[Lorric]

Forget the racism/not racism debate. The real disgusting thing here is that there are people - any people - willing to pay $38,000 for a handbag. A few pieces of cloth and leather sewn together. A device solely designed to hold things - i.e. a task that can be performed by a paper or plastic shopping bag costing less than a cent.

I could see people justifying $500 for a bag. Maybe $1000. Hell, go crazy, spend a couple of thousand, you can afford it. But $38000? Even if she could afford it, the shop assistant should have said "You don't want that one, it's ****ing ridiculous."

I had thoughts that if I was racist, I'd want her to waste her money on the bag...

Yeah, I'm with you on this. It could be 100% fireproof, impervious to damage, exquisitely beautiful, and like the TARDIS on the inside, and I still wouldn't think it worth that money.

[Dragon]

Well, we're dealing with either racism or classism here. Neither is good. A lot has been said and done about racism, but I feel that classism isn't going anywhere. It's a reasonable assumption that a plainly dressed black woman isn't going to be upper-class, because there really is such a disparity, most of American upper class was white, last time I checked. Also, she could've lacked other "clues" to being upper-class. So, I'm going to go with classism on that one. Also, this was a rather incompetent clerk. If a customer shows up and wants something, the clerk's job is not making stupid comments, but provide the customer with that item, no unnecessary questions asked.

Forget the racism/not racism debate. The real disgusting thing here is that there are people - any people - willing to pay $38,000 for a handbag. A few pieces of cloth and leather sewn together. A device solely designed to hold things - i.e. a task that can be performed by a paper or plastic shopping bag costing less than a cent.

I could see people justifying $500 for a bag. Maybe $1000. Hell, go crazy, spend a couple of thousand, you can afford it. But $38000? Even if she could afford it, the shop assistant should have said "You don't want that one, it's ****ing ridiculous."

That's noveau riche for you. One can look classy with much cheaper products and spend the money on thing that matter instead. But some people suddenly get rich, don't know what to do with all that money and proceed to blow it all on overpriced handbags, ridiculous cars and such. If I ever become rich, I'll probably still be driving some old jalopy (possibly my father's '95 Windstar, I love that car, despite it's flaws ). There's much more to a car than it's price. Same with clothing, I've seen clothes from the greatest designers that are just plain ugly.

[Androgeos Exeunt]

I could see people justifying $500 for a bag. Maybe $1000. Hell, go crazy, spend a couple of thousand, you can afford it. But $38000? Even if she could afford it, the shop assistant should have said "You don't want that one, it's ****ing ridiculous."

I agree. Either that or a simple "The price is quite ridiculous." would have fitted nicely.

[Hobbie]

They don't pay $38,000 for the handbag, they pay that much for the receipt!

[Lorric]

http://notalwaysworking.com/category/bigotry

Read them all.

While not all the people are bad, most of them are. How on Earth do these people beat all the other people in the interview process to get the jobs in the first place?

[Dragon]

Statistics. A lot of decent people get the jobs, too. They don't get posted about on noalwaysworking.com, though. Such media are, in general, are prone to giving misleading impressions, probably because those jobs are very boring to report on (and indeed, to do) when nothing is wrong.

[Lorric]

Statistics. A lot of decent people get the jobs, too. They don't get posted about on noalwaysworking.com, though. Such media are, in general, are prone to giving misleading impressions, probably because those jobs are very boring to report on (and indeed, to do) when nothing is wrong.

Well yes, I've never seen anything like any of those IRL. I'm just puzzled about how any of them can beat out however many people applied for the same job at all, you're going up against dozens of people in a job interview.

[TwentyPercentCooler]

EDIT:  Bloodeagle ninja'd me.  What follows was a response to 20%

Actually, while the intentional act of discriminating requires some level of intent, discrimination does not.  You also appear to be in need of some self-education on implicit, casual, or systemic discrimination (all three terms cover essentially the same thing).  For example, casual racism or casual misogyny do not require intent - my last post elaborates more on that subject.

Yours is the common argument of dilution - that racism can't be that bad if classism isn't that bad (because its common), which in turn isn't that bad if discrimination on another category which is not politically charged is even more common..  It's not applicable.  (Also, your use of the term nationalism in the context you've stated is denotatively incorrect and adds no weight to your argument.)  As I've said in past threads on this subject, humans cognitively function by creating in-groups and out-groups.  The creation of those groups heuristically in cognitive process is not harmful; action or perpetuation of [ungrounded] negative stereotypes based on them is.

Furthermore, your use of phrases like "sandy vagina" and "delicate, flowery sensibilities" shows you have a poor grasp or irony, historical use of language, lack of self-awareness in how you write, or a combination of all three.

It's not about offending people.  It's about some self-awareness of how social boundaries are created and enforced through the use of everyday language and the emphasis of negative stereotypes.  Was the clerk intentionally racist?  Unlikely, but there's a stack of evidence for implicit racism at work, just like I have no doubt that you did not intend for your earlier comment to be misogynistic, even though it absolutely was.

I won't apologize for not feeling the need to completely over-analyze every word that comes out of my mouth and every social interaction on the face of the planet. The absolutely insane emphasis on everything being as politically correct as possible is one of the factors unraveling modern society. I never said classism wasn't bad. I never said xenophobia springing from nationalism (which, by the way, absolutely applies - identifying with one's country, or an idealized view of it, strongly enough to want to "protect" it from foreign invaders is what I was talking about) wasn't bad. "Is that bad" was rhetorical. Obviously, everyone is going to have different opinions. You choosing to be offended at every single one of them is a valid opinion. Me choosing to mock you for being offended at every one of them is also valid. "Waaah, mommy, bad things are happening in the world, make them stop!"

[castor]

Ms Winfrey entered a shop, and checked out a bag. The clerk there told her that it would be "too expensive for her". Given that the clerk didn't recognize her..

Well, for a huge majority of random people walking into that shop any given day, that's exactly what it would be (too expensive). I'd still see it possible the clerk was damn lazy + not very good at performing his profession. Who here didn't get ****ty service sometime?

[MP-Ryan]

I won't apologize for not feeling the need to completely over-analyze every word that comes out of my mouth and every social interaction on the face of the planet. The absolutely insane emphasis on everything being as politically correct as possible is one of the factors unraveling modern society.

How precisely is modern society unraveling?  If anything, the increasing awareness of negative discrimination has led to significantly better social standards and standards of living across the board.  60 years ago African Americans couldn't sit in the same areas of the bus as Caucasians in certain American states.  50 years ago women were expected to be homemakers with no opinions on anything else.  20 years ago, large majorities did not favour extending anti-discrimination provisions to non-heterosexuals.  10 years ago, less than half of people in most advanced democracies supported equal treatment of homosexual couples.  The "unraveling modern society" narrative is a popular one in certain circles, but it has no more validity today than in did when it was used nearly 4000 years ago (yes, even the ancient Greeks had the "kids these days!" phenomenon).

I never said classism wasn't bad. I never said xenophobia springing from nationalism (which, by the way, absolutely applies - identifying with one's country, or an idealized view of it, strongly enough to want to "protect" it from foreign invaders is what I was talking about) wasn't bad. "Is that bad" was rhetorical. Obviously, everyone is going to have different opinions.

You used nationalism as if the term shares the same terminator as words like racism and misogynism.  It does not.  Nationalism is [irrational] pride and identification with one's countrynation [thanks Dragon] of origin or residence, a similar in-group vs out-group heuristic, but does not share the same negative defining factors as racism and misogynism.  Racism and misogyny define based on negative attributes of the outgroup; nationalism typically invokes positive attributes of the in-group.

You choosing to be offended at every single one of them is a valid opinion. Me choosing to mock you for being offended at every one of them is also valid. "Waaah, mommy, bad things are happening in the world, make them stop!"

Oh wow.  Actually, I don't so much find your attitude offensive as ignorant and sad.  To be offended I'd have to be convinced your opinion is both substantiated and valid, when it is neither.

[Dragon]

You used nationalism as if the term shares the same terminator as words like racism and misogynism.  It does not.  Nationalism is [irrational] pride and identification with one's country of origin or residence, a similar in-group vs out-group heuristic, but does not share the same negative defining factors as racism and misogynism.  Racism and misogyny define based on negative attributes of the outgroup; nationalism typically invokes positive attributes of the in-group.

Wrong. Nationalism isn't tied to a country, but to a nation (as the name implies). It's a very important distinction, many nations have their own countries, but this is not always the case. And it does usually deride other nations, especially immediate neighbors. While nationalism has many shades and versions, it's just as bad as racism and misogynism.

[MP-Ryan]

Wrong. Nationalism isn't tied to a country, but to a nation (as the name implies). It's a very important distinction, many nations have their own countries, but this is not always the case.

You are, of course, correct.  In my haste to respond I used country, but the proper definition does deal with nations.

And it does usually deride other nations, especially immediate neighbors. While nationalism has many shades and versions, it's just as bad as racism and misogynism.

That's not a necessary part of nationalism.  As a force of change, nationalism has effected positive changes in many places [without derision of neighboring nations], but has also be used as a force to generate conflict.  The most common example is the Balkan nations in the early 1900s.

The modern United States has a strongly nationalist element to its society, but its usually defined by what it means to be an American, versus what it means to be something else (although this line does get blurry).  Canadians have a reasonably strong nationalist sentiment as well, as do the residents of a number of other nations around the globe.  In modern democracies, this is typically defined by what it means to be a member of that nation (e.g. the qualities that nation possesses) versus negative stereotypes of their neighbours.

Nationalist sentiment can be a source of violence and conflict, but violence and conflict are not necessary components of the definition of nationalism, which is an important point.

/tangent.

[Dragon]

Note that violence and conflict isn't in the definition of racism or sexism, either (that's not to say they're good for anything, of course). For centuries, most women were more or less fine with sexism. Feminism is a recent invention, and a relatively non-violent one (that's not to say there weren't any incidents). Also, many homeowners in the American South treated their slaves pretty well. It might not have been fair, but it wasn't violent, either. Conflict arises when somebody has the guts to point out something is wrong, violence often follows this. It's not in the definition of any kind of discrimination.

Wrong. Nationalism isn't tied to a country, but to a nation (as the name implies). It's a very important distinction, many nations have their own countries, but this is not always the case.

You are, of course, correct.  In my haste to respond I used country, but the proper definition does deal with nations.

Don't worry, many people, including many nationalists, make the same mistake. Our nations have the comfort of their own country, it's easy to make that mistake. A Chechen (for example), on the other hand, would be quick to point out the difference.

[Goober5000]

Slight bump...

So now the shopkeeper's side of the story is told:

Now the saleslady has hit back, stating: 'I wasn't sure what I should present to her when she came in on the afternoon of Saturday July 20 so I showed her some bags from the Jennifer Aniston collection. I explained to her the bags came in different sizes and materials, like I always do. She looked at a frame behind me. Far above there was the 35,000 Swiss franc crocodile leather bag. I simply told her that it was like the one I held in my hand, only much more expensive, and that I could show her similar bags. It is absolutely not true that I declined to show her the bag on racist grounds. I even asked her if she wanted to look at the bag.

'She looked around the store again but didn't say anything else. Then she went with her companion to the lower floor. My colleague saw them to the door. They were not even in the store for five minutes.'

She emphatically denied ever saying to Winfrey: 'You don't want to see this bag. It is too expensive.  You cannot afford it.'

And very quickly after that story broke, Oprah suddenly wants the story to go away:

Oprah Winfrey says she is 'sorry' a media frenzy emerged after saying she experienced racism during a trip to Switzerland.

'I think that incident in Switzerland was just an incident in Switzerland. I'm really sorry that it got blown up. I purposefully did not mention the name of the store. I'm sorry that I said it was Switzerland,' Winfrey said. 'I was just referencing it as an example of being in a place where people don't expect that you would be able to be there.'

The shopkeeper's perspective now throws the story into a new light.  It makes it sound like Oprah was manufacturing an instance of racism in order to get some attention and publicity.

[Scourge of Ages]

waitwaitwaitwait... So what you're saying is, is that Lorric was... probably... right?
I don't even anymore.

(all in good humor, Lorric

[Goober5000]

I was actually going to end my post with "So Lorric was right" but didn't want to set off a flame war.  But yes, Lorric, with his cautious "let's not jump to conclusions" approach, was right.

(And to those forumites who are going to reflexively leap to defend themselves, citing the previously published story, you were judging based on incomplete information.  Racism is easy to condemn if you first assume racism.)

[Hobbie]

Personally I find the whole situation hilarious. It's funny seeing egos of fame get deflated.

[Bobboau]

[karajorma]

So wait, the shop assistant posts her story and we all instantly believe it?

[NGTM-1R]

But yes, Lorric, with his cautious "let's not jump to conclusions" approach, was right.

Because someone, with every possible reason to lie, says so.

I have bridge. It's in Brooklyn. Can I interest you in it?