What a weird take, but I do enjoy you make it, because it proves my point: From your perspective, it is a simple mechanism. People speak the same language, so

What a weird take, but I do enjoy you make it, because it proves my point: From your perspective, it is a simple mechanism. People speak the same language, so they must hang out together. As I already explained, Game Theory can be good to check these naive inferences. Indeed, I have given some examples where results are counter-intuitive (but then obvious, once we understand the mechanism). Schelling is one: You'd think that if people prefer a diverse group of friends with only a little homogeneity, you'd never see a segregated society. In the case of college groups, the hint was that sometimes we get these cohesive groups, but other times we don't. And yet, each year, students speak the same languages and arrive in comparable amounts. If what you said was true, there'd be no such variation. Something else might be going on. In any case, I want to be clear here that trying to understand "strategic interaction", the effects of complex inter-dependencies and their sometimes counter-intuitive results, is not a justification for morally or ethically unjustified behavior. Even if it can certainly be used in that way. Indeed, in my frequent posts on mechanism design, you will see me fiercely criticizing our lax and relaxed treatment of how companies vaccuum in more and more data and develop better and better models to work around information asymmetries and appropriate consumer welfare. I happily take an even more interventionist stance when it comes to issues of segregation, sustainability and inclusion. Not sure if you were accusing me specifically, but better let this be said.