Is the shared economy racist?

No, at the hotels, you have to wait until you attempt to check in before they discriminate against you.

http://www.gaynz.com/articles/publish/2/article_13302.php

http://www.queerty.com/gay-couple-told-theres-no-room-at-the...

http://www.advocate.com/news/2007/03/30/gay-couple-turned-aw...

> Literally the next line is qualifying and clarifying the previous statement

Exactly. What I'm reading here is that "a preference that one's neighbors be of the same color, or even a preference for a mixture 'up to some limit'" is not racism, but can lead to total segregation. I can't see where you're reading something different.

It would have been more interesting for you to clarify that for me, rather than psychologically diagnosing me over the internet.

Is merely having a preference for the race of one's neighbors considered racism in this model, or are those people counted as the non-racist portion of the "communities that consist mostly of non-racist individuals"?

What's a "low level of racism"? Is that what racial preferences are categorized as?

Schelling may be clear about some of these things, but you're not. If I'm getting it wrong, it's because you're doing him a disservice, not because of whatever you're projecting onto me.

-----

edit: You weren't doing him a disservice, and my interpretation was not wrong. The model is of groups with different preferences of racial balance, and shows that segregation can happen even when only a minority prefer total segregation. The point: in his model, all actors maintain racial preferences, and a 1:1 ratio is considered the opposite of segregation.

-----

from posts responding to the study on metafilter:

"not that this isn't interesting, but it doesn't take away the 'racist' part - it's not an 'inevitable result of mathematics' unless everyone starts out with a desire for a minimum racial representation. Why would they desire that? Do you seek a neighborhood where 'at least two of my neighbors have brown hair'? Or 'at least two of my neighbors are left-handed'?"

http://www.metafilter.com/52878/Dr-Schellings-neighborhood#1...

or

"It only works when people have a desire to stick to 'their own kind', so racial segregation would only happen if people viewed being around other members of their race as a positive, rather then a neutral.

"You don't see people segregated by hair color, or blood type, or any other genetic trait even when those traits have more effect on the genome? So why would skin color be different, unless there was an underlying sense of 'otherness' caused by skin color.

"Without that underlying sense of otherness, no amount of mathematical mumbo jumbo would cause segregation.

"(by the way, his mathematical models are very naïve, he's basically talking about simple thermodynamics applied to society. If we add 'heat' to cause things to re-randomize slightly and continuously that 'heat' can over come the 'desire' and keep things un-segregated, even if there were a slight desire to keep things segregated)"

http://www.metafilter.com/52878/Dr-Schellings-neighborhood#1...

Black people really do commit a lot of crime in America, it's not just a "stereotype". And particularly, young black people, and particularly young black males. Black males between the ages of 14 and 24 commit 27% of all murders, despite being 1% of the population.

It's not scrawny white twitter engineers who are shooting each other in San Francisco

Well, no, your comment is equally information-free as the two that proceeded it. "Things are the way I say they are because I say so" remains unpersuasive.

Look, the whole notion of assigning moral value to places based on an arbitrary measure of "racism and xenophobia" is annoying, and if you think that's what's going here maybe you're understandably annoyed. But it feels like you're not even trying to understand what we're actually talking about, and more importantly, it actually IS important that we have measures for social progress if we are to continue to improve. I hope you'd agree.

So, the thing is: it'd be interesting to know what measure you're using such that a place with "institutionalized racism and the undercurrent of subtle racism" (undeniably true! of the US or, one suspects, anywhere else!) is somehow to be regarded as more "racist and xenophobic" than a place where a genocide occurred in one nation against an ethnic minority while its neighbor nations looked on uselessly. If you regard "subtle racism," income inequality, criminal justice problems, social rudeness and so on as a greater problem than that, well... okay, say so. It's obviously ridiculous.

It's not entirely race. I'm certain that e.g. poverty and lack of opportunity play a role as well. Growing up without access to money, good schools, or positive role models can be crippling to success regardless of race.