Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by BeauHD on from the fair-housing-testing dept.

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.

129 of 251 comments (clear)

  1. It's my house though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    1. Re: It's my house though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

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

    2. Re: It's my house though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

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

    3. Re: It's my house though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

    4. Re: It's my house though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re: It's my house though by karmatic · · Score: 1

      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.

    6. Re: It's my house though by karmatic · · Score: 2

      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.

    7. Re: It's my house though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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!

    8. Re:It's my house though by Sir+Holo · · Score: 2

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

      There are laws against that. Lots of them.

    9. Re: It's my house though by sunking2 · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    10. Re:It's my house though by Lordpidey · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Some people encrypt by using rot-13 twice. I prefer the more secure method of using rot-1 a total of twenty six times.
    11. Re: It's my house though by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    12. Re:It's my house though by stephenmac7 · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." -- Judge Gideon J. Tucker
    13. Re: It's my house though by karmatic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "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.

    14. Re: It's my house though by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      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.

    15. Re: It's my house though by karmatic · · Score: 1, Insightful

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

    16. Re: It's my house though by karmatic · · Score: 4, Informative

      "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.

    17. Re: It's my house though by sudonim2 · · Score: 1

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

    18. Re: It's my house though by phorm · · Score: 1

      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...

    19. Re: It's my house though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      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.)

    20. Re: It's my house though by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      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.

    21. Re:It's my house though by Tom · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    22. Re:It's my house though by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      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.

    23. Re: It's my house though by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      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.

    24. Re: It's my house though by Tom · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    25. Re: It's my house though by Tom · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    26. Re: It's my house though by Tom · · Score: 1

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

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

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    27. Re: It's my house though by MrMr · · Score: 1

      I guess you no longer take in French guests?

    28. Re: It's my house though by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

      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.

    29. Re: It's my house though by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    30. Re: It's my house though by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    31. Re: It's my house though by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

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

    32. Re: It's my house though by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      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.

    33. Re: It's my house though by karmatic · · Score: 2

      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.

    34. Re: It's my house though by arth1 · · Score: 1

      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.

    35. Re: It's my house though by karmatic · · Score: 1

      "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.

    36. Re: It's my house though by karmatic · · Score: 1

      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.

    37. Re: It's my house though by arth1 · · Score: 1

      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.

    38. Re: It's my house though by arth1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    39. Re: It's my house though by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      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.

    40. Re: It's my house though by karmatic · · Score: 1

      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.

    41. Re: It's my house though by karmatic · · Score: 1

      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.

    42. Re: It's my house though by hawk · · Score: 1

      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

    43. Re:It's my house though by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

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

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    44. Re: It's my house though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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?

    45. Re:It's my house though by stephenmac7 · · Score: 1
      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)

      --
      "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." -- Judge Gideon J. Tucker
    46. Re: It's my house though by stephenmac7 · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." -- Judge Gideon J. Tucker
    47. Re: It's my house though by jeek · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      If you want to be seen, stand up. If you want to be heard, speak up. If you want to be respected, sit down and shut up.
    48. Re: It's my house though by jmcvetta · · Score: 1

      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.

    49. Re: It's my house though by mediaempyre · · Score: 1

      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 .

    50. Re: It's my house though by minstrelmike · · Score: 1

      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.

    51. Re:It's my house though by DrStoooopid · · Score: 1

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



      took the words right out of my mouth.
      --
      There are 2 groups of people you can make fun of on the Internet without fear of attack. The illiterate, and the Amish.
    52. Re: It's my house though by DrStoooopid · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      There are 2 groups of people you can make fun of on the Internet without fear of attack. The illiterate, and the Amish.
    53. Re:It's my house though by Tom · · Score: 1

      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?

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    54. Re: It's my house though by Tom · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    55. Re: It's my house though by Tom · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    56. Re: It's my house though by Tom · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    57. Re: It's my house though by leslie.satenstein · · Score: 1

      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.

    58. Re:It's my house though by stephenmac7 · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." -- Judge Gideon J. Tucker
    59. Re: It's my house though by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      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.

    60. Re:It's my house though by Tom · · Score: 1

      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?

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    61. Re:It's my house though by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

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

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    62. Re:It's my house though by stephenmac7 · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." -- Judge Gideon J. Tucker
    63. Re:It's my house though by Tom · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  2. Sespool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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???

    1. Re: Sespool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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

  3. Fuck California. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    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 ?

    1. Re:Fuck California. by DerekLyons · · Score: 1, Insightful

      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?

    2. Re:Fuck California. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      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?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:Fuck California. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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?

    4. Re:Fuck California. by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    5. Re:Fuck California. by arth1 · · Score: 1

      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?

    6. Re:Fuck California. by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    7. Re:Fuck California. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  4. Re:My house, my rules. Go fuck yourself. by Tempest451 · · Score: 1

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

  5. Well that didn't take long by Tempest451 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Well that didn't take long by ArylAkamov · · Score: 2

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

    2. Re:Well that didn't take long by Tempest451 · · Score: 2

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

    3. Re:Well that didn't take long by Tempest451 · · Score: 1

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

    4. Re: Well that didn't take long by karmatic · · Score: 3

      "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.

    5. Re: Well that didn't take long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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.

    6. Re:Well that didn't take long by Solandri · · Score: 1

      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.

    7. Re:Well that didn't take long by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

      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.

    8. Re: Well that didn't take long by karmatic · · Score: 1

      "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.

    9. Re:Well that didn't take long by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

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

    10. Re: Well that didn't take long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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.

    11. Re:Well that didn't take long by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    12. Re: Well that didn't take long by karmatic · · Score: 1

      "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.

    13. Re:Well that didn't take long by yuriklastalov · · Score: 1

      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.

    14. Re:Well that didn't take long by ProfBooty · · Score: 1

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

      --
      Bring back the old version of slashdot.
    15. Re: Well that didn't take long by ProfBooty · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Bring back the old version of slashdot.
    16. Re: Well that didn't take long by Laser+Lou · · Score: 1

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

      --
      No data, no cry
    17. Re: Well that didn't take long by karmatic · · Score: 1

      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.

    18. Re: Well that didn't take long by mjwx · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    19. Re: Well that didn't take long by karmatic · · Score: 1

      "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.

  6. Re:My house by OzPeter · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
  7. Great news by frovingslosh · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    1. Re:Great news by sunking2 · · Score: 1

      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.

    2. Re:Great news by frovingslosh · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    3. Re: Great news by karmatic · · Score: 1

      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.

    4. Re: Great news by frovingslosh · · Score: 1

      That has not worked out well for the last guy.

      --
      I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
  8. Re:My house by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    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.

  9. Observation by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1

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

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    1. Re:Observation by Tom · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    2. Re:Observation by swb · · Score: 1

      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.

  10. Re:Fuck niggers. by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

    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...

  11. Racists or nazis? by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 2

    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?

    1. Re:Racists or nazis? by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
  12. idiotic by slashmydots · · Score: 1, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:idiotic by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 2

      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.

    2. Re:idiotic by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      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.

    3. Re:idiotic by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

      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.

    4. Re:idiotic by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      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?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:idiotic by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

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

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

    6. Re:idiotic by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      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.

    7. Re:idiotic by Rockoon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    8. Re:idiotic by arth1 · · Score: 1

      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.

    9. Re:idiotic by karmatic · · Score: 1

      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.

    10. Re:idiotic by karmatic · · Score: 1

      "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.

    11. Re:idiotic by karmatic · · Score: 1

      "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.

    12. Re: idiotic by karmatic · · Score: 1

      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.

    13. Re: idiotic by karmatic · · Score: 1

      "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.

    14. Re:idiotic by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  13. Tricky one this is by Tom · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    1. Re:Tricky one this is by slk · · Score: 1

      "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.

      --
      ERROR: Null .sig, core dumped.
    2. Re:Tricky one this is by Laser+Lou · · Score: 1

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

      --
      No data, no cry
  14. Re:I'll rent to whoever I want by karmatic · · Score: 1

    "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.

  15. Re:Fuck niggers. by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

    In Persian it does.

  16. Own nation by NewYork · · Score: 1

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

    --
    Casteism