7 ms·

The problem of discrimination black people face is very real. Four or five years ago I was traveling to DC and booked a room in a home for a week near the outsk

The problem of discrimination black people face is very real. Four or five years ago I was traveling to DC and booked a room in a home for a week near the outskirts. I'm white. The owner was black. He had a white wife, so they could have done things differently, but he wanted to make sure that anyone coming in his home was comfortable being around a black person. I found this out when he thanked me for coming to his home even though he was black. Basically thanking me for not being racist. So we got into a whole discussion about it. Super warm dude and one of the best hosts I've ever had. It boggles my mind how much race still matters in America.

CryptoPunk 5y ago
The way to address it is not making racial discrimination illegal. Private discrimination is still ultimately within a person's legitimate moral rights. Using the force of the state to ban it, is unjustifiable, and deeply misguided.
- lokar 5y ago
  Airbnb is a "public accommodation", by law and the choice of Airbnb. If you don't want to rent out your property on that basis no one is forcing you to.
  - CryptoPunk 5y ago
    Yes I know the law. The law is ideocratic, in mandating that people act in their private (in the true sense of private) capacity in accordance with a set of ideological values. It assumes that the moral good of a person acting out a particular value justifies using force to control a person's actions. This attitude towards others is sanctimonious and irreverent to people's rights. It is not a legitimate use of the force of the state. Jim Crow laws were similarly ideocratic, in imposing pro-segregationist ideological values onto private citizens. We foolishly went from one form of sanctimonious/domineering ideocracy, to another.
    - Blahah 5y ago
      The state isn't doing anything in this scenario. It's Airbnb and there's no force - people are free to not use it.
      - CryptoPunk 5y ago
        True, but there are laws that Airbnb falls at risk of violating if it does not implement these policies. Without these policies, it is liable to be sued under the Civil Rights Act and Fair Housing Act for hundreds of millions of dollars. Civil Rights lawsuits are a very large area of legal activity.
    - franga2000 5y ago
      Nobody is limiting what you can do in private, but on the public market of goods and services. If you don't want to follow the rules, you don't get to participate. There is no irrevocable "right to profit".
      - CryptoPunk 5y ago
        Something being publicly accessible doesn't make it public in the sense of being a government function. It is still a private function. If someone wants to advertise to the public that they only rent to [race of people], in their private capacity - as the private owner of their property - they should be able to. >>There is no irrevocable "right to profit". Profiting simply means benefiting from an exchange. It is a completely private endeavor and the government should not be depriving people of the right to do it in order to force them to act out a particular set of ideological values. The governance principles you're promoting are those of a secular theocracy, i.e. an ideocracy.
        otterley 5y ago
        Here we go again. Groups of people who form a society through a government have shared values, and our laws reflect those values (though often imperfectly).
- nonameiguess 5y ago
  Answers like this seem bizarrely naive of US history. Before racial discrimination was banned by law, there were entire thousand mile swaths of the country where black people couldn't get any level of basic service, couldn't buy a house. Saying it's within the rights of any individual service provider to do this ignores situations where they all think in exactly the same way. Individuals are subject to systematic problems introducing bias into their own thinking. It's not like 1950s southerners all just happened to be racist because, free of any cultural influence, they all individually rationally decided that was the best way to be.
  - CryptoPunk 5y ago
    If there are true public goods that people need to be able transverse their country, then the state should directly provide them, or subsidize private parties to provide them in exchange for the private party entering into a covenant binding them to provide some level of public service. Using the monopoly excuse to categorize broad swathes of private interactions as being within the domain of public institutions (so-called 'public accommodations') is disingenuous, and just a way to get the imposition of a particular set of ideological values on people, by force, through the backdoor. >>couldn't buy a house If people don't want to sell their house to black people, they shouldn't be forced to. Our subjective belief in our moral superiority over someone doesn't grant us a right to use force against them. >>It's not like 1950s southerners all just happened to be racist because, free of any cultural influence, they all individually rationally decided that was the best way to be. When the pro-segregationist ideocracy was repealed in Northern States, and the prohibition on mixed establishments was repealed, it gradually led to private establishments de-segregating, to increase business. Many southern politicians were afraid of the abolition of legally mandated segregation for exactly the same reason. In any case, force is not a justifiable method to change people's attitudes on who they privately associate with.
    - mrcrumb1 5y ago
      Am I misreading this or are you implying that if people had absolute rights to discriminate in their private interactions that racism would have disappeared on its own?
winternett 5y ago
Individual homeowners will never be able to comply with Equal Opportunity laws properly because of inherent bias and a lack of accountability in business transactions involving AirBNB as a 3rd party... One could easily argue that allowing access to personal belongings (Their Home) means that they have a right to choose who enters their home on an individual basis, but this does not adhere to housing rental laws in the US. This is specifically why laws were created based on equal housing opportunity, but now the rules are being carelessly bent by lawmakers (because new business generates new local tourism and revenue streams) with potentially disastrous consequences. As a minority myself, I'd much rather rent from someone who doesn't discriminate, or simply rent a hotel room, or even cancel a trip rather than to show up unexpectedly to a potentially hostile or unwelcoming environment. Changing names to initials is a small-minded attempt at solving a much more serious issue. People who discriminate but still attempt to use AirBNB as a service should not be continually supported by the service, otherwise the company should hold accountability for their listings.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  >changing names to initials is a small-minded attempt at solving a much more serious issue. They don't care about solving it, just not being easy to pin a judgement on when it comes to a head.
  - bellyfullofbac 5y ago
    Yeah, seems like so. Issue: "Black people get less confirmations than white people, we have the data." AirBnB Solution: "No pictures, initials only." Data after a few months: "Black people have comparably equal acceptance rates to white people." AirBnB: "We've solved racism!"
    - rdtwo 5y ago
      Well it seems like yes that does solve some the racism on the platform. They aren’t trying to solve global racism
- netizen-936824 5y ago
annexrichmond 5y ago
> The problem of discrimination black people face is very real. Unfortunately your reasoning doesn’t really help the point you’re trying to make. If anything it may hurt your point. There are other explanations for that, such as the media driving racial division and race constantly be in the center of spotlight. There are a number of people of color who feel the media, corporate America is doing more harm than good. It’s understandable, in a country of 300+M people if you are specifically fed instances of racial issues, it wouldn’t be surprising someone made this generalization even though most people are not racist to the extent they wouldn’t be comfortable in his home. I’m not saying your conclusion is wrong, but your reasoning is. It would help if you cited what experiences your host had that made him feel that white people wouldn’t be comfortable in his home.
- phs318u 5y ago
  I’m honestly asking if you really think it’s the media driving racism in America. To believe so, seems to me to be a remarkably ignorant perspective when it comes to the history of the USA. Was the media behind racism in the 60’s? If not, then are you implying that the racism somehow went away and got better while the media picked up the baton so to speak to rekindle it? That sounds utterly ludicrous to me. Am I misunderstanding your point?
  - annexrichmond 5y ago
    The suggestion was that the media could be driving racism, to some extent, today. Your points referring to what drove racism in the 60s and earlier not relevant because that's not what I said.
    - halfmatthalfcat 5y ago
      Amazing how much onus people give the media. Conveniently absolves individuals of any responsibility of their wrong doing.
    - phs318u 5y ago
      I'm asking you whether you believe there's any latent racism in America, absent the media. I find it hard to believe that anyone could possibly answer that question in the negative.
aldebran 5y ago
This reminds me of a time when a black dude knocked on my door to tell me he was going to climb over from near my balcony to some surface above to get something his kid had gotten stuck there. I had a “ok why are you telling me this?” Look on my face. So he followed with “I’m telling you so you don’t call the cops because a black guy is climbing near your balcony”. I was puzzled. He gave me a “you sweet summer child look” and left. I think about that person frequently. How ingrained is the racist reality in your mind that the first thing you do is to tell people before you do it? Sucks.
- bellyfullofbac 5y ago
  Matt Damon was pranking people, one of them was a young Black man. He looked very worried: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzVHqSpO8Ko https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzVHqSpO8Ko Also a very interesting (long) read from a Black British journalist, who even had an episode of being clueless about racism in the US: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/01/gary-younge-farewell-to-america https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/01/gary-younge-...
- loonster 5y ago
  If it's not his property, it is a prudent thing to do regardless of race.
jbirer 5y ago

CryptoPunk 5y ago

The way to address it is not making racial discrimination illegal. Private discrimination is still ultimately within a person's legitimate moral rights. Using the force of the state to ban it, is unjustifiable, and deeply misguided.

lokar 5y ago
Airbnb is a "public accommodation", by law and the choice of Airbnb. If you don't want to rent out your property on that basis no one is forcing you to.
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  Yes I know the law. The law is ideocratic, in mandating that people act in their private (in the true sense of private) capacity in accordance with a set of ideological values. It assumes that the moral good of a person acting out a particular value justifies using force to control a person's actions. This attitude towards others is sanctimonious and irreverent to people's rights. It is not a legitimate use of the force of the state. Jim Crow laws were similarly ideocratic, in imposing pro-segregationist ideological values onto private citizens. We foolishly went from one form of sanctimonious/domineering ideocracy, to another.
  - Blahah 5y ago
    The state isn't doing anything in this scenario. It's Airbnb and there's no force - people are free to not use it.
    - CryptoPunk 5y ago
      True, but there are laws that Airbnb falls at risk of violating if it does not implement these policies. Without these policies, it is liable to be sued under the Civil Rights Act and Fair Housing Act for hundreds of millions of dollars. Civil Rights lawsuits are a very large area of legal activity.
  - franga2000 5y ago
    Nobody is limiting what you can do in private, but on the public market of goods and services. If you don't want to follow the rules, you don't get to participate. There is no irrevocable "right to profit".
    - CryptoPunk 5y ago
      Something being publicly accessible doesn't make it public in the sense of being a government function. It is still a private function. If someone wants to advertise to the public that they only rent to [race of people], in their private capacity - as the private owner of their property - they should be able to. >>There is no irrevocable "right to profit". Profiting simply means benefiting from an exchange. It is a completely private endeavor and the government should not be depriving people of the right to do it in order to force them to act out a particular set of ideological values. The governance principles you're promoting are those of a secular theocracy, i.e. an ideocracy.
      - otterley 5y ago
        Here we go again. Groups of people who form a society through a government have shared values, and our laws reflect those values (though often imperfectly).
nonameiguess 5y ago
Answers like this seem bizarrely naive of US history. Before racial discrimination was banned by law, there were entire thousand mile swaths of the country where black people couldn't get any level of basic service, couldn't buy a house. Saying it's within the rights of any individual service provider to do this ignores situations where they all think in exactly the same way. Individuals are subject to systematic problems introducing bias into their own thinking. It's not like 1950s southerners all just happened to be racist because, free of any cultural influence, they all individually rationally decided that was the best way to be.
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  If there are true public goods that people need to be able transverse their country, then the state should directly provide them, or subsidize private parties to provide them in exchange for the private party entering into a covenant binding them to provide some level of public service. Using the monopoly excuse to categorize broad swathes of private interactions as being within the domain of public institutions (so-called 'public accommodations') is disingenuous, and just a way to get the imposition of a particular set of ideological values on people, by force, through the backdoor. >>couldn't buy a house If people don't want to sell their house to black people, they shouldn't be forced to. Our subjective belief in our moral superiority over someone doesn't grant us a right to use force against them. >>It's not like 1950s southerners all just happened to be racist because, free of any cultural influence, they all individually rationally decided that was the best way to be. When the pro-segregationist ideocracy was repealed in Northern States, and the prohibition on mixed establishments was repealed, it gradually led to private establishments de-segregating, to increase business. Many southern politicians were afraid of the abolition of legally mandated segregation for exactly the same reason. In any case, force is not a justifiable method to change people's attitudes on who they privately associate with.
  - mrcrumb1 5y ago
    Am I misreading this or are you implying that if people had absolute rights to discriminate in their private interactions that racism would have disappeared on its own?

winternett 5y ago

Individual homeowners will never be able to comply with Equal Opportunity laws properly because of inherent bias and a lack of accountability in business transactions involving AirBNB as a 3rd party... One could easily argue that allowing access to personal belongings (Their Home) means that they have a right to choose who enters their home on an individual basis, but this does not adhere to housing rental laws in the US. This is specifically why laws were created based on equal housing opportunity, but now the rules are being carelessly bent by lawmakers (because new business generates new local tourism and revenue streams) with potentially disastrous consequences. As a minority myself, I'd much rather rent from someone who doesn't discriminate, or simply rent a hotel room, or even cancel a trip rather than to show up unexpectedly to a potentially hostile or unwelcoming environment. Changing names to initials is a small-minded attempt at solving a much more serious issue. People who discriminate but still attempt to use AirBNB as a service should not be continually supported by the service, otherwise the company should hold accountability for their listings.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago
>changing names to initials is a small-minded attempt at solving a much more serious issue. They don't care about solving it, just not being easy to pin a judgement on when it comes to a head.
- bellyfullofbac 5y ago
  Yeah, seems like so. Issue: "Black people get less confirmations than white people, we have the data." AirBnB Solution: "No pictures, initials only." Data after a few months: "Black people have comparably equal acceptance rates to white people." AirBnB: "We've solved racism!"
  - rdtwo 5y ago
    Well it seems like yes that does solve some the racism on the platform. They aren’t trying to solve global racism
netizen-936824 5y ago

annexrichmond 5y ago

> The problem of discrimination black people face is very real. Unfortunately your reasoning doesn’t really help the point you’re trying to make. If anything it may hurt your point. There are other explanations for that, such as the media driving racial division and race constantly be in the center of spotlight. There are a number of people of color who feel the media, corporate America is doing more harm than good. It’s understandable, in a country of 300+M people if you are specifically fed instances of racial issues, it wouldn’t be surprising someone made this generalization even though most people are not racist to the extent they wouldn’t be comfortable in his home. I’m not saying your conclusion is wrong, but your reasoning is. It would help if you cited what experiences your host had that made him feel that white people wouldn’t be comfortable in his home.

phs318u 5y ago
I’m honestly asking if you really think it’s the media driving racism in America. To believe so, seems to me to be a remarkably ignorant perspective when it comes to the history of the USA. Was the media behind racism in the 60’s? If not, then are you implying that the racism somehow went away and got better while the media picked up the baton so to speak to rekindle it? That sounds utterly ludicrous to me. Am I misunderstanding your point?
- annexrichmond 5y ago
  The suggestion was that the media could be driving racism, to some extent, today. Your points referring to what drove racism in the 60s and earlier not relevant because that's not what I said.
  - halfmatthalfcat 5y ago
    Amazing how much onus people give the media. Conveniently absolves individuals of any responsibility of their wrong doing.
  - phs318u 5y ago
    I'm asking you whether you believe there's any latent racism in America, absent the media. I find it hard to believe that anyone could possibly answer that question in the negative.

aldebran 5y ago

This reminds me of a time when a black dude knocked on my door to tell me he was going to climb over from near my balcony to some surface above to get something his kid had gotten stuck there. I had a “ok why are you telling me this?” Look on my face. So he followed with “I’m telling you so you don’t call the cops because a black guy is climbing near your balcony”. I was puzzled. He gave me a “you sweet summer child look” and left. I think about that person frequently. How ingrained is the racist reality in your mind that the first thing you do is to tell people before you do it? Sucks.

bellyfullofbac 5y ago
Matt Damon was pranking people, one of them was a young Black man. He looked very worried: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzVHqSpO8Ko https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzVHqSpO8Ko Also a very interesting (long) read from a Black British journalist, who even had an episode of being clueless about racism in the US: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/01/gary-younge-farewell-to-america https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/01/gary-younge-...
loonster 5y ago
If it's not his property, it is a prudent thing to do regardless of race.

jbirer 5y ago