ajax18 wrote:Is there any proof of this other than anecdotal stories we've shared of our own experiences? And wasn't the reason the confrontation started after 2 minutes because they wanted to use the bathroom and Starbucks had a lock on it. That wasn't just the managers idea to put a lock on the bathroom. That came down from on high from corporate.
Multiple witnesses in the store said this was what was happening, and this corresponds with what you'd expect for anyone who is at all familiar with how Starbucks generally operate. It's like asking for evidence that a local McDonald's was selling french fries. Yeah, that sounds right.
And if it turned out that this one store had gone rogue and the witnesses are lying, that doesn't change the fact that this is why it is a story and why people are complaining about it. So it would still make your, "I guess businesses can no longer prevent anyone coming into their stores for whatever reason for however long..." quite dishonest. This is a story about discrimination. If you want to dispute that discrimination occurred, that's one thing. Instead, you just keep making the same strawman argument in the face repeated correction.
Or it's a story about runaway entitlement and wearing victimhood like a crown of glory to one's own detriment. Once you're done using these men for your own purpose, they're going to have to live with their names forever attached to this incident. They will not be better off for having been assholes.
- Doc
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:I can't quite put my finger on it... There's a philosophy that doesn't allow for private ownership of property. Man. It's on the tip of my tongue. I think it was some German guy's thing, but Germans were Nazis so I'm not sure. Anyway, we should levy the power of the state to force private businesses into capitulating to the whims of non-paying customers who're complete and utter assholes based on historical injustices. That would show everyone how progressive we are. You know. By taking away our freedom to operate a business as we see fit.
- Doc
Full and equal treatment of people in public accommodations on the basis of race both as a legal and ethical principle is Naziism. Got it.
One of my more radical views is that I'm sympathetic to opposition to public accommodations laws on freedom of association grounds, but I both recognize this as a radical position and also don't think this means it's morally Ok to racially discriminate. So this wouldn't affect my willingness to criticize a business for racial discrimination. You have to be somewhere in the range of "Ajax" to think that. Likewise, even if I'm Ok with a law being changed, I am fully sympathetic to people wanting a reasonable law to be enforced. The idea that people upset about likely illegal racial discrimination are just behaving like Nazis is quite rich, though.
"It turns out that nearly everyone but American neo-Nazis are the real Nazis" is oh so clever. I look forward to your letter to the editor explaining that public accommodations laws is Naziism. Those "old man yells at cloud" letters to the editor are always a hoot.
So it would still make your, "I guess businesses can no longer prevent anyone coming into their stores for whatever reason for however long..." quite dishonest.
I'll be interested to see if Starbucks still keeps a lock on their bathrooms.
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
You can't, as this Starbucks supposedly was doing, allow white people show up and not pay until friends arrive, but kick black people out for doing the same.
Is there any proof of this other than anecdotal stories we've shared of our own experiences? And wasn't the reason the confrontation started after 2 minutes because they wanted to use the bathroom and Starbucks had a lock on it. That wasn't just the managers idea to put a lock on the bathroom. That came down from on high from corporate.
Yes. But you have to consult media other than Laura Ingraham to find that evidence.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:In EA's bizarro world men who weren't patrons, were trespassing, and belligerent have the right to be assholes on private property.
- Doc
Where were they belligerent, and Starbucks did not file trespassing charges.
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:In EA's world white people are guilty, and black people who trespass, are impolite, and not customers of an establishment are victims.
- Doc
They were not trespassing according to Starbucks who did not press that charge.
cinepro wrote:I recently read an article (can't remember where) about the psychology of confrontation, and it talked about how our brains are wired to get into a certain gear when facing stress, and sometimes it's difficult (if not impossible) to find the "reverse" gear and get back to a more reasonable state.
That sounds like it may have been a big factor here. The manager got on a track of wanting the men to leave (and have their authority respected), and the men were obviously a little upset at being asked to leave when they hadn't done anything. Both sides dig in their heels and the situation escalates out of control.
Instead of (or in addition to) training their employees about racism and treating customers with respect, it might not be a bad idea to teach the managers how to deal with situations like that and recognize when things are escalating and how to dial the situation back.
In my experience police were always pretty good at doing this dialing back in minor situations like this.
it might not be a bad idea to teach the managers how to deal with situations like that and recognize when things are escalating and how to dial the situation back.
How is that different from just giving in because someone is willing to fight you? Regardless of the persons race, the store either has a right to make people to leave or they don't. One of the things I can't stand about big corporations is that they always give the complainers and PITA customers free stuff. Did you see the black guy go in and ask for free coffee at a Starbucks as a prank over the incident and they were very apologetic and gave it to him? Racism was just a card that was pulled out as a weapon in this case and for the most part it has won the fight for these men.
A business has a right to make people leave, they don't have the right to let white people do something and at the same time throw out Black, Hispanic, Asian people for doing what they allow white people to do.
I can't count the number of times I have sat in a Starbucks without purchasing anything or for 2 or 3 weeks of the year sitting in Starbucks with a drink I purchased some place else. I've never ever been asked to leave and the bathroom has no code.
Even if it's not a Starbucks, how many times have you seen someone denied a water cup or restroom use at a fast-food chain for not ordering -- or pressured to order something first?
In my life never. Even as a teen in a rather loud bunch, the most we got was that one of us had to order something. And even that was after we parked ourselves for a bit.
