3 ms·

> So everyone can act in an honest, forthright, and rational manner... and the results can still seem pretty ugly Sorry, what? "Everyone can act in an honest,

by lambda 13y ago

> So everyone can act in an honest, forthright, and rational manner... and the results can still seem pretty ugly Sorry, what? "Everyone can act in an honest, forthright, and rational way"? The people adding "added ingredients" to their meals are acting in an honest, forthright, and rational way? This isn't "rationality", it's acting like a racist asshole. Now, it's not surprising if black people avoid places that have a bunch of racist assholes. But that doesn't mean that what's going on is self-segregation; that's overt, racist segregation on the part of the knuckleheads who are spitting in their food. I'm really having a hard time following what you're trying to say, because it feels like you're trying to say "well, that's what happens when everyone acts rationally", and I'm not really seeing that, I'm seeing a lot of people acting in a racist manner.

Retric 13y ago
I think the point is even if 9/10 places to eat where safe people would still avoid them simply because of 3rd party's that are not working at those safe places. Aka the risk is somewhat independent of the restaurants actions.
- lambda 13y ago
  From the above post: > Are the restaurants racist? Not really. They just happened to hire a nugget head. Probably, quite unknowingly. He seems to be implying that "restaurants" (I guess he means the cooks, and owners who don't stop the cooks) who spit in black people's burgers aren't racist. Even if, as you say in trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, he's talking about third parties who aren't working there, the restaurant has a responsibility to not allow patrons to disrupt other patron's meal. If someone were to spit in my food, and the restaurant didn't kick them out, I'd sure as hell be pissed off at that restaurant. Racism (and other forms of discrimination based on who you are rather than what you do) is insidious and evil, and needs to be stood up against, not just passively saying "well, that's what they do, what are you going to do." It is fundamentally wrong to treat a person as a category, rather than an individual.
  - bilbo0s 13y ago
    Guy... look... the owner may not even be around when a cook or waiter compromises someone's food. How can you say that the owner is a bigot simply because he or she has bigots working for him or her. I've run into MANY bigots in San Francisco for instance. Many work at Apple, Facebook, Google and Yahoo. Does that, then, imply that the senior executives at these firms are bigots? At some point, you need to trust your employees. You only know what you see, and you can't see everything. This does not make you a racist... it makes you a human.
- bilbo0s 13y ago
  That's right. The presence of what may be single knucklehead, in Houston, drives blacks to patronize their own restaurants to the exclusion of others. (I do realize that the practice of compromising the integrity of the food of black restaurant goers is probably a pretty widespread practice, and not the work of a "single knucklehead".) My only point is... I doubt, in a lot of these cases, that the restaurant owner him or herself is racist.

by lambda 13y ago

Retric 13y ago

I think the point is even if 9/10 places to eat where safe people would still avoid them simply because of 3rd party's that are not working at those safe places. Aka the risk is somewhat independent of the restaurants actions.

lambda 13y ago
From the above post: > Are the restaurants racist? Not really. They just happened to hire a nugget head. Probably, quite unknowingly. He seems to be implying that "restaurants" (I guess he means the cooks, and owners who don't stop the cooks) who spit in black people's burgers aren't racist. Even if, as you say in trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, he's talking about third parties who aren't working there, the restaurant has a responsibility to not allow patrons to disrupt other patron's meal. If someone were to spit in my food, and the restaurant didn't kick them out, I'd sure as hell be pissed off at that restaurant. Racism (and other forms of discrimination based on who you are rather than what you do) is insidious and evil, and needs to be stood up against, not just passively saying "well, that's what they do, what are you going to do." It is fundamentally wrong to treat a person as a category, rather than an individual.
- bilbo0s 13y ago
  Guy... look... the owner may not even be around when a cook or waiter compromises someone's food. How can you say that the owner is a bigot simply because he or she has bigots working for him or her. I've run into MANY bigots in San Francisco for instance. Many work at Apple, Facebook, Google and Yahoo. Does that, then, imply that the senior executives at these firms are bigots? At some point, you need to trust your employees. You only know what you see, and you can't see everything. This does not make you a racist... it makes you a human.
bilbo0s 13y ago
That's right. The presence of what may be single knucklehead, in Houston, drives blacks to patronize their own restaurants to the exclusion of others. (I do realize that the practice of compromising the integrity of the food of black restaurant goers is probably a pretty widespread practice, and not the work of a "single knucklehead".) My only point is... I doubt, in a lot of these cases, that the restaurant owner him or herself is racist.