Well never had any lawsuits, but of course people understand that loss prevention will follow you around an upscale store. Did it in Macy's in New York for 10 years. People whined and were asked to leave if they didn't like the policy. And if people came in with baggy clothes or pants sagging, they were also asked to leave the store. Macy's wasn't a public park to goof off in. And on the door they reserve the right to refuse service to any one on any reason.

but that's upscale "Snooty" stores for ya, but hey, it paid damn well.

and I wore a suit, but we did have plain clothes that did work in same department, but the suit was to put public pressure as everyone knew what I was up to when I followed a customer. And if someone refused to empty a pocket, a cop was available to check them and if they were clear they were free to go.

IT was a bit gestapo I admit, but that's how it works in large cities, and there has been no lawsuits and won't be, cause the company has the right to run their business any way they wish. If customers quit buying the stuff in mass then of course they'd change or whatnot, but customers won't, plus Macy's and many upscale stores in New York pride them self on being assholes so they can sell to a specific demographic, rich/celebs/etc. that demographic won't be caught dead in a crappy store like Walmart for most part.

The answer to both your questions is no and both those answers are present in my posts, specifically you could even answer them 'no' with the very segment you've quoted.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^yellowc:
My chief complaint is the money they used to make this contrived piece of shit, could of been used more effectively on a real piece of investigative journalism, though it likely would of had to run for an hour or more, with a very small rating projection and would of had a very gray result because racism is a very complex issue. So they wouldn't of been able to tag it with "RACISM IS RAGING! SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!"
My chief complaint is that yes, the whole subject SHOULD very much be dismissed if it's going to be "reported" on in this manner.

Umm, so everyone should STFU about racism because some people practice shoddy journalism on the topic?
Do you believe that this sort of thing never happens in the real world, and the only reason we believe it does is due to a conspiracy on the part of a biased liberal media?

>> ^yellowc:

My chief complaint is the money they used to make this contrived piece of shit, could of been used more effectively on a real piece of investigative journalism, though it likely would of had to run for an hour or more, with a very small rating projection and would of had a very gray result because racism is a very complex issue. So they wouldn't of been able to tag it with "RACISM IS RAGING! SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!"
My chief complaint is that yes, the whole subject SHOULD very much be dismissed if it's going to be "reported" on in this manner.


Umm, so everyone should STFU about racism because some people practice shoddy journalism on the topic?

Do you believe that this sort of thing never happens in the real world, and the only reason we believe it does is due to a conspiracy on the part of a biased liberal media?

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
For me, I was rather moved by the one lady whom was moved to tears. It wasn't constructive, it didn't help anyone, in a way it was almost childish. But, the depth of her sensitivity to the well treatment of others being violated, to me, was truly beautiful.


To be honest, seeing that woman cry is a little scary. I don't think that she was moved to tears because she felt sympathy towards the victim, more that she was so sensitive about the topic of <whispers>racism</whispers> O_O that she couldn't handle the thought of it. Let alone to confront and speak about this topic openly. I really wonder what caused her to react like that and if she reacts to other confrontational or sensitive topics in the same way. People shouldn't feel frightened to tears to talk about this stuff...

The way I'd like to have seen them do this is take footage from several angles including birds view to see how real shop staff follow and keep an eye on discriminated shoppers then see if they are mostly black or poorly dressed.

Another problem with this experiment is that the situations staged were not equal. There is a difference between a black lady who is able to fight back against what is happening to her and one who breaks down crying. I can imagine that a lot more people would step in if they saw that she was defenceless.

Yes it should because that's what it is. You essentially defined sensationalist media for me, contrived manufactured bullshit from nefarious TV producers. Thanks.

This is going to sound "crazy" but you can't even be sure how many of those "real people" were actually real people and not actors. My chief complaint is that the entire thing is bullshit with no credibility and again, does more harm than good.

My chief complaint is the money they used to make this contrived piece of shit, could of been used more effectively on a real piece of investigative journalism, though it likely would of had to run for an hour or more, with a very small rating projection and would of had a very gray result because racism is a very complex issue. So they wouldn't of been able to tag it with "RACISM IS RAGING! SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!"

My chief complaint is that yes, the whole subject SHOULD very much be dismissed if it's going to be "reported" on in this manner.
>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^yellowc:
Meh. Typical sensationalist piece, does more harm than good. It's assumed that no one is helping because the victim is black, where it's likely that they wouldn't of helped regardless of whom the victim was. Is the victim unable to stand up for herself? Or should we assume that all black people need assistance in every confrontation they face? You could make a fuss about that being racist if you wanted.
Yes, it's sensationalist. Yes, it's edited to produce a particular effect. However, your chief complaint seems to be that the ultimate upshot is that you should feel bad if you don't speak up when you see people being treated unfairly.
Lots of people don't think about this stuff, and this kind of sensationalist angle is intended to get people to think a bit about it (and get good ratings too).
It's not journalism, nor a real scientific study, but it doesn't mean the whole subject should be dismissed as being some evil contrivance manufactured by nefarious TV producers.

The point here is that because it is staged ABC is just setting up a peice to pull on the heart strings of the public. There is no constructive goal in mind here just a ratings grab because they can toss on a tagline "What would you do if confronted by racism" or "Americans ignore reacism in upscale shop." Even if people are offended the line is too narrow to draw here, racism is bad, turning a blind eye to it can be just as bad but in the context of the store is that what is going on? The only negative things going down are the illusion of prejudice and the reactions of patrons. Who are they to tell the people running the store what they should think, no matter if they disagree with it or not. The point here is that its a private store, to quote Voltaire "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." If you walk into a store and they tell you that you cannot shop there do you expect other patrons to come to your defense? Not everyone is Jonny on-the-spot.

I feel that the situation they set up is one that proves nothing and is simply praying on emotions for ratings. In that way the entire set up is manipulative where by the means are the ends and the discussion about how racism is alive or allowed to continue is simply fabricated from a very biased test.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

You first point misses the point entirely. There was nothing about lawful conduct as the subject of this test. In a certain since, it wasn't even about racism. Racism was just the unpleasant vehicle in which to carry out the real test, what would you DO in this situation.
As to your second point, it is hard to guess the long term effects of exposures such as this. Once again, though, this isn't what this show is about. It isn't about the long term cost analysis of being a racist, it is about the actions we take as people when confronted with things we all take as an evil. Do we take an active role in helping what we all see as a victim, or do we let them suffer their fate? Do we help a stranger that is getting screwed over, or do we ignore the moral conviction?
Personally, I find experiments on the nature of human morality fascinating. So any experiment, no matter how crude, is very intriguing to me. We, of course, have to realize that it is tv, so they choice the best "ratings" shots to air. What I would like to see is all the people that did exactly nothing. I would like to see their faces. I would like to see the struggle. I would like to see the moment when they decide their course. I would love to know all of this, but I can't. So I resolve myself to be mildly amused by it as purely anecdotal. But those reactions we did see, are still very interesting.
For me, I was rather moved by the one lady whom was moved to tears. It wasn't constructive, it didn't help anyone, in a way it was almost childish. But, the depth of her sensitivity to the well treatment of others being violated, to me, was truly beautiful.

>> ^yellowc:

Meh. Typical sensationalist piece, does more harm than good. It's assumed that no one is helping because the victim is black, where it's likely that they wouldn't of helped regardless of whom the victim was. Is the victim unable to stand up for herself? Or should we assume that all black people need assistance in every confrontation they face? You could make a fuss about that being racist if you wanted.

Yes, it's sensationalist. Yes, it's edited to produce a particular effect. However, your chief complaint seems to be that the ultimate upshot is that you should feel bad if you don't speak up when you see people being treated unfairly.

Lots of people don't think about this stuff, and this kind of sensationalist angle is intended to get people to think a bit about it (and get good ratings too).

It's not journalism, nor a real scientific study, but it doesn't mean the whole subject should be dismissed as being some evil contrivance manufactured by nefarious TV producers.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Your video, What Would You Do? Racism In An Upscale Store, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^Mi1ler:

1. These tests are pure bullshit
-you are allowed to be racist as long as you dont cross a few lines, thats freedom of speech and the freedom of owning the store you have the privalige of choosing who to serve. You may not agree with it, it may disgust you but these tests are pure bullshit just done to grab attention and ratings.
2. Though the customers may not do anything in the situation they will probably avoid the store in the future and the negative stuff that was demonstrated will kill the business of the store so it will work out.
3. ABC are jackasses.


You first point misses the point entirely. There was nothing about lawful conduct as the subject of this test. In a certain since, it wasn't even about racism. Racism was just the unpleasant vehicle in which to carry out the real test, what would you DO in this situation.

As to your second point, it is hard to guess the long term effects of exposures such as this. Once again, though, this isn't what this show is about. It isn't about the long term cost analysis of being a racist, it is about the actions we take as people when confronted with things we all take as an evil. Do we take an active role in helping what we all see as a victim, or do we let them suffer their fate? Do we help a stranger that is getting screwed over, or do we ignore the moral conviction?

Personally, I find experiments on the nature of human morality fascinating. So any experiment, no matter how crude, is very intriguing to me. We, of course, have to realize that it is tv, so they choice the best "ratings" shots to air. What I would like to see is all the people that did exactly nothing. I would like to see their faces. I would like to see the struggle. I would like to see the moment when they decide their course. I would love to know all of this, but I can't. So I resolve myself to be mildly amused by it as purely anecdotal. But those reactions we did see, are still very interesting.

For me, I was rather moved by the one lady whom was moved to tears. It wasn't constructive, it didn't help anyone, in a way it was almost childish. But, the depth of her sensitivity to the well treatment of others being violated, to me, was truly beautiful.

>> ^yellowc:

Meh. Typical sensationalist piece, does more harm than good. It's assumed that no one is helping because the victim is black, where it's likely that they wouldn't of helped regardless of whom the victim was. Is the victim unable to stand up for herself? Or should we assume that all black people need assistance in every confrontation they face? You could make a fuss about that being racist if you wanted.
It's also not a coincidence they picked the most hostile environment for rejection on customer appearance. I couldn't give you a count of how many times I've been followed or made feel uncomfortable for walking in to a store dressed less than they desire.
Also keep in mind all the footage they're NOT showing you. This piece is edited to force a specific reaction.

The whole point is how people react to that worst, dehumanizing situation. All the "coincidence" are, point in fact, the entire purpose of this experiment. Similar to the people of Germany living next to a death camp, and smelling the smells of human flesh and doing nothing. This test is to see how far humans can shift blame and forfeit responsibility. I think if you see it in that light the experiment becomes less trivial.

>> ^Jaace:

Variations on the "bystander effect".


Variations on the reminder to WAKE THE **** UP!