and the reason everyone is SJW here (or maybe just hyper politically correct) is because most people are here to get a well paying job, not share their truest most controversial opinions
btw I'm anti racism myself. just sharing my impression of this particular site's audience, especially those who can downvote here
Nope, most people are "social justice warriors" because they actually care about other people. We're not all secretly harboring boiling resentment on the basis of race / creed / gender / etc. that we're suppressing for pragmatic reasons.
> Nope, most people are "social justice warriors" because they actually care about other people. We're not all secretly harboring boiling resentment on the basis of race / creed / gender / etc. that we're suppressing for pragmatic reasons.
No. Most people are apathetic and/or do not want to get involved in others issues. I've seen it, but you need not trust what I say. Go look up bystander effect.
Some people, especially on the extreme left, have developed this victim attitude where everything affronts them, no matter what. It's something I've coined, but it reminds me of the "Victim of the Week", similar to how some tv shows have "monster of the week". Certain causes are 'cooler' than others. And the worst part is if you don't keep up with what you should be affronted to, then the rest of the group will disavow and oust you as "racist, homophobic, sexist, ...."
The extreme right did learn one thing: no matter how different many are (blue dog all the way to tea partier), they don't oust you for having different beliefs within their continuum.
ObOnTopic: Well, they did indeed give a reason. "Asian". Yeah, it's pretty damn offensive. I certainly wouldn't do that. But I'm sitting between "Well, racism sucks. Fuck em", and "It's their right as householder to decide who comes in and who doesn't, regardless the reason."
And sometimes, it's nicer to know if they are a racist. Perhaps AirBNB should put that field in there, and allow people to show their true colors. A bit of sunshine usually helps disinfect problems like that.
> The extreme right did learn one thing: no matter how different many are (blue dog all the way to tea partier), they don't oust you for having different beliefs within their continuum.
You might be forgetting/not aware of the terms 'RINO', or more recently: 'Cuckservative' which are used by the right to disparage others on their continuum. Politics is getting more polarized on the left and the right. See also: recent Freedom Caucus actions.
Which is discriminatory, what's your point? That racists are going to discriminate regardless?
Well, as in other areas, there will always be abusers. Drug testing welfare reicpients, for example, is a slap in the face to small government ideals and does absolutely nothing to deter abuse.
The truth is the abusers are the exception, not the norm.
Regulations and legalisation are not unlike a doorlock.
It might keep out those who would steal given a free pass to do so, but anyone more determined will make short work of it.
You can't legislate against that kind of abuse, the abuse of a black and white law prohibiting this type of discrimination for example.
It's clear to me that you can't regulate someone out of being a racist prick, an addict, etc. They just keep coming up with a new way to do whatever the fuck they please.
Well, This is AirBNB's own moment of "Gig Economy goes against established law" like Uber and HomeJoy have done.
Hoteliers and traditional rental agencies are not to discriminate on a list of things (now including sexual orientation and status). They have, including Trump. And they've also been sued to the gills for knowingly violating it and lost. Simply put, it's against the law to discriminate on basis of race or color; religion; national origin; familial status or age—includes families with children under the age of 18 and pregnant women; disability or handicap, or sex. (Source: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/renters-ri... )
Does that mean I'm required to let people in my home? Well, no. Just because someone shows up on my property means nothing. If they try to come in without permission, that's trespassing. If they have a weapon, in many states I'm legally able to blow them away. Castle Doctrine is the general description, with unique laws per state ( Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine )
But what happens when both are true, with AirBNB and someone I don't like (Muslim/Christian/Atheist/Black/Brown/Asian/gay/handicapped/dirty/poor/smelly/angry/arrogant/...)? There's the crux.
This situation is the biggest problem with Airbnb. Furthermore, these types of service should be double blind, and effectively anonymous for everyone but Airbnb (arguably them too, but that's not really possible given payment information).
People are inherently racist [1], are forced to behave in ways to may (or may not) promote sexism(not necessarily in that they hate men/women, but are forced to follow the norms) [2] etc. to varying extents. Anonymity is the solution. Why do you need to even know the name of the person who's staying? You don't.
I wouldn't rent to people that I can't screen at least by looks first. If you think that I'll let a bunch of hobos or gypsies rent my place just so I don't appear racist then you must be out of your mind. Profiling works. End of story.
Oh and I am fully aware that I'll probably get a shadow/ban for this, but it's worth it.
Disagree. My girlfriend and I have have turned down a few potential AirBnB people because they looked like street kids in their profile pictures. One had a gun (?????) prominently displayed in his profile pic. No thanks.
As long as I'm letting people into my home, I'd like to get a quick look at them first.
I still fail to see the relevance. Their appearance is irrelevant. If they keep your house clean then it doesn't matter. If you're implying street kids won't do that, not only would you have to provide evidence that you won't be able to find, but it's also a pointless value judgement. I won't even get into the fact that Airbnb can often be cheaper, and so poor, savy people may use it and your behavior is putting them at a disadvantage basically because you don't like how they look like. Sound familiar?
People who don't "look filthy" could just as easily tear your house apart. Pointless discrimination is well, pointless.
It's not a "pointless value judgement" to observe that someone looks filthy, and to extend that observation to "I don't want them in my clean house".
Have you ever hung out with street kids? I have, for years. Do you know Manitou Springs in Colorado? I hosted lots of down-on-their-luck street kids at my apartment for a while until I realized the majority of them absolutely suck as roommates/tenants/whatever you want to call them. Many of them will steal from you because they have nothing else. Many of them have markedly different cultural values - and not in a way that I find endearing or enlightening.
I'm sure you'll draw some parallels to racism here, because that seems to be the argument you want to occur. This isn't about a genetic condition like skin color. This is about willingly descending to the lower rungs of society. If a street kid wants to drop out of society, tattoo their face, and wear tattered army rags, that's fine. Accept the consequences of your facial tattoos though - that's part of being an adult :)
I don't endorse racism by any means, but there's an overarching concept that a persons home is their castle, and you have broad discretion to control who and what goes on in your home. In most jurisdictions, you have a broad legal right as a person renting out your downstairs or a room to turn down tenants for any reason.
Airbnb wants to have it both ways. They demonstrate their contempt for the law by pushing accountability for illegal renting to their "hosts", but where they have a messy situation where there is bad PR for them, all of the sudden they care about how "hosts" follow rules about discrimination that may or may not even apply to them.
This is yet another example of why AirBnb is a ridiculous business that shouldn't operate as it does. Dealing with the issue in a way that would be compliant with the law would require that they acknowledge that many "hosts" are really running as hoc hotels, so they roll over the individual homeowners or tenants subletting their homes.
It seems like the because of the broker aspect the law might apply to them, however I'm not a lawyer. It's certainly I would think, a bad idea to say I'm not renting to this person because of their race. You're basically inviting a racial discrimination lawsuit.
"The Fair Housing Act covers most housing. In some circumstances, the Act exempts owner-occupied buildings with no more than four units, single-family housing sold or rented without the use of a broker, and housing operated by organizations and private clubs that limit occupancy to members."
Is it housing or a short term rental? Is it a room in your home or your home, or a second house?
I agree with you that behaving like this is a generally bad idea -- and in the specific case of this poor woman it is reprehensible. But the broader context is important too. Why is AirBnb making itself the arbiter of what laws need to be followed and what do not? Why is discrimination a bright line that cannot be crossed, while fire code violations in multi-unit AirBnb quasi-hotels are not?
We end up in these troubling scenarios where we allow companies and individuals to pick and choose what rules are ok.
As I understand it and I'm not a lawyer but I do work in housing finance, housing, rentals, and short term rental all fall under the fair housing act. This is purposefully broad and done so because of how discrimination is such an affront to human rights. That being said Airbnb is merely hoping to avoid any class action litigation, which will likely come as a result of tenants viewing the broker as not putting a good faith effort to preventing discrimination. The broker, after all, cannot intentionally facilitate illegal behavior to make a profit, that would just create puppet mafias. They probably have figured they are less likely to be found guilty of facilitating the illegal behavior of fire code violations because fires are just a lot less likely and a lot less externally obvious to the broker.
TLDR: The laws are laws whether Airbnb says they care about them or not, but should Airbnb put forth a good faith effort to prevent flagrant lawbreaking on their website they'll likely avoid being seen as legally culpable.
I work for Airbnb but don't have inside knowledge of this case. If it seems like "all of a sudden" we care about discrimination, then we're not doing a good enough job of communicating.
At every level, this company cares deeply about discrimination. As the article states, this host was removed because they violated the non-discrimination policy that we believe makes our community better. It was not because of the law. (We operate in just about every country but our terms are the same worldwide.) This is not new. We have repeatedly, for years, removed hosts who we've determined are discriminating.
I can understand if from the outside it seems self-serving and seems like it's being done for PR, and I probably can't convince anyone who has made up their mind to be against Airbnb. But if you could look inside the company or be a fly on our walls, you would know. We all care extremely deeply about discrimination and we are more than willing to remove discriminatory hosts from our platform to make a better, more welcoming community.
Why is this not a crime under fair housing act? At best this is a loophole which will be closed via precedent. A quick google shows that it looks like some Airbnb hosts are already being taken to court over violating the fair housing act so it sounds like the loophole is already being closed.
The piece seems rather "tailored" to deliver a message, and I suspect there is much more to the story than is being reported.
Perhaps the guest actually didn't pre-arrange the extra friends, and then got pushy when the host wanted to charge for them.
I'm guessing the "One word says it all. Asian" comment was being used to stereotype the guest's actions/attitudes, rather than as a statement of "You're not welcome, because you're Asian". Which in itself is of course deplorable, but not quite what is being reported.
The host posssibly deserve a ban just for the racist comment, and if things are as reported, they most certainly deserve the ban, but the reporting seems very "framed".
The short answer is that enough users have flagged it for it to display the [flagged] tag. Why they have could be they don't think the post is appropriate for HN, or that the resulting discussion hasn't been or is no longer constructive for the site.
35 comments
[ 2.3 ms ] story [ 85.3 ms ] threadyou will be able to tell by my greyed out comment
and the reason everyone is SJW here (or maybe just hyper politically correct) is because most people are here to get a well paying job, not share their truest most controversial opinions
btw I'm anti racism myself. just sharing my impression of this particular site's audience, especially those who can downvote here
No. Most people are apathetic and/or do not want to get involved in others issues. I've seen it, but you need not trust what I say. Go look up bystander effect.
Some people, especially on the extreme left, have developed this victim attitude where everything affronts them, no matter what. It's something I've coined, but it reminds me of the "Victim of the Week", similar to how some tv shows have "monster of the week". Certain causes are 'cooler' than others. And the worst part is if you don't keep up with what you should be affronted to, then the rest of the group will disavow and oust you as "racist, homophobic, sexist, ...."
The extreme right did learn one thing: no matter how different many are (blue dog all the way to tea partier), they don't oust you for having different beliefs within their continuum.
ObOnTopic: Well, they did indeed give a reason. "Asian". Yeah, it's pretty damn offensive. I certainly wouldn't do that. But I'm sitting between "Well, racism sucks. Fuck em", and "It's their right as householder to decide who comes in and who doesn't, regardless the reason."
And sometimes, it's nicer to know if they are a racist. Perhaps AirBNB should put that field in there, and allow people to show their true colors. A bit of sunshine usually helps disinfect problems like that.
You might be forgetting/not aware of the terms 'RINO', or more recently: 'Cuckservative' which are used by the right to disparage others on their continuum. Politics is getting more polarized on the left and the right. See also: recent Freedom Caucus actions.
Well, as in other areas, there will always be abusers. Drug testing welfare reicpients, for example, is a slap in the face to small government ideals and does absolutely nothing to deter abuse.
The truth is the abusers are the exception, not the norm.
Regulations and legalisation are not unlike a doorlock. It might keep out those who would steal given a free pass to do so, but anyone more determined will make short work of it.
You can't legislate against that kind of abuse, the abuse of a black and white law prohibiting this type of discrimination for example.
It's clear to me that you can't regulate someone out of being a racist prick, an addict, etc. They just keep coming up with a new way to do whatever the fuck they please.
Hoteliers and traditional rental agencies are not to discriminate on a list of things (now including sexual orientation and status). They have, including Trump. And they've also been sued to the gills for knowingly violating it and lost. Simply put, it's against the law to discriminate on basis of race or color; religion; national origin; familial status or age—includes families with children under the age of 18 and pregnant women; disability or handicap, or sex. (Source: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/renters-ri... )
Does that mean I'm required to let people in my home? Well, no. Just because someone shows up on my property means nothing. If they try to come in without permission, that's trespassing. If they have a weapon, in many states I'm legally able to blow them away. Castle Doctrine is the general description, with unique laws per state ( Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine )
But what happens when both are true, with AirBNB and someone I don't like (Muslim/Christian/Atheist/Black/Brown/Asian/gay/handicapped/dirty/poor/smelly/angry/arrogant/...)? There's the crux.
OK, so seller is allowed to arrange with buyer not to resell the property to XYZ race but the agreement can't be enforced by means of a lawsuit.
And you found this relevant because?
People are inherently racist [1], are forced to behave in ways to may (or may not) promote sexism(not necessarily in that they hate men/women, but are forced to follow the norms) [2] etc. to varying extents. Anonymity is the solution. Why do you need to even know the name of the person who's staying? You don't.
[1] There's plenty of research on this highlighted in this article: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/28/opinion/nicholas-kristof-...
[2] http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/cou-cou0000176.pdf
As long as I'm letting people into my home, I'd like to get a quick look at them first.
I don't want people in my home who are proud of their guns and brandish them in profile pictures on a travel site.
I don't want people in my home who look filthy. I know street kids well enough to never let one in my home.
People who don't "look filthy" could just as easily tear your house apart. Pointless discrimination is well, pointless.
Have you ever hung out with street kids? I have, for years. Do you know Manitou Springs in Colorado? I hosted lots of down-on-their-luck street kids at my apartment for a while until I realized the majority of them absolutely suck as roommates/tenants/whatever you want to call them. Many of them will steal from you because they have nothing else. Many of them have markedly different cultural values - and not in a way that I find endearing or enlightening.
I'm sure you'll draw some parallels to racism here, because that seems to be the argument you want to occur. This isn't about a genetic condition like skin color. This is about willingly descending to the lower rungs of society. If a street kid wants to drop out of society, tattoo their face, and wear tattered army rags, that's fine. Accept the consequences of your facial tattoos though - that's part of being an adult :)
Airbnb wants to have it both ways. They demonstrate their contempt for the law by pushing accountability for illegal renting to their "hosts", but where they have a messy situation where there is bad PR for them, all of the sudden they care about how "hosts" follow rules about discrimination that may or may not even apply to them.
This is yet another example of why AirBnb is a ridiculous business that shouldn't operate as it does. Dealing with the issue in a way that would be compliant with the law would require that they acknowledge that many "hosts" are really running as hoc hotels, so they roll over the individual homeowners or tenants subletting their homes.
"The Fair Housing Act covers most housing. In some circumstances, the Act exempts owner-occupied buildings with no more than four units, single-family housing sold or rented without the use of a broker, and housing operated by organizations and private clubs that limit occupancy to members."
I agree with you that behaving like this is a generally bad idea -- and in the specific case of this poor woman it is reprehensible. But the broader context is important too. Why is AirBnb making itself the arbiter of what laws need to be followed and what do not? Why is discrimination a bright line that cannot be crossed, while fire code violations in multi-unit AirBnb quasi-hotels are not?
We end up in these troubling scenarios where we allow companies and individuals to pick and choose what rules are ok.
TLDR: The laws are laws whether Airbnb says they care about them or not, but should Airbnb put forth a good faith effort to prevent flagrant lawbreaking on their website they'll likely avoid being seen as legally culpable.
At every level, this company cares deeply about discrimination. As the article states, this host was removed because they violated the non-discrimination policy that we believe makes our community better. It was not because of the law. (We operate in just about every country but our terms are the same worldwide.) This is not new. We have repeatedly, for years, removed hosts who we've determined are discriminating.
I can understand if from the outside it seems self-serving and seems like it's being done for PR, and I probably can't convince anyone who has made up their mind to be against Airbnb. But if you could look inside the company or be a fly on our walls, you would know. We all care extremely deeply about discrimination and we are more than willing to remove discriminatory hosts from our platform to make a better, more welcoming community.
Perhaps the guest actually didn't pre-arrange the extra friends, and then got pushy when the host wanted to charge for them.
I'm guessing the "One word says it all. Asian" comment was being used to stereotype the guest's actions/attitudes, rather than as a statement of "You're not welcome, because you're Asian". Which in itself is of course deplorable, but not quite what is being reported.
The host posssibly deserve a ban just for the racist comment, and if things are as reported, they most certainly deserve the ban, but the reporting seems very "framed".