White? Why not pay more?

[Kavagrad]

Isn't this just your typical free-market price discrimination?

That being said, inb4 white ancaps and neoliberals flood this thread to oppose this, I guess.

Because black ancaps would wholeheartedly support this?

As I say, it's the use of a free market mechanism, so logically ancaps in general should support it, regardless of race, but I find it likely that somewhites will be choose to oppose this as it threatens their privilege.

And frankly, putting "racist white ancaps" would have only lead to a serious threadjack.

[The South Falls]

Okay, let’s do this: Sure let’s have some people pay a little extra based off of their wealth, thats good, give not just to blacks, but to any underpaid or unemployed individual.

They can then use this charity money to, through the assistance of some sort of affiliated employment agency, get employed, perfect their labor skills, and use the money they have left over and from their salaries to get better and more profitable jobs.

Eventually they can move up from weak lower class people to more properly funded middle class workers. That’s what America runs off of. Raising yourself up class-wise, capitalism, becoming greater, doing something with yourself, etc. **cough cough** American dream **cough cough**.

It sounds good, but if we gave people to option to pay, not just based on wealth, then that proposal would make more sense.

[Kasynatia]

America was a white country until the 60's, and now everyone is trying to demonize more than half of the population and wanting them to pay up for things they have/had no part in. It's not our fault... none of this is.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

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.

[Old Tyrannia]

In principle it seems like a fair idea, so long as it is entirely voluntary; if people want to pay more out of solidarity with a marginalised group, then that's great and all power to them. In practice, however, I'm concerned that white patrons, regardless of their actual income bracket, might find themselves feeling pressured to pay the higher amount or else face social embarrassment and judgement from others. That's not really fair to lower-income white people. I personally would probably feel obliged in such a situation to pay the higher price, even though I'm not particularly well-off myself. I'm sure that's true for many people, including many who are in more dire straits than me. I wonder if the higher number of women agreeing to pay the higher price is maybe a consequence of women feeling more vulnerable than men, and thus less able to say no. By the same token, whilst I do applaud the non-white customers who turned down the excess money and offered to pay the same price as whites, I wonder if they did so on principle or because they wanted to avoid the social stigma attached to receiving hand-outs or being perceived as "poor."

All in all, it's a nice idea in theory, but when you dive into it there are a lot of issues with the approach taken here.

[The Alma Mater]

If based on skincolour - no. Piss off.
If based on income (which may or may not correlate to skincolour in that area) - certainly. I like the pay it forward restaurants.

[Liriena]

It's a neat little "social experiment" that shines a light on a real socioeconomic problem. Which is good.

As an actual policy it would be at least weird, though.

[Kubumba Tribe]

It's a neat little "social experiment" that shines a light on a real socioeconomic problem. Which is good.

As an actual policy it would be at least weird, though.

social experiment

Thank you! Someone understands.

[Western-Ukraine]

Disturbing concept that ought to be stopped. The colour of one's skin should not to be allowed to be used to discriminate against like this. Authorities have to step in to protect the common people from this catastrophe before more minds are corrupted.

[Segral]

I wouldn't call it discrimination, and I understand the motive and message it's trying to get across, but...there's better ways to do this. There's a better way to fix racial disparities than introducing a racial disparity.

[Liriena]

Disturbing concept that ought to be stopped. The colour of one's skin should not to be allowed to be used to discriminate against like this. Authorities have to step in to protect the common people from this catastrophe before more minds are corrupted.

Calm down.

[Aclion]

“But I offer you an easy out. You can pay $12 or you can pay $30. What are you going to do?”

File a civil right lawsuit?

[Liriena]

“But I offer you an easy out. You can pay $12 or you can pay $30. What are you going to do?”

File a civil right lawsuit?

Imagine setting that precedent on "social experiments". What would you do? would get banned.

[Grinning Dragon]

“But I offer you an easy out. You can pay $12 or you can pay $30. What are you going to do?”

File a civil right lawsuit?

It was completely voluntary, with the side goal of wealth redistribution.
Roux Carre's food is meh anyways, and IMO isn't even worth being charged $12 let alone asking $30, the food is more inline with being an $6 or $8 meal.
Was first reported back in Feb 28th

[Sovaal]

Cringe at the cringiness, and walk out. Just like outta this cringe worthy thread.

[Imarssia]

People need to call it what it is: racism. If it involved asking someone to pay more "because they're black" [or asian, arab, hispanic, etc] then there would a massive outcry about this, as there should be no matter the race targeted, but when this happens to whites the issue seems to get swept under the rug. Then you see those who attempt to justify it by saying "well whites did bad stuff in the past" as if it's somehow every white persons fault for what others did.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Clearly racist, any action or rule or law based on just race is dumb and stupid.

If it's 12$ for the guy in front of you , I don't care if he/she is black, white, or pink with purple polka dots, it should be 12$ for everyone.

The end.

[Liriena]

People need to call it what it is: racism. If it involved asking someone to pay more "because they're black" [or asian, arab, hispanic, etc] then there would a massive outcry about this, as there should be no matter the race targeted, but when this happens to whites the issue seems to get swept under the rug. Then you see those who attempt to justify it by saying "well whites did bad stuff in the past" as if it's somehow every white persons fault for what others did.

It's a minor, voluntary experiment aimed at highlighting something that is happening in that specific area right now.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

People need to call it what it is: racism. If it involved asking someone to pay more "because they're black" [or asian, arab, hispanic, etc] then there would a massive outcry about this, as there should be no matter the race targeted, but when this happens to whites the issue seems to get swept under the rug. Then you see those who attempt to justify it by saying "well whites did bad stuff in the past" as if it's somehow every white persons fault for what others did.

It's a minor, voluntary experiment aimed at highlighting something that is happening in that specific area right now.

Still a racist test.

[Liriena]

Clearly racist, any action or rule or law based on just race is dumb and stupid.

If it's 12$ for the guy in front of you , I don't care if he/she is black, white, or pink with purple polka dots, it should be 12$ for everyone.

The end.

It's voluntary, and not particularly "racist" insofar as its sole purpose is highlighting a specific, observable socioeconomic problem in that area.

[Western-Ukraine]

Clearly racist, any action or rule or law based on just race is dumb and stupid.

If it's 12$ for the guy in front of you , I don't care if he/she is black, white, or pink with purple polka dots, it should be 12$ for everyone.

The end.

It's voluntary, and not particularly "racist" insofar as its sole purpose is highlighting a specific, observable socioeconomic problem in that area.

A noble goal doesn't change the fact that the so-called experiment is discriminating by ethnicity.

[Liriena]

It's a minor, voluntary experiment aimed at highlighting something that is happening in that specific area right now.

Still a racist test.

Not really. "White people in this area, on average, make far more than black people in this area" is not racist. It's an observable fact. Symbolically asking white customers to pay more (and giving them the option to refuse and pay the regular price instead) isn't really racist in such a context.

[Liriena]

It's voluntary, and not particularly "racist" insofar as its sole purpose is highlighting a specific, observable socioeconomic problem in that area.

A noble goal doesn't change the fact that the so-called experiment is discriminating by ethnicity.

Discriminating by offering white customers the opportunity, which they can refuse, to participate in a symbolic gesture.

tfw white people even get the nicest form of racial discrimination

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Clearly racist, any action or rule or law based on just race is dumb and stupid.

If it's 12$ for the guy in front of you , I don't care if he/she is black, white, or pink with purple polka dots, it should be 12$ for everyone.

The end.

It's voluntary, and not particularly "racist" insofar as its sole purpose is highlighting a specific, observable socioeconomic problem in that area.

You still end up paying more for the same product then someone else or at the very least being offered.

I'm not disputing the facts, i'm saying that the end goal and idea is racist. Paying more based on skin color or paying less on skin color is stupid and should have no factor on a price.

[Liriena]

A noble goal doesn't change the fact that the so-called experiment is discriminating by ethnicity.

Discriminating by offering white customers the opportunity, which they can refuse, to participate in a symbolic gesture.

tfw white people even get the nicest form of racial discrimination

I mean, good grief, the OP explicitly shows a very serious economic disparity between black and white people in that area... but your outrage is directed at the voluntary "social experiment" aimed at highlighting it. You're apocalyptically angry at the finger for pointing a bit rudely at a real problem.