I'm not sure if this effects stores across other parts of the world, but on may 29 starbucks will be closing all its stores across america, to push in a racial bias education to those working at stores.
This comes in response to what happened in philadelphia at one of its chains, when 2 black men were asked to leave the store after using the bathroom and not paying for thing, kindly being asked by management to leave, refusing, and then refusing to leave when asked by police when called. They weren't pressed charges.
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/starbucks-california-bathroom-viral-video-philadelphia-black-arrests-20180417.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWBVxTEgoYk
The ones who kicked up a fuss at the starbucks, who didn't know what was happening, made the most protest, assuming this was police whaling on them because they were black.
So now, Starbucks is going to push for a racial bias training day, because you know, every starbucks employee could be racist and despite the company losing millions, this is more important apparently.
Think the best response to this came from here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhX8imcHaJQ&t=609s
Its funny, in my last job, it was a simple case that in the contract you signed to work at the store, it had the rule of just not ever using racial, demeaning, sexist or any kind of negative derogatory words upon starting your job there, and that was it, if anyone was caught doing so, they were disciplined or fired, it was that fucking simple.
I mean obviously the absurdity of these two guys fucking about with the staff, manager and police prompting them being arrested for not buying something in a store, makes me wonder if this would ever be a story if they were white, it probably wouldn't even make the news.
I'm not sure of the order of events, but I heard Starbucks was closing for racial training before I heard about the black men being kicked out. I'm not sure if the events are actually connected or if telling them to leave was racially motivated. The media hasn't specifically made that claim. The actual facts of the story, as reported, is that they were asked to leave because they weren't buying anything, and that's not much to report on. The assumption that it was racially motivated has to be read into the story, and it will be by many.
Starbucks has been good about letting people sit and use their macs in their establishment, but there is an assumption that customers will reciprocate the gesture and buy a cup of coffee, which from my observations, seems to be the actual etiquette involved. There is no sign on the wall, explaining the etiquette because it's assumed.
If two white guys were asked to leave, the report would be taken on face value and assumed that they were just hanging out and not buying anything. But with two black men, the story potentially screams racism and that sounds like a story.
It's an odd situation in that Starbucks for as long as they have been in business, have gone out of their way to present a PC image, with PC propaganda on their products about building schools in undeveloped coffee growing countries, and using recycled paper in their cups. It's the last place I would expect to see criticized by the left.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/apr/21/starbucks-racial-bias-training-black-men-arrested
QuoteDays after two black men were arrested at a Starbucks store in Philadelphia, the company announced a drastic response.
At the end of May, Starbucks stores across the US will close en masse and 175,000 employees will undergo racial bias training, a programme developed by progressive equality organizations.
Quote from: Munch on April 22, 2018, 09:50:10 AM
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/apr/21/starbucks-racial-bias-training-black-men-arrested
Yeah, I probably didn't hear the events in chronological order and didn't make the connection.
Quote from: SGOS on April 22, 2018, 10:14:34 AM
Yeah, I probably didn't hear the events in chronological order and didn't make the connection.
I've only really put it all together myself recently.
Theres more on from this, like how the police who arrested him, one who was black himself, had to make an apology because of the complaints.
Commercial marketing (branding) and political marketing (branding) ... who gets branded ... the customers/voters aka sheeple.
PC wouldn't happen, unless money was involved. Organizations, public and private, have no soul.
If even one person had a chip on the shoulder during the incident ... barista, customer, cop ... then bad things happen. Don't have a chip (attitude). Don't get chipped (yeah, you progressives can't wait to be tagged like cattle).
I watched the video until she admitted the reason she was writing was because she didn't like that Starbucks was willing to lose money to address white guilt. I didn't want to sit through her explanation of implicit bias. I have no interest in this culture war anymore because every argument on both sides has been recycled ad nauseam. The only aspect of this story that interests me is whether Starbuck's strategy will protect their brand. I don't drink coffee so I have no bias for or against Starbucks. As Baruch pointed out, this is all about branding.
QuoteIf two white guys were asked to leave, the report would be taken on face value and assumed that they were just hanging out and not buying anything. But with two black men, the story potentially screams racism and that sounds like a story.
I think that if kinda defeats your whole point. The thing is, white people AREN'T arrested for refusing to leave Starbucks, because no one calls the cops on two white guys who's only "crime" was to ask to use the restroom.
If someone asks me to randomly leave their store while giving me no reason, like fuck I am leaving. The thing is having light skin that doesn't happen to me. I don't walk into a store and people instantly assume I am a criminal. Terrorist? Okay, possibly, but criminal? Nah.
The point of a coffee shop is to hang around. They have free wifi. People hang out there all the time. They have business meetings, meet up with friends or groups, they study there, etc. It's designed for that very thing. Why were these young men asked to leave after being there for a total of I think three minutes without buying coffee?
Quote from: Shiranu on April 22, 2018, 05:05:31 PM
The thing is, white people AREN'T arrested for refusing to leave Starbucks, because no one calls the cops on two white guys
How do you know this?
Quote
If someone asks me to randomly leave their store while giving me no reason, like fuck I am leaving.
Suppose you were given a reason as they were in this case? You might be different than me. I'd be embarrassed, but I would understand and I would leave.
Quote
I don't walk into a store and people instantly assume I am a criminal.
I didn't hear anything about the presumption of criminality in this case. I believe trespassing was used by the cops, but I don't know if they were actually charged with it. And the whole thing was resolved without violence.
Quote from: Shiranu on April 22, 2018, 05:05:31 PM
I think that if kinda defeats your whole point. The thing is, white people AREN'T arrested for refusing to leave Starbucks, because no one calls the cops on two white guys who's only "crime" was to ask to use the restroom.
If someone asks me to randomly leave their store while giving me no reason, like fuck I am leaving. The thing is having light skin that doesn't happen to me. I don't walk into a store and people instantly assume I am a criminal. Terrorist? Okay, possibly, but criminal? Nah.
Any business has the right to kick someone out of a store if they are just loitering. The store I worked out, our supervisors and managers told groups of teens who loitered outside the store to clear off several times, its the right of those who own the establishment. And no, they weren't black.
QuoteThe point of a coffee shop is to hang around. They have free wifi. People hang out there all the time. They have business meetings, meet up with friends or groups, they study there, etc. It's designed for that very thing. Why were these young men asked to leave after being there for a total of I think three minutes without buying coffee?
No, the point of a coffee shop is that its a business and needs trade to survive. I use the free wifi in starbucks or other coffee shops in my town, but only if I'm going to buy from them. Just using up its free wifi without buying something from them is just fucking rude, and you are not entitled to it just because you think you are.
Quote from: Munch on April 22, 2018, 06:02:00 PM
Any business has the right to kick someone out of a store if they are just loitering. The store I worked out, our supervisors and managers told groups of teens who loitered outside the store to clear off several times, its the right of those who own the establishment. And no, they weren't black.
No, the point of a coffee shop is that its a business and needs trade to survive. I use the free wifi in starbucks or other coffee shops in my town, but only if I'm going to buy from them. Just using up its free wifi without buying something from them is just fucking rude, and you are not entitled to it just because you think you are.
Do you live in America?
QuoteHow do you know this?
Maybe by the fact that you never hear of white people being arrested for being in Starbucks.
Just a guess.
On the other hand, black people being asked to leave or having cops called on them at stores for no reason because they were "assumed" to be shoplifters or criminals are a dime-a-dozen story.
QuoteSuppose you were given a reason as they were in this case? You might be different than me. I'd be embarrassed, but I would understand and I would leave.
What reason were they asked to leave? That they didn't place an order in three minutes? First off, that's not a "reason", that's a crock of shit. Second, no I wouldn't leave because that's a a crock of shit. If you want to "understand" being discriminated against, have fun with that. I dealt with that shit enough when I was younger to not tolerate it as an adult.
QuoteI didn't hear anything about the presumption of criminality in this case. I believe trespassing was used by the cops, but I don't know if they were actually charged with it. And the whole thing was resolved without violence.
You know damn well what I meant.
The hoops white people will go through to not admit that racism still directly influences their society...
(And no, I don't think that has even remotely anything to do with their "whiteness" and is not a statement against white people but rather majority-vs-minority dynamics. When you have certain privileges your entire life because of your majority status, you are simply unaware of certain disadvantages and realities other people face. There is nothing wrong with that either, so long as you remain open minded... but the natural instinct is to reject that other people might experience reality different than you, and that's when it becomes an issue.)
Quote from: Munch on April 22, 2018, 06:02:00 PM
No, the point of a coffee shop is that its a business and needs trade to survive. I use the free wifi in starbucks or other coffee shops in my town, but only if I'm going to buy from them. Just using up its free wifi without buying something from them is just fucking rude, and you are not entitled to it just because you think you are.
Have to disagree with you on this one, Munch. A traditional coffee shop is designed to be a place to loiter in. Loiter, though, is a poor word; they are designed to keep you hanging around for a good bit of time. Why? It is common practice in US businesses to give stuff away to make it easier for patrons to purchase more. Starbucks likes to present itself as a friendly place to be--and to keep one there for awhile. There is no pressure to purchase and then leave. They want you to have some coffee, use your computer, have a meeting, study, or just sit. That gives you a good feeling about Starbucks and builds good will which will translate into more business. I also grew up knowing that 'beat' coffee shops were all of the above, but also a place for creativity--songs, books and poetry flowed through them. And that happened by encouraging hanging out.
Grocery stores offer 'loss leaders' to get one into the store with the knowledge that the typical customer will buy much more than the loss leaders; but one doesn't have to. Book stores encourage hanging out, reading their material, drinking coffee, or just talking with one another. They have the same reasons as Starbucks. In other words, there are types of business that thrive on hanging out. Starbucks is of that type. If the patrons of Starbucks see that Starbucks does not encourage hanging out, they will stop going themselves and will tell their friends not to bother going either.
Quote from: Shiranu on April 22, 2018, 06:20:38 PM
You know damn well what I meant.
Actually, I thought you meant that assumed criminality of black people was the issue.
Quote
The hoops white people will go through to not admit that racism still directly influences their society...
Some do of course, now more than ever with the recent resurgence. I just didn't read that into this particular situation.
As a side note, I applaud Starbuck's response. Yeah, it's probably about public image and how it affects their business, but I still think it's worthwhile issue to educate people about.
I don't quite remember who said it, but what about buying a simple damn coffee and be done with it?
Quote from: Sal1981 on April 22, 2018, 06:47:35 PM
I don't quite remember who said it, but what about buying a simple damn coffee and be done with it?
Three friends and I were asked to leave a restaurant or order something. This was many years ago. We ordered coffee, and they let us stay. Go figure.
Quote from: Shiranu on April 22, 2018, 05:05:31 PM
I think that if kinda defeats your whole point. The thing is, white people AREN'T arrested for refusing to leave Starbucks, because no one calls the cops on two white guys who's only "crime" was to ask to use the restroom.
If someone asks me to randomly leave their store while giving me no reason, like fuck I am leaving. The thing is having light skin that doesn't happen to me. I don't walk into a store and people instantly assume I am a criminal. Terrorist? Okay, possibly, but criminal? Nah.
Nobody assumed they were criminals. You're not allowed to loiter in starbucks. This rule applies to all races. If you want to sit around or use their washroom they ask that you make a purchase. These guys didn't make a purchase, and so were asked to leave because they were loitering. They refused to comply, and so had law enforcement called on their stupid asses. Literally nothing that happened had to do with their race.
Quote from: Shiranu on April 22, 2018, 06:20:38 PM
The hoops white people will go through to not admit that racism still directly influences their society...
You have yet to prove that this was racism - and you won't because it wasn't
Quote from: SGOS on April 22, 2018, 07:03:34 PM
Three friends and I were asked to leave a restaurant or order something. This was many years ago. We ordered coffee, and they let us stay. Go figure.
And you were a damned Nazi for agreeing, am I right? You have rights ... start a protest!
Quote from: Gilgamesh on April 22, 2018, 07:04:53 PM
Nobody assumed they were criminals. You're not allowed to loiter in starbucks.
That is patently false. Besides this argument, these young men were there to meet up with a friend.
Quote from: Mermaid on April 22, 2018, 07:20:08 PM
That is patently false. Besides this argument, these young men were there to meet up with a friend.
No, it's not. They have a policy against it. That they don't enforce it often doesn't mean it's no longer a policy.
And it doesn't matter what they were there for. They made no purchase, therefore the private entity that is starbucks can tell them to leave. People don't have the right to maintain their presence within a private entities property for whatever made-up terms they deem fair. The private entity itself, as well as certain government legislation, determine those terms.
A private entity doesn't need to give you a reason to tell you to leave. It's their right to do it; it's their fucking property. After the fact - if you so wish - you can try to prove that they were breaking law in telling you to leave.
Quote from: Gilgamesh on April 22, 2018, 07:32:18 PM
No, it's not. They have a policy against it. That they don't enforce it often doesn't mean it's no longer a policy.
Enforcing this for one race and not another is not acceptable under any circumstance. I am not sure how anyone can defend that.
Quote from: Mermaid on April 22, 2018, 07:42:55 PM
Enforcing this for one race and not another is not acceptable under any circumstance. I am not sure how anyone can defend that.
Nobody is defending that. You have no proven that that is what they do.
There is what, one sample where this has ever happened? There is nothing to compare it to - not even instances of it happening to the same race.
To say that the one instance that has happened proves racism against whatever race the instance happened to is unscientific.
Quote from: Gilgamesh on April 22, 2018, 08:10:48 PM
Nobody is defending that. You have no proven that that is what they do.
There is what, one sample where this has ever happened? There is nothing to compare it to - not even instances of it happening to the same race.
To say that the one instance that has happened proves racism against whatever race the instance happened to is unscientific.
This is what happened in this instance. I said nothing else about it.
Quote from: SGOS on April 22, 2018, 07:03:34 PM
Three friends and I were asked to leave a restaurant or order something. This was many years ago. We ordered coffee, and they let us stay. Go figure.
Quote from: Baruch on April 22, 2018, 07:13:07 PM
And you were a damned Nazi for agreeing, am I right? You have rights ... start a protest!
Actually, I kind of felt like a smart ass ordering coffee instead of a meal. I don't know about the others, but apparently, just ordering something was all they wanted from us. The exchange of courtesy and gratitude worked out well.
Quote from: SGOS on April 22, 2018, 08:36:07 PM
Actually, I kind of felt like a smart ass ordering coffee instead of a meal. I don't know about the others, but apparently, just ordering something was all they wanted from us. The exchange of courtesy and gratitude worked out well.
Thats how this works. Even if its something small, your honoring the business and not just wasting their time and taking up space.
its funny I bet anyone here who believes they don't have to do this and have the right to loiter around a business like this in america, would consider it offensive to do the exact same thing in somewhere like a shop or cafe in a middle eastern or asian country.
Quote from: Munch on April 22, 2018, 08:43:19 PM
Thats how this works. Even if its something small, your honoring the business and not just wasting their time and taking up space.
its funny I bet anyone here who believes they don't have to do this and have the right to loiter around a business like this in america, would consider it offensive to do the exact same thing in somewhere like a shop or cafe in a middle eastern or asian country.
If they were consistent they wouldn't be SJW's.
Quote from: Mermaid on April 22, 2018, 07:42:55 PM
Enforcing this for one race and not another is not acceptable under any circumstance. I am not sure how anyone can defend that.
Why I would make a bad businessman ... as a misanthrope, I would tell all my human customers to get lost, whether they had bought anything at all or not ... completely fair ... and completely wrong.
Nobody has proven that they never ever ask White folk to leave for non-purchase ... I don't know how anyone could. Also selective enforcement is legit for the police (they don't have to ticket all the speeders, just to be fair ... if you were speeding, they can still ticket you). Presumption of innocence means that you would have to have other evidence that the police were racial profiling (or Starbucks was). You are assuming that if anything happens to a Black person that that person objects to, the only reason could be, racism.
ð"Ž¡ð"Ž¡ð"‡°
Quote...would consider it offensive to do the exact same thing in somewhere like a shop or cafe in a middle eastern or asian country.
You get more and more ridiculous by the day.
he said, she said. Everyone on both sides is assuming they know how events played out. Best I can figure out:
Two men plan to meet a third who's buying to celebrate some business transaction. One man asks to use the restroom, told not until he buys something. Two men sit down. Manager goes over, asks if they want to order, is told they are waiting for friend, maybe asks them to leave, goes and calls cops--all within two minutes of them entering the store. Cops show up four minutes after call, ask men to leave. Men refuse, are arrested, during which time the friend shows up.
The manager apparently claims to have been cussed out by the two men and police say they were causing a disturbance, but witnesses have said that they weren't doing anything to make a scene.
I obviously don't know exactly who said what or how accurate the above is, but I can say that the other patrons, the closest to neutral witnesses available, seem to all be on the side of the two men.
I've never been to Philadelphia, but I was thinking about a Burger King I ate at 3 times the other week. My job frequently brings me to that area. When I eat there I almost always use the bathroom before ordering--I want to wash my hands before I eat and don't really want to leave my food unattended or miss my order being called. I've even used the bathroom there without ordering anything once. It's south of the senior center, west of several senior living communities so often has a group of older men--only some of whom have ordered--camped out in there. I've never seen an employee ask them to leave. All 3 time last week I waited to order until my coworkers arrived--once one of my coworkers waited till his wife and kid showed up. Every time that was more then 2 minutes, maybe even 6.
It's never happened, but if the BK manager asked me to order or leave, I'd probably tell him I was waiting for my coworkers and stick around. If the cops showed up I'd leave--and never come back--but I think I'd *want* to stay and 'defend my "rights"'. On the other hand, if I were the manager and some guy cussed me out I'd probably call the cops. *shrug*
Quote from: Shiranu on April 22, 2018, 05:05:31 PM
I think that if kinda defeats your whole point. The thing is, white people AREN'T arrested for refusing to leave Starbucks, because no one calls the cops on two white guys who's only "crime" was to ask to use the restroom.
If someone asks me to randomly leave their store while giving me no reason, like fuck I am leaving. The thing is having light skin that doesn't happen to me. I don't walk into a store and people instantly assume I am a criminal. Terrorist? Okay, possibly, but criminal? Nah.
The two possibilities aren't mutually exclusive. White guys being asked to leave would not lead people to assume racist motives, and it wouldn't be considered newsworthy. So that would keep us from hearing about it if it did happen. Black guys doing what millions of white people do every day and being asked to leave, that's pretty suspicious. I think it is more likely that this sort of thing happens to black people more than white people, but it is also true that the media absolutely loves controversy and will latch onto any case of apparent racism.
QuoteI think it is more likely that this sort of thing happens to black people more than white people, but it is also true that the media absolutely loves controversy and will latch onto any case of apparent racism.
I am trying to find links to the studies that show black people do face this type of situation at a significantly higher rate than white people (in controlled situations, mind you; not just random African Americans reporting it but studies done by criminologists), but the main one I want to quote you have to have access to the data base to access it (Gabiddon's, "Racial Profiling By Store Clerks and...).
Likewise you can look up the number of African Americans who have reported this (and also Arab Americans) happening versus the number of white people who can say that it has happened to them. It is simply not close.
"Shopping while black" is, unfortunately, a sentence with meaning in American society... though the majority are blissfully unaware of it.
I'm certain white people do face this as well; but the difference is that it is more likely to be based on their attire and attitude rather than the colour of their skin. And certainly discrimination based on attire is wrong, but you cant ethically equate attire and complexion as relatively similar attributes.
Quote from: Shiranu on April 22, 2018, 10:57:52 PM
You get more and more ridiculous by the day.
Or hit a nerve more accurately each day. Good, my skills improving
Quote from: Munch on April 23, 2018, 04:40:44 AM
Or hit a nerve more accurately each day. Good, my skills improving
You work in retail, right? Do you have a different annoyance with some kinds of customers over others? On what basis? Anyone else in retail can comment, I can't, I don't work in retail. Does Shiranu or Mermaid work in retail?
ð"Ž¡ð"Ž¡ð"‡°
Quote from: Baruch on April 23, 2018, 06:43:24 AM
You work in retail, right? Do you have a different annoyance with some kinds of customers over others? On what basis? Anyone else in retail can comment, I can't, I don't work in retail. Does Shiranu or Mermaid work in retail?
ð"Ž¡ð"Ž¡ð"‡°
Usually it's the clueless nature of customers in general who think you govern every aspect of the retail environment. I got a long list of why I hate customers, but a better sum up is Sergeant Ducky on youtube, he went through what I did.
Quote from: Blackleaf on April 23, 2018, 02:52:02 AM
The two possibilities aren't mutually exclusive. White guys being asked to leave would not lead people to assume racist motives, and it wouldn't be considered newsworthy. So that would keep us from hearing about it if it did happen. Black guys doing what millions of white people do every day and being asked to leave, that's pretty suspicious. I think it is more likely that this sort of thing happens to black people more than white people, but it is also true that the media absolutely loves controversy and will latch onto any case of apparent racism.
"would not lead people to assume racist motives" ... there are lots of excuses to be a dick. One of them is racism. SJWs are against dicks, and are in favor of that other gonad. I am expecting an effort to create the Black Coffee Matters group. Minorities in general, and minority colors in particular .... are paranoid by circumstance. Can't be helped. You either blend in, or you get nailed down, like that nail that sticks up. That is how society works (except on Star Trek NG ... the EU version of Star Trek Classic). Idealists deny reality (for a supposed better alternative). People who react negatively, rather than adaptively, to the way society is ... are prima facie anti-social misfits. Of course, not everyone can adapt, even if they want to. My handicapped daughter for instance.
ð"Ž¡ð"Ž¡ð"‡°
Quote from: Shiranu on April 23, 2018, 03:36:28 AM
I am trying to find links to the studies that show black people do face this type of situation at a significantly higher rate than white people (in controlled situations, mind you; not just random African Americans reporting it but studies done by criminologists)
I think you are focusing on a more relevant issue now. When addressing the plight of black people, which is what I believe you want to argue here, and which I believe is worthwhile, arguing statistics can be valid, but it would not be valid to interpret those statistics as: Therefore; The two men in this video are being treated unfairly because they are black.
No one is privy to what actually happened, the media has not shown any attempt to fully research this incident. Important information may even be intentionally left out. Neither the article (which does little more than describe the video) or the video itself, gives as much information as people presume to know.
You get part of the story and draw a conclusion. A neo Nazi gets part of the story and comes to an entirely different conclusion. Both conclusions depend on filling in what is not known with assumptions which cannot explain a specific situation that contains intentional or unintentional informational blackouts.
Quote from: Munch on April 23, 2018, 06:48:49 AM
Usually it's the clueless nature of customers in general who think you govern every aspect of the retail environment. I got a long list of why I hate customers, but a better sum up is Sergeant Ducky on youtube, he went through what I did.
Irish or Scottish accent ... I think Irish. Anyway, I love English accents, anything other than American.
Stupid Customers In Retail #1 - Retail Problems ... pretty enlightening. Maybe all customers should be certified before they are allowed to shop? No, I don't mean that ... certified!
ð"Ž¡ð"Ž¡ð"‡°
Quote from: Munch on April 23, 2018, 04:40:44 AM
Or hit a nerve more accurately each day. Good, my skills improving
Being toxic is hardly a skill worth developing. Nor is making up more and more ridiculous "positions" just for shock value.
I'm sorry you think that struck a nerve; it was more like watching a flat earther opening his mouth. It's not hurtful, it's just sad.
Quote from: Shiranu on April 23, 2018, 08:51:09 AM
Being toxic is hardly a skill worth developing. Nor is making up more and more ridiculous "positions" just for shock value.
I'm sorry you think that struck a nerve; it was more like watching a flat earther opening his mouth. It's not hurtful, it's just sad.
its only toxic to you because you don't want your biases and political indoctrination challenged. That's where denial and pessimism comes in.
And given how much of a social justice narrative you spin most days its funny seeing you accuse others of having a deluded outlook.
Quote from: Munch on April 23, 2018, 10:48:50 AM
its only toxic to you because you don't want your biases and political indoctrination challenged. That's where denial and pessimism comes in.
And given how much of a social justice narrative you spin most days its funny seeing you accuse others of having a deluded outlook.
Challenging "biases and political indoctrination" happens by putting forth well-reasoned, fact-based, intellectual points of view, not by citing tabloids and YouTube videos made by antisocial basement-dwelling redditors.
Quote from: Sylar on April 23, 2018, 10:58:06 AM
Challenging "biases and political indoctrination" happens by putting forth well-reasoned, fact-based, intellectual points of view, not by citing tabloids and YouTube videos made by antisocial basement-dwelling redditors.
and yet if the videos themselves do challenge said biases, and do create that cognitive dissonance within said individuals, they would challenge it regardless, or deny it. Seen that so many times on these forums.
Political indoctrination on these pages are as bad as religious ones.
Quote from: Munch on April 23, 2018, 12:57:54 PM
and yet if the videos themselves do challenge said biases, and do create that cognitive dissonance within said individuals, they would challenge it regardless, or deny it. Seen that so many times on these forums.
Political indoctrination on these pages are as bad as religious ones.
IngSoc!
Quoteits only toxic to you because you don't want your biases and political indoctrination challenged.
Here's the thing; I don't believe that it would be offensive to do this in the Middle East or Asia at a Starbucks. You aren't challenging any position I hold, you are just using some off-the-shelf insult that no one here even remotely resembles.
You have people who seem to literally know zero people of an opposite view point in the real world preaching to you about how we are when they are frankly about as non-qualified to do so as you can get. And I am more than happy to admit I use to watch the same type of videos and read the same type of articles on the left, but I grew out of that.
The fact that you hold a different political or social opinion than mine does not make you "the enemy" to me, the only thing that I really feel like opposing you on nowadays is when you are purposefully using ignorance and misinformation to spread toxicity and distrust of a different group. That's why I put you and several others on ignore and only skim yall's posts now, because it had reached a point where neither of us were actually discussing topics but rather than mudslinging back and forth... and I don't feel like, given the media posters like you and Gilgamesh consume that will change anytime soon.
It's been a long while since you've said anything that has actually challenged my world view, and I'm not going to consume such negativity on the off-chance it might pay off by making me see something different. I'm not interested in that anymore, I've put up with it for several years now on topics like race, sexuality, gender issues, religion and have seen things only continue to get worse and worse and the insults and negativity from (generally your side, though I will admit I engaged in it quite a bit before) get worse and worse.
So I'm more than happy to point out where you are sharing blatantly false information, and call out your negativity, but the pretense of debate and discussion is long dead and gone.
Quoteand yet if the videos themselves do challenge said biases...
Okay, but here is the thing; they don't challenge any biases because when they are literally lies or just, "Hur durrr liberls r stupodo!", there is no reason to address them.
You will note that I do respond to certain videos, and overwhelmingly they are one's that present something as being reality. I have no interest in watching 5 minutes of some hateful person throw insults at me with no real point any more than you have any interest in me linking the equivalent of some idiot leftist doing the same thing.
Do you think if I was posting video after video after video of TYT, Huffingtonpost. or whatever the equivalent on the left is of channels like Cornell (w/e that old british guy's name is), the guy in this thread... do you think it would "really" challenge your views? I doubt it. Maybe you would watch them all the way through, but I wouldn't expect you to because there is no need to sit through 5, 10 minutes of being called the scum of the Earth.
I have never been in a Starbucks (I hate coffee). But I do know their corporate culture of "hang out". To my general knowledge, they don't seem to care about race or ethnicity. So this new event was rather a surprise.
I will be interested to learn details. I assume they have cameras in their stores...
So, it will be interesting to learn how the particular customers acted. I make no predictions about that. If they were loud and disruptive and asked to leave, fine. If they were "just like anyone else", that would be troubling. So, in this case, I await further information...
Quote from: Cavebear on April 24, 2018, 01:34:11 AM
I will be interested to learn details. I assume they have cameras in their stores...
It seems that Starbucks HQ decided early on that apologizing and bias training was the best response. I doubt they'd release camera footage now even if it supports their manager's actions. I with they would just so we'd know, but I suppose that would primarily serve to give the story another news cycle.
Quote from: Poison Tree on April 24, 2018, 01:44:38 AM
It seems that Starbucks HQ decided early on that apologizing and bias training was the best response. I doubt they'd release camera footage now even if it supports their manager's actions. I with they would just so we'd know, but I suppose that would primarily serve to give the story another news cycle.
When will companies learn that revealing information is better than hiding it? The truth is often less condemning than than the rumors... And if the video shows they were wrong, just apologize and DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!
Quote from: Cavebear on April 24, 2018, 01:59:17 AM
When will companies learn that revealing information is better than hiding it? The truth is often less condemning than than the rumors... And if the video shows they were wrong, just apologize and DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!
Ehhh... It depends on the situation. In this case, showing footage would only prolong media attention on the controversy. Ever get into an argument in a YouTube comments section? Bring up a lot of good points, but everyone else replies with a bunch of ad hominems? Sometimes it doesn't matter whether you're right or not, and defending yourself just adds fuel to the fire. Just don't talk about it, and people will forget pretty fast.
Quote from: Blackleaf on April 24, 2018, 02:49:14 AM
Ehhh... It depends on the situation. In this case, showing footage would only prolong media attention on the controversy. Ever get into an argument in a YouTube comments section? Bring up a lot of good points, but everyone else replies with a bunch of ad hominems? Sometimes it doesn't matter whether you're right or not, and defending yourself just adds fuel to the fire. Just don't talk about it, and people will forget pretty fast.
*I* would respond to a rational argument from Starbucks based on video evidence of some cause of action. Or negatively based on a failure to provide what they must surely have. I'm sure they have evidence recorded. The question is whether they will release it.
Quote from: Blackleaf on April 24, 2018, 02:49:14 AM
Ehhh... It depends on the situation. In this case, showing footage would only prolong media attention on the controversy. Ever get into an argument in a YouTube comments section? Bring up a lot of good points, but everyone else replies with a bunch of ad hominems? Sometimes it doesn't matter whether you're right or not, and defending yourself just adds fuel to the fire. Just don't talk about it, and people will forget pretty fast.
Good point. Starbucks isn't like most restaurants. Many people go there regularly for their caffeine fix and to relax and socialize. For some, it is almost like a neighborhood bar where they know the staff and have brand loyalty. Starbucks also has a reputation for being progressive and inclusive, which explains the annual controversy by the FOXnews crowd over whether their Christmas cups are too secular. Closing their stores for bias training is a bold and controversial move and I am interested how this will affect their brand and bottom line in the long run.
Deciding whether to draw attention to the controversy or allow it to die is a gamble. There are advantages to either approach, but it depends on a lot of variables, and sometimes, even given a lot of thought, either one can backfire. I would imagine Starbucks already includes training, possibly only informal, about how to deal with customers, but I doubt if there was much thought given to how to deal with non-customers.
A Global or National training day is no small event no matter what the issue is. The coordination and planning will be enormous involving regional and local instructions to the thousands of coordinators that have to plan and present it. Starbucks is taking on a massive project for this PR move. I'd be interested to observe the behind the scenes work that must be taking place already to make it happen.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on April 24, 2018, 09:04:53 AM
Good point. Starbucks isn't like most restaurants. Many people go there regularly for their caffeine fix and to relax and socialize. For some, it is almost like a neighborhood bar where they know the staff and have brand loyalty. Starbucks also has a reputation for being progressive and inclusive, which explains the annual controversy by the FOXnews crowd over whether their Christmas cups are too secular. Closing their stores for bias training is a bold and controversial move and I am interested how this will affect their brand and bottom line in the long run.
I doubt most Starbucks employees are racist. So I doubt forcing employees to undergo a day of "training" helps any of them. The problem with sensitivity training is that that ones who need it just yawn, and the ones who don't, resent the obvious.
Such "training" mostly just annoys both sides. You can't cure idiots with a day of training, and you really annoy the ones who don't need it by the implication that they do.
The simple solution is to fire the idiots and let repeated firings beat it into their dimwitted skulls until they catch on.
Quote from: SGOS on April 24, 2018, 09:54:30 AM
Deciding whether to draw attention to the controversy or allow it to die is a gamble. There are advantages to either approach, but it depends on a lot of variables, and sometimes, even given a lot of thought, either one can backfire. I would imagine Starbucks already includes training, possibly only informal, about how to deal with customers, but I doubt if there was much thought given to how to deal with non-customers.
A Global or National training day is no small event no matter what the issue is. The coordination and planning will be enormous involving regional and local instructions to the thousands of coordinators that have to plan and present it. Starbucks is taking on a massive project for this PR move. I'd be interested to observe the behind the scenes work that must be taking place already to make it happen.
several people have asked for the 'progressive training' to be secretively recorded. I'd like to know how this goes too, since it was thrown in on the fly.
Personally I'm hoping it reveals this as a massive joke just for a PR stunt
Quote from: Munch on April 24, 2018, 11:00:49 AM
several people have asked for the 'progressive training' to be secretively recorded. I'd like to know how this goes too, since it was thrown in on the fly.
Personally I'm hoping it reveals this as a massive joke just for a PR stunt
As much as I distrust commercial businesses at this stuff, I oddly think Starbucks means it. But they are still doing it wrong. Their problem is that they just can't understand that they have to fire successful (profitable) managers who tolerate this crap. It HAS TO BE stopped at the local level and they aren't getting that. It isn't their business that is wrong, it is individuals.
Quote from: Cavebear on April 24, 2018, 11:43:13 AM
As much as I distrust commercial businesses at this stuff, I oddly think Starbucks means it. But they are still doing it wrong. Their problem is that they just can't understand that they have to fire successful (profitable) managers who tolerate this crap. It HAS TO BE stopped at the local level and they aren't getting that. It isn't their business that is wrong, it is individuals.
I think you are right about individuals. Whether it's a win or lose economically, I don't know, and there are long term and short term goals involved. Starbucks has a lot of money, so I don't think that short term it's going to hurt them. They are already known among their patrons as being progressive. This move may solidify that image, or it may just strike people as damage control, but may not affect their standing on Wall Street significantly.
The first time I had a Starbucks coffee, I went in a tried one, just to see what all the fuss was about, and I was impressed. It was fresher and had more body than Hills Bros and the canned coffee at the time. I started buying it at Costco and drank it all the time. But since then, the secret of how it's packaged, which was the key to their success IMO, has been duplicated by many others. The coffee is no longer special, and I buy the Dunkin' Donuts brand because it's a bit mellower. Now Starbucks for me is just a pleasant place to have a coffee and drink it in a comfortable chair. I like their PC image, but it has no other effect on me.
Incidentally, the packaging secret was that canned coffee was packaged after it started to get stale. It had to be because fresh beans give off a gas that would cause the cans to explode. I heard that on NPR years ago. I don't know if exploding was just an exaggeration or if that could actually happen. But Starbucks utilized a new method, which might be what that funny little button on the back of the package is all about. It allowed them to package coffee that was fresh and more flavorful, or so NPR said during an interview with someone who wrote a book about coffee.
Quote from: Cavebear on April 24, 2018, 10:08:34 AM
I doubt most Starbucks employees are racist. So I doubt forcing employees to undergo a day of "training" helps any of them. The problem with sensitivity training is that that ones who need it just yawn, and the ones who don't, resent the obvious.
Such "training" mostly just annoys both sides. You can't cure idiots with a day of training, and you really annoy the ones who don't need it by the implication that they do.
The simple solution is to fire the idiots and let repeated firings beat it into their dimwitted skulls until they catch on.
Training isn't going to change anyone who is already significantly prejudiced but I don't think training would be completely ineffective if done properly. In this Starbucks case, the manager may not have had a prejudiced thought in her head when dealing with this situation. She may have interacted with these black men exactly like she would have with white men. However, the men and some of the patrons, both
perceived her actions as racially motivated. This is because there is a cultural narrative that black men are discriminated against in these kinds of circumstances. There is no "shopping while white" meme. Whether this narrative of discrimination is factually true or whether any individual involved is actually being prejudiced doesn't change the outcome as long as people believe the narrative. Training can help employees be mindful when interacting with people of different cultures that they need to be cognizant of how their behavior may be interpreted. If this manager had realized that calling law enforcement on two black men who aren't disturbing other customers might be perceived as racially motivated by both the men and other patrons she might have chosen an intervention that didn't lead to arrests, protests, national news coverage, being fired, mandatory training and profit loss for her employer. Treating everyone exactly the same seems like the fairest and most reasonable way to interact with people but because people are not all the same it doesn't always result in the same outcome.
Quote from: Cavebear on April 24, 2018, 11:43:13 AM
As much as I distrust commercial businesses at this stuff, I oddly think Starbucks means it. But they are still doing it wrong. Their problem is that they just can't understand that they have to fire successful (profitable) managers who tolerate this crap. It HAS TO BE stopped at the local level and they aren't getting that. It isn't their business that is wrong, it is individuals.
As I've learned working in a big retail chain, the higher ups don't give a fuck about those on ground level, their ants to them, and they just want a machine thats running. Makes me think of that scene from the first incredibles movie with boss.
This then is just a PR stunt to appease people, rather then getting their hands dirty with the ants, they'd sooner wash their hands of the situation making claim this will fix it and convince people suddenly the human race only thinks one way and one way only.
Quote from: Munch on April 24, 2018, 11:00:49 AM
several people have asked for the 'progressive training' to be secretively recorded. I'd like to know how this goes too, since it was thrown in on the fly.
Personally I'm hoping it reveals this as a massive joke just for a PR stunt
Electroshock reinforcement ;-)
Quote from: Munch on April 24, 2018, 12:52:42 PM
As I've learned working in a big retail chain, the higher ups don't give a fuck about those on ground level, their ants to them, and they just want a machine thats running. Makes me think of that scene from the first incredibles movie with boss.
This then is just a PR stunt to appease people, rather then getting their hands dirty with the ants, they'd sooner wash their hands of the situation making claim this will fix it and convince people suddenly the human race only thinks one way and one way only.
It may improve their image, which is a vital part of their brand. I don't see their coffee as a vital part of their brand.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on April 24, 2018, 12:46:19 PM
Training isn't going to change anyone who is already significantly prejudiced but I don't think training would be completely ineffective if done properly. In this Starbucks case, the manager may not have had a prejudiced thought in her head when dealing with this situation. She may have interacted with these black men exactly like she would have with white men. However, the men and some of the patrons, both perceived her actions as racially motivated. This is because there is a cultural narrative that black men are discriminated against in these kinds of circumstances. There is no "shopping while white" meme. Whether this narrative of discrimination is factually true or whether any individual involved is actually being prejudiced doesn't change the outcome as long as people believe the narrative. Training can help employees be mindful when interacting with people of different cultures that they need to be cognizant of how their behavior may be interpreted. If this manager had realized that calling law enforcement on two black men who aren't disturbing other customers might be perceived as racially motivated by both the men and other patrons she might have chosen an intervention that didn't lead to arrests, protests, national news coverage, being fired, mandatory training and profit loss for her employer. Treating everyone exactly the same seems like the fairest and most reasonable way to interact with people but because people are not all the same it doesn't always result in the same outcome.
I agree completely. I actually suspect the whole situation was possibly misapplying "loitering" rules, intended to deal with homeless people using "facilities" badly with a sad outcome and a tragedy of errors followed.
Certainly any business has the right to demand some people leave when they don't fit the business plan. It may have been a poor application of those company rules (badly applied). But I suspect Starbucks will sell coffee equally to anyone (and should) but they had a manager who made a bad decision between "loitering" and "waiting". It is sad all around.
I kind of understand both sides. But wouldn't the proper solution been to just take that one person off to the side and suggest a better definition of company rules about "waiting"?
Forgive me, I look at things very simply sometimes. I mean, if the manger was racist, fire his/her ass on the spot and kick them on the way out. But I suspect that wasn't the case here. Sometimes you want someone to leave for good reasons just because they should leave for many reasons Loud annoying, profane. But it should never be racial sexual or ethnic.
Quote from: Mermaid on April 22, 2018, 05:10:48 PM
The point of a coffee shop is to hang around. They have free wifi. People hang out there all the time. They have business meetings, meet up with friends or groups, they study there, etc. It's designed for that very thing. Why were these young men asked to leave after being there for a total of I think three minutes without buying coffee?
Because when told they couldn't use the restroom they got into a hissy fit
Quote from: Draconic Aiur on April 24, 2018, 01:31:21 PM
Because when told they couldn't use the restroom they got into a hissy fit
Evidence?
Quote from: Shiranu on April 24, 2018, 03:13:38 PM
Evidence?
Agree. From Starbuck's POV, it is just a PR nightmare to be dealt with. But from my POV, I want to see the video and know what actually happened. It could either way and all I want is the truth of the sitch.
Quote from: Draconic Aiur on April 24, 2018, 01:31:21 PM
Because when told they couldn't use the restroom they got into a hissy fit
What you basing that on?
I've hung around in a Starbucks waiting for a friend without buying anything first. I once waited *gasp* a whole ten minutes for someone to meet me there before ordering anything. Never got so much as a strange look from the staff, much less asked to leave.
Of course, I'm white. I'm sure that has nothing to do with anything.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on April 24, 2018, 10:01:29 PM
I've hung around in a Starbucks waiting for a friend without buying anything first. I once waited *gasp* a whole ten minutes for someone to meet me there before ordering anything. Never got so much as a strange look from the staff, much less asked to leave.
Of course, I'm white. I'm sure that has nothing to do with anything.
It doesn't. Thousand of people of every race hang out in starbucks loitering about every single day. This day the establishment told the loiterers to leave. They refused to leave, because they think they are entitled to hang out on other peoples property somehow. A private entity always has the right to tell people to leave their premises. That's their fucking right.
This isn't a regular thing. It's just that the instance happened to happen to blacks. If there were more cases of this happening at starbucks, and the vast majority of them were happening to blacks and not other races, then you would have evidence that starbucks is racist against blacks. But since that doesn't happen, there is no logical reason to think this was racism.
It was just a single thing that happened, and it happened to a black person.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on April 24, 2018, 10:01:29 PM
I've hung around in a Starbucks waiting for a friend without buying anything first. I once waited *gasp* a whole ten minutes for someone to meet me there before ordering anything. Never got so much as a strange look from the staff, much less asked to leave.
Of course, I'm white. I'm sure that has nothing to do with anything.
If you had presented as a anime girl ... you would have gotten attention, maybe dating offers from cute boys ;-)
Circumventing this entire debate.
We have Starbucks since a few years.
I've gone twice.
It was horrible. Their regular coffee is too expensive and not tasty enough, for what it is.
And the very idea of drinking a pumpking rubarb machiatto-frappuchino fusion with herbal tea splashed into it, or whatever crap they were selling, made me nautious and grumpy.
Their desserts were fine though, but far too expensive as well.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on April 27, 2018, 05:03:13 AM
Circumventing this entire debate.
We have Starbucks since a few years.
I've gone twice.
It was horrible. Their regular coffee is too expensive and not tasty enough, for what it is.
And the very idea of drinking a pumpking rubarb machiatto-frappuchino fusion with herbal tea splashed into it, or whatever crap they were selling, made me nautious and grumpy.
Their desserts were fine though, but far too expensive as well.
I like deserts that pack a lot more punch. If I want something to get me started in the morning that will rocket me into the day walking really fast, and jabbering, "Good morning," to everyone, give me a deep fried donut slobbered with chocolate that runs down the sides and drips on the plate, or something with a cheap jelly filling that screams, "Heart attack!" Starbucks coffee is OK, but the deserts are all these fancy pants yuppie "experiences," like a thin slice of pound cake. Forget the exquisite chevron of a curly chocolate piglet tail that covers 3% of the cake. Give me something that causes an immediate allergic reaction. You need to head down to the donut shop for that.
I agree with you about the pumpkin latte. Never had one. The very idea of the thing freaks me out.
Sorry, you folks who would miss a seasonal treat like spice-pumpkin latte ... or egg-nog ice-cream are kill-joys.
Quote from: Baruch on April 27, 2018, 06:57:04 AM
Sorry, you folks who would miss a seasonal treat like spice-pumpkin latte ... or egg-nog ice-cream are kill-joys.
Strawberries are a seasonal treat.
Your latte is a recurring hipster nightmare.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on April 27, 2018, 07:26:52 AM
Strawberries are a seasonal treat.
Your latte is a recurring hipster nightmare.
Europeans don't like pumpkins? Don't like turkey (the meat)? No cranberries/cranberry jelly? No stuffing (I prefer maize based stuffing).
Quote from: Baruch on April 27, 2018, 01:01:30 PM
Europeans don't like pumpkins? Don't like turkey (the meat)? No cranberries/cranberry jelly? No stuffing (I prefer maize based stuffing).
maybe I'm just trying to break the mold, but I like pumpkin spice latte, I do bake pumpkin pie around halloween, and I've even made my own pumpkin spice, cinnamon, ground ginger, nutmeg, ground allspice and ground cloves
Quote from: Baruch on April 27, 2018, 01:01:30 PM
Europeans don't like pumpkins? Don't like turkey (the meat)? No cranberries/cranberry jelly? No stuffing (I prefer maize based stuffing).
I like pumpkin.
Americans don't like coffee?
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on April 27, 2018, 03:27:31 PM
I like pumpkin.
Americans don't like coffee?
REAL Americans love coffee. (Sorry Cavebear, I couldn't resist.)
The only establishment I have ever entered with no intention of buying anything was a book store. I would never consider sitting for several minutes in.any place such as a starbucks or bar with no intention of buying anything. I would expect other people to be as curteous
I would like to see the video
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on April 27, 2018, 03:27:31 PM
I like pumpkin.
Americans don't like coffee?
Europeans showing how "evolved" they are ;-)
People here (mostly women) were drinking flavored instant coffee for decades (French Vanilla and Hazelnut) ... but you made it at home, not drink it at a fancy coffee house.
Most of us don't consider espresso to be coffee, just burnt whatever.
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 27, 2018, 03:36:31 PM
REAL Americans love coffee. (Sorry Cavebear, I couldn't resist.)
And the smell of Napalm in the morning!
Quote from: Baruch on April 27, 2018, 06:30:56 PM
And the smell of Napalm in the morning!
Well, yeah, that too...................I figured everybody knew that, tho.
Quote from: Munch on April 27, 2018, 01:23:29 PM
maybe I'm just trying to break the mold, but I like pumpkin spice latte, I do bake pumpkin pie around halloween, and I've even made my own pumpkin spice, cinnamon, ground ginger, nutmeg, ground allspice and ground cloves
I have never been in a Starbucks. The smell of coffee makes me sick.