"Trouble is, without those laws, discrimination would just return to being rampant and overt (rather than still fairly rampant but at least a bit hidden.) "
Good. That's honest.
I (like many landlords) aren't going to rent to a black couple or Muslim couple deliberately. I've never had a black guy apply to work for me, but I almost certainly wouldn't hire them if they did. Since the outcome is the same - it's "fairly rampant", and the discrimination happens anyway, lets' just be honest about it.
I've been on the other side of the equation - people who didn't want to rent to associate with me because I was gay, or because I'm Mexican. If they don't want to do business with me because they are (for example) anti-gay bigots, I have no desire to give them my money in the first place.
"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.
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.
"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.
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".
"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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
"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."
"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.
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.
"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.
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.
"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.
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.
"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.
Slashdot Mirror
"Trouble is, without those laws, discrimination would just return to being rampant and overt (rather than still fairly rampant but at least a bit hidden.) "
Good. That's honest.
I (like many landlords) aren't going to rent to a black couple or Muslim couple deliberately. I've never had a black guy apply to work for me, but I almost certainly wouldn't hire them if they did. Since the outcome is the same - it's "fairly rampant", and the discrimination happens anyway, lets' just be honest about it.
I've been on the other side of the equation - people who didn't want to rent to associate with me because I was gay, or because I'm Mexican. If they don't want to do business with me because they are (for example) anti-gay bigots, I have no desire to give them my money in the first place.
"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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
"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.
"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.
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.
"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."
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.
"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.
"or a white person who doesn't speak up against racism"
Why would I do that? Evidence-based racism is rational.
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.
"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.
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.
"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.
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.
"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.
As a racist, I don't have the same morals you do, so it's unfair to hold me to your standards.
"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.
"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.
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.
"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.
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.