[tomohawk]

This is not the problem. The problem is that Airbnb is making demands on what people do or don't do with their own homes far beyond providing bed and/or breakfast. They're making demands about how people think. My head is not their property. My home is not their property.

It's improper and intolerant of them to make these kinds of demands. In fact, it's a form of totalitarianism to not do business with anyone who doesn't think exactly like us.

As an airbnb guest, I'm respectful of the fact that I'm a guest in someone's home. Their home, their rules. It seems like airbnb is trying to change that dynamic. Now, anyone who wants to be a rude guest can complain about unspecified group think violations. Sad.

[hannob]

What's wrong with that? You don't have to use their service. They are not in a situation that they have to provide service to everyone.

I don't see a problem when a company says "if you're a racist you're not allowed to use our service".

[BrandonM]

It's easy to close your ears and say "racist". Here's what AirBnB's new policy says:

> I agree to treat everyone in the Airbnb community—regardless of their race, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, or age—with respect, and without judgment or bias.

This requirement cuts both ways. A woman who fears rape cannot prevent a young man from staying in her apartment. A Jew or black must accept someone into their home who looks like a skinhead. Someone from the Ukraine must allow a Russian to stay with them, even in spite of the ongoing conflicts. A host living in a 3rd floor walk-up must allow a guest in a wheelchair.

I would never have a reason to refuse someone for these reasons, but that in itself is a privileged position to be in. This policy doesn't only protect the vulnerable; it also puts the vulnerable at risk.

[tomohawk]

Airbnb is a guest in all the homes they're invited into. Now, they're acting the rude guest, bringing up politics and making demands on how people think. They can certainly do that, but it's pretty dumb. It's taking advantage. It's bullying.

I don't see the problem with a company just being tolerant.

[qb8701skq]

Indeed people should wake up and just ditch the social-control-freak Silicon Valley companies.

For Germany, start with http://www.zwischenmiete.de . Cheaper, better, less obnoxious than AirBnB. Good riddance.

[tnone]

Accusations like "racist" mainly flow towards pre-approved victim categories and are commonly used as a blunt weapon in oppression olympics. In those cases, there is no acceptable defense against it, because the reply will be along the lines of "omg, this racist is trying to excuse their racism". Guilty until proven super-guilty.

That's why this gets people's bristles up, because it reeks of the "reverse racism isn't real" and "racism requires structural oppression" dogma that has jumped the gap from post modern academia to tech by way of HR departments, always enforced by carefully worded but unmistakably our-way-or-the-highway totalism. If someone wants to be an arbiter of what is right without considering what happens when they are wrong, it's not justice they're after.

Outside of the Anglo Saxon sphere, this isn't such a big issue... Yet.

[SolaceQuantum]

I think racism is a big deal outside of the Anglo Saxon sphere. I mean, it's the non-whites that are in a position to point it out and complain about it.

Similarly, here you are speaking about your disdain for calling someone racist, and no one's saying you're trying to excuse your own racism for it. Where is this sentiment coming from?

I literally don't see people's bristles up because of "dogma". It's mostly you using his very strong language and then throwing up very significant claims without evidence, such as that post modern academia has invaded tech with totalism circulated around the supposedly untrue ideation that reverse racism isn't a thing and that racism involves structural discrimination. A large chunk of this thread is talking about how Airbnb is toeing the line between ownership of property (i.e. deciding what can be done with it) and business decision (i.e. refusing to allow your services to be used by those who discriminate).

[unclebucknasty]

What's it called when people are so hyper-vigilant about "reverse racism" that they are angered by virtually any claim of racism, and feel resentment towards the "categories" of people that have historically been frequent victims of racism?

[paulcole]

Would you really want to respect the rules of someone's home if their rules were "no blacks"?

[toomuchtodo]

Yes, because it's still their home.