White? Why not pay more?

[Kavagrad]

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.

I'm afraid I haven't watched more than a couple of episodes of that show, so whatever you're referencing is going straight over my head.

[Ransium]

I'm giving this thread a trawl for potentially rule-breaking behavior and to determine if it needs a cooling off period. Stand-by.

[Ransium]

And this is how liberals ultimately radicalized people. So in keeping with this, anyone charges me differently, and I'll say White Power all day. After all, they say I am already racist just for being white, so I may live up to your expectation. Being nice and understanding this far hasn't worked anyway.

Liberals Are Terrorists, if your a liberal, you are scum, and deserve to be aborted.

Calm down.

No, in not going to calm down, if you discriminate against me, I'm going to burn this Bitch to the ground.


You liberals are diseased, and you radicalized normal people with positions like these. When we come and have to genocide your ideology again, I will have no sympathy for you. None. I don't feel bad when Muslims blow up your cities, or when you abort yourselves, or can't reproduce. You deserve every bad result you get.

Endorsing discrimination, Liberals should be executed.

*** 3-day ban for trolling/advocating death ***

[Ransium]

I think we're good here, and I'm going to unlock. Don't make me regret it.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

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.

It's ok.

But good intentions or not, the result was still racist beacuse it made the assumption that all white people in New Orleans are richish and can afford it.

Therefor, coming to a conclusion based on skin color and not actions.

[Cekoviu]

Utterly stupid. If they really wanted to do this, it would be far better to do so by having a database of income and adjusting the price based on that, not racial profiling. Of course, that's still discriminatory, difficult to implement, and overall dumb. I cannot possibly fathom why anybody would think this is a good idea.

[MERIZoC]

Markets as a solution to systemic racism

[Kubumba Tribe]

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.

It's ok.

But good intentions or not, the result was still racist beacuse it made the assumption that all white people in New Orleans are richish and can afford it.

Therefor, coming to a conclusion based on skin color and not actions.

Ok, you have a point there. But I feel that was an unintended consequence.
Do I agree with what Wey did? Yes, but not the way he did, I never have. But this was social experiment with no racist intent.

[S i t k a]

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.

It's ok.

But good intentions or not, the result was still racist beacuse it made the assumption that all white people in New Orleans are richish and can afford it.

Therefor, coming to a conclusion based on skin color and not actions.

True, but the fact that the result wasn't what was intended doesn't make the people behind it racist. If anything, one can hope they've learned something and will be able to bring attention to injustice more effectively in the future.

[Trotskylvania]

Utterly stupid. If they really wanted to do this, it would be far better to do so by having a database of income and adjusting the price based on that, not racial profiling. Of course, that's still discriminatory, difficult to implement, and overall dumb. I cannot possibly fathom why anybody would think this is a good idea.

It's the old "consciousness-raising" notion of activism at work. Conveniently, of course, it allows this enterprising young entrepreneur to get some of the clientele to pay premium prices for this "social awareness"

[Saiwania]

I had thought that the purpose of a business was to provide a good product or service that is profitable, not to conduct some social experiment. I'm just not in the habit of spending more than I need to unnecessarily, because I consider money to be so hard to obtain. I have a net worth of around $1,000. I can certainly get something nice, but I'd really need to consider if I could keep whatever I get or not. I can certainly get bamboozled into paying more than I should for something, but I try to at least really and truly consider if it is worth it or not.

A good trick I have is to write down every single purchase I've ever made in a given year, and that way- I never buy the same thing twice if it is found to be a piece of junk. Unless it is that useful to have. It gives you a record of where your money really goes. There are plenty of times where something that has good reviews, you're dissatisfied with anyways. It is inevitable that you'll win and lose some so far as money efficiency goes. Yeah, carry a steno pad and a calculator.

As for the income inequality, it is probably because Whites in that state come from richer families. Because of slavery or past social or economic discrimination in the US, of course Blacks or whatever other minority (except Asians) are going to be at a disadvantage. It'd take them a bit longer to build up better inheritance or family education, but they will probably eventually get there.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

It's ok.

But good intentions or not, the result was still racist beacuse it made the assumption that all white people in New Orleans are richish and can afford it.

Therefor, coming to a conclusion based on skin color and not actions.

True, but the fact that the result wasn't what was intended doesn't make the people behind it racist. If anything, one can hope they've learned something and will be able to bring attention to injustice more effectively in the future.

Even so, the test ended up being racist. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Hopefully they realise this and made it fairer by just simply asking for donations that go to a food bank or giving everyone the optical charge and giveing that money to poorer people that come to there restaurant.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

It's ok.

But good intentions or not, the result was still racist beacuse it made the assumption that all white people in New Orleans are richish and can afford it.

Therefor, coming to a conclusion based on skin color and not actions.

Ok, you have a point there. But I feel that was an unintended consequence.
Do I agree with what Wey did? Yes, but not the way he did, I never have. But this was social experiment with no racist intent.

As a best case scenario no he wasn't racist nor did he intend it to be, however the outcome still was racist.

As I said before, or as Saint Bernard of Clairvaux said, "hell is full of good wishes or desires."

[Ostroeuropa]

Here we go..

Imagine standing in a line for lunch. The customer in front you pays $12 for his food box but when you go to pay for the same product, the chef asks if you’re willing to shell out $30 instead.

Why? Because you’re white.

That's ridiculous you say, just another example of the all out attack on white people in America!

Nearly 80% of white customers agreed to pay the inflated price for a pre-fixed Nigerian food box lunch at Wey’s Saartje food stand – after he explained that the request was meant to shine a light on New Orleans’ dramatic and widening income gap.

Wait what? The fools, why not just stand in the firing line. Don't they see what's happening?

Median net income for white families in New Orleans is more than $63,000. For black families, it is just below $26,000. Wey’s $18 food price gap was intended to approximate this earnings gap, which has been growing since cataclysmic flooding after Hurricane Katrina in 2005 radically reshaped the city.

“First I introduce the facts and as a white person, you are now an antagonist in this framework,” Wey said. “But I offer you an easy out. You can pay $12 or you can pay $30. What are you going to do?”

Pay the equal price as we live in an equal choice society of course. What next, are we going to make allowances for women too?

Trends still emerged. For example, white patrons who decided to pay the $30 were more likely to be female: 91% of white women did so compared with just 55% of white men.

Men are clearly vastly more attuned to free market philosophy.

“I don’t think it’s as difficult to talk to a woman and tell her, ‘There’s something about my personhood that I have nothing to do with and it’s affecting my income and affecting what I can achieve in life,’” said Anjali Prasertong, a nutritionist and writer who was enlisted by Wey to collect data.

“Pretty much every woman has experienced that herself.”

Yeah yeah, the old white men are advantaged, show me any evidence.. other than ratio of presidents.. or CEOs.. or upper management.. or..

Wey, who was born in Nigeria, said he was responding to the “Eurocentric perspective of popular food culture”. Inspired by the Black Lives Matter movement, he is planning to mount his next culinary social experiment in Detroit in late April.

The enemy has shown their weakness.. to arms people, defend Detroit!

Link

Still, the point of the experiment was not to redistribute wealth. It was to start a conversation.

“This isn’t going to change the racial wealth disparities in the city,” Wey said. “It was meant to show, in principle, what the burden of cost looks like for people who have less resources.”

Is this a welcome choice to give to society to make them think or just another means of attacking the endangered species?

Like I said over the male cupcake shit.
If they sold women cupcakes at a cheaper price that had more fat and were unhealthy for them, and made them eat it on the spot instead of at their own leisure, it would have been a better demonstration.
For whites, it's just more of the same flawed mentality that ignores white peoples experiences and discounts them.

[Valrifell]

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.

It's ok.

But good intentions or not, the result was still racist beacuse it made the assumption that all white people in New Orleans are richish and can afford it.

Therefor, coming to a conclusion based on skin color and not actions.

Given that white people there do tend to be richer, it's not a completely unfounded assumption to make that white people are more likely able to pay out a higher price, it's just statistics. Plus, if you don't think that income gap is at least somewhat tied to the race of the individuals in the first place, than you're just wrong.

[Scomagia]

This is definitely racist, though not for the reason some may think. Since the higher price is optional, that isn't the racist bit. What is racist is looking at a person and drawing assumptions about their racial makeup and socio-economic status solely through observation. The fact is that having a light skin tone doesn't make you "white". Many mixed race people predominantly look like one of their constituent races (e.g. people with a black parent and a white parent may well only look black, or white, or they may carry obvious traits from both.) Many Pacific Islanders look "white", many do not. Many Native Americans look more "white" than others and, in some cases, they may well look more "white" than some darker skinned European people. There are black people who look Hispanic, as well.

While I understand the good intentions behind this, the blatant racism ruins them.

[Kubumba Tribe]

It's ok.

But good intentions or not, the result was still racist beacuse it made the assumption that all white people in New Orleans are richish and can afford it.

Therefor, coming to a conclusion based on skin color and not actions.

Given that white people there do tend to be richer, it's not a completely unfounded assumption to make that white people are more likely able to pay out a higher price, it's just statistics. Plus, if you don't think that income gap is at least somewhat tied to the race of the individuals in the first place, than you're just wrong.

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing.
Whites - on average - statistically make more money than those of color, so what Wey did was and wasn't racist.

[Cekoviu]

Utterly stupid. If they really wanted to do this, it would be far better to do so by having a database of income and adjusting the price based on that, not racial profiling. Of course, that's still discriminatory, difficult to implement, and overall dumb. I cannot possibly fathom why anybody would think this is a good idea.

It's the old "consciousness-raising" notion of activism at work. Conveniently, of course, it allows this enterprising young entrepreneur to get some of the clientele to pay premium prices for this "social awareness"

Ha, it is a pretty clever strategy. I take back what I said about it being dumb.

[Krosana]

This is dumb.

[Albrenia]

I guess the shop's food wasn't very popular or was in a majority non-white area, if he had time to explain all this to each white person who came along to buy food.

As it is, it seems he gave the people a choice, and as long as he's not forcing people to pay more, merely asking, I don't have an objection.

I feel sorry for the people caught in line behind a bunch of white people though. They're gonna have a late meal.

[Ostroeuropa]

Given that white people there do tend to be richer, it's not a completely unfounded assumption to make that white people are more likely able to pay out a higher price, it's just statistics. Plus, if you don't think that income gap is at least somewhat tied to the race of the individuals in the first place, than you're just wrong.

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing.
Whites - on average - statistically make more money than those of color, so what Wey did was and wasn't racist.

The action disparately impacts whites who are poor. Disparate impact is an example of racism.

It means the poorest whites are hit by the measure more than the poorest blacks.

To treat white people like they are rich because they are stereotyped to be such on the basis of statistics is racism, there's no ifs ands or buts about it.
If most arabs were a certain way, or most blacks, and we treated them ALL like they were ALL that, it would be racism.

So it goes for whites, and in this case, the racism negatively impacts the most vulnerable whites.

The stats on white wealth do not justify treating them all like they are that way, it's the essence of racism.

[Kubumba Tribe]

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing.
Whites - on average - statistically make more money than those of color, so what Wey did was and wasn't racist.

The action disparately impacts whites who are poor. Disparate impact is an example of racism.

It means the poorest whites are hit by the measure more than the poorest blacks.

To treat white people like they are rich because they are stereotyped to be such on the basis of statistics is racism, there's no ifs ands or buts about it.
If most arabs were a certain way, or most blacks, and we treated them ALL like they were ALL that, it would be racism.

So it goes for whites, and in this case, the racism negatively impacts the most vulnerable whites.

The stats on white wealth do not justify treating them all like they are that way, it's the essence of racism.

They were given a choice.

[Ostroeuropa]

The action disparately impacts whites who are poor. Disparate impact is an example of racism.

It means the poorest whites are hit by the measure more than the poorest blacks.

To treat white people like they are rich because they are stereotyped to be such on the basis of statistics is racism, there's no ifs ands or buts about it.
If most arabs were a certain way, or most blacks, and we treated them ALL like they were ALL that, it would be racism.

So it goes for whites, and in this case, the racism negatively impacts the most vulnerable whites.

The stats on white wealth do not justify treating them all like they are that way, it's the essence of racism.

They were given a choice.

In the cultural context of racism in white people being highly criticized, and framing refusal to pay the higher amount as tacit endorsement of racism.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

It's ok.

But good intentions or not, the result was still racist beacuse it made the assumption that all white people in New Orleans are richish and can afford it.

Therefor, coming to a conclusion based on skin color and not actions.

Given that white people there do tend to be richer, it's not a completely unfounded assumption to make that white people are more likely able to pay out a higher price, it's just statistics. Plus, if you don't think that income gap is at least somewhat tied to the race of the individuals in the first place, than you're just wrong.

It's still an assumption made on race. A judgement made off of race and only race.

Given that white people there do tend to be richer, it's not a completely unfounded assumption to make that white people are more likely able to pay out a higher price, it's just statistics. Plus, if you don't think that income gap is at least somewhat tied to the race of the individuals in the first place, than you're just wrong.

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing.
Whites - on average - statistically make more money than those of color, so what Wey did was and wasn't racist.

If you make an assumption on race for a test, then the test is racist.

[USS Monitor]

So you can still get the food for $12 if you say you don't want to pay the extra? If so, it's not worth getting upset about. I probably would only pay the $12 because I have a low income.