If it's "focuses on content for <minority group>", that's great. Minorities tend to underrepresented and trying to address that balance by creating more for them is all bonus.
If it's "excludes all but <minority group>", I am not a fan; I thin it causes resentment. The ability to have a group that allows <minority> but not <majority>, but not have a group that allows <majority> but not <minority>, is _wrong_ in my mind. Admittedly, having a group that allows both but focuses on <minority> so that <majority> is unlikely to be interested in joining is reasonable.
I guess the act of specifically excluding/disallowing a group, unless it's acceptable for _all_ groups to do the same, inherently conveys "you are the worse of the two groups". It's insulting and an attack.
I understand the point you're trying to make, but unless they're excluding white people from subscribing I have a hard time accepting it. An industry that comes to mind is haircare, there are tons of brands and a long history of companies that explictly cater to black hair ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madam_C._J._Walker , is a great person to look into ). I can buy products from those companies, despite their focus being on the black community, and many being black owned. Conversely, the majority of haircare products available cater to more traditionally white hair types and black people are free to buy them. There is no exclusion, just a market where the majority of the products cater to the majority of people, and there was a market need filled to cater to the minority. A haircare company in say, Nigeria, would not have to go out of their way to say it's catering to black hair, just like Nollywood does not have to say it's featuring black voices, it's just understood that it's a representation of the majority of the population.
> but unless they're excluding white people from subscribing I have a hard time accepting it
My apologies; I must not have been clear. Nothing here is an example of something I have an issue with. I was merely pointing out that having "X for <minority>" can go two ways; promote the minority, or exclude the majority. The former is great, the later is not.
I wasn't, in any way, trying to indicate the post is doing the wrong thing. As others have noted, it sounds like a Netflix-ey version of BET which, as far as I know, hasbeen nothing but positive.
If it's "focuses on content for <minority group>", that's great. Minorities tend to underrepresented and trying to address that balance by creating more for them is all bonus.
If it's "excludes all but <minority group>", I am not a fan; I thin it causes resentment. The ability to have a group that allows <minority> but not <majority>, but not have a group that allows <majority> but not <minority>, is _wrong_ in my mind. Admittedly, having a group that allows both but focuses on <minority> so that <majority> is unlikely to be interested in joining is reasonable.
I guess the act of specifically excluding/disallowing a group, unless it's acceptable for _all_ groups to do the same, inherently conveys "you are the worse of the two groups". It's insulting and an attack.