• Light/Dark

Rihanna now officially a billionaire

krazen

krazen

Member
Oct 27, 2017
13,527
Gentrified Brooklyn
brainchild said:
Conversely, as a black leftist, I find it incredibly frustrating that whenever wealthy black people are criticized for amassing said wealth, I can always count on liberals (especially black liberals) to implicitly suggest that said criticisms are due to white leftists being racist in some way, as if it's impossible for black leftists to agree with said criticisms. When people erase black leftists like that, I feel it's a bit demoralizing, as leftism in the black community is already not very popular. I'm sure it's not intentional, but it is nonetheless very frustrating.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I mean, its not as if anyone likes Jay-Z. White leftists problem is that they are still subconciously indoctrinated in the system which is why the leftist conversation that sneaks into popular culture is solely white male focused. And while America stamps out any sort of black movement, its quite telling there's a huge gap between pre-existing minority lead boots on ground movements and the
current wave of leftist golden boys.

brainchild said:
I disagree. I say "eat the rich" all the time when it comes to wealthy people. Does my "colorblindness" mean that I'm white? Why should you assume my race just because I didn't a attach an academic thesis with a statement like that? Why should black people be expected to thoroughly articulate their viewpoints on an issue like this in order to rebut the notion that "eat the rich" is not just a white leftist problem? That's what I meant about erasure.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

To say that 'Well, why should my race matter, its a true statement' kind of ignores how the internet works. I too can speak truisms at the right time that feed into fucked up energy with a conscious or unconscious bias behind it. Its why Johnny Depp/Amber Heard posts on here feel like an Incel meeting even though they all have good points.

Again, the Osaka post was an eye opener to how posters were arguing class to the point her mental issues didn't matter, where it came off with the same talking points you see on white wing radio. Its not hard to see its not about class.
 
Spinluck

Spinluck

â–˛ Legend â–˛
Banned
Oct 26, 2017
28,877
Chicago
I'm so happy that my future wife has accumulated so much wealth for me to completely give away after our future divorce that will never happen!
 

brainchild

Independent Developer
Verified
Nov 25, 2017
9,516
Darryl M R said:
A black person saying eat the rich has an entirely differently landing than when a white person says it when discussing Rihanna. This isn't a complex thing to understand, truthfully.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Slayven said:
"Eat the rich" hits differently when you are aiming it at a black woman grinding, while putting people of all kinds on.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I don't personally have a problem with white leftists saying "eat the rich" when talking about wealthy black people and I don't know many black leftists who do, but I can definitely understand how some black people might not appreciate that attitude coming from white people, and may see it as a sort of false equivalence. I didn't get the impression that the issue was the fact that it was white leftists saying it, and it seemed more like a suggestion that it's something only white leftists say to wealthy black people, so if we're talking about the former, then I can certainly respect that.

Slayven said:
No one is erasing black leftists.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I know you probably don't mean this literally, but this really isn't true in the historical sense.

Black professor Michael Dawson does a pretty good job of laying this out in his book Blacks In and Out of the Left:


First, the general history of progressive and labor movements, including specifically the history of Marxism in the United States
and the history of what is called the New Left, has been until recently whitewashed, and for some scholars this remains the case. This whitewashing not only leads to misapprehension of the nature, scope, and activities of the left in virtually any period of the twentieth century but also makes it extremely difficult to draw scholarly or political lessons from that history. Davies describes this process with respect to major communist leader Claudia Jones:

How could someone who had lived in the United States from the age of eight, who had been so central to black and communist political organizing throughout the 1930s and 1940s up to the mid- 1950s, simply disappear? How could such a popular public figure, an active journalist and public speaker, a close friend of Paul and Eslanda Goode Robeson, a house mate of Lorraine Hansberry, mentored by W. E. B. Du Bois, remain outside of major consideration? (Davies 2007, 1)

Davies's answer is that Jones was "erased" from African American, radical, feminist, and Caribbean histories. As Davies and other black feminist scholars have detailed, this is a phenomenon most acutely observed in relation to black women activists in the United States and elsewhere in the diaspora. It is also a phenomenon observable in relation to many (although not all) black male radicals as well. Harry Haywood and Cyril Briggs are two examples of figures who were important in their time but are now at best footnotes in the historiography of American radicalism; Hubert Harrison is missing entirely from such accounts. The history of the American left is grossly distorted due to this erasure.5
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Second, not only has the white left historically been complicit in the erasure of black radicals and their contributions from the historical record, but it has also often been openly hostile toward black radicals and their aspirations, ideas, and programs. This was true of both the social democratic left and the Leninist left. The left itself has directly facilitated the distortion of American radical history. Many of the historians who have written about the left have either emerged from or been sympathetic to leftist movements in the United States. Consequently, many but not all have been influenced by the hostility and/or apathy that white- dominated leftist movements have had toward black radicalisms. Indeed, as Davies (2007) documents, Jones's theoretical and programmatic initiatives were met with charges of "reverse chauvinism," particularly from her white female comrades. (Something similar occurred with earlier communists such as Richard Moore.) The later generation of black leftists of the 1960s and 1970s would be called racists by the right and black nationalists by broad segments of the white-dominated left. This hostility has led to an erasure of black radicals and their causes that goes beyond the general censorship and erasure of U.S. left history.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Third, and somewhat separate from the first two points, there was a different path for radical black politics to follow before the massive battles between black leftists, liberals, and nationalists that came to dominate black radical politics from the 1920s through the middle 1960s. In the early twentieth century and from approximately 1966 to 1974, black leftists pursued an organizational strategy that emphasized work among African Americans, as well as working- class struggle, but within all black organizational forms. This path was followed for only a few years in the early 1970s before a return to doctrinaire Marxism—a Marxism less careful about challenging the privileges of white supremacy and patriarchy. It would behoove us to investigate whether the path that, as we shall soon see, was foreclosed in the early twentieth century due to Hubert Harrison's organizational in effective ness and misogyny (and the greater skills and charisma of his rivals) offers anything to us today. Given the current state of relations between black movements and progressive movements, as well as the current weakness of black politics itself, is there any value in considering how organizations that are racial in form but radical in content might be effective today, or has the time for their effectiveness passed for good? Let us start this inquiry with a recent version of early twentieth- century American radicalism...
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


Clearly there is plenty of blame to go around, but I just wanted to be clear that "black leftism erasure" is not some made up thing. There is plenty of evidence to support it.


Darryl M R said:
I'm talking about Era only.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Right, I know. Perhaps it was unfair of me to use your specific post to go on this tangent, but I was just explaining why I did.

krazen said:
I mean, its not as if anyone likes Jay-Z. White leftists problem is that they are still subconciously indoctrinated in the system which is why the leftist conversation that sneaks into popular culture is solely white male focused. And while America stamps out any sort of black movement, its quite telling there's a huge gap between pre-existing minority lead boots on ground movements and the
current wave of leftist golden boys.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

krazen said:
To say that 'Well, why should my race matter, its a true statement' kind of ignores how the internet works. I too can speak truisms at the right time that feed into fucked up energy with a conscious or unconscious bias behind it. Its why Johnny Depp/Amber Heard posts on here feel like an Incel meeting even though they all have good points.

Again, the Osaka post was an eye opener to how posters were arguing class to the point her mental issues didn't matter, where it came off with the same talking points you see on white wing radio. Its not hard to see its not about class.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I'm not here to defend white leftists (I have many problems with them myself, and partially blame them for the lack of black leftist visibility), I was just sharing my thoughts about what it feels like to continually come across statements that would seem to inadvertently suggest that criticizing black wealthy people for being wealthy is solely based on white people being racist. A white leftist may very well make statements like that out of racial bias, but when the discourse is often generalized in such a way, a black leftist like myself can end up feeling erased. It appears that the discussion in this thread is more about the fact that said words are coming from white leftists and not that black leftists don't also think or say such things, so I don't really have an issue with that sentiment in this thread, but in general, the erasure of black leftism has been incredibly problematic, as evidenced by the data professor Michael Dawson pointed out in the quotes I provided earlier in this post.
 
Last edited:
Slayven

Slayven

Never read a comic in his life
Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
94,460
brainchild said:
I don't personally have a problem with white leftists saying "eat the rich" when talking about wealthy black people and I don't know many black leftists who do, but I can definitely understand how some black people might not appreciate that attitude coming from white people, and may see it as a sort of false equivalence. I didn't get the impression that the issue was the fact that it was white leftists saying it, and it seemed more like a suggestion that it's something only white leftists say to wealthy black people, so if we're talking about the former, then I can certainly respect that.



I know you probably don't mean this literally, but this really isn't true in the historical sense.

Black professor Michael Dawson does a pretty good job of laying this out in his book Blacks In and Out of the Left:









Clearly there is plenty of blame to go around, but I just wanted to be clear that "black leftism erasure" is not some made up thing. There is plenty of evidence to support it.




Right, I know. Perhaps it was unfair of me to use your specific post to go on this tangent, but I was just explaining why I did.





I'm not here to defend white leftists (I have many problems with them myself, and partially blame them for the lack of black leftist visibility), I was just sharing my thoughts about what it feels like to continually come across statements that would seem to inadvertently suggest that criticizing black wealthy people for being wealthy is solely based on white people being racist. A white leftist may very well make statements like that out of racial bias, but when the discourse is often generalized in such a way, a black leftist like myself can end up feeling erased. It appears that the discussion in this thread is more about the fact that said words are coming from white leftists and not that black leftists don't also think or say such things, so I don't really have an issue with that sentiment in this thread, but in general, the erasure of black leftism has been incredibly problematic, as evidenced by the data professor Michael Dawson pointed out in the quotes I provided earlier in this post.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That is a conversation. But what that has to do with people being mad at Rhianna for achieving success? A black woman does something historic and a bunch of folks rush in to say "Let me tell you how this is evil". Someone was right to reference the Osaka thread. A black woman showing agency and folks feel a certain kinda way. That is erasure in itself, the black woman achieving power.
 
Anton Sugar

Anton Sugar

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
3,946
Slayven said:
A black woman does something historic and a bunch of folks rush in to say "Let me tell you how this is evil".
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This entire conversation was started by someone claiming she was the first ethical billionaire, not white leftists immediately rushing in to denounce her. And in that context, being "ethical" was limited to not harming animals, with no discussion of exploitation of labor.
 
mbpm

mbpm

Member
Oct 25, 2017
24,355
If she does something good with it, good.

Otherwise, doesn't really affect me.
 

brainchild

Independent Developer
Verified
Nov 25, 2017
9,516
Slayven said:
That is a conversation. But what that has to do with people being mad at Rhianna for achieving success? A black woman does something historic and a bunch of folks rush in to say "Let me tell you how this is evil". Someone was right to reference the Osaka thread. A black woman showing agency and folks feel a certain kinda way. That is erasure in itself, the black woman achieving power.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I understand the sentiment of why it's problematic for precisely the reasons you laid out, but I also see the fundamental problem with looking at a black woman achieving power through wealth as a good thing. I disagree that that kind of power is a good thing, and I wouldn't celebrate it, as I'm opposed to it.

Having said that, given the potential vector of racism (and misogyny) that opens up with a topic like this, I'd rather not use a thread like this to delve into why Rihanna being a billionaire is a problem, so believe me, I understand and respect your point of view.
 
GYODX

GYODX

Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,334
What's this I'm reading about Naomi Osaka? Did people really think to shit on Naomi Osaka, of all people? So toxic.

And what's with that earlier call ITT for a "violent uprising"? I mean, how am I supposed to read that? Is it a call to kill Rihanna? Fucking lunatic.
 
Jonathan Lanza

Jonathan Lanza

"I've made a Gigantic mistake"
Member
Feb 8, 2019
6,965
GYODX said:
What's this I'm reading about Naomi Osaka? Did people really think to shit on Naomi Osaka, of all people? So toxic.

And what's with that earlier call ITT for a "violent uprising"? I mean, how am I supposed to read that? Is it a call to kill Rihanna? Fucking lunatic.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You're gonna have to quote the post you're talking about my dude
 

brainchild

Independent Developer
Verified
Nov 25, 2017
9,516
GYODX said:
What's this I'm reading about Naomi Osaka? Did people really think to shit on Naomi Osaka, of all people? So toxic.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yup, the hyperfocus on critiquing black women in particular is out of control. Same with people's reactions concerning Simone Biles. You don't see that same energy with their white counterparts.
 

Deleted member 17092

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
20,360
Ah ok, nothing about osaka there and yeah that post is pretty bad and probably should be reported, but it's not anything directly against rihanna either.
 
Anton Sugar

Anton Sugar

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
3,946
I'm not even sure how Naomi Osaka was brought up in the context of this discussion. I and other leftists here thought it was fucking stupid/ridiculous that Era posters felt Osaka owed it to them to perform because she was famous or rich and that her mental health wasn't important enough a reason to bow out.
 
jacket

jacket

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,067
Mobius 1 said:
When is she going to space?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
tLCJiVy.gif
 
krazen

krazen

Member
Oct 27, 2017
13,527
Gentrified Brooklyn
Anton Sugar said:
I'm not even sure how Naomi Osaka was brought up in the context of this discussion. I and other leftists here thought it was fucking stupid/ridiculous that Era posters felt Osaka owed it to them to perform because she was famous or rich and that her mental health wasn't important enough a reason to bow out.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

This is a 'no true scotsman' defense, no?

Obviously being a leftist isn't a card carrying, I took a test, here's my license type club. Reason I brought up Osaka is that Era's posters; be they true leftists* or just borrowing vague leftist sounding points regarding wealth hoarding and class are making similar arguments here. Obviously less egregious in that being a billionaire isn't a problem (lol) regular people face like mental health but my point remains the same. The critiques seem 'off' whenever they involve black** women and class. And that's not in all spaces, just a predominantly white one like Era. Not saying we should break out the fireworks, but there's absolutely a 'Fuck her' vibe in some of the replies.

*Obviously you can say that a true leftist would never do that. But that's like me saying a true Christian would never...etc. White Supremacy is a morphing motherfucker that supersedes political ideology.

**I would even be open to the argument it might not be because they are black, but women btw, lol.
 
Last edited:
Anton Sugar

Anton Sugar

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
3,946
krazen said:
This is a 'no true scotsman' defense, no?

Obviously being a leftist isn't a card carrying, I took a test, here's my license type club. Reason I brought up Osaka is that Era's posters; be they true leftists or just borrowing vague leftist sounding points regarding wealth hoarding and class are making similar arguments here. Obviously less egregious in that being a billionaire isn't a problem (lol) regular people face like mental health but my point remains the same. The critiques seem 'off' whenever they involve black* women and class. And that's not in all spaces, just a predominantly white one like Era. Not saying we should break out the fireworks, but there's absolutely a 'Fuck her' vibe in some of the replies.


*I would even be open to the argument it might not be because they are black, but women btw, lol.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm not really following you and don't think I'm making any kind of "no true scotsman" defense.

I'm just very literally saying that most of the leftists here who are arguing that billionaires are exploitative by their very nature, were not the ones saying the Osaka or Simone Biles need to keep playing, regardless of their personal issues. I can't and won't speak for all of them, of course.

Osaka and Biles are both workers and are producing something that someone else profits from. Someone else profits from their labor. I don't think their situations are applicable or comparable to Rihanna becoming a billionaire.

I'd agree that yes, very often, if you are successful and not white, you are going to face unfair, racist treatment (and, sexist, if they are women). Even on a "liberal" board like Era, as we saw from the ridiculous Osaka and Biles threads. I just really don't think that's the case here.
 

brainchild

Independent Developer
Verified
Nov 25, 2017
9,516
Anton Sugar said:
I'd agree that yes, very often, if you are successful and not white, you are going to face unfair, racist treatment (and, sexist, if they are women). Even on a "liberal" board like Era, as we saw from the ridiculous Osaka and Biles threads. I just really don't think that's the case here.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

So something that is important to understand in the context of this thread is that you have black members describing the impression/reading they're getting from the thread, not that white leftists are specifically making explicitly racist arguments against Rihanna. I'm a black leftist and I can still understand where they're coming from. It's about the way people are talking about it, and for some black members, it's coming across a bit suspect (this intuition is just something black people tend to develop after being subjected to racial bias over so many years).

My advice for any white leftist is to not be dismissive about such concerns, especially since intentionality doesn't necessarily have anything to do with it, and if it's a subconscious thing, a white person (leftist or not) isn't necessarily going to recognize it.

One of the reasons black leftism faltered in the way that it did was that white leftists weren't able to address their racial blindspots and continued to ignore or dismiss the concerns of black leftists, so we definitely want to do our best to keep history from repeating itself over and over on this issue.
 
Anton Sugar

Anton Sugar

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
3,946
brainchild said:
One of the reasons black leftism faltered in the way that it did was that white leftists weren't able to address their racial blindspots and continued to ignore or dismiss the concerns of black leftists, so we definitely want to do our best to keep history from repeating itself over and over on this issue.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Thank you for the perspective. Black Red Guard was recently on RevLeft radio and spoke about this very thing--how much time and energy white leftists wasted by not examining their own blindspots over the decades and almost killed the movement(s). It still threatens to be a problem with socialist groups in the US today like the DSA, which at least recognizes it's very white and how unrepresentative that is of the working class.
 
Senator Toadstool

Senator Toadstool

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
16,651
nobody on earth should have this much money.

congrats on her being successful but the government's of the world (preferably they would all be real democracies and thus the peoples of the world) should have this wealth distributed more equally. but there's a lot more at the top that Imma go after first because their using their money to fund evil things and destroy our democracy and planet.

obviouly some of her funds are unconsciously doing that but I give her credit for at least not actively being more evil.
 
faint

faint

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,197
Darryl M R said:
Forbes reporting on "billionaires" really have been kicking some of y'all butt. Her wealth has grown so much simply from Fenty's valuation, what investors perceive the value of the company to be worth. She does not have $1B. She has >50% of equity within her company that is valued at over $2B.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

This is literally how every billionaire is measured, though? Jeff Bezos does not have $180B but nobody is going to deny that he isn't worth $180B. I'm not really sure what you're trying to say in your posts anyway. You can be proud of a black woman building her wealth but you do not obtain a net worth valued at $1B without capitalism in full force.

AcademicSaucer said:
IIRC there is that Nigeria oil tycoon that has been a billionaire for a while now
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

There's also this woman that goes by the name of Oprah.
 
Arta

Arta

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
8,445
faint said:
This is literally how every billionaire is measured, though? Jeff Bezos does not have $180B but nobody is going to deny that he isn't worth $180B.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Don't worry, that flippant statement was obvious ignorant FUD. Does this guy think billionaires have all their money in cash like Scrooge Mcduck?
 
Neo C.

Neo C.

Member
Nov 9, 2017
3,040
Codeblue said:
I'd imagine distributing more of the profits to her employees would be one way to do that?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

That's not how it works for most young companies. They often have zero profits because all the money is needed for expanding the business. When you own growth stocks, most of the time you receive zero dividend.

faint said:
This is literally how every billionaire is measured, though?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
They can measure billionaires with visible wealth. That's why we mostly see new money on those lists.

Old money is much more difficult to measure, while also being more diversified and stable.

Rihanna could lose a lot of money just by devaluation of the stock.
 
Arta

Arta

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
8,445
This is a good video showing the differences between billionaires.



I like that Rihanna quietly made her money instead of shouting from the rooftops like the Kardashians did when they became billionaires.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.