On the other hand if someone comes from a background where they feel oppressed, they're going to write that into their work.
That's part of the point of the article. People continue to extrapolate from what they view culture currently is, as if it continues indefinitely into the future. I think based on that "white men" are going to view it as being more pleasant and fair (i.e. their own experience) than minorities.
Or, well, pessimistic at all. One of the weird things about the post-war West is most people honestly expect the future to be better.
So "impossible to imagine" strikes me as an uncharitable characterization. I can imagine that vegetarianism becomes a moral norm, and I can imagine how the change could happen, but that's entirely disconnected from my doubt it will happen. I also remember the time in my life when gay rights weren't the foregone conclusion they've been for the last 10 years.
If we look at the distribution of shifting societal attitudes, there is going to be some threshold that turns things from "wishful thinking" to "probably going to happen." Without knowing what the information available at the time, and methodology used was generate the prediction, lying any blame at the feet of white/male/rich strikes me as applying a currently politically fashionable one size fits all explanation.
It may be a generalisation, but it's pretty accurate generally. — [citation needed]
The rich won't envision a future with less (or more) poverty. — [citation needed]
White men are less likely to imagine a future with full gender equality and black liberation than black women are — [citation needed]
People living in the West will think less about the rise of the rest of the world. — [citation needed]
Quote: "Maybe if they spent more time DOING things and less time complaining about white people there would be more futurists/engineers/painters/doctors etc instead we have BlackLivesMatter doing die-in's in shopping malls or protesting the deaths of career criminals..."
Perhaps the original commenter is accidentally committing a subtle act of prejudice, but you are being overtly racist.
Noting that the original commenter may or may not be black, Your choice to attack black people is independent of your concern about the potential prejudice in the original comment.
At least this makes it clear where you stand; your comment was not about fighting prejudice.
In case you are still reading: The poster I was replying to didn't commit a subtle act of prejudice, they made an overtly racist statement about white men. Then claimed that white men can't envision a future of black liberation. That's literally what they said, I responded to that comment.
I am saying that instead of futurism (and other cultural works), the focus of a lot of black people and their effort seems to be civil rights activities. These civil rights activities have an opportunity cost, while you're doing die-ins at the mall you may not have time to write about the future. So therefore we don't have as much of a black vision of the future because they (black people) aren't spending their effort on that.
My comment was about fighting prejudice, prejudice against white people. That sort of behavior is totally kosher on the internet and in the mainstream media and it's very PC and fashionable to bash "white people" and their culture (when it's admitted that they even have a culture). I have gotten pretty sick of it.
You claim oppression is fictional - so I guess it's possible you don't.
You say you are pointing at the opportunity costs of protesting oppression. They are only opportunity costs if the oppression is not real - otherwise they may be part of a necessary struggle to obtain opportunity. Do you really think that there is no anti-black racism?
You may be fed up with people bashing white people on the internet - I am too. But that is no excuse for making overtly racist statements against black people, a behavior which is certainly counterproductive to what you claim to be your true aim.