PopulismQuote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Printable View
PopulismQuote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Thanks for asking.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Regarding politics, his core beliefs are a mix of conservative/libertarian/classic liberal, and they're pretty much all America First. This includes stuff like he wants to in general reduce government regulation of business, reduce taxes, and reduce crime. On social stuff, he generally wants increase individual freedom. On foreign policy, he respects domains (like he isn't into toppling regimes) and carries a big stick and follows through. On immigration and trade, he's about reducing crime and special treatment.
If we go into detail into any of these, I think we can find that even as what he telegraphs can be contradictory, the final landing spot is coherent. Taking Syria related foreign policy for example, he has said things like we shouldn't bomb yet also said things like we should bomb. Maybe it's poor articulation on his part for why he says inconsistent things or maybe it's negotiation tactic, but at least we have context to work with. The contexts show things like this: he thinks setting a red line and backing down is retarded, he thinks toppling regimes that haven't broken international relations enough and are not a threat to other countries to warrant toppling is retarded, he thinks telegraphing your actual moves in war is retarded.
A good encapsulation of his core beliefs is his Supreme Court nomination. He's said all sorts of shit on courts; he's said stuff like his liberal pro-abortion sister would be a great SCOTUS judge (IIRC). When you look at what he has said on topics related to the Supreme Court, you can make an easy case that he's incoherent or not conservative or any sort of thing.
But what happened is that from the beginning, the majority of conservatives who voted for him believed that he was a strong conservative and that he would nominate a strong conservative to replace Scalia. How did they "know" that? Who knows? There are theories. Regardless, they believed it, and Trump confirmed it when his final move on the Scalia replacement was to create a list of acceptable conservative judges and promise to nominate one of them if he wins.
At that time, maybe he didn't know which judge, but every one of them was well liked by conservatives. Even so, a lot of discussion went on and that list got narrowed down and finally the judge Trump nominated was widely considered by conservatives the best choice he could have made given the circumstances.
So what we have here is a situation where if you look at what Trump says, you get all sorts of different stuff, but if you look at what Trump does (more specifically what his meaningful actions are), the result landed square on a strongly conservative position. The question then could be "but does he truly believe those conservative things", and the answer could be "who knows?" What we do know is that he consistently lands on results that conservatives like even though what he says might be all over the place.
Of course, this raises another question: "is what he says actually all over the place, or are we missing something or seeing something that isn't there?" I think the answer is probably yes and no. I think he truly does say some stuff he doesn't necessarily believe because that's good negotiation tactic. Though I also think that a good deal of the time he's saying what he truly believes but he doesn't articulate well, so it looks different than he intended. I could be wrong, who knows
i fuckin lol'd
https://i.imgur.com/BUVhcxt.jpg
I had a suspicion that this was incorrect and it's a good excuse to refresh my bash scripting.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Here's a list of users that the three before-posts had in common with the mission accomplished one. To their credit some didn't change their opinion.
might contain duplicates. I did it stupidly, but the overlap should be correct.Quote:
[�]trollelepiped
[�]ZomboltLA
[�]medvedmama
[�]RichandlerCA
[�]socialgadfly420USA
[�]nickyfingazz
[�]Nalcomis
[�]NalgahydeAmerica
[�]stjdalen
[�]coralsnake1776
[�]obewan901
[�]retrosynthwave
[�]ZomboltLA
[�]medvedmama
[�]RichandlerCA
[�]socialgadfly420USA
[�]Nalcomis
[�]stjdalen
[�]coralsnake1776
[�]obewan901
[�]retrosynthwave
[�]theorymeltfoolGA[S]
[�]Vanguarde2020
[�]derkman96SD
[�]Hillarysdilddo_2016
And thanks for clarifying.
That's such a cool skill to have.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
If you work at Starbucks, or know anyone who works at Starbucks.....tell them to call out sick on May 29th
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/04/17...-released.html
Quote:
The chain announced Tuesday that more than 8,000 of its U.S. stores will close for several hours on May 29 to hold racial-bias training
It only takes a couple of months to be able to do a whole ton of stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
E.g. data extraction and analysis is pretty straight-forward.
Learning a coding language is a steep learning curve, but after a week, you should be able to write simple programs and even simple games. Once you're that far, you've got a foundation to just keep adding more and more tools and methods to your work as you need them via Google searches.
If you don't know a coding language yet, I think you'd really enjoy taking a 1 semester class on it.
This bullshit needs to be STOPPED!!
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/17/healt...cks/index.html
Stop showing your innate racism and say sorry for being white.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I'm sure you're being sarcastic here. But there are millions of voices out there saying the same thing in a way that is NOT sarcastic. And it's a problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I really hope we see more pushback against this. We probably won't though, which is positively terrifying.
I'm not scared. I'll just quietly get old and give zero fucks what anyone else thinks of me. If the rest of the world wants to implode into a cesspit of hypocrisy, who am I to stop them?Quote:
I really hope we see more pushback against this. We probably won't though, which is positively terrifying.
I'll enjoy my white privilege by putting some reggae on and drinking a Chinese (or Indian?) beverage while smoking a plant that was once banned in USA to make it easier to criminalise blacks [citation needed].
#whitepower
FYPQuote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
The difference in criminal punishments between powdered cocaine and rock cocaine is an example of laws which criminalize blacks differently than whites, since powdered cocaine use is more of a white people thing and crack (rock) cocaine use is more of a black people thing.
... as I understand it.
you should beQuote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
That's fine. But it matters what you think of other people. And if they don't like what you think. they will MAKE you think something they like.Quote:
I'll just quietly get old and give zero fucks what anyone else thinks of me
Wrong question. The rest of the world wants to be able to MAKE you follow them into that cesspit of hypocrisy. So the right question is...how are you gonna stop them?Quote:
If the rest of the world wants to implode into a cesspit of hypocrisy, who am I to stop them?
Your understanding is not great.Quote:
... as I understand it.
FYPQuote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
One would think that trying to help the poor and lower class by clamping down hard on something that is a vicious scourge on their communities would be a good thing.
But not in Insane-o-merica
I just won't follow them. How are they gonna make me?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Yeah I knew full well I was on tenuous ground as I was typing, but I was also smoking and it seemed apt.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Well, for one thing, you can't work at Starbucks unless you succumb to racial bias re-training. Also, from the CNN article, you can't be a commander in the Philadelphia Police Department either.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
You are now required to submit your mind to processes engineered for the purpose of shaping your thoughts along the lines of someone else's preferred ideology. And if you don't, your livelihood will suffer.
This practice is very quickly spreading through corporations. At any moment, Ong, someone from your company's HR department could come up to you and say "Sir, you're white. And even though you've existed in society without incident for some 40+ years already, we've decided that your life's actions are not sufficient evidence to prove that you can interact objectively with people of other races. However, your mere skin color IS sufficient evidence to prove that you can't."
And then you either go along with that assessment, or you can't earn a living. By the way, you're forced to make this decision knowing that there is ZILCH for scientific evidence suggesting that implicit bias affects behavior.
Ya know Ong, I know your general philosophy of life is to "give zero fucks", but you really gotta draw a line somewhere. Are you really saying that 'thought control' is something you can just shrug off with a sip of tea and a spliff??
I guess there's not a lot I can do about it except for refuse to play their game.
If I was a Starbucks employee, I'd refuse to go. If my employers (who I value more than Starbucks) try to make me do this shit, well I'd either refuse to go, or if I sucked on it and just turned up, I would pay no attention and just consider it one long tea and biscuits break. You can take a horse to water blah blah.
Noone can make you do anything. You make decisions based on the potential outcomes. If being bored for half a day while I'm patronised to is better than losing my job, well I'll suck it up. But what changed? Nothing. My company ticked a fucking box, now they can't get sued for failing to train their staff when a white employee offends a minority.
Whatever. Tea and biscuits please.
Unless you can demonstrate that there is a company wide policy at starbucks to call the police on people who are sitting and waiting to order until their friend arrives, I don't think you can make the case that that incident had nothing to do with racism.
Are you familiar with the North Carolina voter ID law controversy? Since you don't seem to think that there has been any discrimination of minorities since 1863, I'm curious what your thoughts are on that.
I don't really see a problem with some kind of racial awareness training for the police, since they have a very sensetive job.Quote:
Also, from the CNN article, you can't be a commander in the Philadelphia Police Department either.
But, I would expect this to be a lesson in what kind of language and actions offends certain races and religions, for cultural reasons, ie shoes in mosques and all that shit. Not a lecture on white privilege.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I see you enjoy horoscopes.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Quite the victim you are.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
If you can't see how closely your argument regarding Trumps "core beliefs" mirrors a defensive Christians arguments regarding why god does/doesn't do this or that, then I'm not sure what to say. I'm open to the idea that my "trump-hate" is biasing me away from being able to discern his true message, but if this is the case, you're doing an awful job of making the case-- to make the case convincingly you need to clearly distinguish it from the "well it's because you don't have faith" argument the religious will throw at you.
Also, let's back up a bit-- I believe your initial observation was that Trump makes his core beliefs clear to his supporters. Later you seem to pivot to the idea that his ultimate actions are used with hindsight to clarify what statements of his were real.
It seems like you're swapping the causation around as it suits you. Which is it? Or am I missing something here-- I don't want to put words in your mouth/tell you what you think.
In the mean time, I'll toss my theory hat into the ring-- I think you have most of the pieces right, and that you're the most right when you say that his actions make his core beliefs clear. What I think though is that he doesn't have any core beliefs in the sense you're using the term. I think he's extremely talented at reading his audience, and he uses them as a sounding board. Then he delivers on what gets the best response. The twist though is that this is just the first step. It creates a mental link between "Trumps decision" and "my preference" with his supporters. This is what is scary. This is what makes the "I could shoot someone in the middle of Times Square" quote so troubling. This is how cults of personality arise.
The leader doesn't kick off the party by cucking you and the rest of the men in the group... that comes after he's got you to tether your preferences to his desires.
I think I may do this at a later date. I've tried to learn Python and Pygame on my own but my efforts and motive are just not there (historically) to do that on my own. But I do know that if I took a formal class, I would be much more likely to put effort in.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
The minority rule. How a small subset changes the whole. It's like how it was easier for Coke to go entirely Kosher instead of partially Kosher or non-Kosher even though practicing Jews make up a very tiny portion of their customer base.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
In literary analysis, it's really easy to miss the forest for the trees. My views looking theological is the trees.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
In your defense, my articulation is probably misleading.
That's the crux of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
That can certainly be true. Though I approach that which caution since it is gonna be more rare for somebody like him and in this circumstance to be insincere than sincere.Quote:
What I think though is that he doesn't have any core beliefs in the sense you're using the term. I think he's extremely talented at reading his audience, and he uses them as a sounding board. Then he delivers on what gets the best response.
What's troubling? Do you think he actually could shoot somebody in Times Square and not suffer severe consequences from his base? Because he couldn't, not by a long shot. This "cult" is in peoples' minds who don't like him (or his supporters).Quote:
The twist though is that this is just the first step. It creates a mental link between "Trumps decision" and "my preference" with his supporters. This is what is scary. This is what makes the "I could shoot someone in the middle of Times Square" quote so troubling. This is how cults of personality arise.
Here's what happened: he said something relatively normal and colloquial, and people laughed. Then others who make a living off of mischaracterizations, mischaracterized and fooled a bunch of good people into believing the mischaracterizations.
I admit I haven't done a deep-dive into the facts of this case. But what's been reported by the handful of mainstream news sources where I've read stories about this....I don't see any facts whatsoever that suggest racism. The mere coincidence that the caller was white, and the arrested were black is evidence of nothing except the fact that some people are black, and some people are white.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
From what I gather, they asked to use the bathroom and were told that it was for paying customers only. Instead of being decent members of the marketplace and buying a fucking cup of coffee, they decided to insist on an insane premise that they have the right to be on private property for no reason. WTF
And "I'm waiting for my friend" is not a valid reason. Wait for your fucking friend outside cunts.
They were asked to leave multiple times, and refused.
I'd call the cops too.
Starbuck's corporate response is so over-the-top it's almost disgusting. They're clearly incredibly afraid of being characterized as racist and suffering the PR consequences enacted by radical leftist ideologues. They are over-apologizing and deplorably hanging their employee out to dry. And by doing so...they are implicitly validating the claims of racism. And that just makes the identity politics monster even bigger.
What the hell does that have to do with the price of eggs in Thailand? I guess if we're allowed to use non-sequitors, I'll use one of my own....Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Abortion activists will whine about this many states are currently considering this many pieces of legislation that would reduce the availability of abortions.
Some of that legislation is well-intentioned sincere efforts to protect the health and safety of patients.
Some of that is a disingenuous ploy by zealots and sexists to undermine a woman's choice.
In my estimation, I see far more of the former than the latter. However, because the latter exists, the activists are able to lump all of these pieces of legislation together under the umbrella of sexism and zealotry.
I see the same phenomenon in the voter ID debate. Protecting the integrity of elections is supremely important and we need regulations to do that.. It's also possible to regulate voting in a way purposefully designed to influence results. Again, because the latter exists any attempt to do the former is thwarted by activists using the sword of "equality".
Now you're probably gonna say that voter fraud is so small, it doesn't really change the outcome of elections. First of all, that's bullshit. If you're acknowledging that voter fraud does happen, then you must also admit that the perpetrators have a motive. It's unlikely that every such perpetrator throughout history was a delusional maniac who was really fucking bad at math. Voter fraud works.
Sure it's probably never swayed a presidential race, but a single bus full of people transported to a few different polling locations is more than enough to swing a city council or state legislature election. That kinda bullshit undermines the principle of "of, for, and by the people". Instead we have the entry-level of government blockaded by corrupt individuals.
The NC law was passed legitimately through the democratic process. A federal judge affirmed the law in a nearly 500 page decision. I haven't read it, I just assume that if the liberal rags clamoring about this didn't quote it, then there probably isn't anything blatantly racist in that decision. and if it was all just hand waving, he could have stopped at 50 pages.
It's my understanding that a higher court disagreed and overturned the law. Generally, it's my perception that the higher ranking the court, the more likely it is to be activist (judicial activism is out of fucking control...but that's another thread). The reasoning in this case was that legislators had requested voter data by demographic, and later passed this law. It seems to me that they are making a correlation/causation link and I'm not seeing any evidence for that.
So those are my thoughts. Thanks for asking. Photo ID should be a requirement to vote. If you can't get a photo-id, fuck you. That's how I feel about it. I'm sorta for same-day registration. I don't think you should have to sign up in advance to vote. But if there really is some reason the government needs people to sign up ahead of time, then they should just register you automatically when you get your fucking photo-ID. Everything else in the NC bill was just filler that no one cares about.
That's not the type of training they're talking about here. I don't know much about it but there exists some kind of psychological test for unconscious bias. Like they will flash a picture of two dudes, each holding a small metal object. And then they'll ask you "which one was holding a knife?". If you say "the black one", then you're a racist.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
This is pretty dubious science. And buried in the literature on this is the fact that they can't prove that this unconscious bias actually influences behavior. There's no science for that at all.
Yet somehow they have developed a way to re-train people's thoughts to reduce or eliminate this unconscious bias. Re-read that man. They are changing your fucking thoughts! Or at least trying to. 8000 Starbucks stores are going to cease doing business for half a day so that the dozens of employees at each store can be threatened with their jobs if they don't align their thoughts with those of the ideologues in power.
How are you not shitting your pants over this?
Why would they request a voter breakdown by race when the purpose of the law is to prevent voter fraud?Quote:
The reasoning in this case was that legislators had requested voter data by demographic, and later passed this law. It seems to me that they are making a correlation/causation link and I'm not seeing any evidence for that.
And it isn't about just photo ID's. They systematically inconvenienced people based on race, and the supreme court agreed. There is a clear causation. They closed voting places that were primarily used by black people. They changed voting hours to later in the day because black people tended to vote earlier. You seem to know a good deal about it, but the actual supreme court document seems to have escaped you.
Then justice was served. What's your beef?Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
How does this compare to what happened in control districts?Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Thanks for asking!
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DSWXywWWAAAxID5.jpg:large
The only reason I asked is to see if I can find anything you would view as racist. If you don't think a law that the supreme court agreed targeted black people with surgical precision was racist, then I don't have to try to convince you of anything, because nothing can be racist in your eyes.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Gerrymandering is awful. Does this have something to do with the voter ID topic?Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
It was one of many points mentioned in the supreme court document.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...-1262_db8e.pdf
wait... Is that a different one? North Carolina, you son of a bitch.
This is the one I was looking for:
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions...d/161468.P.pdf
I haven't seen where the two were specifically connected. Those could just be two things that happened. If your livelihood is dependent on election results, I would think that you would be interested in all sorts of data. Do we know for a fact that they ONLY asked for voter breakdown by race? Do we know for a fact that they had no access to voter data broken down by age, by income, or by any of dozens of other demographic factors??Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Really? Every photo-ID legislation is accused of being about racism. It doesn't work the other way around?Quote:
And it isn't about just photo ID's.
That's a speculative accusationQuote:
They systematically inconvenienced people based on race,
A possibly activist court agreed. Another court, also possibly activist, disagreed. So who knows what the "right" conclusion is. I'd say the picture here is about as clear as mud. So I'm really curious how you're so sure this is all driven by pure, malevolent racism.Quote:
and the supreme court agreed.
So??? There are probably dozens of reasons that certain polling location might be closed or moved. There are probably dozens of reasons why voting hours are what they are. It's possible that those reasons are benevolent. It's possible that they're not. But if they're not, it's possible they could be motivated by something other than racism.Quote:
There is a clear causation. They closed voting places that were primarily used by black people. They changed voting hours to later in the day because black people tended to vote earlier.
It seems ridiculous to me that legislators would want to specifically suppress black people. A more effective game, would be to suppress low income voters. That's still bad, but it's not racist. If those voters just happen to be mostly black....that's black people's problem.
You're going to have to do more than just point to an outcome that disproportionally affects one segment of the population and then claim that segment is being victimized. That's like the reddest of red flags to me. Demanding equality of outcome, and then playing an oppressor/oppressed victimization game whenever you don't get it, is a deplorable method for influencing policy.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
It's entirely possible that these guys in Starbucks just didn't like being asked to leave. For whatever entitled bullshit reason, they felt that they had some kind of right to occupy space inside a private business, without patronizing that business. And what you have there is a simple pissing match, not racist oppression.
The result in this case is the EXACT result that I literally fear will cause a civil war in this country. In this case, the conflict is de-escalated because of Starbucks' willingness to succumb to the radical leftists demands. First, it's to fire, shame, and besmirch the white oppressor, and then to brainwash the remaining employees into thinking exactly the way they identity politics ideologues demand that they think. That game is going to end real fucking bad.
You've only presented me with two samples for evaluation. One is the starbuck's incident where the employee was simply enforcing company policy against two guys who deliberately chose to be stubborn ass holes. The other is a clear as mud controversy over a piece of legislation that is heavily disagreed upon among high-ranking justices.Quote:
because nothing can be racist in your eyes.
I think it's pretty shitty to accuse me of having an overall philosophy of dismissing racial complaints based on these two murky-as-fuck situations. Yes racism exists. And it's bad. And I hope it's discovered, stopped, prosecuted, and punished whenever it happens. But that doesn't mean I'm about to blame white privilege, or rail against some nefarious anglo-saxon dominance heirarchy conspiracy. That's a fucked up game. And it's about political power, not equality.
Certain issues disproportionally affect black people because black people are disproportionally poor. They're disproportionally poor because of individual behaviors that affect prosperity. Your chances of living in poverty in America are less than 10% if you simply A) Finish high school B) don't have babies out of wedlock and C) Dont' have a baby before age 20. That's it. White privilege isn't making black boys drop out of school. White privilege isn't knocking up black teens. White privilege isn't preventing black couples from getting married and raising their kids in a cohesive nuclear family.
Show me where black kids are being denied opportunities, and I'll cry "racism" right along with you. But if you're going to point to inequalities of outcome, I'm just gonna shake my head.
Those last four words...Quote:
Yet somehow they have developed a way to re-train people's thoughts to reduce or eliminate this unconscious bias. Re-read that man. They are changing your fucking thoughts! Or at least trying to.
Aren't we all trying to change people's thoughts? I'd like the screeching banshees to stop thinking that they have any moral high ground by virtue signalling on social media. If I could make them think like I wanted them to by smashing a frying pan into their faces, then I would do.
That's fucking science
I don't give a shit about their stupid test. I'm neither racist nor stupid. If I lose my job because I fail an unscientific racial bias test, or for hapening to have flu on the day, say hello to my friend employment tribunal.
WHOA there! I told you, if you can demonstrate that this is company policy, I'm IMMEDIATELY on your side.Quote:
You've only presented me with two samples for evaluation. One is the starbuck's incident where the employee was simply enforcing company policy against two guys who deliberately chose to be stubborn ass holes.
I'm not going to talk to you about behavioral biology if you're going to assume that outside factors are exactly the same for black and white people. Then, sure, if you assume that, then black people are an inferior race that is destined to grow up with a lower iq, commit more crime and cause more trouble.
If you disagree with the supreme court decision in such a cut and dry case, then you are as big a waste of time as spoon.
10s google search.Quote:
the emails to the North Carolina election board seemed routine at the time.
"Is there any way to get a breakdown of the 2008 voter turnout, by race (white and black) and type of vote (early and Election Day)?" a staffer for the state's Republican-controlled legislature asked in January 2012.
No reason to ask me that.
You can read the court documents. It's a lot of pages, but you don't need to read the whole thing to get the gist I don't think.
I guarantee every single employee will pass. It'll be like when I got my fork lift license. You basically have to be missing an arm, or blind, to fail.
A given company will do this shit because they fear negative publicity or legal problems if one of their white employees fucks up by doing their job at a minority. So all the company gives a fuck about is signatures. All staff have signed to say "yeah we get it" so the company can bask in the good publicity that being racially aware brings.
Noone will get fired, because companies will also fear those consequences.
Our Starbucks employee got reassigned to another cafe, as I understand. That's not fired.
This is not something that's happening. This is something you made up. They're not doing this for the employees, they have to do it for the publicity. Is this not obvious?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Yes. correct. I don't understand why this is difficult. Starbucks has to do this.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Welcome to the right side then.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Company policy is that bathrooms are for paying customers. From what I've heard, there is a numeric keypad lock on the door, and you have to ask for the code.
Why would they do that if they weren't worried about vagrant riff-raff using the toilet? If it's company policy to let any random douchebag come in and pee, why is the door locked?
Is it not obvious to you how wholly fucking bad that is?Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Not even close to what I said.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
So you admit that it's internal factors, not outside factors that are driving black people to grow up with lower IQ's, and commit more crimes.Quote:
Then, sure, if you assume that, then black people are an inferior race that is destined to grow up with a lower iq, commit more crime and cause more trouble.
In reality it's probably a mix of both. The data says that the chances of being poor are almost negligible if you just stay in school and wear a condom. If you aren't gonna do those things, then all you're doing is being a fucking ass hole if you bitch about profiling. Seriously.
And you're hopelessly deluded if you think that this "profiling" case is about equality. It's NOT. It's about political power. You've even admitted yourself. An angry mob of ideologues can dictate how a private company forces it's employees to think. That's not an equality game. It's a power game. And it's going to lead to catastrophe.
I believe the terms I used were "clear as mud" and "murky as fuck"Quote:
If you disagree with the supreme court decision in such a cut and dry case, then you are as big a waste of time as spoon.
Where in the wide wide world of sports did you get "cut and dry"?
You have severe reading comprehension issues. You need to stop breaking down paragraphs and read them as one. You're responding to individual sentences as if they have no context.Quote:
So you admit that it's internal factors, not outside factors that are driving black people to grow up with lower IQ's, and commit more crimes.
From a business pov, yes they do. The screeching banshess buy their coffee. It's business.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Still, they could have noted that their cafes are not public toilets or waiting rooms and insisted this had fuck all to do with race, and I might have bought a grossly overpriced tea from them out of respect for their position.
Same I told banana goes for you: if you can show me that this is company policy, you IMMEDIATELY win me over. If you can show that they call the cops on people of all shapes and sizes for not ordering while they're waiting at their table, then you're completely right in saying that this had nothing to do with race.
I imagine it's Starbucks company policy to not allow people to sit around in their cafes without buying something. Again, it's a matter of business. How is that not obvious?
Also yeah it's gonna be Starbucks company policy to call the police if someone who is asked to leave refuses to do so.
I don't think it is. If it is, you should be able to find similar incidents, or a starbucks official stating that it is. Especially after this incident.
I'm not interested in fantasies. If what you're saying is true, it should be really easy to find something that supports your theory.Quote:
Company policy is that bathrooms are for paying customers. From what I've heard, there is a numeric keypad lock on the door, and you have to ask for the code.
Why would they do that if they weren't worried about vagrant riff-raff using the toilet? If it's company policy to let any random douchebag come in and pee, why is the door locked?
There are locks on the doors, but in my experience they will give you the code no questions asked. This is to keep actual vagrants and junkies out, not to keep people from using the toilet unless they buy something right then and there.
What theory? That there are locks on the doors?Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Ok...here:
Easy gameQuote:
Originally Posted by oskar
So?? There you go with your dangerous rhetoric about equality of outcome. Why does your experience have to equal everyone else's experience? Maybe this particular store was having a problem and decided to be stricter with the rules. Maybe this particular manager is stricter with the rules to everyone all the time.Quote:
but in my experience they will give you the code no questions asked
If you can show me that this store manager gives out the code any cracker who strolls through day in and day out, but then says "no bowl for you!" whenever a black person asks...then I'll be IMMEDIATELY on your side.
Source?Quote:
. This is to keep actual vagrants and junkies out, not to keep people from using the toilet unless they buy something right then and there.
I'm curious how else you think the manager of a cafe deals with trespassers.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Your exact statementQuote:
Originally Posted by oskar
There is no extended context required. That statement is pretty clear and concise. From that statement I have inferred that you agree that there are internal factors causing black people to grow up with lower IQ's and commit more crimes.Quote:
Then, sure, if you assume [all outside factors are equal], then black people are an inferior race that is destined to grow up with a lower iq, commit more crime and cause more trouble.
Feel free to correct me on that inference if I have erred.
What color are they?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
IDK if it's a measure of Starbucks policy, but the employee in question who called the police was fired, as noted in the article which was linked on FTR.
IDK if it informs ong's position, but as a person who worked in a few coffee shops, it is not "bad for business" to let people whom are not paying customers use your facilities, UNLESS they are occupying a seat in the dining room which could otherwise be used by a paying customer, whom has opted to not be a customer because there is not an open seat.
It's generally attractive to customers to see a business which has customers. An empty dining room could be indicative of sub-par or over-priced goods / services, whereas a populated dining room could be indicative of a "good" dining experience at a "good" price.
idk about anyone else, but I'd rather a quiet cafe than a busy one.
The problem with allowing non-customers to chill out on your sofas is you attract the kind of people you don't really want hanging around... bored youths. Probably poor, probably black. But they don't bring anything to the business except the threat of racial discrimination when challenged.
I am unlikely to go into a coffee shop that is filled with menacing looking youths, regardless of their colour.
If I had a smoking shop, I wouldn't let people come in to chill out with their own weed and not at least buy a cup of fucking tea.
That's fine, unless they're blackQuote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I'll have rastas working for me, cry racist all you like.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
In fact I wouldn't need to call the cops. I'd have a big fuck off security guy deal with these kind of tossers. He'd be a rasta too.
NOPEQuote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
If you're a store owner, then every single soul on your property carries a cost. If they are going to use the bathroom, they are using water and contributing to a need for cleaning. If they are walking through your dining room, there is a non-zero chance that they will slip, fall, and sue. I can probably think of a dozen other ways a non-customer might contribute to the overhead costs of an organization.
People who buy shit, cover that cost plus profit. People who don't buy shit just cost money.
In the context of a single incident, the amount of money might seem minuscule and not commensurate with the outcome in this story. However, on the macro scale of 8000 stores, you can bet that a policy that enforces a revenue requirement is adding up to a material dollar amount.
Yeah, but to compliment that idea:
It's pretty awesome of Eric (FTR owner) to keep FTR up and running when none of us are paying him a dime to use this space, and I'd be surprised if it's been profitable at all for years.
Here's a bit of life advice for everyone.
NEVER APOLOGIZE TO THE MOB
Starbucks has made the swiftest, most vehement, most widespread apology I've ever seen a corporation make ever.
This is the PR they are getting....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_BP4fdLE0g
By apologizing so profoundly, Starbucks has validated the claims of systemic racism within its corporate culture. And thus, they've just created more problems for themselves. They would have been better off saying "fuck you, we're not racists. Go ahead and try a boycott, but we're betting you pathetic caffeine addicts don't have the guts. We've got you paying $6 for coffee bitch, we own you!!"
Wait, I'm admittedly not well read on this incident, but I keep seeing people ITT insisting that they were asked to leave. By who? From what I understand the only people who asked them to leave were the cops. Again, from what I understand they didn't have an altercation with any employee, no employee asked them to leave, and they were doing something completely normal-- waiting for a friend/whatever at Starbucks. All of a sudden (from their perspective) there are cops there telling them to leave. How would you react? You'd likely be pretty confused, think there's some sort of misunderstanding, and you very likely may refuse since from your perspective none of this adds up-- you're not a vagrant, what you're doing is wholly typical, and there was no meaningful lead up to give you the impression that this was to be the trajectory of your day.
Sure a private business can set their own rules (within some legal boundaries), and sure, I suppose technically they may not have broken the law, and I'll even grant that race may not have played a role (none of us are mind readers), but to insist that it made sense for two business men at a Starbucks table waiting to meet a third should have been kicked out is laughable.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/04/17...-released.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by boost
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/17/healt...cks/index.htmlQuote:
He said the men were asked to leave three times but refused
Quote:
On Thursday, two men had asked to use the restroom at Starbucks, but were told that the bathrooms are for customers only. They occupied a table without making a purchase and a manager called the police after the men declined to leave the premises because, they said they were waiting for an acquaintance.
NopeQuote:
From what I understand the only people who asked them to leave were the cops.
Nope and nopeQuote:
Again, from what I understand they didn't have an altercation with any employee, no employee asked them to leave,
It's not normal to use a private business as your place of assembly without patronizing that business or otherwise having permission from the business. Just because you've gotten away with it before, doesn't mean that it's ok.Quote:
and they were doing something completely normal-- waiting for a friend/whatever at Starbucks.
Obediently.Quote:
All of a sudden (from their perspective) there are cops there telling them to leave. How would you react?
So? Take it up with the ACLU after the fact. But when a police officer says 'get up and leave', then you had better get the fuck up and leave!Quote:
You'd likely be pretty confused, think there's some sort of misunderstanding
WHAAAAAT???????? No. Sorry. This attitude is why shit escalates. Obey the god damn police!Quote:
and you very likely may refuse
What nutso parrallel universe did I stumble into here? Why are you entitled to have any specific trajectory of your day? Why is it necessary for other people to let you effectively steal from their business, just so you can have a nice day? And why in the wide wide world of sports would you ever believe it is justified to disobey law enforcement in protest to an event that makes your day less than perfect. What's next?? Government issued baby pacifiers???Quote:
since from your perspective none of this adds up-- you're not a vagrant, what you're doing is wholly typical, and there was no meaningful lead up to give you the impression that this was to be the trajectory of your day.
I think you need to try and imagine how a situation could escalate to this point. You seem to be inferring that the manager just saw two black guys not buying anything and then went straight to the cops. That's not what happened.Quote:
Sure a private business can set their own rules (within some legal boundaries), and sure, I suppose technically they may not have broken the law, and I'll even grant that race may not have played a role (none of us are mind readers), but to insist that it made sense for two business men at a Starbucks table waiting to meet a third should have been kicked out is laughable.
They asked to use the bathroom, but were denied because they were not customers. All they had to do was buy a fucking cup of coffee and wait for their friend. Instead, they refused to buy something. At which point they are REFUSING to engage in a justifiable reason for even being in the store. That's a perfectly valid reason to ask them to leave, in my opinion. They refused that request as well....THREE TIMES.
Then....the cops were called.
All of that seems perfectly reasonable to me. Not a fireable offense.