Should white people pay more for lunch?

[Merle 458]

3 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

 i bring up donald because he's gone to court over this exact thing and you (and others) are asking questions like you have no idea its illegal to discriminate based race. pretty par for the course.  

https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/FHLaws

So this "experiment" was illegal then?

[smilesammich 10,727]

Just now, Merle said:

So this "experiment" was illegal then?

doesn't seem so. 

[Merle 458]

7 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

 i bring up donald because he's gone to court over this exact thing and you (and others) are asking questions like you have no idea its illegal to discriminate based race. pretty par for the course.  

https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/FHLaws

And this coming from a person who thinks it's fine to be racist against one group of people but not another. I'll admit I'm just as much of a racist as you I guess.

Edited March 19, 2018 by Merle

[smilesammich 10,727]

2 minutes ago, Merle said:

And this coming from a person who thinks it's fine to be racist against one group of people but not another. I'll admit I'm just as much of a racist as you I guess.

not sure i follow you, but i get that you're angry and offended and feel the need to lash out.

i would suggest breathing deep and taking a moment to center your focus not on the offense the op made you feel but on the reality that the op was a 'social experiment' and no people (zero white people and zero black people) were literally discriminated against. no one was forced to pay more money for their food - and certainly not for their housing. 

[TBoneTX 43,058]

1 hour ago, Boiler said:

additional rent would go to worthy causes.

  Reparations!  Long-overdue reparations!

[Boiler 43,433]

3 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

not sure i follow you, but i get that you're angry and offended and feel the need to lash out.

i would suggest breathing deep and taking a moment to center your focus not on the offense the op made you feel but on the reality that the op was a 'social experiment' and no people (zero white people and zero black people) were literally discriminated against. no one was forced to pay more money for their food - and certainly not for their housing. 

And a cup of tea and a nice sandwich.

[smilesammich 10,727]

Just now, Boiler said:

And a cup of tea and a nice sandwich.

feel better? tariff on the tea..

[Boiler 43,433]

5 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

feel better? tariff on the tea..

Never!

[bcking 3,157]

2 hours ago, Merle said:

But isn't t safe to assume a black person will commit crime just as it's safe to assume that a  white person makes/has more money then those of other skin colors?

Where is the chef assuming that the individual he is talking to is a wealthy white person?

 

He provided them the statistics (facts) and gives them the option. If they aren't a rich white person, their choice is likely obvious. He isn't saying every white person is wealthy.

 

The more interesting result is what the wealthy white people do. 

Edited March 19, 2018 by bcking

[Dashinka 23,243]

5 minutes ago, bcking said:

Where is the chef assuming that the individual he is talking to is a wealthy white person?

 

He provided them the statistics (facts) and gives them the option. If they aren't a rich white person, their choice is likely obvious. He isn't saying every white person is wealthy.

 

The more interesting result is what the wealthy white people do. 

I look at it the other way, what if you are a rich black person?  

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, Bill & Katya said:

I look at it the other way, what if you are a rich black person?  

That's why I said a similar experiment would be potentially more interesting where you separate people based on wealth disparity. 

 

The top 1% that hold 40% of the wealth being offered to pay more.

[Dashinka 23,243]

4 minutes ago, bcking said:

That's why I said a similar experiment would be potentially more interesting where you separate people based on wealth disparity. 

 

The top 1% that hold 40% of the wealth being offered to pay more.

The only problem, like the discussion on the traffic violations,is how do you identify the top 1%?  It looks like they simply tried to do it based on race in the OP study, but otherwise, it would be difficult.

[Boiler 43,433]

14 minutes ago, bcking said:

Where is the chef assuming that the individual he is talking to is a wealthy white person?

 

He provided them the statistics (facts) and gives them the option. If they aren't a rich white person, their choice is likely obvious. He isn't saying every white person is wealthy.

 

The more interesting result is what the wealthy white people do. 

The chef is discriminating on race not wealth.

[bcking 3,157]

2 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

The only problem, like the discussion on the traffic violations,is how do you identify the top 1%?  It looks like they simply tried to do it based on race in the OP study, but otherwise, it would be difficult.

Ya talking about the statistics based on race is easier since you can generally categorize people by sight. I think ultimately though it would be more interesting to focus on overall wealth disparity, but as you said it would be much harder.

 

2 hours ago, Boiler said:

The chef is discriminating on race not wealth.

As has been pointed out he isn't forcing "preferential treatment". He does speak to each group differently, since for one he offers two prices and presumably for the other he doesn't. But they are all just choices, nothing is forced. 

 

He is using a simple thing like a food order to illustrate the wealth disparity between the two races. It takes a harder to understand concept and turns it into a much easier to understand concept. Everyone can all pay the standard rate, but maybe they'll still learn something.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

11 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

I look at it the other way, what if you are a rich black person?  

 

  Did you read the article? It's says some black people asked if they could also pay $30. We might speculate that was because they could afford it.