White? Why not pay more?

[Bombadil]

Actually I looked into his background, he's quite heavily involved in black awareness programs, and part of his mission as a chef is to move people on from what he calls euro-centric food, meat and two veg stuff.

I don't think he's just out for a quick buck.

I don’t think you understand capitalism.

That being said - you could be right. He might not just be a good businessman. He could be engaging in valueless virtue signaling and just get extra money coincidentally.

Well he's received global coverage out of it so likely neither a bad businessman nor valueless.

[Changtan]

It's idiotic to make assumptions about what resources people have. By making these kind of assumptions, he's basically saying that black people are poor and white people are rich. By that logic, he should examine everyone individually so that minimum wage white person doesn't pay more than a black millionaire...

I mean, nobody has to pay the $30 - it's a choice. Examining everyone individually would kind of defeat the whole point of the "experiment" - which was to highlight the income gap between black and white families.

Would it be racist if a bus driver asked, but didn’t force, Black people to sit in the back of the bus?

Yes.

> Highlighting an income gap between ethnicities by giving the ones who statistically have more money the option to pay proportional to what the statistics say

> Asking a certain ethnicity, who have historically had struggles with civil rights, one of which was only being allowed to sit at the back of the bus, to sit at the back of the bus because... ???

I mean, I’m very concerned that the women were more economically irrational than the men.

Well, I guess that's one way of looking at it

[Galloism]

I don’t think you understand capitalism.

That being said - you could be right. He might not just be a good businessman. He could be engaging in valueless virtue signaling and just get extra money coincidentally.

Well he's received global coverage out of it so likely neither a bad businessman nor valueless.

Which leads us back to the rules of acquisition #284:

“Deep down, everyone's a Ferengi.”

[Galloism]

Would it be racist if a bus driver asked, but didn’t force, Black people to sit in the back of the bus?

Yes.

> Highlighting an income gap between ethnicities by giving the ones who statistically have more money the option to pay proportional to what the statistics say

> Asking a certain ethnicity, who have historically had struggles with civil rights, one of which was only being allowed to sit at the back of the bus, to sit at the back of the bus because... ???

White people have historically been afraid of black people.

You’re just saying it’s only racism to discriminate your treatment based on race when targeting the correct races.

I’m not super concerned about his racism given the voluntary nature of it. But it’s certainly racism.

I mean, I’m very concerned that the women were more economically irrational than the men.

Well, I guess that's one way of looking at it

Arguably the most correct way. I really think we need to be teaching people not to get guilted so easily by hustlers. Maybe this guy is or isn’t, but they’ve proven themselves vulnerable to it - a majority of both men and women.

That’s disturbing from an economics perspective.

[Changtan]

White people have historically been afraid of black people.

You’re just saying it’s only racism to discriminate your treatment based on race when targeting the correct races.

I’m not super concerned about his racism given the voluntary nature of it. But it’s certainly racism.

White people have been historically afraid of black people because of how they've been portrayed in media, which was historically controlled by white people.

I do think it's possible to be racist towards a white person: I just think the example you gave wasn't properly "equivalent" to the one in the experiment.

Arguably the most correct way. I really think we need to be teaching people not to get guilted so easily by hustlers. Maybe this guy is or isn’t, but they’ve proven themselves vulnerable to it - a majority of both men and women.

That’s disturbing from an economics perspective.

I mean, I can't argue with your logic from the economics perspective, but then there's looking at it from a social/philosophical perspective :
Are they paying more because they can relate to or empathise with the issue the experiment raises, is it a case of forced guilt, or is it simply virtue signalling? The experiment definitely raises more questions than it answers, but it's an interesting read nonetheless

[Srianna Gestane]

Arguably the most correct way. I really think we need to be teaching people not to get guilted so easily by hustlers. Maybe this guy is or isn’t, but they’ve proven themselves vulnerable to it - a majority of both men and women.

That’s disturbing from an economics perspective.

You did see my explanation earlier for why I'd spend money on it even though I have no reason to feel guilty about it, didn't you? Do you understand why people donate to charity or pay for art, even when they could get it for free, and even when they don't get public recognition for it?

[Albrenia]

He probably did it just to get talked about to further spread awareness. Otherwise why not just put a donation jar out and hand out pamphlets or something?

Again, from what I see it is racist, but on such a low level that I can't bring myself to care. More important question to me is if the food is any good.

[Bombadil]

He probably did it just to get talked about to further spread awareness. Otherwise why not just put a donation jar out and hand out pamphlets or something?

Again, from what I see it is racist, but on such a low level that I can't bring myself to care. More important question to me is if the food is any good.

He was featured in Vogue a couple years back as an up and coming chef.. I suspect he's pretty good. I'll admit I thought he was just a seller with an idea but actually he's very much involved in this area though mostly from a food perspective, so I certainly don't think he's just some hustler - I very much think he's making a point about this growing disparity - it's somewhat specific to New Orleans here given that disparity has been growing post-Katrina.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Y'all.....
This was a social experiment, not something someone was actually doing to discriminate against white people!

[Albrenia]

Y'all.....
This was a social experiment, not something someone was actually doing to discriminate against white people!

It is ok to write fresh posts instead of constantly quoting yourself, y'know.

Also others have also answered how that point isn't really very important. 'Social Experiments' don't get exemptions from criticism.

[Bakery Hill]

As an attention seeking activity I get it, it's like the feminist bake sales.

But the logic really just slides into the post-class woke neoliberalism that a great part of the establishment just loves.

[Kubumba Tribe]

It is ok to write fresh posts instead of constantly quoting yourself, y'know.

It's faster to quote, copy an paste

Also others have also answered how that point isn't really very important. 'Social Experiments' don't get exemptions from criticism.

I never said they couldn't get criticized, I've never went against people doing so.
But saying "it's racist and he person is racist" is wrong.

[Ostroeuropa]

It is ok to write fresh posts instead of constantly quoting yourself, y'know.

It's faster to quote, copy an paste

Also others have also answered how that point isn't really very important. 'Social Experiments' don't get exemptions from criticism.

I never said they couldn't get criticized, I've never went against people doing so.
But saying "it's racist and he person is racist" is wrong.

You're not responding to peoples arguments when they reply to it though, just reposting it later when you hit a point where you don't have a reply to people.

It's racist and he is racist.

No, I don't do it to Muslims.

An experiment can be racist, this argument of yours is nonsense. And given that he reaped monetary reward directly from it, rather than it's results, it isn't an experiment anyway. It wouldn't change if it was an experiment either. Treating Black people like they are poor and asking those things would be racism, just like treating whites like they are rich was here.

Here you go.

Using these statistics to treat white people like they are all rich is functionally the same as using it to treat all black people like they are poor.
If someone were to use the statistics to "Ask" black people if they know black people are on average poor and "Give them the choice" of shopping elsewhere because they probably can't afford it here, would that be racism?
Every single black person who walks in to the shop.

Ofcourse it would be.

The fact is, this study was racist against both groups involved. It treated black people like they were poor, and whites like they were rich.
In doing so, it discriminated against rich black persons and poor white persons who fell outside its model.

Denying Black people the acknowledgement of their accomplishment, and putting white people into a situation where they are socially pressured to spend more money on the basis of their skin color, not their income, disadvantaging poor whites compared to poor blacks in the situation, especially those with social anxiety and shit.

It was racism, pure and simple.

[Reblibre]

You know, when the police uses this exact same line of reasoning to pull over a car with random black people "because blacks are statistically more likely to be involved in crime" it is called "racial profiling" and people get very upset.

This example isn't comparable. It's more like if, at an airport, the airport security publicly told every 'white' passenger passing through that they needed to stop and be searched--with it plain to see that 'black' passengers were not being stopped, and then when those being discriminated against in this manner asked why, the security explained that, statistically, 'blacks' are more likely to be subjected to law enforcement attention.

Except, they'd need to do something to demonstrate just how much more likely, so the extent of the problem would be made clear. And it would be unacceptable for the government to do this, it's only appropriate for a private business. And private businesses don't have law enforcement powers, so it's really not comparable at all.

The guy could also just have asked EVERYONE if they wanted to pay extra (or less) - like all the restaurants with this "pay it forward" system do.
Or asked the people that arrived in a porsche wearing an Armani suit. Or - heck - a million things not related to ones skincolour.

But then how would he make the point that 'whites' earn more than twice as much money as 'blacks' in his city? He wouldn't have made the point at all, and people would be left unaware of the problem. They might not notice the income disparity is linked to race as strongly as it is, which was his entire point. It wasn't about the money. If he was going to do it every day, then yes, implementing a program that lets people choose how much to pay based on what they can afford would make sense.

Supposedly, if that’s true, the vast majority of people being asked would be white anyways.

[Cekoviu]

Y'all.....
This was a social experiment, not something someone was actually doing to discriminate against white people!

It was founded on racist assumptions. It's not really making things worse for white people in any way because it's optional, but it very much is racist.

[Ifreann]

Who knew this would become about white men..

Everyone?

---

That's the funny thing about Ferengi. They're hung up on hoarding and haggling to accumulate status, right next door to a civilization that can transmute anything into anything, and is so darn wealthy the only limits imposed on what they create for themselves are the questions 'is this too much?', 'should we tone it back a little?', and 'do you think this looks tacky?'...

If you can afford anything you could ever want to buy--which includes me even though I'm 'below the poverty line', with the significant exception of real estate--you're free to invest your money in causes you believe in, instead of things that'd acquire you more money.

Money is a sign of poverty.

---

On the topic of "Is It Racist?" - I don't think it is. Here's why:

- He's not forcefully making all his white clients pay the $30
- He's not refusing to serve white clients who only want to pay the $12

Seen a few comments about how "oh he didn't ask the black people to pay more" - the reason he did this was to “show, in principle, what the burden of cost looks like for people who have less resources.” Since black families in the area generally have less resources, why would he?

I think it's a pretty interesting idea, one that at the very least brings awareness to a fairly important social issue

Would it be racist if a bus driver asked, but didn’t force, Black people to sit in the back of the bus?

Why is everyone's counter-example to asking people generally advantaged in society if they want to give up that advantage, to serve as a more tangible example of just how advantaged they are, to ask people generally disadvantaged in society if they want to be treated even worse than normal to no meaningful end that I can see?

[El-Amin Caliphate]

It was founded on racist assumptions.

Not really

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Why is everyone's counter-example to asking people generally advantaged in society if they want to give up that advantage, to serve as a more tangible example of just how advantaged they are, to ask people generally disadvantaged in society if they want to be treated even worse than normal to no meaningful end that I can see?

Yeah, false equivalencies abound in this thread.

[Galloism]

Arguably the most correct way. I really think we need to be teaching people not to get guilted so easily by hustlers. Maybe this guy is or isn’t, but they’ve proven themselves vulnerable to it - a majority of both men and women.

That’s disturbing from an economics perspective.

You did see my explanation earlier for why I'd spend money on it even though I have no reason to feel guilty about it, didn't you? Do you understand why people donate to charity or pay for art, even when they could get it for free, and even when they don't get public recognition for it?

Pay for art not really, but donate to charity is about the warm fuzzies they get. They exchange cash for warm fuzzies.

Also a lot of the most successful charities are literal scams. Just for the record.

Why is everyone's counter-example to asking people generally advantaged in society if they want to give up that advantage, to serve as a more tangible example of just how advantaged they are, to ask people generally disadvantaged in society if they want to be treated even worse than normal to no meaningful end that I can see?

Because, and this is the point, I hate how society has changed from "an action is itself right or wrong, independent of the identity of the actor - justice is supposed to be blind" to "depending on your place in the privilege/oppression totem, it's right or wrong only if you target the wrong group". I sometimes invert the oppression totem to see how people react in an attempt to provoke thought via ironic Russian reversals, but it's clearly having zero affect.

This oppression totem, where an action is ONLY wrong if it targets the wrong people, is ethically bankrupt and against the principles of liberalism and equality in justice. It needs to stop. Now.

And btw, one could easily rationalize it as to "think about the past and their ancestors" or some shit. That's a "meanginful end" I guess. At least, it's as meaningful as this.

[Ostroeuropa]

You did see my explanation earlier for why I'd spend money on it even though I have no reason to feel guilty about it, didn't you? Do you understand why people donate to charity or pay for art, even when they could get it for free, and even when they don't get public recognition for it?

Pay for art not really, but donate to charity is about the warm fuzzies they get. They exchange cash for warm fuzzies.

Also a lot of the most successful charities are literal scams. Just for the record.

Why is everyone's counter-example to asking people generally advantaged in society if they want to give up that advantage, to serve as a more tangible example of just how advantaged they are, to ask people generally disadvantaged in society if they want to be treated even worse than normal to no meaningful end that I can see?

Because, and this is the point, I hate how society has changed from "an action is itself right or wrong, independent of the identity of the actor - justice is supposed to be blind" to "depending on your place in the privilege/oppression totem, it's right or wrong only if you target the wrong group". I sometimes invert the oppression totem to see how people react in an attempt to provoke thought via ironic Russian reversals, but it's clearly having zero affect.

This oppression totem, where an action is ONLY wrong if it targets the wrong people, is ethically bankrupt and against the principles of liberalism and equality in justice. It needs to stop. Now.

And btw, one could easily rationalize it as to "think about the past and their ancestors" or some shit. That's a "meanginful end" I guess. At least, it's as meaningful as this.

"no such thing as discrimination against muslims in the balkans, because history." / "Seizing the property of farmers based on their skin color fixes racism, because history"

[Mujahidah]

"no such thing as discrimination against muslims in the balkans, because history."

This is sarcastic right?

[Galloism]

You know, Ifreann is right. My example wasn't good. Let me do a better one:

How about a business owner who asks every woman, and only women, to take a punch in the face by the person behind them, so women can understand the threat of violence that men live under, being disproportionately victimized by nearly all types of violent crime. No one is forced - purely voluntary.

Sexist or kosher?

Because I'd call it sexist.

[Ostroeuropa]

"no such thing as discrimination against muslims in the balkans, because history."

This is sarcastic right?

No, it's using the same kind of justifications used to dismiss racism against white people in the current day.
A few decades ago, you could have just dismissed all claims of racism against muslims in the balkans with similar arguments. Just like in south africa, it's being used to dismiss racism against white farmers. If you don't like the comparison, you shouldn't support it when it's done to whites either.

It's a matter of different scales, not different substances.

The crimes against Muslims in the balkans were reliant on pushing oppressor-oppressed narratives based on historical grievance, saying the Muslims had oppressed the people there and such, and moreover, the idea that Turks were still trying to push into the region and project their influence over the area, and were more powerful than the local slavs, who had to rely on outside support.

[Kubumba Tribe]

You know, Ifreann is right. My example wasn't good. Let me do a better one:

How about a business owner who asks every woman, and only women, to take a punch in the face by the person behind them, so women can understand the threat of violence that men live under, being disproportionately victimized by nearly all types of violent crime. No one is forced - purely voluntary.

Sexist or kosher?

Because I'd call it sexist.

Was that meant to be the other way around? Because women experience more domestic violence than men.
So I think it should be like this:

"How about a business owner who asks every man, and only men, to take a punch in the face by the person behind them, so men can understand the threat of violence that women live under, being disproportionately victimized by nearly all types of violent crime. No one is forced - purely voluntary."

Which, although a lot more harsh and brutal than the experiment Wey was doing, it is comparable.
To which I'd say "sheesh", but also "what data is the business owner trying to get?" and "is this a social experiment, or is the owner just crazy?"

[Galloism]

You know, Ifreann is right. My example wasn't good. Let me do a better one:

How about a business owner who asks every woman, and only women, to take a punch in the face by the person behind them, so women can understand the threat of violence that men live under, being disproportionately victimized by nearly all types of violent crime. No one is forced - purely voluntary.

Sexist or kosher?

Because I'd call it sexist.

Was that meant to be the other way around? Because women experience more domestic violence than men.

No, men experience more violence than women by a wide margin. First, notice I said "violence", not " domestic violence". Men are 78% of murder victims in the United States. They're between 45-55% of domestic violence victims in the United States (depending on your survey methodology). Somewhere around 50-60% for rape (if one uses a nonsexist definition of rape), and somewhere around 35-45% for sexual assault. They're also a majority of those suffering assault, aggravated assault, attempted murder, armed robberies, and many many other crimes.

So, with that in mind, and that i said "violence" not "DOMESTIC violence", is it ok to keep the original scenario, or is it sexist?

You know, Ifreann is right. My example wasn't good. Let me do a better one:

How about a business owner who asks every woman, and only women, to take a punch in the face by the person behind them, so women can understand the threat of violence that men live under, being disproportionately victimized by nearly all types of violent crime. No one is forced - purely voluntary.

Sexist or kosher?

Because I'd call it sexist.