article: “ As a student at Penn, I received a crash course education on the finer nuances of whiteness. The Fraternity system allowed the groups of same-caste whites to congregate together. There were Jewish, Southern White, WASP, and International White frats. While they didn’t put a billboard up saying “if you are not this or that, please don’t apply”, everyone surmised pretty quickly wh…
There is something to the “not the right kind of white” take, though it isn’t so much white as a cultural elite which happens to be 99.99% white. Consider that Nouriel Roubini, who is the right kind of white by Hayes def (academic, child of elites) hasn’t tried to publicly accuse SBF of fraud, while having gone further against CZ and Arthur. Consider that Brian Armstrong, not being the right kind of white, has gotten…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
Not nearly so tiresome as people assuming white=privileged. Being white doesn't mean you know what every white person experiences.
When people complain about "whiteness", they're talking about the social construct of the racial majority in the US and how this prevents certain disadvantages from being conferred on the individual based on that individual's race. The lack of race-based disadvantage is labelled "privilege". It's a shame that such divisive terms like "whiteness" were chosen, because the phenomenon is broader than a specific skin color. Han Chinese in China also benefit from their version of "whiteness", with Uyghurs and other minorities being disadvantaged. But they aren't white. Same with Jews in Israel, Turks in Turkey, and so on. There is undeniably an advantage (privilege) to bring a Turk in Turkey and not a Kurd.
If you're part of the racial majority, there can be an empathy gap that leads you to not see the disadvantages that certain minorities face. So then any claims that you have privilege (defined as the absence of race-based disadvantaged) seem farfetched if not malicious and racist. But it isn't racism, it's a sociological explanation of cause and effect.
Now, many people go to far and do actually turn it into clear cut anti-white racism. I really don't think that was what Arthur Hayes was going for, though. He was aiming for a sociological explanation of SBF's rise. Which, in those case, I happen to believe was rather flimsy and unsupported by evidence.
Author is Arthur Hayes, founder of the late crypto exchange BitMEX. The essay is less inflammatory than the title suggests, and I read it for the finance insights—- after all BitMEX was accused of frontrunning customers (too?) https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/02/the-rise-and-fall-of...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not nearly so tiresome as people assuming white=privileged. Being white doesn't mean you know what every white person experiences.
Let me try to bridge the gap as someone who used to find it offensive but no longer does. When people complain about "whiteness", they're talking about the social construct of the racial majority in the US and how this prevents certain disadvantages from being conferred on the individual based on that individual's race. The lack of race-based disadvantage is labelled "privilege". It's a shame that such divisive terms…
Certainly. And there was undeniably an advantage to being white in America fifty years ago (and even twenty, probably). But we now live in a nation where the stated policy of many institutions is to favor non-whites. And in California, non-Hispanic whites aren't even the largest ethnic group.
The assumption that white people have never experienced "race-based disadvantage" seems to be likewise rather flimsy and unsupported by evidence.
As for SBF, I suspect that being wealthy and well-connected was far more helpful than being white. Indeed, if he had been black or Hispanic, he would have been celebrated for that reason alone, whereas, as we see in this article, being white is cause for opposition.
Author is Arthur Hayes, founder of the late crypto exchange BitMEX. The essay is less inflammatory than the title suggests, and I read it for the finance insights—- after all BitMEX was accused of frontrunning customers (too?) https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/02/the-rise-and-fall-of...
Interesting quote from this article: “ As a student at Penn, I received a crash course education on the finer nuances of whiteness. The Fraternity system allowed the groups of same-caste whites to congregate together. There were Jewish, Southern White, WASP, and International White frats. While they didn’t put a billboard up saying “if you are not this or that, please don’t apply”, everyone surmised pretty quickly wh…
It's the US that has serious issues with race, not black people like Hayes.
Author is Arthur Hayes, founder of the late crypto exchange BitMEX. The essay is less inflammatory than the title suggests, and I read it for the finance insights—- after all BitMEX was accused of frontrunning customers (too?) https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/02/the-rise-and-fall-of...
Why do you say "late"? They're still around.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not nearly so tiresome as people assuming white=privileged. Being white doesn't mean you know what every white person experiences.
Let me try to bridge the gap as someone who used to find it offensive but no longer does. When people complain about "whiteness", they're talking about the social construct of the racial majority in the US and how this prevents certain disadvantages from being conferred on the individual based on that individual's race. The lack of race-based disadvantage is labelled "privilege". It's a shame that such divisive terms…
For some reason we seem to be changing the meaning of words lately. It's troubling to me.
We already have a word for lack-of-disadvantage. It's called advantage.
Privilege is a loaded word, it implies "unearned" advantage, this word is chosen for it's negative connotations. Accusing people of unearned advantages is inflammatory does nothing to address the real problems of inequality.
"Check your privilege" is really just coded speak for calling someone racist to win an argument. Shades of Godwin's Law anyone?
The art of subtly/persistently changing the meaning of words is a weapon used in politics and cultural wars. Orwell wrote extensively on this.[1] Once you understand how this works you begin to understand why politicians speak the way they do.
A journalist can choose to call a group of armed men "freedom fighters" or "terrorists". Each word has a very clear/strong connotation, one group good the other bad. Once you've got a definition like this to stick, you've set hard limits for what is deemed acceptable discussion and debate. Once a group is labelled as terrorist it becomes hard to say "what they are doing is good", as you're in effect saying "terrorism is good". This was the entire point of Orwell's idea of Newspeak in his novel 1984, where the official language was engineered to make it impossible to hold the idea "Big Brother is bad".
I'm not making a judgment here on anything related to the present and past history of racism in this country, and what should/shouldn't be done about it. I'm merely pointing out that I am seeing that more and more we aren't using words the way we used to, and this seems (to me) being done on purpose to win political arguments, shutting down entire avenues of reasoned/civil debate. I don't know to what ends this will lead us, but I do know it doesn't end well when a group with a political power begins subtly defining an out-group.
Whether or not you believe anti-white racism is a real thing or not, I worry that the use of the term is on the rise. And that this may not be a bug, it may be a feature.
"Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past."
[1] https://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_poli...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Italian American here, my mom wasn't considered "white" until she was an adult. That was then, I'm white now. Did you read the article? I'm not sure it counts as "baiting for clicks" when he spends half of the article talking about the history and structure of the American caste system and how SBF's (perceived) status as a white male impacted his trajectory. I don't think it's bait, when it's the thrust of the essay.
> how SBF's (perceived) status as a white male impacted his trajectory. I don't think it's bait, when it's the thrust of the essay. It's provocative and dishonest for him to not once acknowledge SBF's privileged circumstances or well-connected family, something which directly aided in his success and that the vast majority of people wouldn't be able to replicate. The post is generally well-written and makes some sali…