*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Friday, April 23rd, 2010 12:39pm PDT - promote requested by burdturgler.

I would say, "Hey fuck bag. Her money is just as good as everyone else. I hope you die in a car fire you miserable excuse for a human."

What can I say i really hate that bullshit.

She was just searched? Fuck that, cops would have been called. I would have caused a fuck ass load of trouble for them.

If I had a camera or a phone with a camera on me, I would have begun taping. The first words out of my mouth would have been "You can expect to be slapped with a lawsuit." Then "Oh, and I'm sending this footage to CNN and MSNBC."

Variations on the "bystander effect".

>> ^Jaace:

Variations on the "bystander effect".


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

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.

>> ^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.

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.

>> ^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.

This is a horribly irresponsible report. The conclusions drawn about racism really just come from a study about conformity and the percentage of people that will step out of the box.

Seriously? A report exposing passive shoppers? Wow. What a sensation. I'm boycotting shoppers from now on.

Would it be seen as bad if some overweight lady came in, dressed nicely or not and they said "There's nothing for you here, please leave." Maybe she came in to check for stuff for herself, and then again...maybe not. Maybe she's shopping for her daughter, a friend, daughter-in-law....whatever.

Would shoppers stand up for this big lady? Nope, they would assume the store has either had in there before and she's caused problems...maybe trying to fit into things she can't...complaining about lack of bigger sizes......or whatever the problem may have been.

And while I can't prove it, I would say that a store rejecting big sized girls would just improve their numbers with the clientele they carry clothes for. IE, if you are buying clothes at XYZ store, you're thin...female and...trendy/rich/snooty/whatever.

So.....if a store rejects ...black people? ... non-english speakers? ... hispanics? ... handicapped? ... elderly?

You can draw conclusions from the people you see shopping there, and the people you see them chasing off. And the excuse you'll give yourself is that the store has had problems with that person before, and they know what's what....and in the meantime you can be glad you don't share any traits with the person being removed.

I think most stores already cut down their customers by offering specific services or items...and they can carry what brings in the people they seek out.

Hang on. The store clerk and the 'black shopper' are both actors. this didn't really happen. They can all fuck right off. These people are basically trolling.

The only thing worse than racism is deliberately setting it up. imo...
This is not a social experiment, it's a pathetic attempt to CAUSE controversy. Why don't they do some REAL undercover journmalism, set these people that it actually happens to up with hidden cameras, catch a few of the real racist on camera instead of just filming actors... is REAL racism too much for them?

It's fake??? Well, that sucks!

I can honestly say that yes i would help out if i was SURE that it was racism (or anything-ism), because i have actually stood up for people in this manner in the past. If i wasn't sure, i would (and have in the past) hung around a little to check first.

Cos i couldn't live with my conscience if i didn't.

Commenter complaining because this isn't "real" = missing the point entirely.

FTL

Something really bothers me about these "let's screw with the public and see how they react" stories. Partly because it stinks of manufacturing the news. Partly because it takes truly important issues and twists them into the most sensational and least informative story possible.

Besides the narration, notice about 80% of what's shown was their own actors going through the script. And that's really what the segment is about, enraging the viewer with carefully scripted and emotionally charged dialogue the "news producers" have come up with. At least the old rage news stories about how every repairman and autoshop is trying to screw you seemed more honest. They really are trying to screw you. Stepping in on racist performance art is, at least for now, less of a problem.

i'll chime in for the lunatic fringe here. The racism was bad, but they are all consumerist whores paying for a bunch of crap they don't need and, statistically speaking, probably can't afford. of course most of them are going to to turn a blind eye to something bad that ruins their glutinous spending orgy. the whole thing is crap. crap i tells ya.

>> ^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.

I, personally, would like to see this test done with other types of people, race and apparent wealth so we could see a bigger picture. Understanding that the experiment was meant to test reactions, I would like to see see how people would react in all instances. I found the examples to be a bit inconclusive and cherry picked just to prove something we already knew - some people react, some people don't, some people would like to but are afraid. Personality type plays a huge role here as well as race and I don't feel any sort of conclusion was made here.

Great for a TV segment, which it was, but bad science.

Commenter complaining I "missed the point entirely" should realize not everybody sees things the same, some people can look past the bullshit and see that the media has become so bored with humanity that it has to incite racism to make a story. Which is pathetic.

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.

Meh. Most major cities (like the one in this video) are gentrifying their black populations out of existence anyway. Affordable housing is an oxymoron in big cities like San Francisco, for example.

http://articles.sfgate.com/2008-08-10/bay-area/17121007_1_african-americans-black-families-public-housing
http://articles.sfgate.com/2007-10-17/news/17267250_1_minimum-wage-california-budget-project-census-bureau

So the whole city of SF is like a store that says "You can't afford to buy that! GET OUT!"

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.

Maybe the customers weren't really listening or paying attention. Maybe they don't react to (any) injustice by walking up in the offending party's face and start screaming bloody murder, or they just don't want to get involved in an ongoing argument, regardless of what it's about. Maybe they went and called the store owners after they left, and/or vowed never to shop there again.

The actors preformed a script about racism, but that doesn't by any means automatically lead to the conclusion that the customers were harboring racist views when passing by without standing up for the lady, or abstained from interfering specifically because it was a racist situation. It might show complacency towards strangers or blind trust in the authority of the security guards, but that's not synonymous with racism. The conclusion was something the ABC crew decided on all by themselves.

>> ^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.

Is my monitor color off or am I the only one it took several minutes in before I could even tell whether the shopping actor was black or just tanned?

I agree with the other posters who asked what the test would look like if the actor being harassed was a young white male. I give 10-1 odds even less people stand up for the punk kid getting harassed by store management. Maybe I'm lucky or naive, but when I see staff asking someone to leave my first instinct is to wonder what the person did to be asked to leave. I need something more than ambiguous references before jumping to racism. Some of the skits there was enough to get me to ask what was going on, but some it was ambiguous enough it sounded like the store had previous trouble with that particular person. All in all, I say very poor test of responses to racism. Yes racism can be subtle, but when people don't jump to racism whenever a minority is confronted it may just mean the expect better of both parties unless given reason to believe otherwise.

>> ^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?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ru1F29vuVKI&feature=related
Here's a "What would you do? Latino hate crime" one too.

The comments are interesting if nothing else.

And here's one dealing with Spanish-only speakers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCmLRA50iU4&feature=related
This one appears to be full of tough New Jersey types who come to the defense of the people.

What kind of crap is this? It's like candid-camera racist edition. Talk about entrapment, so if you stage a murder or rape and then ask why people didn't intervene or praise them for jumping in is that ok? I don't think so. Go find stores where this is happening, tape them, expose them and demand justice!! Don't create some made of situation and get people worked up over your "experiment". Life is too short. What a pile of absolute contrived crap.....

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?