6 ms·

> We're seeing a wide trend in the US where people want rules to prevent people from making choices that they don't agree with, which was basically the opposite

by guelo 10y ago

> We're seeing a wide trend in the US where people want rules to prevent people from making choices that they don't agree with, which was basically the opposite of the point of the US. Freedom is a relative thing. Here we have AirBnB's freedom to not want racist hosts vs white supremacist's freedom to use AirBnB. The only freedom the ideal of USA is supposed to grant you is freedom from too much government meddling.

vkou 10y ago
> The only freedom the ideal of USA is supposed to grant you is freedom from too much government meddling. Really? Which amendment is that one? There are a few prominent restrictions on particular kinds of government meddling in the US. This by no means generalizes to the rest of it.
- guelo 10y ago
  That's why I said 'ideal', it's not true in practice, but I was responding to the comment about the hypothetical "point of the US".
  - brightball 10y ago
    What I meant by that was individual liberty and the ability to make your own choices and decisions. Government meddling in that in this case is forcing people to do something they are uncomfortable with simply because they paid money while simultaneously running the risk of legal action if at any point you want to abort the transaction. The most basic example is akin to forcing somebody to sign a contract without knowing who they are signing it with.
    - vkou 10y ago
      We've tried allowing this kind of thing, and what we got was redlining, "No colored allowed" and "Dogs and Irish keep off the grass." If complying with anti-discrimination law is a problem for you, you should generally not be in this line of business.
      - yummyfajitas 10y ago
        Redlining is an explicit government policy, started by the HOLC (a government sponsored corporation created by FDR as part of the New Deal). Here's one of their maps: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining#/media/File:Home_Owners%27_Loan_Corporation_Philadelphia_redlining_map.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining#/media/File:Home_Own... Separating whites from colored was also explicit government policy. It was called Jim Crow. We never tried "this kind of thing". http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/links/misclink/examples/homepage.htm http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/links/misclink/examples/homepa... The law was actually far more intrusive back then than it is today. For example, you might be shocked to discover that Jim Crow laws actually mandated discrimination in sexual relationships! The closest we've come to trying this kind of thing is the present day, where at least sexual relationships have been deregulated. (This one is a biggie for me, I discriminate pretty strongly against white women and think the government should not restrict my freedom in that way.)
      - brightball 10y ago
        You're conflating personal choice with discrimination. A contractual engagement between two people should ALMOST always be a matter of choice. A business that you can walk into off the street should ALMOST never be able to discriminate. I say almost in both cases because absolutes are the tools by which rules are abused.
- jessaustin 10y ago
  Which amendment is that one? The Tenth: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Of course this is a dead letter because of a misinterpretation of the Commerce Clause, but there it is. If the Constitution didn't literally give the federal government a power, it doesn't have that power.
  - ebola1717 10y ago
    Ok there George Wallace
    - jessaustin 10y ago
      Haha there's a charitable interpretation. Actually my second-favorite amendment is the Fourteenth, precisely because it knocks the states down a few pegs, and gives the federal government the power to enforce that. (In addition to, you know, extending citizenship to everyone...) I doubt old George would have agreed with that. [EDIT:] to avoid confusion, the First is my favorite.
brightball 10y ago
That's really the crux of what I'm getting at here. People who are using AirBnB to rent space in their homes will also have the freedom to stop doing so if they are no longer comfortable losing any say regarding who they are willing to let stay. If anything, AirBnB is really opening the door for a competitor who totally defers to the property owner to cut into their market share.
- kevinpet 10y ago
  Which would probably be pretty unsuccessful. Who's going to use and recommend WhiteBnB to their friends? Well, yeah, neo-nazis. But that's a pretty niche market and AirBnB only works if they are big enough to make the two sided market work.
  - bitL 10y ago
    It's not about WhiteBnB. It's about WhomeverIWantBnB. I am white, European, affluent, from a popular country and was rejected many times by AirBnB hosts (most of them blacks or women), so what? I looked elsewhere. It's really their right to provide accommodation to whomever they wish, it's their property. If AirBnB doesn't want them, they'd go elsewhere and AirBnB will go the way GitHub is going. Most hosts are featured on many competitors when you talk to them; they were happy about the least amount of hassle coming from AirBnB, but if they have to hop over many hurdles... I really think US is now getting to a completely different extreme - why should be whites and men so severely disadvantaged? You are getting to a point that when you don't enthusiastically approve of whatever a SJW says, you are instantly labeled an enemy. Go and watch video how Turks in some remote city were kicking out Korean tourists - that's a problem you should focus on if you want to make the world a better place. First world problems...
    - runako 10y ago
      > why should be whites and men so severely disadvantaged Where, exactly, would one be able to objectively measure this disadvantage using published data?

by guelo 10y ago

vkou 10y ago

> The only freedom the ideal of USA is supposed to grant you is freedom from too much government meddling. Really? Which amendment is that one? There are a few prominent restrictions on particular kinds of government meddling in the US. This by no means generalizes to the rest of it.

guelo 10y ago
That's why I said 'ideal', it's not true in practice, but I was responding to the comment about the hypothetical "point of the US".
- brightball 10y ago
  What I meant by that was individual liberty and the ability to make your own choices and decisions. Government meddling in that in this case is forcing people to do something they are uncomfortable with simply because they paid money while simultaneously running the risk of legal action if at any point you want to abort the transaction. The most basic example is akin to forcing somebody to sign a contract without knowing who they are signing it with.
  - vkou 10y ago
    We've tried allowing this kind of thing, and what we got was redlining, "No colored allowed" and "Dogs and Irish keep off the grass." If complying with anti-discrimination law is a problem for you, you should generally not be in this line of business.
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      Redlining is an explicit government policy, started by the HOLC (a government sponsored corporation created by FDR as part of the New Deal). Here's one of their maps: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining#/media/File:Home_Owners%27_Loan_Corporation_Philadelphia_redlining_map.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining#/media/File:Home_Own... Separating whites from colored was also explicit government policy. It was called Jim Crow. We never tried "this kind of thing". http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/links/misclink/examples/homepage.htm http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/links/misclink/examples/homepa... The law was actually far more intrusive back then than it is today. For example, you might be shocked to discover that Jim Crow laws actually mandated discrimination in sexual relationships! The closest we've come to trying this kind of thing is the present day, where at least sexual relationships have been deregulated. (This one is a biggie for me, I discriminate pretty strongly against white women and think the government should not restrict my freedom in that way.)
    - brightball 10y ago
      You're conflating personal choice with discrimination. A contractual engagement between two people should ALMOST always be a matter of choice. A business that you can walk into off the street should ALMOST never be able to discriminate. I say almost in both cases because absolutes are the tools by which rules are abused.
jessaustin 10y ago
Which amendment is that one? The Tenth: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Of course this is a dead letter because of a misinterpretation of the Commerce Clause, but there it is. If the Constitution didn't literally give the federal government a power, it doesn't have that power.
- ebola1717 10y ago
  Ok there George Wallace
  - jessaustin 10y ago
    Haha there's a charitable interpretation. Actually my second-favorite amendment is the Fourteenth, precisely because it knocks the states down a few pegs, and gives the federal government the power to enforce that. (In addition to, you know, extending citizenship to everyone...) I doubt old George would have agreed with that. [EDIT:] to avoid confusion, the First is my favorite.

brightball 10y ago

That's really the crux of what I'm getting at here. People who are using AirBnB to rent space in their homes will also have the freedom to stop doing so if they are no longer comfortable losing any say regarding who they are willing to let stay. If anything, AirBnB is really opening the door for a competitor who totally defers to the property owner to cut into their market share.

kevinpet 10y ago
Which would probably be pretty unsuccessful. Who's going to use and recommend WhiteBnB to their friends? Well, yeah, neo-nazis. But that's a pretty niche market and AirBnB only works if they are big enough to make the two sided market work.
- bitL 10y ago
  It's not about WhiteBnB. It's about WhomeverIWantBnB. I am white, European, affluent, from a popular country and was rejected many times by AirBnB hosts (most of them blacks or women), so what? I looked elsewhere. It's really their right to provide accommodation to whomever they wish, it's their property. If AirBnB doesn't want them, they'd go elsewhere and AirBnB will go the way GitHub is going. Most hosts are featured on many competitors when you talk to them; they were happy about the least amount of hassle coming from AirBnB, but if they have to hop over many hurdles... I really think US is now getting to a completely different extreme - why should be whites and men so severely disadvantaged? You are getting to a point that when you don't enthusiastically approve of whatever a SJW says, you are instantly labeled an enemy. Go and watch video how Turks in some remote city were kicking out Korean tourists - that's a problem you should focus on if you want to make the world a better place. First world problems...
  - runako 10y ago
    > why should be whites and men so severely disadvantaged Where, exactly, would one be able to objectively measure this disadvantage using published data?