5 ms·

> prevent people from making choices that they don't agree with, which was basically the opposite of the point of the US. I'd stay away from these issues on HN

> prevent people from making choices that they don't agree with, which was basically the opposite of the point of the US. I'd stay away from these issues on HN unless we really have something valuable and new to add. I'll just say that there's another side to this and many strongly disagree with this notion. To sum it up and just put both sides out there (hopefully not starting a debate), people facing widespread discrimination, unable to get jobs, housing, health care, and even dinner and hotel rooms are not free, but oppressed. Also, it's long been part of US history, it's not a new trend. Anti-discrimination laws are one example.

Chronic9q 10y ago
It's my home and I do what I want. If you're black and I don't like you, I have every right not to let you into my house, no matter your history. You cannot debate this statement.
- hackuser 10y ago
  I disagree with how the question is framed, around whether someone can do these things: People can do all sorts of bad things; they can mentally abuse their children, they can gamble away all their family's assets, cheat their co-workers and customers, they can hate and do many other things to ruin their lives, their family's, their neighbor's, their country's and the world's. People have the right to turn the U.S. into a broken state like Somalia. People have a long history of causing death, destruction, and pain to each other; I think that amounts to the same point in your comment, and I agree it's irrefutable. But who cares what I can do? Once we mature past childhood, it's meaningless; it doesn't inform our decisions. The question is not what can we do - who wants to do 99.9% of those things? - but what could we be doing? What are our obligations to our families, our neighbors, our societies and the world? What do we care about? What do we do well, where are we causing harm, and how can we do better? Saying we can be racist - well of course. But it distracts from the real questions: What harm is being done? There is very well-established, serious widespread harm being done to tens of millions of people because of racism; it's gone on for generations. What can we do to make it better? In most of the world, people (or at least some leaders) have chosen poverty, ignorance, and violence over liberty, and justice. In the U.S., people chose to do better - they could have chosen otherwise; I hope they continue to do so.
  - rayiner 10y ago
    I'll put a sharper point on it: People must be governed.[1] People have an enormous capacity to be violent, racist, sexist, small minded, paranoid, greedy, and dishonest, and the whole point of government is to collectively overcome these failings. Obviously government cannot stop discrimination just as it cannot stop murder, theft, etc. But it can dramatically reduce it by imposing the proper social norms. [1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9Igooxb4D1c https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9Igooxb4D1c
    - dublinclontarf 10y ago
      No, the point of government is to protect your rights from violation by others. Those unalienable rights you are born with as outlined in the bill of rights. It's not to overcome the failings of humanity (an impossible task if ever there was one).
      - clock_tower 10y ago
        Have you read _Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America_ yet? I think Rayiner would find it interesting as well.
      - tptacek 10y ago
        Your inalienable rights are a construct, enforced solely by "governments". Your rates in the state of nature are nothing like the rights your countrymen have agreed to provide you.
        aminok 10y ago
        So slavery is okay as long as the government determines it is. Great moral framework you have there. It's morally wrong to use threats of government violence to dictate how an individual uses their private property.
        flukus 10y ago
        You know those "threats of government violence" are the only thing stopping the practice of slavery?
- CJefferson 10y ago
  We can debate it, and many countries have many laws on the topic. However, you clearly are not interested in debating it.
- serge2k 10y ago
  That's fine. Until you have a little business in that home and are now refusing paying customers.
  - dajohnson89 10y ago
    Nope, still fine even then. You do realize that if I rent out a room in my home (say, for a year's lease), I can discriminate on any basis I so choose?
    - URSpider94 10y ago
      Legally, yes. Morally, I'd disagree.
    - mikestew 10y ago
      Not if you're in the U. S.
      - dajohnson89 10y ago
        Got a source on that? https://www.craigslist.org/about/FHA#roommates https://www.craigslist.org/about/FHA#roommates Under federal Fair Housing law, the prohibition on discriminatory advertisements applies to all situations except the following: Shared Housing Exemption -- If you are advertising a shared housing unit, in which tenants will be sharing a bathroom, kitchen, or other common area, you may express a preference based upon sex only. Private Club and Religious Exemptions -- A religious community or private club whose membership is not restricted based upon race, color, or national origin may restrict tenancy only to its members in a property that it owns, and may advertise to that effect. Housing for Older Persons Exemption -- As discussed below, certain complexes for elderly persons are exempt from prohibitions on familial status discrimination, including the prohibitions on discriminatory advertising.
    - serge2k 10y ago
      I don't give a shit. You're a piece of human garbage if you discriminate based on skin colour, and you shouldn't be allowed to do it while having your own little hotel in your house. Getting a roommate is different. You can still be a piece of garbage and discriminate, but that's your business.
- joeyo 10y ago
  Maybe so, but once you enter into business arrangement to bring people into your home, other considerations start to apply. You can always choose not to rent out your home...
- URSpider94 10y ago
  I can and I will. Morally (if not legally), that changes the minute you are offering up a bed in your home in exchange for money.
  - jomamaxx 10y ago
    "That changes the minute you are offering up a bed in your home in exchange for money" No. I'd argue it changes when you have a flat that is rented out on a near full time basis to others, i.e. 'a business'.
- paulddraper 10y ago
  I agree with you, but a lot of people don't. There are rules about who you decide to hire, who you decide to rent to, and who you decide to serve. Crazy, I know, but that's the world most wanted.
jomamaxx 10y ago
"I'd stay away from these issues on HN unless we really have something valuable and new to add." Enough with this rubbish - your comment is that of the totalitarian. Homes are not businesses, and people have a right to decide who they let it - and not. It's not a simplistic decision, and there are probably many factors. Personally - if someone looked like a scruffy bum, I don't think I'd want them renting my AirBnB if I had a place. Frankly, I don't care if it's 'discriminatory'. More importantly - shutting down the discussion with political y loaded ideology is just wrong. These are nuanced issues, you don't get to win by saying the word 'racist'.

Chronic9q 10y ago

It's my home and I do what I want. If you're black and I don't like you, I have every right not to let you into my house, no matter your history. You cannot debate this statement.

hackuser 10y ago
I disagree with how the question is framed, around whether someone can do these things: People can do all sorts of bad things; they can mentally abuse their children, they can gamble away all their family's assets, cheat their co-workers and customers, they can hate and do many other things to ruin their lives, their family's, their neighbor's, their country's and the world's. People have the right to turn the U.S. into a broken state like Somalia. People have a long history of causing death, destruction, and pain to each other; I think that amounts to the same point in your comment, and I agree it's irrefutable. But who cares what I can do? Once we mature past childhood, it's meaningless; it doesn't inform our decisions. The question is not what can we do - who wants to do 99.9% of those things? - but what could we be doing? What are our obligations to our families, our neighbors, our societies and the world? What do we care about? What do we do well, where are we causing harm, and how can we do better? Saying we can be racist - well of course. But it distracts from the real questions: What harm is being done? There is very well-established, serious widespread harm being done to tens of millions of people because of racism; it's gone on for generations. What can we do to make it better? In most of the world, people (or at least some leaders) have chosen poverty, ignorance, and violence over liberty, and justice. In the U.S., people chose to do better - they could have chosen otherwise; I hope they continue to do so.
- rayiner 10y ago
  I'll put a sharper point on it: People must be governed.[1] People have an enormous capacity to be violent, racist, sexist, small minded, paranoid, greedy, and dishonest, and the whole point of government is to collectively overcome these failings. Obviously government cannot stop discrimination just as it cannot stop murder, theft, etc. But it can dramatically reduce it by imposing the proper social norms. [1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9Igooxb4D1c https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9Igooxb4D1c
  - dublinclontarf 10y ago
    No, the point of government is to protect your rights from violation by others. Those unalienable rights you are born with as outlined in the bill of rights. It's not to overcome the failings of humanity (an impossible task if ever there was one).
    - clock_tower 10y ago
      Have you read _Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America_ yet? I think Rayiner would find it interesting as well.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      Your inalienable rights are a construct, enforced solely by "governments". Your rates in the state of nature are nothing like the rights your countrymen have agreed to provide you.
      - aminok 10y ago
        So slavery is okay as long as the government determines it is. Great moral framework you have there. It's morally wrong to use threats of government violence to dictate how an individual uses their private property.
        flukus 10y ago
        You know those "threats of government violence" are the only thing stopping the practice of slavery?
CJefferson 10y ago
We can debate it, and many countries have many laws on the topic. However, you clearly are not interested in debating it.
serge2k 10y ago
That's fine. Until you have a little business in that home and are now refusing paying customers.
- dajohnson89 10y ago
  Nope, still fine even then. You do realize that if I rent out a room in my home (say, for a year's lease), I can discriminate on any basis I so choose?
  - URSpider94 10y ago
    Legally, yes. Morally, I'd disagree.
  - mikestew 10y ago
    Not if you're in the U. S.
    - dajohnson89 10y ago
      Got a source on that? https://www.craigslist.org/about/FHA#roommates https://www.craigslist.org/about/FHA#roommates Under federal Fair Housing law, the prohibition on discriminatory advertisements applies to all situations except the following: Shared Housing Exemption -- If you are advertising a shared housing unit, in which tenants will be sharing a bathroom, kitchen, or other common area, you may express a preference based upon sex only. Private Club and Religious Exemptions -- A religious community or private club whose membership is not restricted based upon race, color, or national origin may restrict tenancy only to its members in a property that it owns, and may advertise to that effect. Housing for Older Persons Exemption -- As discussed below, certain complexes for elderly persons are exempt from prohibitions on familial status discrimination, including the prohibitions on discriminatory advertising.
  - serge2k 10y ago
    I don't give a shit. You're a piece of human garbage if you discriminate based on skin colour, and you shouldn't be allowed to do it while having your own little hotel in your house. Getting a roommate is different. You can still be a piece of garbage and discriminate, but that's your business.
joeyo 10y ago
Maybe so, but once you enter into business arrangement to bring people into your home, other considerations start to apply. You can always choose not to rent out your home...
URSpider94 10y ago
I can and I will. Morally (if not legally), that changes the minute you are offering up a bed in your home in exchange for money.
- jomamaxx 10y ago
  "That changes the minute you are offering up a bed in your home in exchange for money" No. I'd argue it changes when you have a flat that is rented out on a near full time basis to others, i.e. 'a business'.
paulddraper 10y ago
I agree with you, but a lot of people don't. There are rules about who you decide to hire, who you decide to rent to, and who you decide to serve. Crazy, I know, but that's the world most wanted.

jomamaxx 10y ago

"I'd stay away from these issues on HN unless we really have something valuable and new to add." Enough with this rubbish - your comment is that of the totalitarian. Homes are not businesses, and people have a right to decide who they let it - and not. It's not a simplistic decision, and there are probably many factors. Personally - if someone looked like a scruffy bum, I don't think I'd want them renting my AirBnB if I had a place. Frankly, I don't care if it's 'discriminatory'. More importantly - shutting down the discussion with political y loaded ideology is just wrong. These are nuanced issues, you don't get to win by saying the word 'racist'.