"Budget culture" has drawbacks other than being "rooted in maleness and whiteness in the way many of our cultural ideals are."
But I suppose that's an article for someone else to write, for the "outside the fence" audience who prefer not to have obligatory faith flags around everything they consume.
Well the last personal finance book I read was written of Indian descent, he spends a large part of the book joking about Indian culture around getting a good deal on a car and generally being careful with money. Money and trade isn't white culture (what ever that is).
I never said anything about something being the exclusivity of middle-class white Americans.
In fact, I was thinking more of the South Korean who told me that it was common for the man to save up enough money to buy his condo before he moved out of his parents home
That quote was highly racist to me, I think it is insulting to say “budget culture” which is really planning, measuring, estimating, forecasting etc. is somehow rooted in “White” anything. Every culture that still exists has incredibly impressive feats of budgeting. There is clear evolutionary pressure for planning well. Anyone around today has an ancestry full of “budgeting”.
In fact I would say the “white male” budget culture is subpar to many other non-white cultures if you look at our saving rate, credit card debt, and general solvency.
Finally it is offensive to claim there is such a thing as “white male” culture. There isn’t and to say there is is just “othering” or defining a group that is fair game to criticize based on the color of their skin or gender identity.
I’ve spent a lot of time the last couple years reading foundational political philosophy books and writings espoused by the “other side” in order to understand where some of these ideas I don’t agree with come from. I’m finding a lot of these tweet sized positions are built (deep deep down) on ideas I can actually agree with but at some point somebody warps it to be a political wedge. This has made me more agreeable to some underlying ideas while still not agreeing with the polarizing rhetoric. I encourage you to dig into the origins of positions the “other side” has taken that cause you to form a truncated opinion of that position.
I should not have said the left, but some on the extreme left that is gaining influence quickly or something like that.
As far as I understand it the civil rights movement had two strains, MLK had a liberal version and there was a Marxist illiberal version. The latter one is now back as the critical race theory.
I can understand how it happened and why Marxism is appealing but I can never support it. There is just a huge philosophical gap there. And I don’t think it can be put into practice.
My main point was that going around and alienating all the people that could be your allies drives them into voting for trump etc. if there are two camps I feel uncomfortable with, one calls me a white suprematist and the other welcomes me the choice becomes much simpler.
I strongly believe Obama could still win a presidential election. That means the electorate is not primarily driven by racism.
Finally I think it’s too much to expect all voters to look into why you call the white suprematist or try to dig into the underlying position. There has to be a positive future for everyone if you want to win elections. If you run on exterminating whiteness don’t be too surprised if white people decide that is not an appealing future for them.
But I suppose that's an article for someone else to write, for the "outside the fence" audience who prefer not to have obligatory faith flags around everything they consume.