EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 56
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
I have worked in and around real estate law for 10 or so years and this is staggering. Redlining and land control was the number one tool of racists to control minority populations and limit their ability to gain wealth and security. The erosion of these protections should worry everyone, because this won’t just end with the removal of Ben Carson. From personal experience, Landlords and property owners always object to being unable to screen their potential tenants based on whatever perceived bias they feel should be taken into account. If this isn’t enforced, landlords will immediately start discriminating. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23459 Posts
On March 29 2018 22:54 Plansix wrote: https://twitter.com/ByRosenberg/status/979150536309014528 I have worked in and around real estate law for 10 or so years and this is staggering. Redlining and land control was the number one tool of racists to control minority populations and limit their ability to gain wealth and security. The erosion of these protections should worry everyone, because this won’t just end with the removal of Ben Carson. From personal experience, Landlords and property owners always object to being unable to screen their potential tenants based on whatever perceived bias they feel should be taken into account. If this isn’t enforced, landlords will immediately start discriminating. Well I think the point of the article is that they have been and continue and will continue indefinitely under this administration since it ended the investigation of such blatant examples. It's not like any of it really went away, they just had to get a bit more creative and allow some limited token integration. | ||
|
ShoCkeyy
7815 Posts
On March 29 2018 22:54 Plansix wrote: https://twitter.com/ByRosenberg/status/979150536309014528 I have worked in and around real estate law for 10 or so years and this is staggering. Redlining and land control was the number one tool of racists to control minority populations and limit their ability to gain wealth and security. The erosion of these protections should worry everyone, because this won’t just end with the removal of Ben Carson. From personal experience, Landlords and property owners always object to being unable to screen their potential tenants based on whatever perceived bias they feel should be taken into account. If this isn’t enforced, landlords will immediately start discriminating. I don't think it's an issue that facebook allows it, it's more on how they built their audience targeting. You can't really block African Americans, but you can block their zip code, or the areas they largely reside in. It's how insurance companies work, they price you based on your zip code. I currently live in one of the highest costing zip code for insurance because of all the fraud that happens. It's been around for a long time. | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
OKLAHOMA CITY - In what initially seemed to be a repeat of previous votes on revenue raising measures, the senate narrowly approved a funding package to help pay for teacher pay raises in the state Wednesday evening. The $447 million revenue package, passed by a 36-10, vote now goes to the governor's desk for signing. Requiring a three-fourths majority to pass tax increases, the senate vote stalled two votes shy at 34, with Sen. Anastasia Pittman removing her yes vote, albeit temporarily. Three senators weren't present, including Oklahoma City mayor-elect David Holt, R-Oklahoma City. As Holt returned to the capitol to cast a yes vote, bringing the total to 35, he quickly left the floor. Moments later he returned, arm-in-arm with Pittman, as the two walked to her desk and cast the deciding vote. "When I ask a couple questions and no one can give me a straight answer, then I have some reservations," said Pittman when asked about her vote after session adjourned. With the passage of HB1010XX, it is the first tax increase approved in the state since 1990. It includes increasing the state's oil and gas production tax to 5 percent, $1.00 tax increase on cigarettes, 6 cent increase on diesel and 3 cent increase on gasoline. A $5.00 tax on hotel and motel stays is also included. However, plans are in the works to remove the hotel/motel tax from the package. Earlier Wednesday afternoon, House Speaker Charles McCall, R-Atoka, said it would be eliminated through legislation that would follow in the House Thursday. A House floor amendment, HB1012XX, filed Wednesday afternoon would repeal sections of the revenue package relating to the hotel/motel tax. The hotel/motel tax is estimated to generate $50.4 million annually and provide $46.2 million for appropriations in the FY19 budget. That is expected to be taken up by the house Thursday. Pittman says she was concerned about the hotel/motel tax within the funding package and the impact it would have on businesses in the state. "That was $50 million that was taken," she said. "And I want to know how we're going to put it back." Officials say the plan is to replace the lost occupancy taxes through sales taxes of online purchases. The Senate also approved caps on itemized deductions and the teacher pay scale. "It's not enough," said Senate Minority Leader John Sparks, D-Norman, referring to the funding needs of the state and addressing teacher support staff and public employee pay raises. "We're going to pick up tomorrow -- some of those (bills) will be amended. We still have other revenue sources out here." When asked what he would say to the support staff and public employees, "Hold fast," he said. "Know that more is coming and we will continue to work in that direction." "High five!" said Gov. Mary Fallin as she walked to the podium in the capitol broadcast press room, joining Sen. President Pro Tempore Mike Schulz and Majority Floor Leader Greg Treat. "I applaud the parties for working in a bi-partisan way," said Fallin. "We will have a signing party tomorrow." "Unbelievably historic night," said Schulz, R-Altus. "We still have a few more bills we will do (Thursday)." Source | ||
|
hunts
United States2113 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On March 29 2018 23:36 GreenHorizons wrote: Well I think the point of the article is that they have been and continue and will continue indefinitely under this administration since it ended the investigation of such blatant examples. It's not like any of it really went away, they just had to get a bit more creative and allow some limited token integration. They do all the time, on and offline. I’ve worked in landlord tenant law for years and landlords are always pushing to be able to deny rentals to people they believe will be a problem. My wife dealt with it all the time when she worked in housing advocacy. The most common one I saw was people discriminating against renters with children, which is strictly prohibited. But that is because my state is filled with legal aid that will build a case against a landlord denying rentals based on “black/Hispanic names”. But I’ve never seen anything as overt as what Facebook was doing. On March 29 2018 23:52 hunts wrote: I mean to play devils advocate here, it's not like they're denying housing to blacks, they're simply not advertising it to them. Is it really illegal to not advertise to certain demographics? Yes. That is one of the main ways that racists controlled the black population, by controlling where they lived. And they did it by making sure blacks not only couldn’t rent outside of black neighborhoods, but by assuring that they didn’t even know which rental units were available. I cannot stress this enough, this is one of the most effective ways to discriminate. Forget the KKK and police brutality. This is controlling where minorities are allowed to exist. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21950 Posts
On March 29 2018 23:52 hunts wrote: I assume its the fact that they are specifically trying to avoid advertising to blacks that makes it potentially illegal.I mean to play devils advocate here, it's not like they're denying housing to blacks, they're simply not advertising it to them. Is it really illegal to not advertise to certain demographics? Intent matters in law. Tho its often hard to prove, which is why these businesses keep getting away with it. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
ShoCkeyy
7815 Posts
Thinking about it myself, the only way is a QA team that checks for discrimination, but at that point, what happens when you get the "racist" inside the QA team. Even writing code to check this will have it's own issues. | ||
|
IyMoon
United States1249 Posts
On March 29 2018 23:52 hunts wrote: I mean to play devils advocate here, it's not like they're denying housing to blacks, they're simply not advertising it to them. Is it really illegal to not advertise to certain demographics? I know this isnt the best source but its an okay intro into red lining and you can learn more from this basic understnading I know a college humor source is pretty crap but he does a decent job of giving an overview | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11626 Posts
On March 29 2018 23:52 hunts wrote: I mean to play devils advocate here, it's not like they're denying housing to blacks, they're simply not advertising it to them. Is it really illegal to not advertise to certain demographics? It's probably not illegal currently, but that does not mean that it is not highly unethical. Especially if you view the situation from a civil rights background, the idea that only the people of a certain race ever get the offer to buy something sounds really bad. This wasn't a problem in the past, because you couldn't really advertise as targeted as today. If you hang out a billboard, everyone who passes by can see it. But in a social media world, people have their own realities. This is another situation where laws build for a different world don't work very well to deal with a changed situation. The answer to that is thus that the law needs to be changed in a way to deal with this problem and resolve this ethically, especially removing discrimination. People tend to forget that that the job of lawmakers is to make laws. Laws are not constant, they change. "Is it legal?" is only the first step in a discussion, and mostly relevant to courts dealing with the issue. The more relevant and deeper question is "should it be legal?". | ||
|
hunts
United States2113 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On March 30 2018 00:05 hunts wrote: Would you say that there is similar logic in saying "a baker should be able to refuse baking s cake for a gay wedding for any reason" as "a landlord should be able to not advertise to certain demographics for any reason?" It is similar to baking issue, but more overt in its impact. This would be similar putting a sign up that said, “no gays”. Housing is a finite resource and dictates everything from services available to the family to political representation, so it directly impacts how people live and how represents them. Banking also has similar laws. That is why you see the phrase “Equal housing lender” in all banking ads. They don’t put that in there because it is a marketing tool. On March 30 2018 00:04 Simberto wrote: It's probably not illegal currently, but that does not mean that it is not highly unethical. It is 100% illegal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1968 | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11626 Posts
On March 30 2018 00:11 Plansix wrote: It is similar to baking issue, but more overt in its impact. This would be similar putting a sign up that said, “no gays”. Housing is a finite resource and dictates everything from services available to the family to political representation, so it directly impacts how people live and how represents them. Banking also has similar laws. That is why you see the phrase “Equal housing lender” in all banking ads. They don’t put that in there because it is a marketing tool. It is 100% illegal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1968 Oh, thanks. So it is indeed illegal. The only legal question remaining is whether you only showing your ad to white people indicates a preference based on race. I bet some lawyers find a way to argue that it does not. "Advertising the sale or rental of a dwelling indicating preference of discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin (amended by Congress as part of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 to include sex[18] and, as of 1988, people with disabilities and families with children.)" | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On March 30 2018 00:17 Simberto wrote: Oh, thanks. So it is indeed illegal. The only legal question remaining is whether you only showing your ad to white people indicates a preference based on race. I bet some lawyers find a way to argue that it does not. "Advertising the sale or rental of a dwelling indicating preference of discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin (amended by Congress as part of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 to include sex[18] and, as of 1988, people with disabilities and families with children.)" That argument has been legally settled well before today. The answer is “yes”. Any attempt to target ads based on race, gender, religion, disabilities or having children is prohibited under the law. | ||
|
IyMoon
United States1249 Posts
On March 30 2018 00:20 Plansix wrote: That argument has been legally settled well before today. The answer is “yes”. Any attempt to target ads based on race, gender, religion, disabilities or having children is prohibited under the law. In all cases? I would assume if I have a service for disabled people I would be allowed to target that group. Is this wrong? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On March 30 2018 00:52 IyMoon wrote: In all cases? I would assume if I have a service for disabled people I would be allowed to target that group. Is this wrong? It is specific to renting, land sales and lending. It does not cover all advertising. | ||
|
Azuzu
United States340 Posts
On March 30 2018 00:20 Plansix wrote: That argument has been legally settled well before today. The answer is “yes”. Any attempt to target ads based on race, gender, religion, disabilities or having children is prohibited under the law. How is the responsibility between the poster and message board balanced? Are the people selecting these options breaking the law as well? | ||
|
IyMoon
United States1249 Posts
On March 30 2018 01:00 Plansix wrote: It is specific to renting, land sales and lending. It does not cover all advertising. Thanks for clearing that up for me | ||
| ||
