Well, most of them come from the well-off portions of those places, so it's a lot less than half the planet. But yes, you seem to get my point, which is that the population in SF is not representative of the globe at large.

I guess if you wave your hands some you could call it a flavor or corporatism. But I think your description of those groups as privileged is pretty rich. From a certain angle it's technically correct, but in a way that aggressively misses the point. You might as well call them lucky duckies.

There are about 2^(6 billion) subgroups of humanity. The NYT consistently chooses a small subset of those subgroups to focus on, and to give moral consideration to.

The particular grouping chosen by the NYT is just an arbitrary moral choice to privilege the {race == black} subgroup over (for example) the {SSN % 7 == 2} subgroup.

Gosh, you've figured it out. That choice is entirely arbitrary and random, and has absolutely nothing to do with history or morality.

I didn't claim their grouping choices had nothing to do with history or morality, nor did I claim randomness. I specifically said that the NYT's choice of which groups deserve privilege is based on an "arbitrary moral choice".

Yes, the choices are moral choices. But by calling it arbitrary, I presume you mean: "Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system."

If they are without reason or system, then the can hardly be derived from existing moral systems (that, is morality), or the application of those moral systems to (and lessons learned from) historical circumstance (history).

But by all means carry on with your aggressive point-missing. Would you care to pick this particular nit? Or perhaps a different one?