What would you do?

[Suzie]

I have been watching ABC "What would you do?"shows on YouTube episode after episode, very interesting! Last night I watched this one, and it reminded me a bit about the recent discussions we had on illegal immigrants and the way they're treated.

Please watch the two short clips first and then tell us...what would you have done?

YouTube - ‪abc - what would you do racism and illegal immigration.flv‬‏

YouTube - ‪abc - what would you do racism and illegal immigration pt2.flv‬‏

[Dravin]

I'm honestly not sure. One problem is in some of the clips they keep on petitioning the customers despite being rebuffed. I'm an ornery cuss and have my head down plowing through the morning I could easily see myself being annoyed at the folks who won't just let me get my freaking breakfast bagel and not think beyond that. I'm also not a people person which further predisposes me to just put my head down and plow through any interactions I have to get out of the way. Someone pestering me after being told no, particularly with a language barrier (makes it harder for me to understand what they are saying and for me to feel like I'm being understood) I could see drawing my ire in such a situation.

Now lets say I'm bright eyed, bushy tailed and tuned in. The most positive TV response would probably be me cocking an eyebrow, saying, "Really?" and going somewhere else. Possibly with an invitation to the day laborer actors. Why? Because do I really want to spend my morning having an argument with a deli guy? Though who knows if the cashier ticked me off he might be in for a verbal smack, as his script seemed to lean towards him seeking support from the customer and I can see him saying something to make me rise to the bait. "Wait, you're complaining that they send money home instead of keeping it in country but you won't let them spend their money on an American business thus keeping it in country?"

My reaction either way would probably not be something to make those who defended the actors , or those who sided with the deli due shout, "Heck ya! That's what I'm talking about."

Edited July 12, 2011 by Dravin

[Suzie]

Thanks for the honest reply Dravin.

I was thinking if people didn't want to help out why to humiliate them by making fun of them like some of them did? I find that behavior totally unacceptable.

[Vort]

I'm not understanding the premise. They intentionally planted someone to pretend to be a bigot so they could film the reactions of others? What kind of horrible show would play such things for entertainment?

Oh, wait, that's right. A show that wished to portray all believers in secure borders as unrepentant bigots.

[bytebear]

The premise is kinda kooky. The guy is so over the top that of course it warrants interjection. But that would be with anyone who was behaving outlandishly despite the premise or context.

[Suzie]

I'm not understanding the premise. They intentionally planted someone to pretend to be a bigot so they could film the reactions of others? What kind of horrible show would play such things for entertainment?

Oh, wait, that's right. A show that wished to portray all believers in secure borders as unrepentant bigots.

Did you watch the show? Do you know about it? It seems you don't. This isn't a show about illegal immigration. I just posted one example of many different scenarios.

In this case, the two Mexican laborers are actors and the person behind the counter. The reaction of the people isn't an act. It's called a social experiment.

Edited July 13, 2011 by Suzie

[Suzie]

The premise is kinda kooky. The guy is so over the top that of course it warrants interjection. But that would be with anyone who was behaving outlandishly despite the premise or context.

You would be surprised. If you go to youtube, check "what would you do" and you will see different scenarios . MOST people, don't get involved.

[Vort]

Did you watch the show? Do you know about it?

No, except for part of the clips you posted, and no.

It seems you don't. This isn't a show about illegal immigration. I just posted one example of many different scenarios.

In this case, the two Mexican laborers are actors and the person behind the counter. The reaction of the people isn't an act. It's called a social experiment.

So it's like staging a fake bank robbery or gangland execution and then filming the reaction of the onlookers as a form of entertainment. Yeah, that's pretty awful.

[Suzie]

So it's like staging a fake bank robbery or gangland execution and then filming the reaction of the onlookers as a form of entertainment. Yeah, that's pretty awful.

It seems like it's not your cup of tea, fair enough. I'm into psychology and I find social experiments as a whole very revealing and worth of analysis.

[Just_A_Guy]

FWIW, two clips totaling fifteen minutes are not what I call "short".

I doubt I'd have the intestinal fortitude to stand up and condemn boors like this. I'd like to think I wouldn't have supported outright racism--on the other hand, I can understand the "speak English" thing and can see myself openly agreeing at least with that part. (My current case load includes clients from Vietnam, Russia, Germany, and Mexico; and I regret taking every one of those clients simply because communication takes forever.)

[Gwen]

I think the staged situation was intended to be over the top. That is when the real test comes in.

This situation presented a couple different issues. I totally support that ppl need to learn english. For their own freedom and progression more than wanting to make life easier for me. In situations where you require a statment from the person (law enforcment, lawyer, counseling, etc) then language becomes more important.

In the case of a deli the communication issue is a dumb reason to treat someone like garbage. There is a menu, we all can count; so point to what you want and hold up 2 fingers. If the store clerk can't understand that I hope they don't let him make change. He was acting like a bigot.

We need to remember the laws and ask if our actions actually help the real problem. There is no law that you can't provide services to an illegal. this behavior was not an effort to help the immigration problem, it was an excuse to be a bigot. If the store clerk were taking this man's application he had every right to question his legal status and require proof (that would help, if they couldn't get jobs they would come in the right way). But to sell him a sandwich.... not so much... unless he asks all his customers to provide proof of citizenship. Everyone deserves to be treated like a person with value, no matter their status, color, income level, etc.

On the other hand I think this man has a right to be a bigot. He has the right to not serve anyone he wants, he has the right to act like a jerk, etc. Hopefully such behavior would lead to the downfall of his store and he would reap what he sews but.... he has the right. I have always maintained this right in business, even if it's mormons or women they don't want to serve.

I was not surprised by the end numbers of who helped, who did nothing, etc. I think at first I would stay out of it (i think the insisting on being served was over the top as well) while deciding i would never go back to that store. If asked to help out or once it escelated I would probably step in. I would have been among the ones that left and invited them to take their business elsewhere because that store didn't deserve their money.

I think social experiments can be very informative. I don't know if it was this same show but I found one about a staged kidnapping very eye opening. I often wonder what would happen in my small town if they conducted one here.

[Bini]

I support the "speak English" stance. I also believe that private establishments have the right to enforce their own rules and to refuse service to whomever they wish. Are some of these establishments prejudice and or racist in how they function? Sure. But that's their prerogative. As a customer, we have the right to choose venues that will best serve us. And there are a lot of venues and establishments that offer services to all walks of life (black or white, legal or illegal).

I have followed the WWYD show on and off. I'm appalled at how they attempt to trap people and then unleash guilt/shame on those that kept to themselves or reacted politically incorrect. In regards to the clip that was posted in this thread, I find it just as wrong that the unwelcomed customers did not leave after being asked to do so (and that goes back to "private establishments having the RIGHT to refuse service"). If I was a business owner and felt that there were customers that were a problem, I would ask them to leave and if they didn't (and caused a scene, which DID happen with the Mexican Labourers in that clip), I would have called the police and had them escorted off of my property.

[Suzie]

I think social experiments can be very informative. I don't know if it was this same show but I found one about a staged kidnapping very eye opening. I often wonder what would happen in my small town if they conducted one here.

I think I saw that one (with a little girl?). I have been watching those clips since yesterday.

[Vort]

I think social experiments can be very informative. I don't know if it was this same show but I found one about a staged kidnapping very eye opening. I often wonder what would happen in my small town if they conducted one here.

I'm waiting to see the staged kidnapping where the "target" is packing heat and decides to save the victim. Hey, great social experiment, morons.

[Gwen]

the one i saw was passed around on fb.

he did nearly get beat up by a couple of men. they had a cop, the mother and other precautions in place. the "kidnapper" knew exactly when to surrender. even if someone pulled a gun or something he would surrender control of the situation, the only way he would get seriously hurt is if the person was hot headed and wanted more than control of the situation. in such a case that particular person has no business with a gun to begin with, hot headded and guns don't go well together.

just because one person can see no value in such social experiments doesn't mean there is no value.

[Suzie]

Hey, great social experiment, morons.

In your overly effort to be amusing and witty at times (a nice try but surely isn't "winning" like Charly Sheen would say), you sound very aggressive and ignorant. If you don't agree with social experiments (as you already expressed) that's your prerogative, why come back and call people morons now? I find it inappropriate.

[Bini]

I think the primary reason why I have a tough time with the show are the guilt-trips they drop on people for not responding to a situation. There was a episode a while back staged with a bunch of teenage girls (probably 15 to 16 years old). The scenario was that the obese girl be taunted and bullied by two very slim girls. All three girls were actresses. After a period of time, the camera crew and parents behind the scenes, were disappointed by the lack of effort to intervene by three bystanders that were present. These bystanders were other girls around the same age. Turns out, once the camera crew reveal it's all a setup, that one of the girls that refused to speak-up was in fact a victim of bullying herself. This particular girl was showing physical signs of discomfort and had began to shake. A specialist (I believe it was) that was also observing the situation, was even worried that this girl might have been traumatized from the staged scenario. The sad thing about this is, nobody knew that this girl had her own issues and yet, she was basically guilt-tripped for not stepping up to the plate to defend another. In a perfect world, wouldn't that be nice? But when you have two victims that are perhaps equally traumatized by the same or similar experiences, how can you expect either one to save each other in a situation that brings back such pain? It's also unfortunate that her parents didn't know she was the target of being bullied up until this point but that misses the bottomline that I'm trying to get to. I think the show is a bit harsh sometimes in pointing fingers at people that choose to keep to themselves in situations that they themselves feel threatened.

Hope that makes some more sense on the end from where I'm coming from.

[Suzie]

I think the primary reason why I have a tough time with the show are the guilt-trips they drop on people for not responding to a situation. There was a episode a while back staged with a bunch of teenage girls (probably 15 to 16 years old). The scenario was that the obese girl be taunted and bullied by two very slim girls. All three girls were actresses. After a period of time, the camera crew and parents behind the scenes, were disappointed by the lack of effort to intervene by three bystanders that were present. These bystanders were other girls around the same age. Turns out, once the camera crew reveal it's all a setup, that one of the girls that refused to speak-up was in fact a victim of bullying herself. This particular girl was showing physical signs of discomfort and had began to shake. A specialist (I believe it was) that was also observing the situation, was even worried that this girl might have been traumatized from the staged scenario. The sad thing about this is, nobody knew that this girl had her own issues and yet, she was basically guilt-tripped for not stepping up to the plate to defend another. In a perfect world, wouldn't that be nice? But when you have two victims that are perhaps equally traumatized by the same or similar experiences, how can you expect either one to save each other in a situation that brings back such pain? It's also unfortunate that her parents didn't know she was the target of being bullied up until this point but that misses the bottomline that I'm trying to get to. I think the show is a bit harsh sometimes in pointing fingers at people that choose to keep to themselves in situations that they themselves feel threatened.

Hope that makes some more sense on the end from where I'm coming from.

Yes, I remember watching that episode. I thought it was a good thing that at least the person has the choice to have their faces blurred, of course it doesn't take away how they felt. Most of the shows I have seen didn't reach that stage and seeing the reaction of people if they see a child (could be anyone's child) being kidnapped was quite shocking. Of course, you imagine someone would actually do something and you are actually surprised most people just observe, they look concern yet they walk away without trying to stop the guy or call 911. So yes, the show has it flaws but over all I find it's quite an eye opening.

[Bini]

Yes, I remember watching that episode. I thought it was a good thing that at least the person has the choice to have their faces blurred, of course it doesn't take away how they felt. Most of the shows I have seen didn't reach that stage and seeing the reaction of people if they see a child (could be anyone's child) being kidnapped was quite shocking. Of course, you imagine someone would actually do something and you are actually surprised most people just observe, they look concern yet they walk away without trying to stop the guy or call 911. So yes, the show has it flaws but over all I find it's quite an eye opening.

Although I don't necessarily agree with their methods, there is certainly things to be learned from social experiments. I agree it's a bit, if not entirely, disheartening when a crime is committed and bystanders don't even call 911. I can't say that I'd be on the frontlines in some of the scenarios that are played out but I'd certainly like to believe that I'd at least call 911 or report to authorities what I had witnessed.

[Suzie]

Although I don't necessarily agree with their methods, there is certainly things to be learned from social experiments. I agree it's a bit, if not entirely, disheartening when a crime is committed and bystanders don't even call 911. I can't say that I'd be on the frontlines in some of the scenarios that are played out but I'd certainly like to believe that I'd at least call 911 or report to authorities what I had witnessed.

I thought the same thing, sometimes you just don't know if the person has a weapon or may hurt you however if you have a phone you can always call 911 right away and that's one way to get involved specially if it's about the safety of children.

[Vort]

In your overly effort to be amusing and witty at times (a nice try but surely isn't "winning" like Charly Sheen would say), you sound very aggressive and ignorant. If you don't agree with social experiments (as you already expressed) that's your prerogative, why come back and call people morons now? I find it inappropriate.

This wasn't one of my "overly [sic] effort to be amusing and witty". It was an expression of disgust toward those who would violate the public trust by staging a violent action disguised as unstaged true life merely as a means of providing entertainment. It was those people, not anyone on this list, I was referring to as "morons". If I was misunderstood as calling list participants morons, I apologize.

For the rest, I get frustrated when people fail even to read my posts before commenting and then insist on assigning to me attitudes and beliefs I don't accept. This ignorance can be avoided merely by READING THE FREAKING POST BEFORE YOU RESPOND. I don't justify my snippy responses, but I also refuse to accept all responsibility for misunderstandings resulting from people's refusal to read and consider a post before responding.

[Suzie]

For the rest, I get frustrated when people fail even to read my posts before commenting and then insist on assigning to me attitudes and beliefs I don't accept. This ignorance can be avoided merely by READING THE FREAKING POST BEFORE YOU RESPOND. I don't justify my snippy responses, but I also refuse to accept all responsibility for misunderstandings resulting from people's refusal to read and consider a post before responding.

Why is it that you assume people don't read your posts? Why is it that you don't give the possibility that you are just not expressing yourself properly? This is certainly not the only thread where you seem to have this problem. Posters aren't mind readers. May I kindly suggest that you could please re-check the way you express yourself and the way you interact with others sometimes? I'm not a namby-pamby poster (far from that) and I never had problems with you while debating but I have observed the issues at times with other posters and I think you should evaluate this, really.

Edited July 14, 2011 by Suzie

[applepansy]

I agree with Vort! I've watched the show. I think its a sick form of entertainment. I avoid watching that show at all costs. TV shows are getting to be worthless.

[applepansy]

Why is it that you assume people don't read your posts? Why is it that you don't give the possibility that you are just not expressing yourself properly? This certainly not the only thread where you seem to have this problem. Posters aren't mind readers.

I've read through the threads where you have expressed a frustration with understanding Vort. I thought he has been very clear and very patient.

Maybe the lack of understanding is: "I don't understand how someone could see this differently than my viewpoint." rather than not understanding what Vort is saying?

[Suzie]

Applepansy, I have been debating offline and online for years. I think there are enough threads on this forum where I have participated where I strongly disagree on issues but remain civil (like other posters as well) so your suggestion is incorrect however, your opinion is appreciated.