I am short a couple dozen naked Feb 3 calls on a lot of affected tickers and almost had a heart attack when looking at one of them on my phone. Thankfully I was not in front of my computer at the time because I have no idea how my broker was managing my margin at open.
I just double-click the right-hand side button in my pocket, then double-check this is the correct card - thus unlocking the phone by me looking at it. Do it everyday without issues
What does "X for white people" look like though? The only reason that "X for black people" exists is that black people are a minority group and aren't sufficiently catered to by X, which is already more or less "X for white people" by default, at least in the US and much of Europe. As such, any product that that markets itself explicitly to white people (again, only referencing the US and Europe here) is much more likely to have less socially acceptable intent behind it
"X for white people" makes more sense in a population where caucasians are the minority, for instance in China.
> What does "X for white people" look like though?
Totally hypothetical example... "NBA for white people" - basically majority-white professional basketball teams playing each other. I'm sure that would ignite a firestorm if someone tried to do that.
But what would the justification be for setting up such a league? "Netflix for black people" is a representation of cultural differences and seeing those differences reflected on screen. "NBA for white people" would just be... excluding non-white people. White and black basketball players aren't different physically (on average) nor do they typically have different playing styles. There isn't really a lot of justification in such a division, hence why it would result in a firestorm.
Fair point. How about "Rap for white people" - a record label that only features white rappers for people that want to hear more suburban white-America culture expressed through rap? Still might ignite a firestorm, all it takes is one media outlet framing it as racist.
It might ignite a firestorm but this might too on more right wing channels (e.g. Breitbart), it's just that those channels aren't as represented in "mainstream" media
You deny reality --"White and black basketball players aren't different physically"
seriously? The only reason blacks dominate bball is bc they are different physically.
The same for why we have women's sports that exclude men.
The reason why blacks need to create X for blacks is often because they can't compete without it, which just means yes groups on avg are different.
Whites can't compete with black bball players.
Groups on average are different.
So yes, I can see why there is a reason and market for a NBA for whites.
Except that "for white people" is the default. The minority representation in media is still generally token at best. And, while it may seem like a double standard, when you say something implying that there should be a "x for white people" it sounds like you're saying you're already seeing too much minority representation in media for your comfort or sense of place in society. And if that's the case, know that that means you have some issues to work out on your own.
>The minority representation in media is still generally token at best.
Is this really true, today? I can definitely see that even 10 years ago, but just glancing through Netflix recommendations, I see characters from all over the place. I wonder if anyone has been able to quantify this progress.
>know that that means you have some issues to work out on your own.
Certainly those channels have never been marketed as "a channel for white people" as an explicit statement. Just because they are channels for white people and white American culture doesn't change that.
They are not, but their programming makes it quite obvious who their target audience is. And I don't think this is a bad thing, at all. For example, Hallmark has a large number of programs where characters are very overt in talking about and praising their faith and religion, which is much less common on other networks.
To echo what others have said, though, if you are not a member of a minority, it can be difficult to understand how affirming and wonderful it can feel to experience, just for a brief moment and even if by fantasy, to exist as if you were the majority. For example, I am gay, and here are some common thought processes that go through my head that are basically completely foreign to straight people:
1. When I walk down the street with my partner of 20 years, deciding to hold hands is not something I can just do spontaneously. It is essentially a political act when I do it, and so my first thoughts always go to (a) am I safe and (b) do I feel like making a political statement right now.
2. When I travel, the first thing I think about is whether I am going to a place that is accepting of gays. I'm just too old to want to deal with anti-gay attitudes when I'm supposed to be enjoying myself on vacation.
3. When I introduce myself to new people, I do a mental calculation as to whether I feel like mentioning my partner and thus outing myself in that situation. Again, it's always a conscious calculation, where it almost never is for straight people.
So the first time I visited the Castro (a well-known gay neighborhood in San Francisco), it was kind of magical to me, to just walk down the street and have people assume I was gay before assuming I was straight, and it was really the first time I could completely relax and feel like what it was like to be a member of the majority.
So that's what things like BET, LogoTV, Telemundo, etc. are really about, it's about actually feeling like you are the focus of attention for a short time.
They're well known for being the most reductive, base, inoffensive content possible.
In the sense that shows and movies seem like the result of endless series of meetings, where anything that anyone might object to is censored and removed.
how about changing the marketing from "netflix for a black audience" to "netfix about black people"
that means, this channel intends to highlight stories from or about black people, but it doesn't suggest who should watch it.
saying "it's for black people" is patronizing because it is claiming that it is not for me, whereas, if it is "about black people" then i feel welcome to watch it, because i happen to be interested in that.
Sure, I get the immediate reaction. But this all has to do with what "blackness" and "whiteness" means; "Whiteness" effectively means here, "most everybody who didn't have to be enslaved because of their skin color."
No problem with e.g. "X for German-Americans" or the like, if the niche is there.
Well, it's kind of the default majority, and with the history here in the US particularly, not only is it unnecessary to say, it almost automatically invokes the history of racism we're still dealing with. So yes, not acceptable given the loaded context.
The reason for that, in the US at least, is that "for white people" is implied by default. Everything is always for white people. So when you go and spell it out explicitly, "X for white people" ends up having a connotation of "X for white people only."
What poeron is getting at is there can be two meanings of "X for Y". While "X for kids" doesn't imply adults can't watch, "X for adults" implies kids can't watch.
I mean, there already are sunscreen products that don't look flattering on non-white skin. However, they aren't explicitly marketed as "for white people" - that's implicit
I guess what confuses me is that one says a film is French because it has been produced by a French producer for a French audience. French is both a culture and a location.
Whereas in the case of Black products culture and location are not the distinct.
Edit : what I am writing is really confusing and I should have stopped 2 seconds before commenting.
This. 99% of policing is just fishing with a pretext. Even when they're out to run a speed trap and collect revenue they still err toward stopping the outlier cars.
If you don't blend in you get a ton more attention. That can mean an out of state plate, a skin tone that doesn't match the area, a vehicle that doesn't match the area or you're checking stereotype boxes for criminal activity.
Thank you so much for this app. I transitioned from the official one because GIFs were just not working at all. The GIF navigation and post hiding on scroll made me upgrade. If there's just one thing I miss from the official app it's when I'm on my feed and I click "posts" again, it doesn't scroll to the top.
If you considered this small addition that would be fantastic!
