There is a logo, flash, picture, etc. that all real estate advertising in America includes. It is detailed in a document published at hud.gov which has much to say about “fair housing.”
What is meant in this document by fair housing is that one can not discriminate against people on the basis of “race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin” — direct quote.
It fails to mention on the basis of culture, education, “old money vs new money,” eye color, hair color(1), height, weight(2), level of education, IQ, material possessions(3), military service or the lack of, deformities by birth or accident(6), bad breath or other signs of ill health(5), or any of the nearly infinite number of other characteristics an individual Human may possess.
What’s my point? The moment you pass a law itemizing on what bases discrimination is not to happen, you have actually defined all the way in which it can happen. By not mentioning them at all.
So the fair housing document (at the above link) actually is self-defeating. That’s the problem with laws and the legal system in its current form: you end up losing control of the situation, and the enforcing agencies mostly don’t even know it. (For example, age discrimination is illegal, but try getting a regular job as a computer programmer if you are over 40 years of age. As a contractor, maybe. As an employee? Forget it. The anti-age discrimination laws are unenforceable, you see.)
Like during Prohibition in America(4), such laws only create loop holes, black markets, increased demand for the product, and even clearly point out the ways in which that law may be bent without entirely fracturing it or where huge amounts of money can be made.
Making a thing illegal always creates opportunity for massive money.
Even in the anti-discrimination laws.
Further, because it’s included in each and every real estate ad, the public really no longer sees it. The purpose of the logo, according to the above cited document, is “public education” so that the public becomes aware that housing discrimination is illegal. But I tell that when it’s everywhere, no one sees it.
That’s basic Psych 101, certainly in the 21st Century. It’s called sensory overload. It becomes background noise. Like so many of the signs and billboards cluttering up everything. Just noise. Almost useless. (Almost, not quite.)
A point: the above HUD document does not seem to say (unless I missed it, and I might have!) that the use of this logo is required, that it must be included in all advertising. It says “should” … I can not find where it says “must.”
And the only reference to “illegal” in the entire document is in the suggested publisher’s statement (“housing discrimination is illegal and we will not knowingly accept any advertising that discriminates, blah blah blah”), and in a statement concerning “illegal substance use.” Those are the only places the document actually uses the word “illegal.”
Go figure…
Question: if a realtor fails to use the fair housing logo does that allow him to discriminate? Is it not illegal even if he fails to use the logo? Of course it’s still illegal! So why is the logo required? When the realtor must include it in his expensive advertising does HUD pay for the ad space to use the logo? (Their recommendations in that above document actually say that the logo should be 2″ x 2″ in a full page ad. Are you kidding me?) No, HUD does not pay for that space. Is that portion of the ad cost then accountable as a different kind of expense, deductible from taxes and such? It should be, but I doubt that it is. Why make all realtors guilty of a crime committed by a few, a few who probably would have been better served by some serious counseling and perhaps exclusion from that industry? Why?
Final word: discrimination is nothing more nor less than the Herd trying to ensure that all members of the Herd have the same characteristics. “We are all Blue Sheep. No Green Sheep are allowed, and don’t baa at the wrong note — that’s definitely out, and your nose seems awfully large…” It’s a fear-based reaction: “you’re different, you must be a threat.” You could also define it as the “selfish gene” (go look that up, if you are curious — I only partially buy that one), and plenty of other statements could be made about it, but none of them positive or uplifting. In fact, I haven’t found a single positive way to frame the Herd Uniformity nonsense. It’s a primitive urge and it has no place in the modern Human world. The planet’s too crowded for such things now.
If it’s a fundamental behavior pattern, then no amount of legislation will fix it.
If it’s cultural training, then no amount of legislation will fix it.
Only education of individuals, over a long period of time, can fix it.
Only education over a long period of time (actually, like 7 generations, believe it or not). You must educate the individuals, though, not the Herd. The Herd always resists, but individuals are usually receptive.
You can’t control through laws. You can’t. Only through education. Of course, then it’s not control any more, is it? The urge to control is actually a neurosis (at best).
Quit making neurotic laws.
[30]
(1) If you don’t believe our culture discriminates on the basis of hair color, then reflect on the last time you heard a “blond joke.” Or how about a person with grey / silver hair? Ask some one about how folks treat him because of his grey hair: you’ll probably get a lecture. BTW: did you know that some people naturally have white hair? They’re born that way. It doesn’t mean they are old… My father was going grey in his 20’s.
(2) This culture definitely discriminates over obesity. That one, I do believe, doesn’t even need amplification.
(3) Material possessions? Yes. For instance. Doesn’t the person with the $50,000 car get better treatment than the person with the $500 beater? (This point was made pretty well in the movie Beverly Hills Cop, by the way.) Or the person in the $3,000 suit as opposed to the guy in the Hoodie. Isn’t that even the point of a $3,000 suit? I can’t think of any other reason, excuse, justification for such a thing. (By which I don’t mean we should stamp them out. I am really referring to the person who uses such a thing as a badge of position in the Herd, whose statement is “I am of the Elite,” not the person who wears it solely because it feels good.)
(4) Prohibition was the biggest abuse of the US Constitution ever put into play. Ultimately, it wasn’t about drinking at all; the anti-drinking movement in the US was simply used to put it through. Not to get off track, let me just say this: prohibition secured petroleum as the only fuel source for motor vehicles, as alcohol from corn was suddenly “illegal,” even for fuel. Corn fuel uses carbon that was already in the atmosphere (the plant breaths it in); burning petroleum, however, takes carbon that was locked up in the ground and puts it in to the air. Billions upon billions of tons of it. That is to say, Prohibition may be the biggest factor that has lead us to global climate change, short of the invention of the car itself (and over population, two cycle engines, microwave ovens, black-top / macadam all over the world, and … and …). Prohibition also created the largest and most successful criminal enterprises American had seen up to that time. That’s a lot of damage because of one person’s personal ambitions. (Don’t know whom I mean? Look up who owned most of the oil fields just before Prohibition hit.) Laws…
(5) Yes, chronic bad breath suggests bad health. Bad breath in the moment only suggests poor grooming. Chronic bad breath can be a serious symptom, however.
(6) “Deformities” are not necessarily handicaps, but these are not mentioned by HUD. (Which is actually a kind of discrimination in itself, holding that any and all deformities must be handicaps, isn’t it?) Then, when they actually define “handicap” it says “crippled, blind, deaf, mentally ill, retarded, impaired, handicapped, physically fit.” I find the last two items of particular interest. Handicap means handicapped? That’s surely a meaningless statement outside of a first semester logic class (as an example of how to not write definitions). But the last one is especially fun: “physically fit” is a handicap? Did I miss something some where? Is our culture now praising ill health to such a degree that fit is considered a handicap? Beats me…
Then there’s also the “mentally ill” statement. I must sell real-estate to a mentally ill person? Does that include Hannibal Lector? Surely there should be some margin for judgement here…
Finally, in making that list they have left off at least a 100 other items that apparently are perfectly ok to discriminate on. When the law attempts to be specific instead of simply stating its intent, it always fails. (I can’t prove that, but I’m sure I can convince a jury of it, which is all it really takes anyway… right? Right?)