Airbnb Gives In To Regulator's Demand To Test For Racial Discrimination By Hosts (theguardian.com)

As part of an agreement with California regulators, Airbnb will allow the government to test for racial discrimination by hosts. The Guardian reports: The California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) announced Thursday that it had resolved a complaint it filed against Airbnb with an agreement that forces the company to permit the state to conduct "fair housing testing" of certain hosts. That means that for the first time the San Francisco-based company is giving a regulatory body permission to conduct the kind of racial discrimination audits that officials have long used to enforce fair housing laws against traditional landlords. The DFEH's original complaint -- which had not previously been disclosed -- was based on research and a growing number of reports suggesting that hosts regularly refuse to rent to guests due to their race, a problem exposed last year under the hashtag #AirbnbWhileBlack.

Comments

It's my house though

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course there's discrimination. I'll rent to who I want, fuck you!

Re: It's my house though

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone likes anti discrimination laws until a n*gger wants to stay in their house.

Re:It's my house though

[Anonymous Coward]

You have no right to discriminate against race even if they typically destroy your place. I stopped doing Airbnb since the last two renters I had were African and absolutely trashed my place. The last one stole my TV and cable modem.

Re: It's my house though

[Anonymous Coward]

Same here. My last Airbnb customer was from Nigeria, and they stole my bed sheets and all of my towels.

Re: It's my house though

[Anonymous Coward]

Same here. My last Airbnb customer was from Nigeria, and they stole my bed sheets and all of my towels.

That is surprising. My last Nigerian Airbnb customer was an absolute prince.

Re: It's my house though

[Anonymous Coward]

That's racist. Just because a couple of Africans in a row were bad renters doesn't mean we all are.

Re: It's my house though

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't have the same morals as us so it is unfair for you to hold them to our standards.

Re: It's my house though

[Anonymous Coward]

So how many bad experiences are ok before you start doing things to mitigate those bad experiences? Cause it doesnt appear to be working for him.

Re: It's my house though

[Anonymous Coward]

This. You can't hold them to unrealistic standards. I've had seven Airbnb customers so far, and the four white couples caused no problems, but the three black guys/couples stole stuff. That is their culture so I don't blame them.

Re: It's my house though

[Anonymous Coward]

Same here. I had to buy all new sheets and towels which made Airbnb a losing proposition.

Re: It's my house though

[Anonymous Coward]

> bed sheets and all of my towels.

I advertised 1,500 thread count Egyptian cotton sheets and wireless Internet access, so the three times in a row when black people I rented to stole my sheets and wireless router, they cost me much more than I made in rent. Airbnb is just not sustainable.

Re: It's my house though

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure. But why have the government jump through hoops just so you can rent from racists?

Re: It's my house though

[karmatic]

There are coax cable locks you can get off Amazon and other places. Hotels use them to keep people from disconnecting the cables.

If you put them on the modem, and the wall, then it is hard to steal.

Re: It's my house though

[karmatic]

As a landlord, I don't care if you all are or not, quite frankly.

I have no problem with not renting to you, if it reduces my risk. The culture of groups you are part of is not my problem.

Re: It's my house though

[Anonymous Coward]

I felt the same until I had two couples in a row from Africa stay in my place. Both of them each caused ten times as much damage as they paid for.

Re: It's my house though

[Anonymous Coward]

My last Airbnb customer ate all my food, banged my wife, stole my car, and left a mess for me to clean up. She wants to do it again!

Re: It's my house though

[Anonymous Coward]

You could have a security deposit to cover said items, if they get stolen then try to claim it against that. Also you should probably have insurance as well as adequate proof of said items, these kind of steps would mitigate any risk of theft. Did you do anything like this? Or are you just here to complain?

Re:It's my house though

[Sir Holo]

Of course there's discrimination. I'll rent to who I want, fuck you!

There are laws against that. Lots of them.

Re: It's my house though

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you trolling? I mean i did bite so i guess you are. Airbnb is a listing service. My house is my rules. As far as i know i dont have to allow anyone on it for sny reason but other then i said i can.

On mobile, grammar, punctuation and what not may be poor.

Re: It's my house though

[Anonymous Coward]

then advertise on craigslist, backpage, etc.. if terms of use for the renters includes assurances of fair treatment(even if not enforced) then you can leave.

Re: It's my house though

[sunking2]

Once you use a listing service that opens it to the public then there are all sorts of rules and laws that follow. Want to keep your rules? Don't use a listing service. Rent only using word of mouth to people you know. Rent to whomever you want, but don't advertise it to people you have no intention of renting to. That is what is illegal.

Re: It's my house though

[Anonymous Coward]

thats what the deposits are for, plus...unless you have a hosting fetish or like people to gawk at your nice things why are you not just using the nice stuff from marshals, or tj maxx.

Re: It's my house though

[Anonymous Coward]

Discriminating is a lot less of a hassle than what you're describing.

Re:It's my house though

[Lordpidey]

In quite a few states, you actually can legally discriminate based on race for renting, if you live on the property, and are renting out to X or fewer people.

Re: It's my house though

[Anonymous Coward]

Like most things legal, it is up for interpretation. Perhaps you are right and I am wrong. I have not and do not plan to use airbnb or similar service for the one place i rent out. As others stated if there are issues security deposits and lockdowns of equipment/furnishing should be suitable. Not that i have done so with my own property but the tenants have always been well vetted. I suppose that is due to the long term nature of the agreement whereas airbnb is more like a hospitality arrangement.

Re: It's my house though

[ArmoredDragon]

What I've found interesting is that the industry that will do just about anything for the right price overwhelmingly has an exception by most of its practitioners -- no black men under any circumstances.

By that I'm referring to the oldest industry. And yes, even black prostitutes very often have this rule. However many will make exceptions so long as when they speak to the john on the phone, his voice timber/accent doesn't sound black, as that person typically hasn't been exposed to black culture, which is the main problem in their eyes, and not the skin color.

http://forum.blackhairmedia.co...

Here's the most important part:

The strongest proof of this I can offer you is that while most white girls can be persuaded to see a black client if he is well-spoken and/or lives in an affluent neighborhood or stays in an expensive hotel, many black escorts will not see a black man under any circumstances; in the words of Tina (a simply gorgeous black girl who was Flavor of the Month for quite a while), “They’re too cheap, too rough and too full of themselves.”

Obviously, this isn’t true of all black men; I had several black regulars over the years (including a salesman who saw me about once a week for quite a while), and the only complaint I ever had about any of them was that one poor guy tried so hard to make himself agreeable to me that his skin always smelled and tasted like soap! But what about the rest of them? I’m afraid I have to agree with Tina; the majority do tend to be exactly as she described, and I think the reason they are that way has to do with their subculture. For reasons others are more qualified to analyze than I, the typical male role model for young black men is exaggeratedly masculine, physical rather than intellectual and tends toward violence; he is a sports star, a “gangsta” or a “bad-ass” action hero. And one doesn’t need to be a sociologist to recognize that this self-inflicted stereotype is related to a deep current of misogyny in the black community;

That's pretty much all that needs to be said. Unfortunately, if you try to talk openly about this, you're instantly labeled a racist, which is pretty much THE word to use these days if you want to shut somebody up, especially if that person is white, because once that accusation is thrown at somebody, it's basically impossible to prove otherwise.

Re:It's my house though

[stephenmac7]

That's true. There are laws against it. However, that's not how it should be. As the owner of your property, you have the right to discriminate. This is the same reason why the flower arrangement case makes no sense; there is no reason anyone should be forced to buy or sell from anyone. Is that not freedom of association and protection of private property? In fact, the market relies on your ability to discriminate between products and services; labor and renting are only a few of those.

Now, unfair discrimination could be a problem, but there is no reason to make it illegal. If someone wants to hurt their own ability to do business, then let them. As Rothbard explains,

Suppose, for example, that someone in a free society is a landlord of a house or a block of houses. He could simply charge the free market rent and let it go at that. But then there are risks; he may choose to discriminate against renting to couples with young children, figuring that there is substantial risk of defacing his property. On the other hand, he may well choose to charge extra rent to compensate for the higher risk, so that the free-market rent for such families will tend to be higher than otherwise. This, in fact, will happen in most cases on the free market. But what of personal, rather than strictly economic, “discrimination” by the landlord? Suppose, for example, that the landlord is a great admirer of six-foot Swedish-Americans, and decides to rent his apartments only to families of such a group. In the free society it would be fully in his right to do so, but he would clearly suffer a large monetary loss as a result. For this means that he would have to turn away tenant after tenant in an endless quest for very tall Swedish-Americans. While this may be considered an extreme example, the effect is exactly the same, though differing in degree, for any sort of personal discrimination in the marketplace. If, for example, the landlord dislikes redheads and determines not to rent his apartments to them, he will suffer losses, although not as severely as in the first example.

In any case, anytime anyone practices such “discrimination” in the free market, he must bear the costs, either of losing profits or of losing services as a consumer. If a consumer decides to boycott goods sold by people he does not like, whether the dislike is justified or not, he then will go without goods or services which he otherwise would have purchased.

Re: It's my house though

[Anonymous Coward]

"...That's racist. Just because a couple of Africans in a row were bad renters doesn't mean we all are...."

Of course not, a few bad apples spoils the whole barrel. If you want to embrace a culture that feels everybody owes them, and its OK to take from "the rich", then you live with the consequences.

Suck it up.

Re: It's my house though

[karmatic]

"It has nothing to do with race"

Sure, it does. Race is a conveinent risk-reducing proxy. It's a lot easier to judge someone from their profile pic - if you wait until they arrive to boot them for baggy pants, you're looking at a lawsuit.

Re: It's my house though

[religionofpeas]

Want to keep your rules? Don't use a listing service.

Or create a special listing service only for black people, or only white people.

Re: It's my house though

[karmatic]

As a racist, I don't have the same morals you do, so it's unfair to hold me to your standards.

Re: It's my house though

[karmatic]

"In any case, anytime anyone practices such âoediscriminationâ in the free market, he must bear the costs, either of losing profits or of losing services as a consumer. "

Often, discrimination pays well.

With nightclubs in particular, enforcing a dress code for the purpose of removing most black patrons can result in wealthier clients, and higher tickets. Some restaraunts get less hassle, better tips, and less monopolization of tables by large groups, as well as fewer dine and dashes. That's why many restaraunts require pre-pay after 10, or won't split the bill for large groups (so they can hold any one person liable for the bill if several run). Those policies tend to mysteriously not get enforced when you have a white family show up.

There's an assumption that when you fire the customer you make less money. That's far from true, and in many cases, the reverse is true. Many "customers" aren't worth it.

Re: It's my house though

[sudonim2]

Do you really not realize how racist what you just wrote was?

Re: It's my house though

[phorm]

Well, around here it seems it's the nice dressed white couple that's more likely to invite a bunch of friends and have a hedonistic orgy, leaving condoms, toys, plugged toilets and various suspicious stains on your upholstery...

Re: It's my house though

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with black men also shows up in divorce statistics. About 45% of all American marriages end in divorce. But in BM-BW marriages the rate is about 75%. In BM-WW marriages it is also about 75%. In WM-BW marriages it is about the overall average of 45%. So the problem is with the black man, and not the woman in the relationship, regardless of race.

The lowest divorce rate is among Indian*-Americans at about 15%.

*Indian as in "from India" not as in "native American".

(Posting anonymously for obvious reasons. These matters are not supposed to be discussed.)

Re: It's my house though

[ShanghaiBill]

I doubt if any of these people really rent on Airbnb, because people "stealing stuff" and even "trashing the place" are NOT that big of a problem. That rarely happens, and when it does, the replacements/repairs are easily affordable.

A FAR bigger problem is undeserved bad reviews. A one-star or two-star review can cut your bookings in half and cost thousands of dollars over the following months.

I have rented to black people several times, and have never had a problem. They were friendly and quite tolerant of little problems that cropped up.

In my experience, the absolute worst guests are French people. They complain about everything, and act like entitled jerks. I have had French guests leave bad reviews because of rainy weather, or heavy traffic from the airport, as if that was my fault. I guess they feel they are getting even for what happened at Waterloo.

Note to French people: America had nothing to do with Waterloo. That was the British.

Re:It's my house though

[Tom]

Oh I love it when Ignoramus Anonymous trouts of free market nonsense.

When is the last time you saw an actual free market? You know, the one with an infinite number of buyers and sellers, perfect transparency, zero handling costs and no barriers of entry?

That's right, the whole free market thing is a purely theoretical model. It is not a real economical theory. It's the economists equivalent to the physicist saying "let's ignore friction and assume a perfect sphere in a vacuum..."

You need to adapt it to the real world or you are in for a hell of a lot surprises.

Re:It's my house though

[religionofpeas]

When is the last time you saw an actual free market? You know, the one with an infinite number of buyers and sellers, perfect transparency, zero handling costs and no barriers of entry?

I can hear the scraping sound of goalposts being dragged.

Re: It's my house though

[SeaFox]

Also you should probably have insurance as well as adequate proof of said items, these kind of steps would mitigate any risk of theft.

I predict a standard homeowner's policy/reneter's insurance would specifically not cover losses incurred from an Airbnb occupant, based on it being a commercial transaction. And the cost of the correct policy is likely priced for business owners.

Re: It's my house though

[Tom]

Once you use a listing service that opens it to the public then there are all sorts of rules and laws that follow.

Why? You just state that like it's an obvious fact, but compared to "the sky is blue" it does not immediately follow.

Want to keep your rules? Don't use a listing service.

Why? That I need to follow the rules of the listing service, fine. That's part of signing the EULA when you register with it. But why do these rules have to be/contain specific rules? Why can the listing service not make up whatever rules it wants? It doesn't follow.

Rent to whomever you want, but don't advertise it to people you have no intention of renting to. That is what is illegal.

Ok, so add a filter to the listing service that allows the landlord to say "no men and no asian people" if they want, or "only single mothers of african decent" if that's their preference. What's wrong with that? If you find that nobody wants to rent to group X - go and figure out what's the reason for that and put your energy into fixing that. At the same time, there's suddenly a business opportunity for people to rent specifically to that group. The more they are discriminated against, the less competition and the more interesting it is to rent specifically to them.

Suppressing prejudices doesn't work. They don't go away just because you can't say it. Addressing them in an intelligent way is a much better approach.

Re: It's my house though

[Tom]

Interestingly, on the other hand in porn and swinger societies, black men seem to be quite popular. There's probably a mix of the exotic and forbidden at work, as well as the fact that it's generally a safe environment with other people present.

Thanks for the link. I always find it fascinating how complex and full of different aspects a topic becomes once you move beneath the surface and dissect causality.

Re: It's my house though

[Tom]

Note to French people: America had nothing to do with Waterloo. That was the British.

You should see how they are to the British. :-)

Re: It's my house though

[Anonymous Coward]

That's racist. Just because a couple of Africans in a row were bad renters doesn't mean we all are.

The problem with your argument is nobody said "you all are".

It is foolish to assume those conducting business give a shit about you as a person. Individuals are nothing more than statistics to be managed to maximize profit and minimize risk. With a large enough customer base who you are or are not is irrelevant. Only point of relevance is properties of group you belong. This is a rational logically defensible position regardless of moral considerations or personal opinions.

What isn't logically defensible is to take that extra step and assume individual members of a tribe actually represent statistical tendencies of the overall group.

Insurance companies do this all the time. Punk ass kids get to pay more for car insurance even though some... I assume are much better drivers than older drivers. Old people pay more for health insurance even though some I assume are healthier than younger people. Insurance companies are not telling you that you personally are unhealthy or a bad driver. They are saying we don't even give a shit about you enough to know anything about you personally and we therefore are going to treat you like a statistic.

It is an undisputed scientific fact genetic variance between any two individuals dwarfs racial variation. Anyone from any race can be the next Einstein, worlds tallest person, despotic lunatic or world peacemaker.

This does not mean Asian people as a whole are not still shorter and smarter than other races or that Americans as a whole are not sedentary obese fatties.

You know damn well If I belonged to a tribe in which 99 out of 100 members turn dwellings they rent into swimming pools your not going to take the chance on me if you have a choice in the matter unless your a complete fool. Don't deny it.

The core problem isn't so much criteria upon which judgment occurs. It's the act of judgment itself.

Re: It's my house though

[MrMr]

I guess you no longer take in French guests?

Re: It's my house though

[Anonymous Coward]

You all are.

Re: It's my house though

[h33t l4x0r]

I don't make the rules, but I actually support your right to not rent to minorities - as long as you self-label as a discriminatory renter. After all, it wouldn't be fair for progressive renters to support your odious policy unknowingly.

Re: It's my house though

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure. But why have the government jump through hoops just so you can rent from racists?

Because everyone is racist, or at least will become so after renting to certain races.

Re: It's my house though

[AmiMoJo]

Sounds like you will soon be looking at a lawsuit either way.

If you aren't willing to take the legally mandated risk required to be non-discriminatory, you don't have a god-given right to rent out your shitty apartment anyway.

Re: It's my house though

[Rockoon]

Why?

Because legislators said so.

You just state that like it's an obvious fact, but compared to "the sky is blue" it does not immediately follow.

I dont know how obvious it is, but I've known it my whole life. I knew it when I was 6 years old, so its the kind of thing even a 6 year old learns.

Please explain to us why (a) you dont know what I knew at 6 years old, (b) you are demanding that this knowledge be "obvious" before you will accept it.

Re: It's my house though

[religionofpeas]

6 year olds know a lot of obvious things that aren't true.

Re: It's my house though

[Mr D from 63]

And write "I'm a sheet thief" on all the sheets.

I've never used AirBNB, sounds like they don't embrace the concept of a deposit.

Re: It's my house though

[Anonymous Coward]

Here here! Well said mon Ami.

Re: It's my house though

[Anonymous Coward]

Interestingly, on the other hand in porn and swinger societies, black men seem to be quite popular.

Nope. Sorry to pop your bubble, but interracial and cuck porn involving negroids are the lowest selling items in pornography, produced at a loss.

Re: It's my house though

[Anonymous Coward]

Solution: Have them pay a large deposit up front, that they only get back if nothing gets stolen.

You will hardly ever need to hold on to that money - people that steal, won't bother with a place operating with such deposits. This is how they rent out rooms to students where I live. Most are nice, some will break a sink or loose a bucket of paint on the floor or put nails in the walls. The idiots don't get their deposit back.

Or check if something is stolen and just shoot them if they took anything. Stealing may be part of their culture - shoothing thieves may be part of your culture. Nobody to blame for anything, case closed, move on.

Re: It's my house though

[Anonymous Coward]

With nightclubs in particular, enforcing a dress code for the purpose of removing most black patrons can result in wealthier clients, and higher tickets.

What is the dress code that removes most black patrons? I am genuinely curious
I believe the nightclub style discrimination is "no cover charge for women", which does pay off.

That's why many restaraunts require pre-pay after 10,

Where is this? I have never heard of a restaurant requiring pre-pay.

There's an assumption that when you fire the customer you make less money.

Just by people who never actually tried to run a business.

Re: It's my house though

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it was once, and may still be, prejudice against the skin color itself. :(

Re: It's my house though

[Anonymous Coward]

This is completely idiotic. You can't force people to read the terms of service. Black people like TOS even less than white people. Audit concluded, there is a difference between white people and black people. Done.

Re: It's my house though

[karmatic]

This is the kind of dress code that's used:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix...

Generally, it's enforced in clubs that have issues with "hoodlums". Clubs that have significant populations of affluent black patrons rarely feel the need. They target saggy pants, wife beaters, backwards caps, "do rags", etc.

It's a way to shift the demographics of the club.

Re: It's my house though

[arth1]

And write "I'm a sheet thief" on all the sheets.

You're assuming that would be a detriment?
I'd think that among some groups, it would just add to the value, as evidence that they took what be owed.

Re: It's my house though

[karmatic]

"Where is this? I have never heard of a restaurant requiring pre-pay."

Restaraunts in not so nice areas. I've had IHOP do it, as well as a number of diners.

Re: It's my house though

[karmatic]

Legal risk is just another risk to mitigate. As long as one doesn't establish a demonstrable pattern of discrimination, you're not going to get sued.

Re: It's my house though

[arth1]

Interestingly, on the other hand in porn and swinger societies, black men seem to be quite popular. There's probably a mix of the exotic and forbidden at work, as well as the fact that it's generally a safe environment with other people present.

I think it's mainly a (perceived or real) correlation between ancestry and penis size. The BBC genre has little to do with the British Broadcorping Castration.

Re: It's my house though

[arth1]

Suck it up.

No. Sucking it up is acquiescence and condoning the behavior. Work to influence others to behave better, and to show you're not like them, because unless enough people do, it will continue to affect you and yours, fair or not.
A black person who doesn't speak up against black people who behave in unacceptable ways is no better than a cop who doesn't speak up against police brutality or a white person who doesn't speak up against racism. You may not be required to, but if you don't, things will not change, and you won't garner a lot of sympathy. If you help sustain status quo, even by "sucking it up", you're part of the problem, not the solution.

Re: It's my house though

[religionofpeas]

or a white person who doesn't speak up against racism

Or a black person, for that matter. Racism isn't limited to white people.

Re: It's my house though

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like there's a potential market for college-educated blacks and hispanics willing to use airbnb for free.

If I was an airbnb landlord, I would rather choose my black and hispanic clients than be forced to rent to anyone with the right skin color, even if they have tattoos on their face (I wouldn't rent to a white with facial tattoos either).

Re: It's my house though

[karmatic]

Diversity is one of the best ways to end up with racism.

It's a lot easier to think everyone is easier when you haven't actually met other groups.

Re: It's my house though

[karmatic]

"or a white person who doesn't speak up against racism"

Why would I do that? Evidence-based racism is rational.

Re: It's my house though

[karmatic]

A few more nightclub dress codes:

http://media.npr.org/assets/im...

No athletic wear, baggy clothing, and chains.

https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/...

No athletic wear, du rags, bandanas, baggy clothing, or ball caps.

https://thesocietypages.org/so...

No athletic wear, sideways backwards baseball caps, baggy clothing, doo rags.

http://www.afro.com/wp-content...

Baggy clothing, flat bill hats, chains, athletic apparrel.

Many of the dress codes prohibit "work boots", which is because a lot of black people like wearing Timberlands.

Re:It's my house though

[Anonymous Coward]

Those states include California, where TFA is about. However, "rental" is not the same as "public accommodation," which is what AirBnB most likely falls under. In addition, there are laws about advertising, and AirBnB can be considered a medium for advertising rentals or accommodation by landlords.

Re: It's my house though

[hawk]

Sounds like dumb owners.

In that case, it would make more sense to institute a dress code to get wealthier clients and higher tickets . . .

hawk

Re:It's my house though

[Maxo-Texas]

It's our common business market, if you want to do business in it, you'll follow our laws and serve all citizens equally.

Re: It's my house though

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh look, the virtue signaling tyrant..

Re: It's my house though

[Anonymous Coward]

If you aren't willing to take the legally mandated risk required to be non-discriminatory, you don't have a god-given right to rent out your shitty apartment anyway.

Isn't this why businesses carry insurance? To mitigate the risks inherent in doing business with the public? If the renter trashes your place, you file an insurance claim...

Oh, wait. These are people operating illegal hotels, of course they don't have insurance.

Re: It's my house though

[Anonymous Coward]

"Pants around ankles" is racist? Really? More like a high-correlation with attitude.

Re: It's my house though

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you leave negative feedback? Was the previous feedback about those customers negative

Re: It's my house though

[Anonymous Coward]

So some anonymous person on a forim told an interesting story. Any reason to believe it is true? Or even if the person is a prostitute?

Re: It's my house though

[Anonymous Coward]

The only thing he stole was your virginity

Re:It's my house though

[stephenmac7]

I think you need to double-check your definition of free market. It is unrelated to "an infinite number of buyers and sellers, perfect transparency, zero handling costs and no barriers of entry." I think you're thinking about perfect competition. For your convenience, here is a definition:

The free market is a summary description of all voluntary exchanges that take place in a given economic environment. Free markets are characterized by a spontaneous and decentralized order of arrangements through which individuals make economic decisions.

(Investopedia)

Re: It's my house though

[stephenmac7]

I cases where discrimination pays well, people are willing to pay a premium to avoid having to deal with certain kinds of people (whatever type that may be). Those people are losing. Maybe the business can make a larger profit by catering to those people, but someone is losing in this bargain. However, as for the discriminated against, they are only losing the voluntary cooperation of the one selling the service, which they have no right to anyway -- voluntary transactions are called voluntary for a reason.

In short, someone always loses by restricting the group of people they trade with. It's kind of a messed up version of protectionism, where the defining factor is race, not nationality.

Re: It's my house though

[jeek]

I currently work at a data center catering to adult websites. Based on what I see as I work, your statement appears to be quite false.

Re: It's my house though

[Anonymous Coward]

Except the summary says normal landlords can't discriminate due to current laws. Why should you get to discriminate just because it is short term or because you are doing it "on the internet"?!

Re: It's my house though

[jmcvetta]

Back when I used to do Airbnb, one of my nicer guests was a Harvard neurosurgeon. His skin was dark brown like good topsoil, and he wore his hair in an afro. Did that matter? Not one little bit.

However, it freaked out my Chinese-born girlfriend. If it would have been up to her, she would have discriminated against this man. We did not discriminate - our guest had a pleasant stay, we made good money, and everyone was happy.

Just something to think about: In my experience - I've met a lot of people from a lot of different countries and cultures - American-born Americans are (collectively) the least racist people in the world. Scandanavians are (collectively) the most racist. Sorry if that goes against the narrative pushed so hard by the semi-official media about how we Americans out emulate those enlightened northern Europeans.

Re:It's my house though

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, but not with AirBnB. That, if you were interested in the post, is the topic.

Re: It's my house though

[mediaempyre]

So why don't you just list on your airbnb section that you discriminate? The only thing that it will cost you is the people who are of the types that you discriminated against, oh, and those who support them . So you'd probably lose money by saying you discriminate. But you would still do it, right ? I mean personally , I have no problem with not dealing with somebody who was discriminated against me. However, I will tell everybody who I know who knows me and knows that I am not that type of person that should be discriminated against how this person treated me and let the chips fall where they may .

Re: It's my house though

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you realize how how libtard you went with what you wrote? Never go full libtard!

Re: It's my house though

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see anything wrong with this. People have the right to choose who comes into their place of business and who doesn't. Who are we to tell business owners they can't deny a certain demographic or individual access if they have already been a constant problem in the past? All of these rules ensure no thugs and hoodlums make it inside this club and that's a good thing for the everyone except the thugs and hoodlums. Btw I love how you had to add some racial connotation to all those characteristics of thugs you mentioned. All those characteristics you mentioned can apply to all thugs and hoodlums, not just black ones but everything has to be about race for you Lib-tards!

Re: It's my house though

[minstrelmike]

Divorce statistics by race exactly match divorce statistics by wealth. Poorer people tend to divorce more often. Divorce causes poverty in some instances, increasing costs so poorer people lose more during a divorce. In addition. less monre=more stress=more divorce.

Re:It's my house though

[DrStoooopid]

Of course there's discrimination. I'll rent to who I want, fuck you!

took the words right out of my mouth.

Re: It's my house though

[DrStoooopid]

Come, now; I know you're trolling but it has nothing to do with race - unless we're talking about hicks, which we're not - and everything to do with attitude. For example, if they wear their pants around their ankles, it's hardly a good sign regardless of skin color or ethnic background. Causation vs correlation, as they say...

You say "hick" like it's a bad thing. I'll have you know I AM a hick, and I've stayed in nicer places than you ever well. Just because someone's a hick, doesn't mean they're going to tear up your house.

Re:It's my house though

[Tom]

Maybe not take a neo-conservative website for definition? Their summary is as short as it is misleading, mostly because they try to get to the point fast and do some handwaving.

Here's a critical article:

http://www.triplepundit.com/20...

But in the end, maybe we should discuss the book, and not the cover?

Re: It's my house though

[Tom]

Still doesn't follow. You notice that there's a break in your chain of logic? That this is similar to the famous joke where the middle of the blackboard says "and here a miracle happens" ?

As I posted elsewhere, I am a racist when it comes to cats, and consider racism a silly antic when it comes to humans, but I am a strong proponent of hearing out even the most silly argument and following its logic, because you cannot engage someone if you don't understand what it is they are actually saying.

Re: It's my house though

[Tom]

Please explain to us why (a) you dont know what I knew at 6 years old, (b) you are demanding that this knowledge be "obvious" before you will accept it.

As the famous quote (whose author I sadly forgot) goes: "Common sense is what tells us the earth is flat."

The 6 year old knows that things fall down and break if you drop them. I want to understand gravity and materials science. "Why" is a good question to start.

You are just putting your fingers in your ears and going "la-la-la". I'm trying to understand what this silly racism thing is actually about. We all have prejudices, even though many of us don't admit to them. Why do we have them? Are they still useful? Given that as shortcuts and heuristics they are often not true, should we keep or abandon them? Are there useful prejudices or are they all bad?

I don't think your 6 year old self could discuss this question at an intellectual level. It didn't understand anything, it just learnt from its environment by copying. The same way that a 6 year old one century ago would have learnt all of the things that you now consider obvious.

Re: It's my house though

[Tom]

On 2nd reading, last sentence isn't clear:

A 6 year old 100 years ago would have learnt racism, sexism and a dozen other -isms that we today consider obviously silly. He would consider it quite obvious that africans, or frenchmen, or jews, or catholics, or whatever the dominant prejudice in his village was, are inferior people. That women are half-humans. That children need to be beaten to learn discipline. And a hundred other "facts".

What is "obvious" is very much a cultural artifact, much more than objective truth.

Re: It's my house though

[Anonymous Coward]

Any matter that is "not supposed to be discussed" MUST be discussed thoroughly. The fact that we refuse to talk about the problems that various races suffer is why they have yet to be resolved in the first place. We can ignore the elephant in the room all we want, but I'd rather point it out before it shits on the carpet.

Re: It's my house though

[leslie.satenstein]

We have had wonderful guests who were of color, and other guests who come from Asia and Latin America. And we providedâ accomodations to unisex partners. Fuck you to racists who discriminate or live with prejudicesâ. Shame on you and your fxxxing actions.

Re:It's my house though

[stephenmac7]

Look, the definition is similar across multiple different sources. You can't say the free market is unrealistic by claiming that perfect competition doesn't exist (which that article seems to be attacking -- that's not the free market). All you need for a free market is voluntary exchange without government interference. That is: as long as the government stays out, you have a free market. Of course, the existence of government means that you will only approximate a free market (as it will necessarily distort the market), but we can't expect things to be perfect.

Re: It's my house though

[ArmoredDragon]

You can actually confirm this on your own if you'd like.

Go to backpage.com, look at the "women > men" section (it's all prostitute ads) and you'll find plenty of listings that outright say "no black men" or "no AA men". You'll even find black prostitutes that do the same. I've never tried calling any of them, but I've read about people who have in order to investigate this, and the moment they think you're black (i.e. if they can tell based on your voice, or if you just say you are) they'll get standoffish and probably refuse.

Re:It's my house though

[Tom]

You define only one part of the term, the "free". I am less paranoid about the evil government and more about what a market, according to this theory, is. Basically, you are arguing about the friction part, and I'm talking about the perfect sphere in a vacuum part.

That's forgivable as most articles about "free markets" conveniently handwave the actually tricky parts. Talking about government interference and the base evil of taxation is easy and gets you sympathies. Talking about the trick that John can sell his apples for $100 if he controls information (i.e. buyers don't know about the other people selling apples for $1) is more complicated. The whole price equillibrium thing assumes transparency without bothering to solve this problem, much like gravity in school simply assumes a vacuum while real engineers worry much more about air resistance than about gravity formulas.

More clear now?

Re:It's my house though

[RockDoctor]

If you don't want the fair rent laws to apply to your house, don't rent your house out. You fucktard.

Re:It's my house though

[stephenmac7]

It's clear that we were not on the same page about what we were discussing. You made the claim that free markets are impossible ("the whole free market thing is a purely theoretical model"), but now it seems that you're just arguing that they don't work. There's a difference. Free markets are very nearly possible, or if you believe government can be completely eradicated, are possible. Whether they work or not is something that I wasn't arguing.

Re:It's my house though

[Tom]

You are still arguing about government interference as if that were the difficult part. Completely trapped in the "trade good, government bad" kind of thinking.

I am claiming that free markets are impossible. I am not claiming the "free" (from government interference) part is the problem. I'm claiming the "market" part is an abstraction and every real market is much more complicated than the model assumes.

I don't know how to make it more clear. So I'll try a metaphor: Planes are built by engineers, not by scientists. Not because aerodynamics is a lie, but because it is an approximation and a good helping of real-world skills and pragmatics is necessary to actually get lift in a non-laboratory setting.

Same with markets. Free or not, the real world does not have a 100% match with the economy textbooks.

Sespool

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it me or are all these gig economy companies shady as hell? They treat their people badly, discriminate and generally do things that real non scams can't get away with.

Am I the only milenial that stays in hotels and rents cars or takes taxied when I travel???

Re: Sespool

[Anonymous Coward]

It's just you, everybody knows that these companies are as honest as oil barons, railroad tycoons, tulip farmers and spice traders.

Re: Sespool

[Anonymous Coward]

Except those "tyrants" have a reputation to upkeep making it more probable that the description of the place actually matches what you expected.

I have rented a few place via AirBnB, and half of the time it did not match the listing.. Just a few of the things:
- AC listed... "we only put in an AC during the middle of the summer" ... well i had almost 30C in the apartment during the stay...
- Clean... well, i don't consider old breadcrumbs in the fridge or a 2mm layer of dust clean.. When complaining about it they said "We will send someone to clean".. nobody ever showed up..
- Quiet.... construction-work ongoing between 6.30 in the morning to 21.00 every day of the week in the next door apartment for 2 weeks.. (and from the stockpile of things and state of the building you could see they where renovating one apartment at a time and it had been going on for months)
- Equipment... Not the same furniture as in the pictures.. it had all been replaced by the chepest crap you find at a second-hand store.
- During a stay during late autumn (around 5C outside) i complained that the heating was not working and that the apartment was about 10C inside.. They just said "it's controlled centrally" and they just ignored my complaint..

I don't consider any of the above acceptable.. I rented a place with the expectation that the listing was accurate, and paid money for it... It was not any of the cheapest places but went for the places with average to high-average pricing.. For all of the above issues i switch to a hotel straight away, and when documenting the issues, for the unusable places, and filing a claim with AirBnB it all starts out like "Well, we cannot make a refund for this" until i sent them proof (images/videos) and then got "Ok, your refund will be done within the hour" or similar back..

Of Course i have stayed in places that have been spotless, and very nice.. But that does not take away my point.. If i stay in a hotel and the room is not up to spec either i get a refund without issue or they will give me a new room that is up to spec..

My combined time i stayed in AirBnB rentals has probably been 3-4 months before i gave them up because it's just a lottery if you get a good or *really* bad place.. And when working you do not want to risk getting one of the bad places because that can screw your whole trip up..

Last year i spent about 8 months traveling and only staying in hotels.. During that time i had an issue with one place that was really poorly cleaned.. I complained and they said that they had no more rooms of that type, but then offered me a bump to a suite for the same price.
But i have to say that if you find one of the few good AirBnB listings it may put the hotel to shame in terms of price/performance.

I do use Uber in places that has it, and it works great.. Of Course you may get the occasional crap car but it's just for getting from point A to B.. And average cars with Uber is usually (depending on country) a lot better than the quality of the taxis...
If i'm in eastern europe in one of the countries that don't allow Uber i find a car-service and use them for most of my trips.. In a few eastern europe countries that may be even cheaper than going by taxi while still having fresh, clean and modern cars.

For longer trips:
Trains - i never use this in any developing country..
Buses - i never use this in any developing country.. Sure it's cheap, but for the same price as a bus-ticket at home i can have a car with a driver that takes me where i want to go.

For in-city travel:
- Subway.. it's crappy everywhere... Except Korea/Japan - there it's spotless and you get a free body-rub ;)
- Buses.. Most western countries have fairly good in-city bus-lines but developing countries do have their issues.. It may be a good bus, but the drivers might think they are managing a rollercoaster..

That's just my take on it... YMMW.. If you have a short trip or have planned activities that you cannot miss t

My house, my rules. Go fuck yourself.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nuff Said

Fuck California.

[Anonymous Coward]

California is a prime example of the bullshit that occurs when a state government is allowed to do whatever it wants.
The state presumes to have the right to tell someone they must rent to anyone. Well, fuck that bullshit.

And fuck AirBnB for caving to such bullshit.

If I was going to rent a place I owned, I'd want to make sure that I didn't rent to people I thought would
cause problems, and any other landlord with some common sense would want the same. Only a person
who has never been a landlord could think it's ok to rent to anyone who wants to rent a place. The results
of such an indiscriminating approach can be the stuff of nightmares. Ask any landlord who has significant experience
and you will see they will agree with this position.

In the end, such a law is not really enforceable, because a landlord can always cook up an excuse which
justifies not renting to a person without taking an obviously discriminatory position.

Why Californians tolerate their government escapes me. Don't you people realize that voting can remove
the idiots who want to make your lives more difficult ?

Re: Fuck California.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh? Then I vote to remove you.

Re:Fuck California.

[DerekLyons]

Ask any landlord who has significant experience
and you will see they will agree with this position.

I have been a landlord - and I applaud California's decision. Because it won't make it more difficult to rent to people who cause problems. It will make it more difficult for racist assholes, but I view that as good thing myself.
 

Why Californians tolerate their government escapes me.

Seriously? You can't grasp why people would tolerate a government that makes life difficult for narrow minded intolerant racist assholes like yourself? You can't grasp why people would tolerate a government who upholds the rights of all citizens, regardless of color?

Re:Fuck California.

[AmiMoJo]

They will catch you out by submitting very similar fake profiles with only the race and name as significant differences. Or with statistics, because a 90%+ refusal rate for black people is pretty hard to justify to a jury of your peers.

What do you do about the bad white people?

Re:Fuck California.

[Anonymous Coward]

Either you're a bigot, or you don't understand the specific use of "discriminate" in civil rights cases such as this.

In this ruling, discrimination means discrimination based on a protected factors (race, religion, gender, sexual orientation etc). Landlords are free to discriminate however they want, so long as it isn't relating to those factors. You only want people with 800+ credit score? No problem! You won't rent to people who look a bit Mexican? You're in violation of the law. That law has been in place for some time, in every state and civilised nation, and is not open for debate.

But as you say, the landlord can make up any excuse. With AirBnB in particular it's really difficult to prove that you're the victim of this, and doing so isn't usually worth your while as it's for a short term let. In this ruling, the court is asking AirBnB to be proactive in identifying letters who reject people illegally; how they go about doing that I'm not sure; the obvious method is setting up numerous fake accounts with different race/religion/etc to book and see if they get rejected/cancelled, but that'd create a lot of unnecessary work for legitimate letters. It's possible that they can look at statistics, but you'd probably have to rent a lot of properties to have enough data for a statistically significant pattern. It's an interesting problem; what's your suggestion of how to solve it?

Re:Fuck California.

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously? You can't grasp why people would tolerate a government that makes life difficult for narrow minded intolerant racist assholes like yourself? You can't grasp why people would tolerate a government who upholds the rights of all citizens, regardless of color?

You don't have a right to my property. GTFO.

Re:Fuck California.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll actually take a good white person. Bad white people rarely pass in-person screening.

Re:Fuck California.

[MightyYar]

You don't have a right to my property.

I have to laugh at this. Of course he does, through force of law. You essentially rent the land through property taxes, and you have to abide by zoning rules and ordinances. You have to meet certain standards with your construction, and the house must be serviced by certain kinds of utilities to be rated habitable. And if you want to enter the commercial sphere you have to follow the rules of the market.

None of what I said is even remotely controversial or new, and if you disagree with that it is you who are the special snowflake.

Re:Fuck California.

[arth1]

In this ruling, discrimination means discrimination based on a protected factors (race, religion, gender, sexual orientation etc). Landlords are free to discriminate however they want, so long as it isn't relating to those factors.

How about refusing rental to "men wearing multiple chains", "men wearing baggy pants", "women with painted fingernails exceeding 1 cm", "women wearing deaf pants", or anyone saying "dese" or uses double negations?

Re:Fuck California.

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't have a right to my property.

I have to laugh at this. Of course he does, through force of law. You essentially rent the land through property taxes, and you have to abide by zoning rules and ordinances. You have to meet certain standards with your construction, and the house must be serviced by certain kinds of utilities to be rated habitable. And if you want to enter the commercial sphere you have to follow the rules of the market.

None of what I said is even remotely controversial or new, and if you disagree with that it is you who are the special snowflake.

No, actually it was the collectivist/Marxist special snowflakes that pushed to infringe on private property rights by force of law. Those laws are unconstitutional and have no authority other than simple brute threat of deadly force employed by the government's domestic mercenary force currently engaged in pacification and revenue generation operations in the US.

Re:Fuck California.

[MightyYar]

actually it was the collectivist/Marxist special snowflakes that pushed

You have an interesting read on history. That is, you haven't read it. Zoning did not arise from Marxists.

Those laws are unconstitutional

Actually, zoning, property taxes, and even eminent domain have all been tested in court. They are constitutional.

Re: Fuck California.

[Anonymous Coward]

Racism. Racist. Wahhh so evil!!! Who cares? You sound like a pansy liberal and even worse a supporter of government overreach into the everyday lives of citizens when it serves your purpose. Now now little sheepy get back to the herd! Trump is still in charge!

Re: Fuck California.

[Anonymous Coward]

What the hell does etc. mean? It can change based on the lib-tard definition to suit the situation? F that no govt has the right to tell me or anyone else who they can or can't serve in their private business. Don't like it, suck a fat one!

Re:Fuck California.

[Anonymous Coward]

voting can remove the idiots who want to make your lives more difficult ?

voting can remove figureheads who speak on behalf of the idiots who want to make your lives more difficult ?

Re:Fuck California.

[david_thornley]

You don't have a right to my property. GTFO.

Nobody's got a right to your property except you (except through exceptional legal situations). You don't, however, have the right to conduct commercial operations without restriction. If you publish availability, you can't limit it in certain ways.

Airbnb is PirateBay for landords

[Anonymous Coward]

it's illegal distribution

My house

[Anonymous Coward]

leave it to California to add retarded regulation to anything. Their district 9 judges need to fist themselves for their unconstitutional over rules. Sorry your state is filled with a fuckton of whackjobs, it shouldn't have a say in one thing. Welfare state, you're beneath me and your so called population.

Re:My house

[OzPeter]

leave it to California to add retarded regulation to anything. Their district 9 judges need to fist themselves for their unconstitutional over rules. Sorry your state is filled with a fuckton of whackjobs, it shouldn't have a say in one thing. Welfare state, you're beneath me and your so called population.

So you think the Ninth Circuit consists covers just California? There's 8 other states and 2 other territories that disagree with you. The full Ninth Circuit consists of

Ninth Circuit Districts
1. Alaska
2. Arizona
3. Central District of California
4. Eastern District of California
5. Northern District of California
6. Southern District of California
7. Guam
8. Hawaii
9. Idaho
10. Montana
11. Nevada
12. Northern Mariana Islands
13. Oregon
14. Eastern District of Washington
15. Western District of Washington

https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/j...

So when you talk about whack jobs you need to be a bit more specific. Because whack jobs from California are a totally different breed to the whack jobs from Montana.

Re:My house

[Anonymous Coward]

80% of the cases the Supreme Court hears out of the 9th circuit are overturned. That should make you wonder about all the cases the Supreme Court cannot hear.

Re:My house

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not how that works. The Supreme Court CHOOSES to hear rulings that they think my have a chance at being overturned. If it seems like the ruling was correct, they leave it be.

Re: My house

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm aware of the ninth circuit existing in other states. But, it's usually California's making those fucktard decisions. Stop peacocking for a bunch of irrelevant judges who abuse power. Hopefully the next N. Korea nuke test is in San Fran or LA. Wouldn't lose one human, cause humans don't live there.

Re: My house

[Anonymous Coward]

80% of the cases the Supreme Court hears out of the 9th circuit are overturned. That should make you wonder about all the cases the Supreme Court cannot hear.

Oh Sean Hannity your lies are obvious.

Let's see, the Supreme Court probably heard somewhere around a dozen cases from the ninth circuit last year, so what, less than 1% of their cases?

Yet you choose to go with the 80% number. Hmm. I would wonder why, but it is obvious. Distortion and mistruth.

Re: My house

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol you must get your news from the msm, lolz I believe everything I see and hear on the internet too. Trash is trash

Re:My house

[Anonymous Coward]

And guess where most of those decisions come from? That shithole known as San Francisco. The cleansing earthquake can't happen fast enough.

Re:My house

[Anonymous Coward]

Or if they just dont feel like dealing with it. One of the few flaws in our system. They get to choose.

Re:My house, my rules. Go fuck yourself.

[Tempest451]

Go ahead and place an ad that says no Blacks or Jews. I'd love to see how that works out.

Well that didn't take long

[Tempest451]

Didn't take long for the "internet racist" to show their ugly faces. I almost feel sorry for them. They have to live their lives never being able to openly express who they are, for fear of being exposed. They have to live and work around "dirty" minorities and can never tell them what truly think of them. Their world gets smaller and smaller everyday until the internet is all they will have left.

Re:Well that didn't take long

[Anonymous Coward]

You are mentally ill.

Re:Well that didn't take long

[Tempest451]

Oh look! Another "Anonymous Coward".

Re:Well that didn't take long

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't take long for the "internet racist" to show their ugly faces. I almost feel sorry for them. They have to live their lives never being able to openly express who they are, for fear of being exposed.

Just because you are a coward doesn't mean the rest of us are.

I don't want to be around certain people, and I WILL tell anyone this, and if they don't like it that is THEIR problem.

The idea that the opinions of other people matter is embraced by the weak and the strong find it comical. And that is how the adult
world works. Perhaps if you try very hard you might get there some fine day.

Re:Well that didn't take long

[ArylAkamov]

Yes "Tempest451", if that is indeed your real name.

Re:Well that didn't take long

[Tempest451]

Rings hollow from yet another internet racist. You can say you do anything from the safety of your keyboard.

Re:Well that didn't take long

[Tempest451]

Touche', but I also have no issue with Black folks

Re: Well that didn't take long

[karmatic]

"Didn't take long for the "internet racist" to show their ugly faces."

Well, sure, there are plenty of them.

"They have to live their lives never being able to openly express who they are, for fear of being exposed."

Not particularly. I'm racist in person, too. I can sit there hiding, or I can work to proselytize. Most people are racist to some degree - it's amazing how people behave when they are in private, particularly if you start with things that they have already started to observe on their own.

"They have to live and work around "dirty" minorities and can never tell them what truly think of them."

The issue isn't that "minorities" are "dirty". The problem is that statistically speaking, there are differences in median IQ between populations, and that culture is a function of that population. As IQ tends to correlate reasonably well with the ability to function in a modern western society, "minorities" tend to bring with them higher crime and other societial ills. Diversity compounds this.

"Their world gets smaller and smaller everyday until the internet is all they will have left."

Not particularly. Have you seen the alt right recently? It's getting more and more acceptable to be racist in public, and the internet is making it easier and easier for us to mobilize, organize, and recruit.

For those of us who want intellectual honesty and race realism, the internet has been a godsend.

Re: Well that didn't take long

[Anonymous Coward]

What's your real name and where do you live, tough guy? You're still an AC at heart. At least people here that suck like crimier don't hide who they are, but you, you're worse than an AC. You're just plain shit.

Re:Well that didn't take long

[Anonymous Coward]

> Just because you are a coward doesn't mean the rest of us are.

Hello, McFly?
You are literally an Anonymous Coward.

Re:Well that didn't take long

[Solandri]

Didn't take long for the "internet racist" to show their ugly faces. I almost feel sorry for them.

You mean racists like folks who advocate putting quotas on how many Asians are accepted to universities and high-paying jobs because they tend to do better than whites? Affirmative action against whites I can kinda understand. The operating premise being that in the past whites obtained their power, influence, and money partially by repressing minorities. And that the aftereffects of those past transgressions still slightly influence people's positions in society, so a counter-influence is needed to level the playing field. But Asians historically were one of those repressed minorities. Applying affirmative action against them just exposes you as a racist - someone who wants other people's position in society to be determined not solely by their ability, but partially by their race according to your unsubstantiated prejudices (in this case, that all races should be equal in everything, even if they're really not).

Despite what I just wrote, I actually agree with what California is doing with Airbnb. If you browse through their listings, the vast majority of properties are listed by landlords doing short-term rentals as a business. Not homeowners renting out their home while they're on vacation. If it's the home you live in with your personal items holding great sentimental value, you can rent it out to whomever you want. If you're only comfortable with people of the same race as you being in your home, then so be it. But if it's a second (or third, or tenth) house you rent out as a business, and your only attachment to the furnishings is their cash replacement value, then anti-discrimination statues should apply.

Re:Well that didn't take long

[Anonymous Coward]

Suuuuuuuuure. Keep telling yourself that.
"H-hey guys, did you hear how not-racist I am?"
"I've got black friends"

The virtue signalling makes me sick.

Re: Well that didn't take long

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you just made Tempest's point for him.

Re:Well that didn't take long

[Anonymous Coward]

Its weird how you inserted a totally random thing just so you could write your polemic.

FYI, the reason asians aren't repressed any more? Society decided they were essentially white.

Re:Well that didn't take long

[Anonymous Coward]

Then why did you just use the word "folks", which is officially a racist term now?

You fucking racist monster.

https://medium.com/matter/how-a-once-friendly-neighborly-word-folks-became-a-quiet-sort-of-insult-c54e05b6a069

Re: Well that didn't take long

[Anonymous Coward]

I did not realize the undesirables were black. Being California and San Fran of all places i figured it was related to Asians. Woe is me.

Re:Well that didn't take long

[Anonymous Coward]

Must be nice never living next to a substantial number of racial minorities and never seeing how bad it can get.

Must also be nice never taking those racial minorities off of the street and into your home, trying to help them out, and finding out the success rate is maybe 25-30%.

After awhile, you just kind of begin to get that a bad upbringing can and will ruin most people's lives by making them so dysfunctional. Putting them around functional people doesn't help. They need serious intervention, training, education, encouragement. It's a major investment and a difficult journey for them.

Accusing people is like masturbation; really easy to do, feels good. Understanding them on the other hand. That's a pain in the rear. Helping them, that takes effort.

Re: Well that didn't take long

[Anonymous Coward]

iq tests are proportional to quality of education. so are sats, acts, psats.....so your logic for feeling superior can be overturned by giving simple opportunities. but you are racist so you seek to hold power over other groups. more to do with your own fear of being inadequate then the lack of potential in others.

Re:Well that didn't take long

[h33t l4x0r]

That article is nonsense. I've noticed that it never sounded right to my ear when Obama said 'folks', and I always figured it's because they don't use that in Hawaii and he just never got the hang of it.

Re: Well that didn't take long

[karmatic]

"iq tests are proportional to quality of education."

They can be. That's why they have developed tests specifically to address that. They do things like pattern recognition in order to take the language, cultural, and educational factors out of the equation.

The results are the same.

"so are sats, acts, psats....."

Thos are more so, but we're discussing IQ, not standardized testing. Some of those tests were specifically designed not to correlate so much with IQ, because it harmed certain minorities.

"so your logic for feeling superior can be overturned by giving simple opportunities."

No, no they can't, but people keep trying and trying and trying.

https://www1.udel.edu/educ/got...

We see this even in twin studies - white children adopted black families do better then their non-adopted children, with the same education, opportunities, and upbringing. Black children adopted to white families do not do as well as white children adopted to white families, regardless of whether they are in a majority white area, majority black area, the level of opportunities provided.

We see differences in intelligence levels between families being conserved, as well as animal breeds where intellectual differences are profound and acknowledged. Larger human families (races) have the same thing.

"but you are racist so you seek to hold power over other groups."

Not at all. I want to quit flushing money down the toilet on programs that don't work, I want to acknowledge observed reality, and to move on. That has nothing to do with holding power.

I'm Mexican. I freely acknowledge that all things being equal, Europeans tend to be smarter than Mexicans (population median), and that Jewish people and Asians tend to be smarter than white people. There's nothing wrong with accepting reality. We should do it.

"more to do with your own fear of being inadequate then the lack of potential in others."

What fear of being inadequate? I don't like crime, and if we're going to address that, we need to face reality and the intersection of culture and genetics.

People think the US has a gun violence problem. It doesn't. If you exclude black perpetrators, the US would be on the high end of gun crime for europe, per capita (despite having way more guns). Remove the hispanic population, and the US is on the lower end of the gun crime statistics.

The US doesn't have a gun problem, it has a black and hispanic people with gun problem. Nobody talks about that, though, so they go for other programs that restrict a lot of people's freedoms when the problem comes from a small percentage of the population.

Re:Well that didn't take long

[religionofpeas]

So, how many times have your rented out your house to black people, and how was your overall experience ?

Re:Well that didn't take long

[Anonymous Coward]

If my hate for black criminals (i have the same hate for white criminals) makes me a racist then so be it. Most of my friends are from other areas of the world and most of them have the same view as me. If you act like a hoodlum you will be treated as a hoodlum.. If a large number of people in your race acts (not is) like hoodlum's then the expectation, before meeting the person, will be that he/she is a hoodlum.
Same goes if i would visit a white-trash area.. I would expect that many people i meet will be drug-addicts/drunks and other types of white-trash.

Thing is that when you adjust for % of population you have more black drug-dealers and criminals that causes harm to others or others property. This is a problem in society that is cased by bringing up kids around those kinds of people, and it creates a feedback loop that will continue to produce more and more criminals.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-t...
Black people are more prone, or people raised in predominantly black areas, to some types of crimes.
White people are more prone, or people raised in predominantly white areas, to commit some types of crimes.
Indian people (as in native-american) are more prone, or people raised in predominantly native-american areas, to commit some types of crimes.

(Criminal in my eyes is someone that physically hurts someone or causes loss or damage of property. This includes drug-dealers that sell hard drugs.)

-- My point for the above, since statistics points to black people are more likely to cause damage to the property it creates a higher risk to rent out to a unknown person you met over the internet if the only thing you know about that person is that he/she is black.
On the other hand if you can meet the person before you can form an opinion how trust-worthy he/she is and then suddenly the skin-color does not matter.. After that you trust a white/asian/black/whatever person the same based on his/her's behaviour.

Re: Well that didn't take long

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop using facts! That's racist, because I'm too stupid to look at actual studies. What's not racist is just whatever pops into my head that makes me feel all warm a cuddly; like rainbows, ponys and sheeit.
On a serious note, notice how 14.1%(blacks) of the population commits over 51% of violent crime in the country?

Re:Well that didn't take long

[Anonymous Coward]

Consider classifying raising a kid in a high-crimes neighborhood as child-abuse..

Help break the cycle, and maybe we will not have this divide in a generation or two.

Re: Well that didn't take long

[Anonymous Coward]

Because writing my name and address will cause SJW's to cause physical damage to me and/or my property, just for stating my opinion without causing any physical damage to them or their property.

Re:Well that didn't take long

[Anonymous Coward]

Sending a kid to a majority-black school should be classified as child abuse.

Re:Well that didn't take long

[Rockoon]

If you browse through their listings, the vast majority of properties are listed by landlords doing short-term rentals as a business.

Lets accept this as a fact.

So what? Why even mention it?

What you are doing now it getting involved in those landlords personal business. If you wouldnt fuck with a single mom waitress that is renting out a room for a little extra money, then you also shouldn't fuck with people that do it as their primary income.

Re:Well that didn't take long

[Anonymous Coward]

What you are doing now it getting involved in those landlords personal business.

Nope, it's public business. AirBNB is engaging with the public, and so are the landlords who utilize it.

Same reason that waitress you mention is wearing a hair net, washing her hands, and if she becomes a carrier for Typhoid, no longer working around food. Not to mention all the other conditions we apply to food service to the public.

Sorry that you're having a problem understanding this, but that's the way things work.

If you wouldnt fuck with a single mom waitress that is renting out a room for a little extra money, then you also shouldn't fuck with people that do it as their primary income.

While who I fuck with is generally my personal business, there is some concern with public health there too. Transmissible disease is a problem. So is reproduction, or more precisely, care of those thereby arising.

And while I would say the right to refuse to fuck is probably close to absolute, with the possibility of some genetic factor, I could see the desirability of mandating some reproduction in some form, though as modern medicine has made the actual physical copulation unnecessary, technically it would not be fucking.

Re: Well that didn't take long

[Anonymous Coward]

On a serious note, notice how 14.1%(blacks) of the population commits over 51% of violent crime in the country?

Notice how you're alleging 46 million people are responsible for around half of 1.5 million violent crimes, or say 750,000.

That means you'd have to be asserting that each of those violent crimes involves an average of around 60 people.

Facts, you don't actually have them, you're just putting whatever racist thing pops into your head that meals you feel all self-satisfied, but your very act of doing so actually demonstrates the flaw in your own premises, as well as the poster above who you sarcastically supported.

   

Re: Well that didn't take long

[karmatic]

"Notice how you're alleging 46 million people are responsible for around half of 1.5 million violent crimes, or say 750,000.
That means you'd have to be asserting that each of those violent crimes involves an average of around 60 people."

That's not how math works. If we say that 46,000,000 people are responsible for 750,000 violent crimes, and we assume that each crime is committed by a different person, it would mean that one in 60 black people is a violent criminal, not that each act is committed by 60 people. That's 1.6%.

Given that 4.7% of black males are incarcerated, and that individuals can commit more than a violent crime (meaning that the percentage of violent criminals would be even lower), that's not unreasonable at all. It also jives with the FBI crime numbers.

Re:Well that didn't take long

[yuriklastalov]

That article is nonsense. I've noticed that it never sounded right to my ear when Obama said 'folks', and I always figured it's because they don't use that in Kenya and he just never got the hang of it.

FTFY.

Re: Well that didn't take long

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a coward. Real men just shoot the SJWs. Pussy.

Re: Well that didn't take long

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see how virtue signalling, by means of expressing your disapproval of virtue signalling, is any less gag worthy.

Re: Well that didn't take long

[Anonymous Coward]

"Notice how you're alleging 46 million people are responsible for around half of 1.5 million violent crimes, or say 750,000. That means you'd have to be asserting that each of those violent crimes involves an average of around 60 people."

That's not how math works.

That is how math works. There are around 330 million people in the US. 14.1% of that is roughly 46 million. Since there are around 1.5 million incidents of violent crime a year, and the GP above was alleging that the black population committed around 51% of them, that means somewhere 60 people involved in any violent crime.

Even if you alleged that the number of violent crimes was higher as the FBI didn't necessarily report all of them, you'd have to increase the amount by a severe degree. That's also why you can't spread it across multiple years, as that just warps the claim too far.

If we say that 46,000,000 people are responsible for 750,000 violent crimes, and we assume that each crime is committed by a different person, it would mean that one in 60 black people is a violent criminal, not that each act is committed by 60 people. That's 1.6%.

Read what was specifically said again. Your problem seems to be reading comprehension, which is important in many discussions of math:

On a serious note, notice how 14.1%(blacks) of the population commits over 51% of violent crime in the country?

That is attributing violent crime to the entire population of blacks, 51% of it. You are trying to talk about something else, but not recognizing the falsehood in what was actually said. Not that I'm surprised, I rather expected it.

You want to surprise me? Admit your error in not recognizing the false statement made. Even sarcasm doesn't excuse that kind of false statement. It's really just nonsense, and you should be ashamed it was raised in your defense. It should repulse you.

Given that 4.7% of black males are incarcerated, and that individuals can commit more than a violent crime (meaning that the percentage of violent criminals would be even lower), that's not unreasonable at all.

You're ngelecting to note that less than 100% of incarcerated black males committed a violent crime at all, some being innocent, some having committed some non-violent crime. You really should have mentioned that.

But none of that matters, because what's unreasonable is the claim that 14.1% of the US population committed 51% of the violent crime. Surely you realize this?

You should have denounced that nonsense, as it would be a solid gain for you. Even a timid expression that it was poorly stated would have gained you a lot.

Instead, we have a couple of paragraphs of babble from you that overlook the salient point being made, complaining about the math, and offering some of your own, without realizing the root of the problem.

It also jives with the FBI crime numbers.

We're not talking about what the FBI has said, we're talking about the comments in this thread.

If you have any integrity, you'd repudiate such a farcical defense of your words, because it actually taints you.

Surprise me by doing that.

Re:Well that didn't take long

[ProfBooty]

Plenty of minorities show racism to other minorities. It only becomes a problem if honkeys do it.

Re: Well that didn't take long

[ProfBooty]

Look into SAT scores for upper income blacks. Strangely they correlate to around the SAT scores of low income whites. There is something going on more than just income alone.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2...
http://isteve.blogspot.com/201...

I work with a lot of Africans and blacks. There are cultural differences for sure, many of the africans don't want to associate with blacks due to cultural differences.

Re: Well that didn't take long

[Laser Lou]

There is nothing civil about racism. Those who discriminate no race or ethnicity are ... bad.

Re: Well that didn't take long

[Anonymous Coward]

Those who discriminate no race or ethnicity are ... bad.

You know what's bad? Institutionalized lying and punishing autistics for inadvertently telling the truth.

Re: Well that didn't take long

[karmatic]

You're still not getting it. Let's try with a simple example.

There are 5 green people in the country. There is one act of violence committed by green people.

That does not mean that 5 green people committed the violence. One did, so 20% of green people are violent criminals.

Likewise, with the black population, it's a small percentage of them that commit violent crimes. It's just that it's a) a significantly higher percentage than is present in whites, and b) that they tend to commit more violent crimes.

If blacks are 14% of the population, and their rate is equal to the general population, they would be expected to commit 14% of the violent crime. If their offender rate is 2x the average, then they would be committing 28% of crimes. At 4x, it would be a hair over 50%, which is where we are.

That 4x includes both percentage of people that are offenders, and the higher likelihood of reoffending.

This is about rates - if the offense rate is 1% of the population size, that does not mean that 100 people commit every crime. It means that closer to 1% of the population are offenders.

Re:Well that didn't take long

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that people like you try to shut down discussion about the problems that races deal with as a result of birth, inherent ability, or culture, is a major part of the reason these problems still exist.

Re: Well that didn't take long

[Anonymous Coward]

You're still not getting it.

You didn't get it, and you're not even brave or sensible enough to admit it. You keep failing at what is a simple and easy play. Ordinary effort is all it would take, but you keep waffling around it.

There are 5 green people in the country. There is one act of violence committed by green people.

That does not mean that 5 green people committed the violence. One did, so 20% of green people are violent criminals.

That wasn't what was said. Here's the words you have to deal with:

On a serious note, notice how 14.1%(blacks) of the population commits over 51% of violent crime in the country?

That actually does say that 46 million or so people are committing the 51% of violent crime in this country. Since you've not even offered an argument for the 750,000 number (which is another sign of your failure, as that is also a questionable statement), you're stuck with some 60 people committing each violent crime. It just doesn't make sense.

Likewise, with the black population, it's a small percentage of them that commit violent crimes. It's just that it's a) a significantly higher percentage than is present in whites, and b) that they tend to commit more violent crimes.

If blacks are 14% of the population, and their rate is equal to the general population, they would be expected to commit 14% of the violent crime. If their offender rate is 2x the average, then they would be committing 28% of crimes. At 4x, it would be a hair over 50%, which is where we are.

That 4x includes both percentage of people that are offenders, and the higher likelihood of reoffending.

This is about rates - if the offense rate is 1% of the population size, that does not mean that 100 people commit every crime. It means that closer to 1% of the population are offenders.

You're trying to make an argument without following the conversation, an argument you could make on your own, perhaps, but your problem was you started off claiming that I was wrong about the math, without even the most timid acknowledgements to apprehending the actual meaning of my words. Even now, you continue such obtuseness. Foolishly.

All you have to do is show the courage and good sense to realize that statement is a poorly written expression. That would be good for you.

Failing to do that, is not a good sign. It's you being so unable to recognize the prudent course of action that you can't even grasp that all you had to do was repudiate a bit of poorly stated nonsense and move on.

Or you can be a fool, and make yourself look like you're unable to muster up the moral character to even recognize the babble when it's pointed out to you multiple times.

Re: Well that didn't take long

[mjwx]

Not particularly. I'm racist in person, too. I can sit there hiding, or I can work to proselytize. Most people are racist to some degree - it's amazing how people behave when they are in private, particularly if you start with things that they have already started to observe on their own.

I have to strongly disagree here. The word "racist" implies extremely negative connotations. Racism is an irrational hate.

Racism has nothing to do with preferences, its a natural thing that most people are more comfortable with people that are like them. Not just with race but with wealth, culture, language (someone who speaks UK English is more comfortable conversing with someone else who speaks the queens English). This however does not imply that they irrationally hate things that are foreign. Someone who prefers to stay in England and surrounds themselves with English culture is not inherently racist. Sure, the racists like to hide behind these people, but that isn't their fault and I give them the benefit of the doubt.

Now I am not a racist person, however I still love a good racist or sexist joke. Humour is one of the few avenues we can use to explore these concepts and in so doing, reduce their impact on us. However that does not mean I'll walk up to randoms and start spouting off racist or sexist jokes. Its just common sense to gauge your audience before hand, not just because some might be offended... but even worse, some will take the joke seriously.

For those of us who want intellectual honesty and race realism, the internet has been a godsend.

This is woefully inaccurate.

Internet anonymity has been a godsend to closet racism. They'll never be racist in real life because they know they'll get the living shit kicked out of them for it, or at best, end up with no friends what so ever, so they do it behind a keyboard and a pseudonym. That is the kind of coward that internet racists are.

Re: Well that didn't take long

[karmatic]

"you're stuck with some 60 people committing each violent crime. It just doesn't make sense."

That's because you still can't do math properly.

If one in 60 people each commit a single crime, and there are 46 million of them, then roughly 750,000 crimes are committed.

That still doesn't mean that 60 people commit each crime. If you can't handle that math, then I can't help you. I'd suggest taking remedial mathematics.

Crooked Regulators

[Anonymous Coward]

Anti-discrimination is good. However, crooked "Regulators" of the form of "fair housing" agencies are the problem. No shit, my manager got fined for saying "that's not a good aparment for a dog; there's no yard." when one of the con artists mentioned that he "had a dog". $750 fine, 60% going to the fair housing agency, which, for the record, is not a government agency; it's a private "non-profit" that makes all of it's money stealing from landlords.

Re: My house, my rules. Go fuck yourself.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not allowed to be overtly racist like that. But if you just happen to choose tenants who are decent white folk, then there's no problem since the state cannot force quotas on private renters.

Re:My house, my rules. Go fuck yourself.

[Anonymous Coward]

Go ahead and place an ad that says no Blacks or Jews. I'd love to see how that works out.

No one with a brain is going to place such an ad, and that is obvious to all but the incredibly stupid or naive
person.

Smart people _can and will_ discriminate using finesse. When a prospective tenant who seems undesirable
appears, you tell them the plumbing broke and the place can't be rented until repairs are done. Of course the
range of possible excuses for a rental being unavailable is infinite, and the chances of successfully prosecuting
someone for using such excuses is vanishingly small.

Discrimination is not a bad thing. Discrimination can save time, trouble, money, hassles, etc. A government which
wants to force people to allow things they find undesirable is a government comprised of fools.

And then we have the idiots who want the law to force them to be welcome when they are NOT welcome. Smart people won't want to force such issues. Why the fuck would you want to be some place where you were not wanted ? That's just a bad idea on a basic level.

Great news

[frovingslosh]

That's great news. We can't let people rent their own property to who they choose. They could end up discriminating against people who they believe will steal stuff or trash the place.

Re:Great news

[sunking2]

If you can't play by the rules, get out of the business. You can still rent to whomever you want, just don't advertise your place to the public. Can still be a bigot, I have no problem with that, but you can't take advantage of a system designed to be fair to all to do it.

Re:Great news

[frovingslosh]

Obviously the system wasn't designed to be fair to all as you claim. It wasn't even designed to be fair to anyone who wants to rent property, as you would like to claim. If it was designed that way in the first place then the far left wouldn't be at all concerned about this and wouldn't be doing this.

Re: Great news

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is when your beliefs are based on race, religion, national origin, disability, or other suspect conditions, or when your behavior gives the appearance of doing so.

Don't like it? Tough, you don't get the unfettered right to do business as you see fit without any response from the rest of us, if you want to be supreme autocrat of the world, try winning an election.

Re: Great news

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, Airbnb did not design their system to be fair, whether this was due to oversight, indifference, or malice, I can't say without further examination.

Hence the need for the organization charged with remedying this fault to act. Thanks for noticing your tax dollars at work.

Re: Great news

[karmatic]

Or, just do like most places do and hide it. I can come up with any number of excuses.

So, you still get discrimination, but we have to lie about it. Great.

Re: Great news

[frovingslosh]

That has not worked out well for the last guy.

Re: Great news

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody said it was a sinecure.

Re:My house, my rules. Go fuck yourself.

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting how you took an expression of property rights to the extreme of discrimination toward African Americans and Jewish people.

I'd say you are the racist here. Or at least a race baiter who uses other people to gain some advantage.

Or a sociopath. That's a common trait amongst those with leftist tendencies.

APK

[Anonymous Coward]

APK is discriminating now?

Fuck niggers.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm only accepting Aryans in my house. Exceptions can be made for attractive females of other races.

Re:Fuck niggers.

[Sir Holo]

I'm only accepting Aryans in my house. Exceptions can be made for attractive females of other races.

The word "Aryan" refers to a person of Persian descent.

The more you know...

Re:Fuck niggers.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it doesn't.

Re:Fuck niggers.

[Sir Holo]

In Persian it does.

Re:My house, my rules. Go fuck yourself.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I guess it's OK to place racist ads if you're a liberal...

http://nypost.com/2016/03/30/whites-need-not-apply-for-hamilton-open-audition/

Just don't do it the other way around? Typical liberal hypocrites at work again.

Re:My house, my rules. Go fuck yourself.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't have to, their name/picture/lingo will give them away, and then I can cancel on them.

Blacks, that is. Jews won't trash my place and/or steal my stuff. They're perfectly fine.

Re: My house, my rules. Go fuck yourself.

[Type44Q]

or Jews

Okay, how about "no Central Asians pretending to be Israelites so they can gain unfair advantages at the expense of others because it says it's okay in the Bible?" ;)

Observation

[NotQuiteReal]

Why are almost all comments in this thread posted by Anonymous Cowards?

Re: Observation

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, why is that "NotQuiteReal"? What an odd name you have Mr. Real! I'm sure I could easily look you up and that's not an anonymously cowardly name you're hiding behind!

Re:Observation

[n3r0.m4dski11z]

Coward. Singular. They are all quite similar in tone, length, subject and level of education.

Re:Observation

[Tom]

Because we live in a post-political-correctness world, where you are shouted down as racist, sexist, nazi or whatever if you have a not-approved-by-the-mainstream-police uncomfortable opinion. Some of those opinions actually are some or all of those things, but once people realised that it's an easy way to shut someone up, the labels expanded dramatically. You are now labeled a rape-culture sexist if you point out that "equal rights" also means men have rights. You are labeled a slave-holder racist if you point out that there are cases where discrimination goes against white people. And god forbid you say anything positive about a heterosexual white male.

Sadly, people didn't understand that the reason sexism and racism and political extremism are making a comeback tour is exactly that their proponents are being shouted down, giving them this "rebel" feeling that tends to make people stick more strongly to their opinion instead of changing theirs mind.

We should engage racists and reveal - to their and our eyes - what's behind their thoughts. Most often, it turns out it's a simple mix of stereotypes and fear, and once revealed it can be healed. We don't do it because we are also afraid - that if you seriously engage the topic, you have to face some uncomfortable facts for yourself. For example that certain demographic groups actually are more prone to violence, or more likely to commit certain crimes, or other such things. Dissecting that into the parts that are inherent to whatever the trait is and those that are self-fullfilling prophecies (if everyone thinks group A is full of criminals, they are less likely to be given good jobs, leaving many of them no other option than to become criminals). So in a way, the whole shouting match is because the non-racists are afraid to face an uncomfortable fact or two that might shake their simplified world-view.

For the record: I'm a racist. My Bengal cat is different from other cat races and I won't let anyone tell me that she's the same as any street cat.
For humans, even the term is silly as there is only one human race. We extinguished the other ones (Neanderthals and such) tens of thousands of years ago.

Re:Observation

[swb]

So in a way, the whole shouting match is because the non-racists are afraid to face an uncomfortable fact or two that might shake their simplified world-view.

I think this is a larger part of the dynamic you described than anyone talks about. It's kind of obvious that 85% of what a garden variety "racist" believes is false or unfair, but 15% is closer to true than not true, which makes the 85% seem *possibly* true and believable.

The anti-racists won't discuss, debate or even acknowledge the 15% and go into full-on denial, name-calling, etc, which reinforces the 15% in the minds of "racists", which in turn reinforces the other 85% as likely true as well, further dividing them.

Like many issues, most people are more in agreement than disagreement but the refusal to even discuss the sliver of things they disagree on widens the gulf.

Typical Californiastan

[Anonymous Coward]

It's my house - I'll rent to whomever I feel like. I don't mind blacks, but don't want n i g g e r s, and so on. If the regulators think that's unfair - they're free to let them live in their homes.

Oh, and f the lameness filter

Racists or nazis?

[Okian Warrior]

Didn't take long for the "internet racist" to show their ugly faces. I almost feel sorry for them. They have to live their lives never being able to openly express who they are, for fear of being exposed. They have to live and work around "dirty" minorities and can never tell them what truly think of them. Their world gets smaller and smaller everyday until the internet is all they will have left.

Why is it that businesses are only required to enforce certain rights?

Equal and fair commerce for all races and religions I can understand.

I can even understand how corner cases crop up where opposing rights come into conflict - not having to make a wedding cake for gay people, for instance. It wasn't entirely clear which right had precedence before the courts sorted it out.

But businesses are allowed to curtail freedom of speech in any way they want. Facebook bans conservatives more than liberals, Google implements a "fake news" filter that's specific to Breitbart, twitter shadowbans people so that they can't be certain they're being suppressed, Berkeley effectively bans conservative speakers, the list goes on...

I'm not talking about speech generated by the companies, such as CNN or Fox or HuffPo. They're employees are paid to produce speech with a specific slant - I get that.

I'm talking about companies giving average people a forum for their speech, but then imposing rules about insults and impolite speech. And then enforcing the rules one-sidedly to promote a political agenda.

The nazis used to have book burnings, and the situation at Berkeley sounds a lot like what the nazis used to do in the beginning. People at the riots seem to think that beating people is OK, although I haven't heard of anyone being beaten to death yet...

Why do we force people to give commerce without regard to race (or religion, or a handful of other characteristics)

...but not freedom of speech?

Re:Racists or nazis?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do we force people to give commerce without regard to race (or religion, or a handful of other characteristics) ...but not freedom of speech?

Because white, Christian, heterosexual, Constitution-believing, gun-and-bible-clinging, "deplorables" don't have any rights. Don't be silly! They forfeited their rights by choosing to be white, Christian, Constitution-believing, gun-and-bible-clinging "deplorables". They're not even really human in the "civilized" sense as they don't share our civilized views & opinions, so it's not like it's depriving people of rights, or beating (or even killing) people. It's more like eliminating a nasty invading species, or rats in NYC.

PS- I'm very disappointed in the Berkeley, CA PD. They didn't even help ANTIFA scout any sniper positions or provide covering fire. At least they didn't try anything foolish like protecting life & property or restoring order.

Re:Racists or nazis?

[Rockoon]

The nazis used to have book burnings, and the situation at Berkeley sounds a lot like what the nazis used to do in the beginning.

The NAZI's raised an entire generation in preparation.

They infiltrated the schools first. Hitler formed Jungsturm and Stabswache in the early 1920's. The former blossoming into the "Hitler Youth", the later into their "S.S."

Fascism comes from the left because it starts in the schools.

Re:Racists or nazis?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, you want to talk about who is taking over ? Not to mention what they take out.

For decades.

I know you don't want to face it, but the right-wing is the bastion of the thought police.

You should probably just abandon your false conception of the left-right political spectrum, and make your arguments without it. Even if you had a historical point (which you don't), you'd be fighting uphill against reality. Of course, denying reality and living in fantasies is a hallmark of the right, so...you'll keep on keeping on. We will always have been at war with Eastasia, and the chocolate ration will be increased to 30 grams a week.

Re: Racists or nazis?

[Anonymous Coward]

The nazis used to have book burnings, and the situation at Berkeley sounds a lot like what the nazis used to do in the beginning.

Yes, they did make up a myth of persecution and oppression in order to garner false sympathy. Good to see you have some historical perspective.

For the rest, I suggest you check out the ACLU.

Re:Racists or nazis?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fascism comes from the left?

"Fascism /fæzm/ is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism[1][2], characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and control of industry and commerce[3], that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. The first fascist movements emerged in Italy during World War I, before it spread to other European countries. Opposed to liberalism, Marxism, and anarchism, fascism is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum.[4][5]"

From wikipedia, but of course take ANY civics course and it will come to the same conclusion. If you want to play the left-right spectrum (politics, economics, society and life is far more complex than a single axis declaring); Fascism is right wing all day long.

idiotic

[slashmydots]

Certain groups statistically commit more crimes. Why the hell should I ignore math, science, and logic and pretend that's not true? It's my fucking house.

Re:idiotic

[h33t l4x0r]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe criminality is more closely correlated to socio-economic forces than race. When you adjust for income your argument completely falls apart, and that's precisely what what we're doing when we sell or rent a commodity at a certain price/rate.

Re:idiotic

[religionofpeas]

When you adjust for income your argument completely falls apart

Not really. There's still a correlation between race and crime, and that's all you need to know when you decide who can rent your house. If it were easy to find out someone's income or socioeconomic status, I'm sure people would take that into consideration as well.

Re:idiotic

[h33t l4x0r]

Doesn't it make more sense to go by site reputation? If a black guy has lots of good Airbnb reputation, you're still not going to rent to him? That's pretty much indefensible racism if you ask me.

Re:idiotic

[Anonymous Coward]

If you look at blacks, and you look at whites... there are more poor white people in the US than black. Yet, black people still get pulled over more, so there goes the "oh but they're poor, so of course they get stopped more... they cannot afford to fix that busted tail light/renew registration."

Then, people tend to fall back on the "oh well then it's racist police". No, no it's not that at all. Are there racist police? Oh yeah absolutely, just like how there are racists in every field. But most police are just doing their jobs.

Re:idiotic

[AmiMoJo]

Imagine people with your colour eyes statistically committed more crimes. You try your best to be a good person, to better yourself, to get on in life... But doors keep slamming in your face.

You apply for jobs you are well qualified for, but don't even get an interview. Eventually you find somewhere but they want to pay you less than your graduate friends. And you can't take it anyway, because no one will rent to you.

Would you accept that as fair, or would you want the law changed to stop it? What would you do at that moment?

Re:idiotic

[religionofpeas]

Doesn't it make more sense to go by site reputation?

If they have been renting enough times to build a good reputation, sure.

Re:idiotic

[religionofpeas]

Would you accept that as fair

Depends. Statistically speaking, it's a fair response. Individually speaking, it's not.

I'm a guy. Sometimes I walk through the park at night. Sometimes there happens to be a woman walking in front of me. She gets nervous, because there's a guy walking behind her. It's not fair, but I can't blame her.

Re:idiotic

[Rockoon]

Imagine people with your colour eyes statistically committed more crimes.

ok I am now imagining that the hazel eye gene is significantly correlated with crime statistics.

You try your best to be a good person, to better yourself, to get on in life... But doors keep slamming in your face.

Smart people slamming those doors. I havent forgotten about the statistical significance yet, have you? Lets see.

You apply for jobs you are well qualified for, but don't even get an interview. Eventually you find somewhere but they want to pay you less than your graduate friends. And you can't take it anyway, because no one will rent to you.

If nobody will rent to me, then that statistical significance must be really significant. Hazel eyed people are apparently the scourge of the earth in the world you have me imagining.

Would you accept that as fair...

no

or would you want the law changed to stop it?

no

Did you realize that a false dichotomy doesnt make your point?
Did you realize that you clearly forgot about the statical significance aspect of the whole thing?

Rational people act on statistical significance. Rational people can also make an argument without resorting to a logical fallacy.

What would you do at that moment?

Life isn't always fair. Deal with it.

Beyond the narrative here, this is government thugs interfering with things for their own personal benefit. You know whats better than Hotel lobbyists giving you free shit so that you go after AirBnB? Better than that is forcing AirBnB into the lobbyist game at the same time.

You should be talking about the oppressive zoning laws throughout much of California, but you are talking about fairness while painting a clever picture that attempts to provoke empathy, and you punctuate that story-time by invoking a logical fallacy, and that fallacy itself is strongly suggesting that you think that people should be forced by government to do the opposite of what a rational person would do, which is to pay close attention to statistically significant data and act in accordance with it.

Re:idiotic

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe criminality is more closely correlated to socio-economic forces than race

You are wrong. Stand corrected.

Re:idiotic

[arth1]

If you look at blacks, and you look at whites...

Then the whites will have a light blue tinge for a few seconds. Complementary colors, and all.

Re:idiotic

[karmatic]

"Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe criminality is more closely correlated to socio-economic forces than race."

Ok, you're wrong. The hispanic population isn't significantly wealthier than blacks, but the crime rate is significantly lower, even at the same level of income.

Furthermore, poor white people commit crimes (especially violent crimes) at a lower rate than their black counterparts at the same income.

Most of the crime involving blacks is black-on-black.

https://2kpcwh2r7phz1nq4jj237m...

This has been going on for some time. For decades, researches have wanted to blame it on poverty, but the evidence is not there.

"When you adjust for income your argument completely falls apart"

No, it doesn't. When you adjust for IQ it does, but that's where the problem ultimately lies. A black person with an IQ of 100, and a white person with an IQ of 100 will tend to be rather similar, but there are significant differences in population distribution. There's quite a few reasons for disparity in income, but it's a symptom, not a cause.

http://www1.udel.edu/educ/gott...

"Despite repeated claims to the contrary, there has been no narrowing of the 15- to
18-point average IQ difference between Blacks and Whites (1.1 standard deviations);
the differences are as large today as they were when first measured nearly
100 years ago. They, and the concomitant difference in standard of living, level of
education, and related phenomena, lie in factors that are largely heritable, not
cultural. The IQ differences are attributable to differences in brain size more than to
racism, stereotype threat, item selection on tests, and all the other suggestions given
by the commentators. It is time to meet reality. It is time to stop committing the
“moralistic fallacy” that good science must conform to approved outcomes."

Re:idiotic

[karmatic]

It does, as long as the individual in question has a significant history with the site, and the site takes reasonable measures to protect the integrity of their rating system.

"If a black guy has lots of good Airbnb reputation, you're still not going to rent to him?"

Generalizations serve a useful role when someone doesn't have history. We often don't have experience with which to judge a person, so we have to generalize based on what we are able to judge of a person.

Once we have good enough data on a person, then we can start treating them individually.

Re:idiotic

[Anonymous Coward]

Not true if you include illegal income, like drug sales.

Re:idiotic

[karmatic]

"Yet, black people still get pulled over more"

Evidence-based policing. Profiling works, and there are certain traits that tend to get one pulled over, because they have an excuse (or make one) and are looking for other crimes.

I used to drive a large tinted van with limo tint and plates from a southern state. I'd get pulled over all the time because they thought I was running drugs. I wasn't, but I fit the profile. I'd be told that my license plate light was out, then go to replace it and it wasn't broken at all. Or, I was "weaving".

As a result of profiling, however, if you're black, you're more likely to get caught. So, even though blacks commit a crime at a higher rate (hence the profiling), they end up arrested at an even higher rate.

For "bonus" points, blacks tend to have bad attitudes towards the police and courts (some of it justified), and the police react rather badly to bad attitudes, leading to an even higher arrest rate. Judges tend to be lenient towards first time offenders, and people who show remorse.

Culturally, white individuals are taught to show (or at least fake) remorse more often than blacks ("apoligize, say you're sorry"), and are less likely to hold the system in visible contempt. Due to the lower criminality, and lower likelihood of getting caught, they are also less likely to be seen as repeat offenders.

So, the system screws over black people, and it's part their fault, and part the system's fault.

Re:idiotic

[karmatic]

"Imagine people with your colour eyes statistically committed more crimes."

Ok. That's easy. I'm Mexican, so we do statistically commit more crimes. I'm relatively light skinned, though, so in the winter I'm generally seen as white.

"But doors keep slamming in your face"

Ok. I support the right of voluntary association and don't want anyone forced into doing business with me.

"You apply for jobs you are well qualified for, but don't even get an interview."

Oh, so like when I was qualified and able to legally work, but nobody wanted to hire me due to limitations on my permit, and no desire to sponsor me as an immigrant?

Yeah, been there, done that.

"Eventually you find somewhere but they want to pay you less than your graduate friends."

Like my employer who demanded full time hours, but would illegally pay me part time, on top of paying a official salary a fraction of what citizens earned?

Sounds familiar.

"And you can't take it anyway, because no one will rent to you."

Oh, you can find rentals. They just aren't always good ones, and they can be a ways from the job. Fortunately, we had decent mass transit. In another place we lived, we found a landlord who did month-to-month rentals, so he could kick out the problem tenants quickly. It avoided the issue of no credit and no rental history.

"Would you accept that as fair"

Yes, I would.

"would you want the law changed to stop it? "

Not at all. If anything, having gone through immigration, I want the restrictions tightened. I have seen so much fraud, crime, and abuse - those who would abuse the system and exploit it give us a bad name.

I understand when people blame Mexicans for higher rates of crime, because we commit higher rates of crime. Trying to legislate away reality is stupid.

"What would you do at that moment?"

Work hard enough and develop my skills enough to ensure that I'm a member of the professional class, where there is a lot less discrimination. Develop enough of a history that I can be judged on my own merit, move out of the big city, and build enough credit that I can buy a home. The banks only care about the colour of your money, and when you don't have a landlord, they can't very well judge you.

I also changed my name to something that didn't sound Mexican. It simplified things.

It's not reality's job to conform to my expectations - it's my job to conform to reality. I can't legislate tolerance, even if I wanted to.

Re: idiotic

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, not only can you see that profiling does not work if you investigate the police activities, you can even find out the police are not just lying to you, they're making false reports by misidentifying race.

Re: idiotic

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, so like when I was qualified and able to legally work, but nobody wanted to hire me due to limitations on my permit, and no desire to sponsor me as an immigrant?

Nope. Immigration status is legal to consider, race is not. If you want to argue the immigration processes are obstructive, you will need to lobby against them.

Re: idiotic

[karmatic]

The example I was replying to (eye color) was legal to discriminate against. It's actually illegal to discriminate on the basis of immigration status.

In the US, the I-9 form specifically states that even discrimination on the basis of a future date may be illegal discrimination, and employers are required to post posters saying "if you have the right to work, don't let them take it away".

It shouldn't be illegal, but it is.

Re: idiotic

[karmatic]

"they're making false reports by misidentifying race"

Well, yes, but part of that is because they didn't have any races other than white and black for some time in the crime reports. As such, a lot of the crimes were lumped in with white that shouldn't be.

They have gotten better about reporting, and that's part of why the white rate has gone down, and the minority rate has gone up. It's still an issue, though, because departments are still pressured to make it look like they are less racist, and not all departments have changed. That's why if you look at most wanted posters, they have large number of "white" criminals that clearly aren't. They cook the numbers to look like it's white people committing those crimes instead.

Re: idiotic

[Anonymous Coward]

"they're making false reports by misidentifying race"

Well, yes, but part of that is because they didn't have any races other than white and black for some time in the crime reports. As such, a lot of the crimes were lumped in with white that shouldn't be.

Nope. I'm talking about them deciding to misidentify people's races, deliberately and willfully. If I had wanted to say that the report system was simply flawed, I'd have said that.

This is entirely because they know they benefit by lying. Intentional.

They have gotten better about reporting, and that's part of why the white rate has gone down, and the minority rate has gone up. It's still an issue, though, because departments are still pressured to make it look like they are less racist, and not all departments have changed. That's why if you look at most wanted posters, they have large number of "white" criminals that clearly aren't. They cook the numbers to look like it's white people committing those crimes instead.

Nope, you've got it wrong, what I'm talking about is how they cook the numbers by misidentifying race in order to look like they're not pulling over minorities at a rate that shows it is deliberate targeting, arresting people solely because of race, and otherwise being the racists they're all too often documented as being. So they consistently and repetitively mislabel race in order to not get caught. Or they drop records, or they make up statements or facts.

It's generally a bad thing, and they've created a stigma where the police cannot be trusted. At all.

All because they refused to clean up their own act. Go read Frank Scorpio's book. It's an eyeopener.

Of course, the police aren't alone. Doctors, bankers, lawyers, they're all getting to the excessive lying stage, and this will have consequences if they don't reform themselves.

Re:idiotic

[AmiMoJo]

The logical fallacy is that you assume that eye colour is an indicator of likely behaviour. It's not, correlation is not causation and you have a right to be treated as an individual.

Consider for a moment that the very basis of our legal system is "innocent until proven guilty". What you are arguing is that because of statistics the system should be weighted to assume people with hazel eyes require a lower standard of proof to convict. That's essentially what black people face now, and it's fundamentally unjust and an affront to civilised society.

Tricky one this is

[Tom]

Wow, that's going to clash.

On the one hand, yes racism is stupid and backwater countryside last-century silly.
But on the other hand, this isn't some hotel room, this is, for many people, theirs home (or holiday home, or whatever). They should be able to decide who to let in, based on whatever criteria they want, including racism, sexism and I-don't-like-people-in-suits.

We will see these kind of things happening more and more as the "gig economy" blurs the line between the private and the business world.

Re:Tricky one this is

[slk]

"Three or more listings" means that it's almost certainly not their home. This isn't targeting somebody renting out a spare bedroom, this is targeting people using AirBNB to run a business.

Re:Tricky one this is

[Laser Lou]

Rampant racism can KILL Airbnb. Besides, racism doesn't belong in a civilized society.

Re: Tricky one this is

[karmatic]

Sure it does. What doesn't belong in a civil society is putting our fingers in our ears, going "la la la", and ignoring evidence.

Decades of pretending everyone is equal, and trying to make it so has failed. It's time for a dose of reality-based polices.

For the record

[Anonymous Coward]

For the record the Asian woman who was seemingly discriminated against was trying to change the terms after the reservation: 2 more guests and pets.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NIRz7cqreA

Re: For the record

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, that wasn't what happened, but it doesn't matter, the gratuitously racist comments were still racist comments.

Re:My house, my rules. Go fuck yourself.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't care what race someone is or what religion they follow or not follow..

What i do know is that most all-black communities do have alot more crime than most all-white communities.. What that is i do not know.. If it's because most all-black communities have a lower average salary or something else i have no clue about. So from a statistics point of view there is a higher risk with renting out to some races.

But on the other hand if i have met the person i can make a determination if i trust him/her based on behaviour and reasoning... But when people rent out on AirBnB all they have to go on is a profile, and who would ever write crap about themselves..

If i choose to only rent out to older white females because there is less risk of damage is that being sexist and racist?
If i choose to only rent out to older white males because there is less risk in them failing to pay is that being sexist and racist?
If i choose to only rent out to asian girls between the age of 30 and 35 because statistics point out that they are the most probable to not damage anything and to pay on time. Would that be discriminatory? (just made age and race up, have no clue what the statistics say..)

Re:I'll rent to whoever I want

[Anonymous Coward]

They went from 'no i don't want to sit in the back of the bus.' and now they are choosing to all sit at the back of the bus...

Had to open this with a joke ;)

Problem is not race... It's how the rest of the people behave around them during their upbringing... If you have an area with just blacks where most kids have separated parents, where one might not even have visiting-rights, where this causes emotional scars, making him repeat the same behaviour with his kids..
If you have an area with tons of criminal activities the kids will pick up on it and think "But i'm not really a criminal when i take this DHL package outside this house".
If you have an area with lots of drug-offenders they will see drugs as something normal too.

Cities should fight areas that have high rates in crime, and one way to do it would be to consider raising a kid in one of those areas as child-abuse. It would take a generation or two, but that would be effective in breaking the cycle.

Some people, not me, claim that genetics is involved too. Even if that would be true that could be addressed after stopping the known factors that can be proven.

Re: My house, my rules. Go fuck yourself.

[Anonymous Coward]

...the state cannot force quotas on private renters.

Yet!

Have no doubts, that's where things are headed and worse if the SJW snowflakes and leftist loons and their brainless hired-thug "antifa" anti-fascist-fascists aren't put in check. Hard.

Re:My house, my rules. Go fuck yourself.

[Anonymous Coward]

I manage several properties on Airbnb and have rented to a diverse bunch of people.. Jews won't steal my linens or trash my house. Nignogs have done all of that and more.

Re:My house, my rules. Go fuck yourself.

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the truely undesireable can be kept out with a high price. Of course, what you rent out have to be worth that price, but then you get people with less issues. You may still get a black tenant or whatever - but you get the desireable kind - someone with money. People with money rarely trash a place - they don't want to loose their wealth in a lawsuit.

If you want to make money off the poor, you have higher risk because most criminals are indeed among the poor.There are plenty of honest poor too, but that fact doesn't really help unless there is some way to sort people.

Re:My house, my rules. Go fuck yourself.

[Anonymous Coward]

That is for a show, where looks matter. I need a Martin Luther King for a movie. Blacks only - obviously. I need a someone to play king. Women need not apply. And so on.

Re:I'll rent to whoever I want

[karmatic]

"Some people, not me, claim that genetics is involved too."

People have been trying for forty years to claim that it's not genetics. It's largely genetics.

https://www1.udel.edu/educ/got...

Culture is heavily influenced by genetics.

Outrage

[Anonymous Coward]

Minorities should be seen, not heard. Their purpose is to pose as political props for the Mighty Whitey Democrat Party. It's outrageous that they speak against their masters. Slavery forever!

Re:I'll rent to whoever I want

[Anonymous Coward]

I happen to think genetics plays a much larger role in everything than is generally recognized. However, that particular article and authors have been widely debated and criticized, and one really should read the critiques as well as the article before forming any opinion.

screw you

[Anonymous Coward]

My house, my rules.

I reserve the right to deny you service for ANY reason. Now, i may not get any government contracts or kickbacks if i do, but its my property and i do as i want.

Oh boo-hoo

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't want to be singled out, then stay in your Section 8 ghettos and apartments. Nobody in 2017 has the time or patience to coddle your weak, insignificant race-baiting handout schemes. The PC era is dying; we're sick of it.

Own nation

[NewYork]

If you want to give preference to your race, take your race share of land and go build your own nation;