White? Why not pay more?

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

It'd be nice if people could tell the difference between a social experiment and racism...

Being social experiment and being racist are not mutually exclusive.

In Fact the "social experiment" excuse has been worn out by youtube "Pranksters" years ago.

Freaking fake pranks that aren't pranks there just mean asshole dick moves! Make Pranks Silly And Fun Again!

[Kubumba Tribe]

What if somebody was white and poor? This man shouldn't look down on somebody for not paying the inflated price (even though I get that it was just meant as a social experiment), because although the problem is far worse in the black community (according to the article) their are also white people who are struggling with hunter all over the world.

No where in the link does Wey look down upon poor white people. Again, this was a social experiment documenting the racial economic gap between white and black, not a racist action.

[Kavagrad]

What if somebody was white and poor? This man shouldn't look down on somebody for not paying the inflated price (even though I get that it was just meant as a social experiment), because although the problem is far worse in the black community (according to the article) their are also white people who are struggling with hunter all over the world.

As I've stated a few times now, the higher price was entirely optional. I truly don't believe they would try to shame someone on a lower income for paying the lower price.

[Kubumba Tribe]

It'd be nice if people could tell the difference between a social experiment and racism...

Being social experiment and being racist are not mutually exclusive.

In Fact the "social experiment" excuse has been worn out by youtube "Pranksters" years ago.

Freaking fake pranks that aren't pranks there just mean asshole dick moves! Make Pranks Silly And Fun Again!

What does pulling pranks have to do with documenting economic disparities between racial groups?

[Kubumba Tribe]

Y'all.....
This was a social experiment, not something someone was actually doing to discriminate against white people! OP, you shoulda read the article before making this thread.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Being social experiment and being racist are not mutually exclusive.

In Fact the "social experiment" excuse has been worn out by youtube "Pranksters" years ago.

Freaking fake pranks that aren't pranks there just mean asshole dick moves! Make Pranks Silly And Fun Again!

What does pulling pranks have to do with documenting economic disparities between racial groups?

That was me being silly. My point was that calling it a "social experiment" is no defence for being a shitty racist experiment.

[Kubumba Tribe]

What does pulling pranks have to do with documenting economic disparities between racial groups?

That was me being silly. My point was that calling it a "social experiment" is no defence for being a shitty racist experiment.

It wasn't racist.

[Simad]

This would be good if they asked to pay more asking before for their income, this is just racism. America needs redistribution between riches and poors not between white and black.

[Gospel Power]

Yes it is, the fertitle whispered that

[Kubumba Tribe]

This would be good if they asked to pay more asking before for their income, this is just racism. America needs redistribution between riches and poors not between white and black.

Y'all.....
This was a social experiment, not something someone was actually doing to discriminate against white people! OP, you shoulda read the article before making this thread.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

That was me being silly. My point was that calling it a "social experiment" is no defence for being a shitty racist experiment.

It wasn't racist.

It was judging people by the color of there skin and not there actions. Yes it was.

[Simad]

This would be good if they asked to pay more asking before for their income, this is just racism. America needs redistribution between riches and poors not between white and black.

Y'all.....
This was a social experiment, not something someone was actually doing to discriminate against white people! OP, you shoulda read the article before making this thread.

It was a racist social experiment.

[Kubumba Tribe]

It wasn't racist.

It was judging people by the color of there skin and not there actions. Yes it was.

Who was he judging? Did you forget what the chef did?

[Valrifell]

It wasn't racist.

It was judging people by the color of there skin and not there actions. Yes it was.

It's thesis isn't "white people bad" it's "white people make a lot more money than black people here, isn't that weird?"

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

This would be good if they asked to pay more asking before for their income, this is just racism. America needs redistribution between riches and poors not between white and black.

Y'all.....
This was a social experiment, not something someone was actually doing to discriminate against white people! OP, you shoulda read the article before making this thread.

Being a social experiment isn't an excuse for judging people on there skin alone.

Poor people can be white too.

[Kubumba Tribe]

It was a racist social experiment.

In order for it to be racist, there needs to be racist intent. Since the chef does not have a racist intent behind this social experiment, and has done so to documnet the economic disparities between black and white, there is no racism.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

What if somebody was white and poor? This man shouldn't look down on somebody for not paying the inflated price (even though I get that it was just meant as a social experiment), because although the problem is far worse in the black community (according to the article) their are also white people who are struggling with hunter all over the world.

As I've stated a few times now, the higher price was entirely optional. I truly don't believe they would try to shame someone on a lower income for paying the lower price.

It has very strong overtones to a particular south park episode.

[Kubumba Tribe]

Being a social experiment isn't an excuse for judging people on there skin alone.

No one's judging anyone.

[Kubumba Tribe]

It was judging people by the color of there skin and not there actions. Yes it was.

It's thesis isn't "white people bad" it's "white people make a lot more money than black people here, isn't that weird?"

Thank you! Now 3 people understand.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

It was judging people by the color of there skin and not there actions. Yes it was.

Who was he judging? Did you forget what the chef did?

"Would you like to pay more beacuse your white?"

He was judging the customers off of there skin color.

It was Racist.

It was judging people by the color of there skin and not there actions. Yes it was.

It's thesis isn't "white people bad" it's "white people make a lot more money than black people here, isn't that weird?"

On average. There are still white poor people in that city.

[Kubumba Tribe]

Who was he judging? Did you forget what the chef did?

"Would you like to pay more beacuse your white?"

He was judging the customers off of there skin color.

It was Racist.

You're that you don't know the goal of this experiment.

[S i t k a]

It wasn't racist.

It was judging people by the color of there skin and not there actions. Yes it was.

I can see why you believe it to be racist, and I'm not entirely sure how to judge it myself.

I don't think the intentions behind it were racist, but instead misguided. The goal was to highlight the statistical wealth gap between whites and other races, but that in and of itself is flawed, because the average income is just that, average. There are rich black people and poor white people. In addition, it isn't any one person's fault that wealth gaps exist. A better, more effective approach would be to ask wealthier people in general to pay more, though you'd have to be able to tell who was wealthy somehow...

Sorry if it seems like I'm just rambling. I don't post in General that often, and I'm not always the best at putting my thoughts into words.

[Kubumba Tribe]

It was judging people by the color of there skin and not there actions. Yes it was.

I can see why you believe it to be racist, and I'm not entirely sure how to judge it myself.

I don't think the intentions behind it were racist, but instead misguided. The goal was to highlight the statistical wealth gap between whites and other races, but that in and of itself is flawed, because the average income is just that, average. There are rich black people and poor white people. In addition, it isn't any one person's fault that wealth gaps exist. A better, more effective approach would be to ask wealthier people in general to pay more, though you'd have to be able to tell who was wealthy somehow...

Sorry if it seems like I'm just rambling. I don't post in General that often, and I'm not always the best at putting my thoughts into words.

And now 4 people understand.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Being a social experiment isn't an excuse for judging people on there skin alone.

No one's judging anyone.

Yes he was, he was offering the price increase to white people only.

He was judging people.

And to be clear on this:

judge
/jəj/
verb
gerund or present participle: judging
form an opinion or conclusion about.
"scientists were judged according to competence"
synonyms: form the opinion, conclude, decide;

"Your white = you have more money"

[Simad]

It was a racist social experiment.

In order for it to be racist, there needs to be racist intent. Since the chef does not have a racist intent behind this social experiment, and has done so to documnet the economic disparities between black and white, there is no racism.

The chef treated treated people differently based on to the colour of their skin, it's literally the definition of racism.