rich-and-poor

  Catch up Canada!

No thanks. We understand that men are more reckless than women and we refuse to needlessly harm our insurance companies.

BRB, making it illegal to discriminate between dates based on physical appearance.

I'm sorry, it's not technical innovation. If someone invents a horse and carriage when the automobile is already in existence, the horse and carriage is not innovation. The poster who has been downvoted out of existence is correct.

New Glenn is not higher capacity than anything, it has never reached orbit.

What does it mean to connect with their community? What should Microsoft have done? Be specific.

> alternative solutions

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).

It's interesting how shameless you are about your blatant racism.

You find racial discrimination acceptable? Or also virtuous? Is it a good goal to strive for in 21st century society? Do you find virtue in breaking people up into racial and gendered groups, and then applying pre-calculated policies to "even them out"?

I am glad we agree that this VC fund is based on racial discrimination. I am upset that you find this acceptable, if not virtuous.

It is not that they have been systematically discriminated against; it is that they are being systematically discriminated against with this very fund. Let's get this straight: You are not cleared of being racist if you are discriminating against a group you deem as "in power". It is simply your careless redefinition of the word racism to apply not to ethnicity or nationality, but to power. This redefinition clears those not in power from being called racist when they explicitly discriminate on racial grounds.

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.

Racism does not depend on history or society, it depends on whether or not there is active racial discrimination. You imply that only the powerful may be racist, and that discrimination towards the racial or gender group "of power" is not only not racist, but a virtuous act.

It is at the very least racial discrimination, as it discriminates on the basis of race who should receive funding. You could argue that it does make the claim that non-colored men have relative superiority, otherwise it would not be able to justify it's abject racism towards them.