Hacker News Reader

Comment by brightball | Hacker News Reader

That was my thought here as well. It's one thing to have very public businesses with anti-discrimination rules, but something like Air BnB where people have to decide in most cases who they are going to let into their homes is a much more complicated problem.

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.

What if a host wanted to turn away somebody who was an avid white supremacist? This isn't the same thing as giving somebody a key to a hotel room.

EDIT: Worth pointing to another comment that cites the law: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12453577

> Those anti-discrimination laws don't apply to hosts' private homes or bedrooms.[1] Paraphrase of law: "All persons shall be entitled ..., and accommodations of any place of public accommodation,..., without discrimination ... other than ... a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent ... which is actually occupied by the proprietor ... as his residence"

View on HN

> very public businesses

One might argue that posting pictures of the interior of a residence, advertising it for rent by the night, and posting a price for such privilege is what makes a hotel a "very public business." (It's also why regulations apply to hotels.)

One might also wonder that if these properties make a hotel or B&B a public business, what's different about AirBnB rentals?

Sure enough, back in 1964 the US passed a law that defines (many/most) AirBnB rentals as places of "public accommodation":

"any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence. "

If the lessor isn't living there, it's a public lodging. (Also, it's not the lessor's "home" by virtue of the lessor not living there.)

AirBNB has already established that they consider themselves very "special".

Most other activities happening in your home, including renting out a room to a housemate, are not subject to discrimination laws.

If you don't want a particular type of person in your home, you should have that right, whether that's because you have a safety or other concern, or because you are a racist asshole.

If AirBNB wants to pretend it's a public accommodation now because discrimination affects its brand, tough. Maybe they should exert full control by building hotels in commercial districts.

Agreed completely. This is why shared home adverts are exempt from FHA regulations.

This is not true. Rather than dig through the FHA for you, Craigslist's interpretation is easier to reference: https://www.craigslist.org/about/FHA

Sorry, but you are wrong. There are exemptions that are relevant in a housing situation. Here are some:

1. owner-occupied buildings with no more than four units (which is commonly known as the Mrs. Murphy exemption)

2. single family housing sold or rented without the use of a broker if the private individual owner does not own more than three such single family homes at one time

3. housing operated by organizations and private clubs that limit occupancy to members

Rather than dig through the link you just cited, I'll quote the relevant bit:

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.

"Considering yourself special" like Airbnb or Uber - doesn't actually make you special.

Renting out a room to another housemate is a very different thing to listing a room for a nightly rate as a commercial transaction.

Whether that automatically means you should be governed by the same laws as a hotel is unclear, but asking whether it might be appropriate is a really important thing to do. The rules society created for hotels weren't just randomly invented rules - we wrote those laws for what we considered very good reasons to prevent certain kinds of discrimination that was actually happening and the we decided was wrong. I think there's a _very_ high chance that Airbnb hosts probably should be held to those same rules or something very similar but less directly aimed at hotels.

> I think there's a _very_ high chance that Airbnb hosts probably should be held to those same rules or something very similar but less directly aimed at hotels.

I agree. Hosts should do things like not operate in areas where zoning or other ordinances prohibit or require regulatory compliance for this type of activity. If hosts were operating as an actual lodging establishment, the existing legal framework would provide a solution to discrimination issues.

If Marriott tried to put a hotel in the middle of my neighborhood, which is an 2-4 family residential zone, that effort would fail. If you tried to open a conventional B&B, (there was one that operated about 6 blocks away for many years) you would need to meet certain safety standards like having appropriate fire egress (ie. fire escapes, alarms, possibly sprinklers), have appropriate parking, allow neighbors to react and provide perspective, etc.

In the case of that B&B that was in my neighborhood, they had to install fire escapes, and the neighbors requested that a fence be installed to prevent guests from using their lawn as a pathway.

"located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire"

I wonder if there's any legal precedents about whether a "single building" like an apartment block, with more than 5 different apartments Airbnb-ing rooms - suddenly and out of the control of any individual tenant - becomes a "place of public accommodation"?

Being a white supremacist is not a protected class in the US and it's illegal to discriminate on the basis of race in housing.

The law seems perfectly clear to me.

As made applicable by section 803 of this title and except as exempted by sections 803(b) and 807 of this title, it shall be unlawful-- (a) To refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.

https://www.justice.gov/crt/fair-housing-act-2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class

I think Airbnb would argue that it's not their place to enforce these laws; and that if individual hosts are violating them, the government should go after them.

It's a typical problem of the "sharing" economy. I'm not sure the courts will agree with them, but their strategy has been similar to Uber's in that they come in, break the law (or at the very least operate in a legal grey area), then get so big that traditional regulatory systems have no way to deal with them.

I could agree with this.

But, since the government will have to do all this inspection, I guess you agree that they will have to levy a tax on AirBnB to pay for it?

I doubt Airbnb would agree with that -- since it would make their rentals much less attractive when compared to hotels (which have taxes around 15-20% in most big cities).

Ok then their model succeeds mainly on the basis that it's freeloading by being an exception to rules that apply to hotels. They're cheaper because they're not doing pretty much any of the things hotels are required to do, not just limited to taxes, but including the various health inspection regimes that states require for places of public accommodation including hotels.

So yeah, you don't have to clean as well as a hotel if you don't want, you don't have to pay the taxes as a hotel or even a regular long term rental unit if you can get away with it (thinking IRS will consider a portion of your house converted into business property and thus subject to business property gains tax when you sell the house, but not limited to this), you don't have to follow or even give notice that you don't follow ADA, on and on, because AirBnB doesn't verify any of this and it's claimed it's not their responsibility to do so; but they also don't support even a licensing program by municipalities and rental history reporting so that these municipalities could do their own verifications.

Basically if you even the playing field across the board between an AirBnB and hotel, you end up with something like an actual Bed & Breakfast (although typically without breakfast but often with access to a kitchen). All things actually being equal, even price per square foot, I'd probably pick an AirBnB, but I actively avoid it whenever possible because I think their success mainly constitutes free loading (and enabling it by property owners)

I agree with you -- Uber succeeded for many of the same reasons. They found a weak, fragmented, and hyper localized regulatory environment (very similar to that of hotels) that they could overwhelm with global scale after building up in a few "friendly" markets.

I suspect Google was trying to do the same with Google Fiber, but found the opposition (in the form of AT&T / Verizon / Comcast / TWC / Charter / Cox) was too organized and entrenched.

I agree with the idea that there are inefficiencies, unfairnesses, externalities in the "legit" way of operating short term rentals. But there are many hotels without 24/7 customer service, where the front desk is closed after 10pm and you get to call a number with urgent needs (like plumbing failures or whatever), etc. And they are cheaper than typical hotels, as are typical bed and breakfasts as compared to the boutique b&b's. So it's completely fair to be critical of all of these inefficiencies, but I think it's wrong to suggest AirBnB has some particular innovation other than their app connection buyer and seller, and themselves evading and enabling others to evade, the level playing field. Such as it is.

I think we're saying the same thing. :)

I don't feel Airbnb is particularly innovative on the technology side; they're just exploiting a combination of inefficiencies in government regulatory mechanisms and the naivete of inexperienced landlords.

There are plenty of horror stories about houses being trashed, etc. that professional landlords will cover with insurance (and that add to the price of a rental). By not being experienced enough to cover themselves, many renters expose themselves to a huge amount of risk. As the horror stories propagate, they will look to reduce their risk in other ways such as discriminating against renters that they have pre-existing biases toward.

Given the amateur nature of their landlords, I don't see a real way for Airbnb to stop this type of discrimination other than by providing insurance coverage -- which, of course, would significantly raise the prices of Airbnb rentals and likely force many hosts who are already operating illegally (i.e. against the terms of their leases) from the market. No insurance company in the world would be willing to underwrite a policy for damages that are already prohibited under an existing contract.

You can frequently get a room on AirBnB for a lot less than 20% off the price of a hotel. Often you're getting prices that are comparable to a bunk in a hostel, but for a private room instead. 20% taxes are not enough to account for this. The actual difference in price is due to changes in the capital and labor structure. Lots of people are renting out spare rooms that would have otherwise been empty, spending a few extra minutes making beds they would have made anyway.

Why wouldn't the government just require AirBnB to provide transaction data in response to a report of discrimination?

I think Airbnb would argue that it's not their place to enforce these laws; and that if individual hosts are violating them, the government should go after them.

There's a world of difference between a single family letting their guest room, the runner of a "Hacker Hostel" with 12 bunks, and someone who rents 4 different properties on AirBnB but lives in another house. The laws should be formulated such that the rules for hotels also apply to the 3rd case. Such laws should definitely not apply to the 1st case. A "Hacker Hostel" is also something of an interest group, so I'm not sure what applies there.

The law, if you read it, pretty clearly does NOT apply to AirBnB (except possibly people who rent a large number of flats on it). From 803(b):

(b)Nothing in section 804 of this title (other than subsection (c)) shall apply to--(1) any single-family house sold or rented by an owner:...

(It's a long section, I've snipped most of it. Section 804 is what you quoted.)

(2)rooms or units in dwellings containing living quarters occupied or intended to be occupied by no more than four families living independently of each other, if the owner actually maintains and occupies one of such living quarters as his residence.

So if I'm renting out my home on AirBnB, or even a full floor of a 4 family brownstone, none of this actually applies to me.

> The law, if you read it, pretty clearly does NOT apply to AirBnB

It pretty clearly applies to lots of uses of AirBnB, even if arguably not all. But I think there's a pretty good case that it applies to AirBnB use without exception, simply because using AirBnB seems to make it applicable, as discussed below.

> Nothing in section 804 of this title (other than subsection (c)) shall apply to--(1) any single-family house sold or rented by an owner:...

(Note that lots of AirBnB rentals of single-family homes are not by the owner, and thus not within this exception even before considering the limitations on the exception.)

> (It's a long section, I've snipped most of it. [...])

And you shouldn't have, because the part that you snipped is all limitations on the part of the you quoted, including the most important one: "Provided further, That after December 31, 1969, the sale or rental of any such single-family house shall be excepted from the application of this subchapter only if such house is sold or rented (A) without the use in any manner of the sales or rental facilities or the sales or rental services of any real estate broker, agent, or salesman, or of such facilities or services of any person in the business of selling or renting dwellings, or of any employee or agent of any such broker, agent, salesman, or person and (B) without the publication, posting or mailing, after notice, of any advertisement or written notice in violation of section 804(c) of this title; [...]"

The use of a service like AirBnB would seem to place a rental act squarely within this limitation, and thus outside of the exception.

>The use of a service like AirBnB would seem to place a rental act squarely within this limitation, and thus outside of the exception.

I don't think it would be. The extra verbiage about a "broker/agent" is more of a secondary definition to help the law pin down properties that are "commercial". In other words, if you're paying the high price of contracting a broker, you're 99.99% likely not to be renting out a personal bedroom.

The homeowner's use of Airbnb is more analogous to listing in the "newspaper classifieds" rather than contracting a human broker.

As far as I can tell, very few people including states' general attorneys or Federal courts interpret Airbnb's situation as a broker service that is therefore subject to those limitations.

> The extra verbiage about a "broker/agent" is more of a secondary definition

No, its not. Its an express limitation on the applicability of the homeowner exception, and applies to any use of any rental (or sale) services of a broker, agent, or person in the business of renting (or selling) real estate in support of a discriminatory rental, after December 31, 1969.

Its only legal (since 1970) under the federal fair housing act to discriminate, even as a homeowner renting their own home, if the rental is arranged without the use of some commercial rental-arrangement service.

(And even them it may be illegal under state fair housing laws.)

> The homeowner's use of Airbnb is more analogous to listing in the "newspaper classifieds" rather than contracting a human broker.

That's certainly the argument a discriminating owner using AirBnB (or possible AirBnB themselves) would try to make, but AirBnB's financial and substantive involvement in the transaction is very different than that of a hands-off listing service like a newspaper classified section, so I don't think that argument would fly. If AirBnB actually acted like a newspaper classified service, that argument might be valid, but that's not what AirBnB does (if we were talking, instead, about Craigslist, that would be a good argument.)

>No, its not. Its an express limitation on the applicability of the homeowner exception, [...]

To be clear, my response was not disagreeing with this part.

>homeowner's use of Airbnb is more analogous to listing in the "newspaper classifieds" rather than contracting a human broker.

Except that AirBnB:

- collects money and acts as a financial intermediary

- provides some measure of insurance to both sides of the transaction

- provides some measure of support before/during/after a stay

- more?

Basically, it's nothing like a newspaper classified.

That's more AirBnb's issue than the homeowner. The whole business is illegal.

I'm pretty sure you are misreading.

(b)Nothing in section 804 of this title (other than subsection (c)) shall apply to-- (1)[...everything you quoted...], or (2)rooms or units in dwellings containing living quarters occupied or intended to be occupied by no more than four families living independently of each other, if the owner actually maintains and occupies one of such living quarters as his residence.

Since (2) applies to AirBnB, it doesn't matter if (1) does because the exception is (1) || (2).

Volokh (a very good law blog) has blogged on this topic a while back, also useful to read: http://volokh.com/2012/02/08/does-the-right-to-choose-a-room... http://volokh.com/2010/11/05/federal-government-acknowledges...

Apparently people also have a constitutional right to choose "intimate associations", which includes who you live with. However, you can't advertise that you'll do this.

> I'm pretty sure you are misreading.

I'm pretty sure I'm not, at least in the way you are suggesting.

> Since (2) applies to AirBnB

(As noted previously, neither 1 nor 2 applies to many uses of AirBnB, where the person offering the rental isn't the property owner but is instead a tenant; but, that aside...)

I was actually responding to your suggestion that (1) applied to AirBnB -- or, more precisely, to a homeowner renting their home out via AirBnB; I was not responding to your argument that (2) applies to a AirBnB -- or, more precisely, to rentals of units or rooms by owners of homes for multiple (but not more than four) families living independently while the owner occupies some part of it (which, again, doesn't apply to lots of AirBnB rentals, including by-owner rentals.)

There are, I will acknowledge, a subset of AirBnB transactions which would fall within the exception of (2) from federal fair housing laws (which doesn't, actually, mean they'd be legal everywhere in the US; many states have much substantially narrower exceptions to state fair housing rules than exist in federal fair housing law.)

> Volokh (a very good law blog)

Volokh is probably the best right-libertarian law blog there is, yes.

> has blogged on this topic a while back

Maybe, but neither of the links you provide are "on this topic", (to wit, the legality of discriminatory renting via a commercial intermediary like AirBnB.) Both are regarding discriminatory listings via hands-off listing venues, which is a very different issue.

I'm deeply confused as to how you misinterpreted my comment so much. I was explicitly referring to (2) which is why I quoted that in full. That's also why I explicitly said "So if I'm renting out my home on AirBnB, or even a full floor of a 4 family brownstone...".

The point is the referenced constitutional right to "intimate associations", and you have not established that the use of AirBnB somehow nullifies this constitutional right.

> I'm deeply confused as to how you misinterpreted my comment so much. I was explicitly referring to (2) which is why I quoted that in full. That's also why I explicitly said "So if I'm renting out my home on AirBnB,

If you are renting your home (and not merely some portion of it), you aren't occupying at the time you are renting rooms or units in it, so (2) doesn't apply; (1) might, were it not for the limitations in (1). There would be no point in quoting (1) at all unless you intended to invoke it, and your hypothetical doesn't make sense unless you intended to invoke both the portion of (1) you quoted and (2).

> The point is the referenced constitutional right to "intimate associations",

The existence of that right is not what is in controversy here; whether it extends to the use of an actively-involved commercial intermediary like AirBnB, is. Volokh's posts that you referenced are not germane to the point actually in controversy.

> and you have not established that the use of AirBnB somehow nullifies this constitutional right.

And you haven't established that it extends to the situation at issue; that's the point in controversy. But what either of us has or has not established is irrelevant to the point that the Volokh Conspiracy posts you referenced aren't even relevant to the point in controversy.

Lock an "owner's closet" and have intention to return to the building as your permanent residence, and I believe you meet all needed aspects of 2 to have it apply.

Certainly if I rented part of a duplex where I lived in the other half, #2 applies. #2 continues to apply even while I'm at work, if I go out to dinner, or go on vacation.

Fortunately we have these things called "courts" that are able to apply reason and nuance in combination with logic, with human beings called 'judges' that are able to comprehend a difference between someone who went out to dinner and someone who locked a broom closet to try and falsely claim residence at a property.

You're not the first person who has tried to falsely claim residence at a property, it's a very common way to commit tax fraud by claiming homestead exemptions. The courts won't even entertain this sham for a single second.

The point is, if I AirBnB out my place while I go traveling in Europe for 6 weeks, it's perfectly clear that I meet the exemption.

If I buy another structure and AirBnB out that place, it's equally clear that I don't.

Yup, temporary absences like vacations are perfectly allowable. You just can't say that you reside on a property because you locked up a broom closet, even though you never live there.

> except possibly people who rent a large number of flats on it

Aren't a large portion of listings from hosts who aren't renting out part of their own residence? For all of them, the law would apply.

> rent a large number of flats on it

Where "large" means "more than one". And not always that. If they own two, live in one but lease the other they're not allowed to discriminate on protected characteristics.

I believe if the two units are attached to either other (such as in a duplex or triple-decker), then they are allowed to discriminate on any basis they choose.

I believe the point is that any action AirBnB takes to reduce the racial discrimination problem (moving to instant booking, reducing or eliminating the visibility of the renter's photo / real name) will also prevent hosts from discriminating against white supremacists (more generally, any non-protected class towards whom the host feels extreme revulsion)

How can you draw the distinction however? Couldn't the white supremacist claim another reason? (for instance, white supremacists often bridge their religious beliefs with their racist views)

Being a white supremacist is not a protected class in the US

The majority of recent uses of the term "white supremacist" make me cringe. It's mostly propaganda: A deliberate emotional attack often based on a false equivalence. In any case, the impression I have as a frequent AirBnB user is that most AirBnB owners aren't interested in renting on the basis of "race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin." Rather, they are most interested in education level, socioeconomic status, and manners as a proxy for risk. They just want to determine how likely the potential guests are to cause an out-sized expense in time, treasure, and emotional energy.

Not letting people exercise such judgement is effectively creating a privileged group on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin. (EDIT: However, I would only reserve such leeway for people renting out a part of their own residence. People who own or have leases on a large number of rooms/properties renting on AirBnB should have to abide by such laws, as they are basically in the hotel business, and are covered by the applicable laws. Also, their increased transaction volume makes such laws enforceable, whereas a genuine single family on AirBnB would often not have such volume. Equating these different classes of AirBnB user would be a False Equivalence.)

The problem is that it's much easier to determine someone's race than socioeconomic status, then use it as a proxy for risk.

And even if we remove all racial characteristics from the application, judging by socioeconomic status is defacto racial discrimination because of the correlation between status and race.

And even if there were no correlation between socioeconomic status and race, it still seems wrong to discriminate against a poor person even if, on average, poor people cause more problems for the landlord.

socioeconomic status is defacto racial discrimination because of the correlation between status and race.

If you're "playing the odds" by using race as a proxy for socioeconomic status, then this is wrong. It's also a pretty poor proxy, in my experience. What about our judgements about people's judgements? (Meta-judgements.) If you're equating making a factual determination about socioeconomic status with racial discrimination, then you are using the same sort of statistical proxy you're arguing against!

Really, socioeconomic status is a proxy for behavior and ability to pay. Because of its rating system, AirBnB can function as a meritocracy. The fact that it has an effective rating system is a competitive advantage. Provided they are not absolutely locked out, it seems feasible for a poor person to earn a good rating in such a meritocratic system.

If AirBnB wants to further social justice, then it should make the meritocracy of the ratings fairer, instead of denying its utility to hosts. The former increases justice. The latter is using market power to force hosts into behaving how you want. You don't win hearts and minds by forcing people to do things. You win them by facilitating their voluntary transactions with all different kinds of people. (I've seen this first hand. I saw one of my classmates go from being a homophobe to being the best friend of a gay activist, by bonding over soap operas.)

It's not housing. Your home is your castle, and you are sharing it for a limited scope, either a room or block of time.

That's pretty much the basis for AirBnb's existence.

> 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.

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.

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.

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

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).

Have you read _Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America_ yet? I think Rayiner would find it interesting as well.

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.

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.

You know those "threats of government violence" are the only thing stopping the practice of slavery?

I'm okay with threats of government violence against would-be violators of human rights, like slavers and murderers. I'm not okay with using such threats to deter private discrimination in who people interact and do business with.

Violence is only an acceptable response in cases when a person initiates a violation of another's person or property.

Why is it only acceptable in those cases? Why not treat 'right to live free of racial discrimination' as a human right?

>Why not treat 'right to live free of racial discrimination' as a human right?

Because I don't have a right to dictate how other people use their person and property, except to prevent them from violating my person or property.

It seems you are simply asserting the truth of your position, as though it is axiomatic that property rights trump all other rights.

Person A says, "I don't have a right to dictate how other people use their person and property, except to prevent them from violating my person or property"

Person B says, "I don't have a right to dictate how other people use their person and property, except to prevent them from violating my person or property or my right to be treated equally".

How do I know who is correct?

One is the basis of a stable social order, and one is not. Once you abandon the principle of private property and self-ownership, then human rights just become a popularity contest, about which values and attitudes are acceptable (not polygamy, but yes homosexuality! Not white racial awareness, but yes other groups' ethnic/racial awareness!).

It's not a viable principle to base a justice system on. It will inevitably lead to politics being turned into a venue through which groups fight to expand their power at the expense of others. This is hugely wasteful.

Marginalizing large groups of people is the basis for revolutions, not a stable social order.

A group is going to revolt because racists don't want to associate with them? Seems unlikely.

I haven't seen evidence that private discrimination leads to revolution.

History is filled with examples of laws being passed to mandate segregation, and to discriminate against minorities, because the authorities were concerned about the fact that in the absence of such intervention, the majority demographic was mixing with a minority group through marriage and commerce.

The evidence for your system isn't very good. Without government protections from discrimination, large portions of the population were oppressed, lynched, falsely imprisoned, denied jobs, education, rights, healthcare (and much more), and consigned to poverty.

An important question is, why would anyone desire to see others oppressed and abused, that they would defend the power to do it?

You're conflating violations of human rights, like lynching, with private discrimination, which violates no rights.

You do not have a right to a product or service (like healthcare), or a job, that someone else provides. You're only entitled to your life, liberty and property. As soon as you assume a right to things others produce, you support the violation of their life, liberty and/or property.

>An important question is, why would anyone desire to see others oppressed and abused, that they would defend the power to do it?

Private discrimination is not oppression. Using government violence to prevent someone from discriminating is oppression.

Private discrimination is something we all engage in, every day. What you're arguing for is prohibiting certain types of discrimination, in certain areas of private life. For instance, prohibiting racial discrimination but not ideological discrimination, and in one's business interactions, and not sexual interactions.

The whole concept of prohibiting private discrimination is wrong, as it presumes we do not have a total right to determine who we associate and do business with.

My inalienable rights were actually endowed by my Creator.

Who gave your parents permission to bestow these rights?

It's parents all the way down.

St. Chrysostom: "God made all mankind of one man, that he might teach the world to be governed by a king, and not by a multitude."

Please show me an inalienable right that has not actually been alienated.

Even accepting the premise that rights are "endowed by the creator"--how does living a life free of discrimination not rank higher on the scale of fundamental rights than private property?

The argument is never about freedom from discrimination, but on what you are allowed to discriminate on.

Currently race and sex are nono's but religion and politics is ok.

Why should I face discrimination for my appearance when trying to get laid?

Surely the government should ban women and men from turning me down for sex because I'm not attractive.

I wouldn't mind some governments trying harder to overcome the failings of humanity. More clearly approving certain kinds of behaviour may not change the minds of adults but at least sets a good example for children. The problem is of course that you have one culture deciding what constitutes a failing of humanity.

And that is one of the fundamental problems.

Another being(assuming we all agree on what a failing is) the rights you need to violate to attempt(and fail, because it will fail) to address that failing.

Better to leave people to themselves than inflict certain misery in a misguided attempt to remould mankind in your own image.

"I'll put a sharper point on it: People must be governed"

Then maybe the government should tell you who you can have sex with an who not to?

It thought you people wanted the government out of your bedroom?

Telling people who people can have in their homes and not is fascist. These are not commercial businesses.

If you want to make a law stating that any flat rented out on an going basis constitutes a 'business' - and subject to regular rules - that's fine. But if they are homes - no way.

So you're saying that people are really bad, so let's have a few people in positions of power to address that problem?

We can debate it, and many countries have many laws on the topic. However, you clearly are not interested in debating it.

That's fine.

Until you have a little business in that home and are now refusing paying customers.

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?

Legally, yes. Morally, I'd disagree.

Not if you're in the U. S.

Got a source on that?

https://www.craigslist.org/about/FHA#roommates

Under federal Fair Housing law, the prohibition on discriminatory advertisements applies to all situations except the following:

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.

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...

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.

"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'.

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.

"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'.

Yes, they're going to lose hosts over this. In fact, if they don't, that's evidence that they're not serious about it.

A lot of people hosting through Airbnb shouldn't be.

"If you have personal preferences about whom you let live in your home that don't align with mine, you shouldn't be allowed to have anyone in your home at all!"

Yes, that is generally the principle involved with business transactions like these.

We tried it the other way, and all the black people ended up cordoned into North Lawndale.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case...

As a society, we decided to amend the social contract to remedy this. You can choose who to have in your house based on any criteria you like. You cannot choose who to rent to on the same terms.

>we decided to amend the social contract to remedy this

Where in the social contract is this clause? I can't find it.

"It's in the social contract" is the ultimate weasel appeal. You're citing the authority of an imaginary document that, miraculously, contains whatever arbitrary moral edicts the person who invokes it happens to agree with.

Transactions should be voluntary. People should not be forced to do business against their will. Whoever "we" is in your post, I'm not part of it, because I have a moral objection to slavery (I.e. Involuntary labor).

Not that what AirBNB is doing constitutes involuntary labor; they're a private business and can set whatever terms they want for using their platform, in accordance with the principles I've outlined. I'm just saying that forcing homeowners to take in people they don't want to is sub-optimal and alienating for homeowners.

There's nothing imaginary about it. Discrimination in housing has been illegal since the 1970s.

Airbnb has found (accidentally) an unforeseen loophole in the law, where a practice that had only a marginal impact on the distribution of housing is on track to make a more significant impact. They know as well as anyone else that the law is going to catch up, unless they keep human nature from using Airbnb as a vector to re-segregate a big chunk of the housing market.

> Discrimination in housing has been illegal since the 1970s.

Certain types of discrimination are illegal since then. Others are not. That's the point being debated here.

This is one of my meany reasons for rejecting the concept of a social contract.

"The other way" described in the article looks like this: government insured private mortgages depending on racial build of the neighborhood, with the best insurance available only to white-only ones, and none available to ones when black people lived, so the government artificially lowered costs for white people buying in white neighborhoods and created a huge cost (and disincentive) to allow any non-white people to enter those neighborhoods, however rich and financially stable by themselves they might be.

How exactly this is an example that proves necessity of government regulating private rentals?

If you have personal preferences about whom you conduct business with, you shouldn't be allowed to conduct business with anyone.

This isn't about your home; this is about your use of your home as a capital asset. You can allow into your home anyone you choose to and bar anyone you choose to. But as a society we have agreed that we--through our government--most certainly have a stake in making sure that you treat others equitably in your business transactions, and that that use of your home as a capital asset in a business transaction means you forego other rights in the process.

>If you have personal preferences about whom you conduct business with, you shouldn't be allowed to conduct business with anyone.

Let's go for the obvious example; Jewish business owners should be forced to do business with neo-nazis?

Nazism isn't a protected class.

But Jewish business owners routinely do business with them anyways.

What determines if something is a protected class?

Federal law.

Being denoted as such in federal law. The original Civil Rights Act, in 1964, specified race, color, sex, religion, and national origin; since then a few classes (pregnancy/marital status, age, citizenship, etc.) have been added over time.

I see. I honestly didn't know much about the specifics of protected classes before today.

So, currently, political affiliation is not a protected class, but it is considered a gray area by many.

Many may feel that political affiliation should be considered a protected class, however, if it becomes one, would that mean that Nazism is now protected?

Or coming at it from the other angle, as it stands, a religious extremist who believes that all members of a particular race/religion/orientation/etc should be put to death is currently protected. Why is that protected but Nazism not? Or does the protection become void as soon as you use it negatively towards another protected class? I'm genuinely asking.

Even though Nazism isn’t technically a religion, it seems very similar to religious extremism in many ways.

Nazism is in many ways protected. Cities cannot deny permits to neo-Nazi groups to assemble, for instance.

The comparison between Nazism and discrimination against black people is pretty creepy, though.

The experience of black people on Airbnb is: "Here is an amazing looking listing. I'm psyched to see if it's available for my trip. Click. Oh! It is available! How excellent. I'll plan accordingly." Then, a few hours later, when the owner has noticed the applicant's African American sounding name, the reservation is rescinded. It happens repeatedly, and there's nothing the renter can do about it.

The experience of the neo-Nazi is roughly the same, except the first time it happens they take the swastika out of their profile picture and from then on everything works peachy for them.

> Nazism is in many ways protected. Cities cannot deny permits to neo-Nazi groups to assemble, for instance.

That's not being a protected class (which is a statutory issue), or even being a Con-law suspect or quasi-suspect class, that's simply application of the 1st Amendment (incorporated by the 14th). Its a whole different, unrelated area of protection.

> The experience of the neo-Nazi is roughly the same, except the first time it happens they take the swastika out of their profile picture and from then on everything works peachy for them.

Which pretty much also works for many victims of religious discrimination, but even so religion is (and political affiliation, Nazi or otherwise, is not) a protected class under fair housing law. So, insofar as its a difference between "Nazis" and "blacks", its a difference largely orthogonal to the issue of protected class status under fair housing laws.

> Nazism is in many ways protected. Cities cannot deny permits to neo-Nazi groups to assemble, for instance.

That's a straightforward First Amendment issue.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

You can't prohibit neo-Nazis from peaceably assembling. You can't prohibit people wearing purple shirts from peaceably assembling. In neither case does that make neo-Nazis nor purple-shirt-wearers a protected class.

> Many may feel that political affiliation should be considered a protected class, however, if it becomes one, would that mean that Nazism is now protected?

As tptacek notes, in many ways Nazism is protected through other means. But to directly answer your question, I think the answer is a firm maybe. Because it depends on whether Nazism is recognized as a political affiliation. Which means that that question, too, needs to be settled. (Maybe it is. I don't know.)

That said, I don't think political affiliation should be a protected class (it's something that isn't intrinsic in the way that race or gender identity is and, as tptacek mentioned, can be "taken off" at will) and I don't think it ever practically could be one so I don't think about it that often. Similarly, I also don't really think religious affiliation should be, except that in a practical sense it serves as a shield to protect minority groups as it currently stands so I don't mind the kluge.

> Or does the protection become void as soon as you use it negatively towards another protected class?

I am unclear on the interrelations that you posit, though I just asked a con-law friend for his take and (according to him) it depends on whether or not it is a place of "public accommodation"--retail stores, service businesses, educational institutions. In such a case, yes, it is not lawful to refuse to serve that customer.

Note also that while "protected class" is often treated in discussion as if it was a consistent list across all of the law (at least, within, e.g., federal law), this is not the case: protected classes for particular anti-discrimination laws can be different, and may be different from the Constitutional-law set of suspect and quasi-suspect classes (a concept often conflated with that of "protected classes") that are relevant to equal protection analysis under the 14th Amendment (and, though the list of classes within those categories may be different, under similar state constitutional provisions.)

[If you have personal preferences about whom you conduct business with, you shouldn't be allowed to conduct business with anyone.]

Why? If someone chooses to discriminate, why not let them suffer the consequences of lost potential revenue naturally?

It gives people who don't discriminate a chance to step in and gain market share.

It reminds me of the story of the bakery who wouldn't make a wedding cake for a gay couple. If I owned a bakery, I would put up a sign the next day saying "we will happily make cakes for gay couples".

Because we tried that and it didn't work. It wasn't a single decision that resulted in redlining that forced all the black people in cities to under-served slums. It was an aggregation of millions of personal decisions, many of them by otherwise reasonable people who were simply responding to the very powerful human cognitive bias of loss aversion. So, as a society, we decided to do what can to foreclose on that pathology.

Why loss aversion? People don't want a black person in their home because they believe that black people are more likely to mess up their home than white people. They would rather not rent out their home at all.

Yes, that is what loss aversion means.

Are you saying that if black people live in one society and white people live in one society, then the black one will necessarily be hundreds times worse than the white one?

Because that's what it sounds like you are saying.

That's not at all what he's saying. He's saying that, when you segment off the institutionally subjugated part of your population--the part of the population who has historically been denied economic opportunities, educational opportunities, and legal rights--you are going to have two populations that have very different growth curves.

And, historically and into the present, there are cultural incentives (racist-ass racism) and economic incentives (risk aversion) to make that happen.

You're assuming a lot here. You're assuming there are multiple bakers. You're assuming the bakers aren't colluding. You're assuming that the homophobic baker isn't being rewarded through additional patronage or via other methods, i.e., the GoFundMes etc. for their nonexistent plights. And you're assuming that a normal-person baker who doesn't hate gay people would not be shunned for their support.

The market will and does fail in the face of bigotry and discrimination; we've seen it from redlining to, well, now. Addressing market failures is the government's job.

I see your point. I guess for something like this to work, bigotry/racism/whatever would have to decrease in popularity to the point where you would be shunned harder if you were a bigot than if you were a person who openly objected to bigotry. We may not be there yet, but I do feel optimistic that we will eventually get there. Things were much worse only a short time ago. One thing that makes this ("this" being the idea of the market “handling” the problem) harder to accomplish is the fact that many people who may not be discriminatory themselves tend to have a passive attitude towards discrimination as long as it’s not happening to them. For example, many white people aren’t racist, but would they all agree to boycott a store that was openly racist towards black people? Probably not.

I think much of the problem is that these toxic effects aren't being created by overt bigotry, but rather by cognitive biases. The people rescinding reservations are doing so out of loss aversion, which is a very powerful human impulse. We're also powerfully geared to think differently about outgroups than we do about ingroups, which makes it easy for us to believe that there's a higher degree of risk in allowing a black family to stay in our house than a white one.

Social stigma might blunt these effects but it's unlikely to eliminate them any time soon. I bet a lot of the people who (effectively) refuse to rent to black people don't think they're the slightest bit biased against black people. They're not keeping track of their individual decisions about rental applicants, and they can easily let their brains fill in the blanks to tell them there were all sorts of negative signals they picked up on when declining reservations.

One of the reasons things are much better now are because laws against discrimination change what is socially acceptable. As regards the market handling it, we needn't speculate, just look at the actual history of racial discrimination in the US, from white-only diners to schools, that was only overcome by direct government intervention.

You can be optimistic all you like that we'll "eventually get there" (I'm not) but optimism doesn't do much for people whose rights are being infringed today.

The argument that the market will fix discrimination and bigotry is refuted by history.

> It gives people who don't discriminate a chance to step in and gain market share.

The next step is that the discriminating companies are out-competed and go out of business, leaving only non-discriminating companies. Conclusion: that's why there are no discriminating companies left!

This is a nice thought, but it barely works in theory and I've never seen it work in practice. That the consequent isn't observed regularly should tell you something about the assumptions we started with.

because it also effects those being discriminated against. At the very least that couple had to put up with another fresh dose of hatred and bigotry against them, and spend their time looking for another baker.

Depending on how bad the problem is you could end up with ghettos and other nasty things because of people who aren't able to get any sort of service.

This seems naive. The market will not automatically reward the non-discriminatory actor.

Now what happens when (not if) people decide to encourage businesses to discriminate by withholding business from the ones that don't, or worse? This actually happened in the US and because defectors were punished it's not something that was going away nicely on its own.

You should not be able to sell that space through what users expect to work like a public accommodation. The same goes for your car. That's what it costs to be a racist. Boo friken hoo.

> 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.

Arguably, the central point of the US was exactly to prevent people in positions of relative power from making certain decisions that others with less individual power disagreed with; perhaps the central debate between the modern left and modern right in the US is whether that generalizes from the formal political positions of relative power that were salient at the time of founding to economic positions of relative power (the position of the modern left) or whether the restrictions should be limited to only the domain of formal political power and that the exercise of economic power should be unconstrained (the position of the modern right.)

Are you making a point about AirBnB specifically or the U.S. generally? In case of the former, I can't tell which party (the renter or the tenant) is supposed to be in the position of relative power.

>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.

Doesn't that describe every rule ever? I don't think the point of the US was to be lawless.

If you don't want to be subject to rules on how you operate a business out of your home, then don't operate a business out of your home.

> 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.

> 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.

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".

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.

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.

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_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/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.)

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.

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.

Ok there George Wallace

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.

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.

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.

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...

> why should be whites and men so severely disadvantaged

Where, exactly, would one be able to objectively measure this disadvantage using published data?

The thing is that nobody cares if a white male experiences any sort of problems with anyone, but the moment a black person or a woman says something, everybody rushes in. Now we see white males in blue collar jobs are committing suicide in huge numbers and many checked out of society completely (unemployment + gaming, porn) as they don't see any point to be involved as they are invisible to women in their 20s and get automatic scorn whenever they are accused of something. There are now many women-only places/clubs but the same is denied to men in the US. Does this really seem fine to you?

> Does this really seem fine to you?

You're attributing to me emotions I did not express. Obviously, because I didn't offer an opinion on anything in my question.

>There are now many women-only places/clubs but the same is denied to men in the US.

This is demonstrably false, and can be disproved with Google in seconds.

But I'll surmise you aren't all that concerned with the existence of women's social clubs as a counterpoint to men's social clubs. I'll give the benefit of the doubt and guess that your concerns are likely about something more substantive.

I was just asking where one can objectively measure the severe disadvantage of white men in America. A disadvantage so profound surely would be obvious in data of education, political power, wealth, or employment, or the like.

Your contention is at odds with what I would have guessed based on having lived my life in America. So: what publicly-available data set would you use to exhibit this severe disadvantage?

I am not an American, so it's only tangentially related to my life (in a way that my part of the world is going to experience it 10 years later), or that I have to be more careful not to accidentally trigger anyone on my next Hawaiian vacation (like last time I visited Old Lahaina Luau and some black woman from NYC wanted to kick me out of the place I paid for because she wanted to sit there - is being a "black woman" the secret superpower to do crazy irresponsible things with no penalty nowadays?).

Anyway, possible interesting stats for your further research:

- average/median earning of single women in their 20s comparing to the same group of men in officially recognized fields (no sugar daddy incomes etc.)

- ratio of female/male university graduates

- number of male-only clubs forced to close or allow female participation comparing to the number of female-only clubs

Frankly, I couldn't care less about men-/women-only clubs, I just don't understand why former are scorned upon and latter are celebrated. I come from a part of Europe that was pretty equal for a long time so seeing this happening seems extreme to me.

> I am not an American

This may explain a lot. Perhaps our current media exports are offering a misleading perception. I would suggest you look at the public data, as it might be a better basis for forming conclusions. I would wager a beer that actual data (NB: or any time spent in pretty much any corridor of power in America) will not support the conclusion that white men in America are disadvantaged relative to other groups.

Also: we don't actually have all that many social clubs here; they are in some ways a relic from the past. I would suggest they are opening up to black people and women as a result of self-interested response to market forces. The types of clubs that denied admission to black people until well into the 1990s aren't the types of clubs that cave because Huffington Post ran an unflattering piece.

I feel like you've brought up some really good points, but I don't know how I'd go about validating them.

> If AirBnB doesn't want them, they'd go elsewhere and AirBnB will go the way GitHub is going.

So, exactly where it is now?

I know it's super popular in regressive circles to think that GitHub is somehow failing because fffffemninisms, but it's also untrue.

> I really think US is now getting to a completely different extreme - why should be whites and men so severely disadvantaged?

We're not. Claims to the contrary are indicative of self-adopted persecution complexes and mistaken beliefs in zero-sum sociology. Source: straight white male in one of the most liberal parts of the United States and doing just fine.

You probably noticed that many of the most talented developers are idealistic and support meritocracy. Then you see the guys that created GitHub and made it lovable by those top guys, getting unceremoniously kicked out. Maybe it's a good business for a while, but many of those brightest developers move away and the best projects will grow elsewhere. So that's for your "regressive circles". It's a simple lack of justice for those guys.

You are probably a high-income white male. Now imagine how your life would be were you a low-income white male with a dadbod-shape. Not everyone is as lucky as we are (for the record, I am affluent, very tall, athletic, popular amongst girls) - I see plenty of these problems amongst my less lucky friends and frankly I reject this stupid game of taking care only of myself and not helping people around me. I know this is un-american, but I couldn't care less.

Source: straight white male in one of the most liberal parts of the United States and doing just fine.

It's mostly about socioeconomic status. The overarching problem is the conflation of things like race with socioeconomic status. Poor white males being conflated with affluent white males is basically a part of the same phenomenon as poor black males being conflated with affluent black males. The former results in poor white males being discriminated against. The latter results in "driving while black" or my ex girlfriend's devout uncle and his well behaved sons being treated like drug dealers by the local police.

I'm not saying poor people of one color have it better or worse than poor people of another color. (And for the record, affluent whites still can have it much better than affluent people of color, depending on context.) The whole problem is the use of race as a proxy for socioeconomic status, which creates an uneven playing field -- which creates social injustice. Let's be aware of this and not contribute to it.

Sure but in general poor whites are still better off than poor blacks. It's really hard to make the case that white men are systematically disadvantaged in any real world scenarios besides maybe some internet or college social justice activist circles.

Sure but in general poor whites are still better off than poor blacks.

So if our society mistreats two groups, only the group that gets treated worst counts? No. Suckiness based on discrimination is bad, period. It's still sucks, even if you're affluent, actually. It's this constant background corrosive.

How much interaction do you have with the justice system? It's no picnic being poor and dealing with them. How much do you deal with the police? It's no picnic being poor and dealing with police you don't know. Organizations across society are crappy to the socioeconomic disadvantaged, period. Heck, even employment is crappy to the socioeconomic disadvantaged!

The thing to watch out for in the struggle for social justice across history: Letting yourself create a scapegoat. Don't let some sort of salient indelible marker become a proxy for who someone really is as a human being. That's the root cause of the problem in the first place! Just as this goes for the fallacies of "blacks being criminals" or "Asians being good at math" or "Jewish people being business sharks" it also goes for white men being angry "supremacists."

This comment doesn't provide a substantive basis to any of its claims, and unfortunately, whether the author means it that way or not, it reads like a lot of racial propaganda. Spreading that kind of idea has historically led to very bad results, with many people getting hurt, killed, and oppressed. I hope we can be very careful and apply scrutiny to what we write on the issue; words have serious impact.

Nobody should be disadvantaged; it doesn't matter what the color of your skin is. If you look around society, such as SV companies, Congress, on TV, in college, on Wall Street, or any other measure, you'll see a lot of white guys doing very well; it's been that way for hundreds of years. No research I know of shows white men having trouble getting Airbnb rooms, I've never seen it mentioned, and I'd be pretty surprised. Factually, it's obvious, very well-established, and there is a long history regarding what groups are disadvantaged. We should do something about it.

Finally, I hope that in a free society I can disagree with your comment without being preemptively attacked and my behavior criticized.

Why would I want to attack you? I'd love to see you achieving the utmost goodness potential you can reach without the need to bow under senseless political currents. Coming from a society ranked amongst the highest in equality scale, it comes naturally to me. Frankly, I was writing about my experiences while I was traveling around the world for roughly 2 years and using mainly AirBnB for accommodation. Do you really think white people get automatically pass when they try to do anything?

What I think you are talking about and see is more fight for belonging to the upper echelon of society, the ones that seem to make decisions affecting all of us. Well, news for you, vast majority of whites don't belong there. If you also want to be more nasty, i.e. singling out Jews, a historically popular scapegoat nation, another news for you - most of them are poor and uneducated, hence disadvantaged. Simply the goal of all these fights is power and nowadays equality turned into another mean how to acquire power, causing yet another slew of injustices, sadly.

The facts are that certain groups have far more opportunity than others, including access to education, jobs, health care, power in their communities - and now Airbnb rooms, among many other things - not just access to upper echelons (though that is an issue too, because it means these groups lack a seat at the table when decisions are made). The extensive, overwhelming research, and centuries of history show which groups these are.

That doesn't mean there is no other suffering in the world; that begs the question. It means these groups face much greater problems, your unsubstantiated claims notwithstanding. Given the overwhelming evidence, why wouldn't you want to do something about it?

Most of us would love to see the real social justice. There were many whites trying their best to help the rest of the world, often with self-inflicted wounds from their own culture, as well as many whites that wanted to dominate the rest (but were Ottomans, Mongols, Huns, Kushites etc. any better back in their days?)

Look, a few thousands years ago the dominant culture were Egyptian, Babylonian etc. Then there was China, Aztecs, India, Rome, Islam, then enlightened Europe. All those older cultures became zombies on self-inflicted wounds when they couldn't cope with their evolutionary advancement anymore, their mental framework got stale, they probably overly indulged in pleasures their technology allowed them without caring about progress and justice and they went from advanced to weak, allowing themselves to be conquered easily.

Here we are at a wonderful place in history when everyone can seemingly have their words heard. We are also marching towards post-scarcity economy and a single smartphone has a larger computing power than the whole humanity had when we launched into the space. More than ever disadvantaged groups have their say. The previously dominant, white culture, allowed that, working on abolishing slavery, awful crimes and horrible warts plaguing all previous cultures. Why are you still feeling offended? So many people worked so hard on bringing the concept of justice to everyone. Should their successors be persecuted for whatever wrongs you historically feel? How many of those wrongs were self-inflicted by your own culture? When you compare your life in the US, would you exchange it for your native one? Would you apologize to all victims of your ancestors' horrible acts?

When there are some things causing injustice, they should be disbanded, and not new ones erected as a "payback". Please get it out of your system, we would love to see you cooperating on a just world.

It's long, but unsubstantiated and generally factually wrong, including its characterizations of my comment: I don't say most of the things you allege.

I don't divide the world into groups of people based on skin color, and then assign group achievements and faults as if they are a team, and imagine there is some competition or racial Olympics. That premise is the root of the problem. I see individuals and mutual benefit when they do better, not a zero sum competition. The fact - not speculation - is that many of those individuals are suffering from racism.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com