If Mort Divine ruled the world

[Dak]

for you to be this sure, you have to put a lot of faith in the manager always calling out everyone else who hangs out and doesn't buy anything, which doesnt seem like the thing that happens in big coffee shops

There's a difference between walking around asking people if they have bought anything, and knowing that two people specifically declined after being informed of the rules - rules they indirectly solicited - yet wouldn't leave - even after the police showed up. The manager might be a bigot, we don't know. We don't know of the times before where people either A. Bought something or B. Left or C. Didn't go in with no intent to buy. We have this one instance of policy enforcement and recalcitrance the media, Starbucks, and whoever else want to fall on a sword over.

 

[rms]

But do you really think that manager is consistent with that policy? I have doubts, especially without race involved

 

[Dak]

But do you really think that manager is consistent with that policy? I have doubts, especially without race involved

It's certainly possible, maybe even likely. That doesn't make her, or the situation, or the men all that special. The guy who shot Michael Brown was probably racist.

 

[rms]

But if she's not consistent it begs the question why in this case was she? Which is kind of the point of the out cry

 

[Dak]

But if she's not consistent it begs the question why in this case was she? Which is kind of the point of the out cry

How do we know she isn't consistent? How many non-blacks have asked to use the bathroom, been informed of the policy, said "no thanks", and then sat back down at a table? Then been asked to leave at the penalty of having the cops called, and still stayed? This is a classic example of requirement to prove a negative. Guilty until proven innocent.

 

[rms]

I think it's more likely she's inconsistent than the alternative, and surprised you think that's more of a stretch than believing she's some pillar of Starbucks ethics.

This is the only "interesting" aspect to this outside of no one asking why these dudes didn't leave once the Cops asked

 

[Einherjar86]

If that manager paid the minimal amount of attention necessary to manage a Starbucks, she would know that people sit down all the time without buying anything. What's to keep her from approaching said people and informing them of the store's policy?

These guys weren't mooching. They weren't doing anything. They were asked to leave, yes; but if racial bias had no role in this scenario, then they shouldn't have been. Furthermore, they say they were meeting a third person there to discuss something to do with real estate. It sounds as though it may have been a business meeting, or a meeting about potential living arrangements. I wouldn't want to be forced to leave either in that situation (and I wouldn't have been, of course). People often meet at coffee houses for interviews and other business matters without buying anything. I'm not seeing how this situation was any different.

 

[Dak]

If that manager paid the minimal amount of attention necessary to manage a Starbucks, she would know that people sit down all the time without buying anything. What's to keep her from approaching said people and informing them of the store's policy?

How do we know she hadn't? Because ostensibly the police hadn't been called before? Maybe when asked previously people either paid or left. That's what I would do. Not sit there like an entitled child.

Edit: Of course it's certainly possible the woman was racially biased in enforcing the policy. Not in asking the black men to pay or leave, but in not asking customers of other races to pay or leave.

These guys weren't mooching. They weren't doing anything. They were asked to leave, yes; but if racial bias had no role in this scenario, then they shouldn't have been. Furthermore, they say they were meeting a third person there to discuss something to do with real estate. It sounds as though it may have been a business meeting, or a meeting about potential living arrangements. I wouldn't want to be forced to leave either in that situation (and I wouldn't have been, of course). People often meet at coffee houses for interviews and other business matters without buying anything. I'm not seeing how this situation was any different.

Sure, many people in the US often act like entitled children. Using a commercial establishment's facilities without some patronage is mooching. I know it's Starbucks, but a cup of coffee really isn't that expensive for a one time meeting.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Is it established now that she warned them that she'd call the police if they didn't leave, after having already asked them to buy something? I thought the drama was that the dudes showed up, she asked them to buy something or leave, they said "We'll be meeting someone in a few minutes", and she walked off and immediately called the police without informing them. If she did warn them then yeah they have no excuse.

 

[Einherjar86]

How do we know she hadn't? Because ostensibly the police hadn't been called before? Maybe when asked previously people either paid or left. That's what I would do. Not sit there like an entitled child.

Edit: Of course it's certainly possible the woman was racially biased in enforcing the policy. Not in asking the black men to pay or leave, but in not asking customers of other races to pay or leave.

You can't separate those two things and make following policy the bottom line with no ulterior motivations. That's not how bias works.

Why would she enforce the policy for two black men and not for white people? Maybe she just dislikes them so much that she uses the policy as a means to stage her prejudice--in which case, that's bias in asking them to leave. Or maybe she unconsciously feels that two white people sitting down without buying anything aren't likely to be dangerous; but two black people sitting down without buying anything might be planning some kind of violence--in which case, again, that's bias in asking them to leave.

The bias enters into play when someone acts differently than they normally would. Just because something is policy doesn't mean it reflects some baseline of standard behavior. For example, it's policy to drive under the speed limit (that's why it's a "limit"), but people regularly drive five to ten miles-per-hour over it and don't get pulled over.

 

[Dak]

You can't separate those two things and make following policy the bottom line with no ulterior motivations. That's not how bias works.

Why would she enforce the policy for two black men and not for white people? Maybe she just dislikes them so much that she uses the policy as a means to stage her prejudice--in which case, that's bias in asking them to leave. Or maybe she unconsciously feels that two white people sitting down without buying anything aren't likely to be dangerous; but two black people sitting down without buying anything might be planning some kind of violence--in which case, again, that's bias in asking them to leave.

The bias enters into play when someone acts differently than they normally would. Just because something is policy doesn't mean it reflects some baseline of standard behavior. For example, it's policy to drive under the speed limit (that's why it's a "limit"), but people regularly drive five to ten miles-per-hour over it and don't get pulled over.

Again, we don't have counter evidence that enforcement has been different. All we can somewhat safely assume is that no prior situation has escalated to the point of police being called (based on a lack of customer responses/complaints/media coverage), and we can safely assume that these are not the first two black customers the store ever had. Making a ton of assumptions over a single incident where the customers were equally willing to escalate the situation despite numerous requests to comply with a reasonable, non-racially based policy, seems to me to be a form of base-rate neglect and special pleading.

We can both agree the policy for the store is probably a poor one, although I hold the caveat that nonpaying occupants are social miscreants.

A better example of bias people should be focusing on is how the Tennessee shooter had multiple incidents prior to the shooting, and yet the police either let him carry on or weren't even called. We can be reasonably sure that would not occur with a black or hispanic person.

 

[Blurry_Dreams]

On another forum I visit with a large transgendered population

i want to post on t

On another forum I visit with a large transgendered population, there was just an amazing argument/shitfest between a radical feminist and a few transwomen. I always have had time reconciling transgenderism with anti-genderism, and seeing it blossom so beautifully with terms like "gender misappropriation" (a transwoman wearing a dress is equivalent to blackface, you see) thrown around was just amazing.

i want to post on this forum you're referencing

 

[Dak]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...s-killed-in-attack-after-school-idUSKBN1HY1TU

7 killed, 12 injured in knife attack on school children.

Knives are most commonly used because gun controls are extremely strict in China.

 

[viewerfromnihil]

Too bad the guy didn't have an AR-15. Certainly somebody would have been able to stab him before he could maim so many.

 

[Dak]

Too bad the guy didn't have an AR-15. Certainly somebody would have been able to stab him before he could maim so many.

The argument has been that knife attacks are less severe (possibly the case, depending on setting), or that somehow schools/children/society will become safer by removing the guns. Yet we see crime spiking in many civilized countries and everything from bombs to trucks to axes to knives being employed. Ultimately, people kill people, and we can't bubble wrap everything, or even afford to bubble wrap many things.

 

[Einherjar86]

I think the myth is that with guns people would miraculously be able to present themselves at every incident and neutralize the threat. It's true that there was no one with a gun in China to take out the knife attacker; but overall, violent crime and murder rates are lower in China than in the U.S. (unless the Chinese gov't tweaks the numbers, but I doubt they tweak them that much).

Introduce guns into the environment, and you're bound to have more scenarios in which a "good guy with a gun" takes out a "bad guy with a gun." But you're also bound to have exponentially more violent incidents overall.

So no, we can't bubble-wrap everything; but we can afford to bubble-wrap many things, and we can bubble-wrap more things than we do.

I'm an advocate of more bubble-wrap, but I realize it's not going to make problems of human behavior go away.

 

[rms]

but overall, violent crime and murder rates are lower in China than in the U.S. (unless the Chinese gov't tweaks the numbers, but I doubt they tweak them that much).

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/chinas...everyday-behavior-even-jaywalking-2018-04-24/

But you're also bound to have exponentially more violent incidents overall.

assuming that guns don't make people violent. don't you mean exponentially more casualties?

 

[Dak]

Incidentally the CDC recently released data backig an old study showing more than a million reported defensive gun uses per year. Even with exaggeration that is substantial.

 

[Einherjar86]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/chinas...everyday-behavior-even-jaywalking-2018-04-24/

For the record, I'm not saying we should more like China. I'm simply comparing one specific factor.

assuming that guns don't make people violent. don't you mean exponentially more casualties?

Well, sure; but I'm not sure I understand the objection to my comment.

I said that violent incidents are bound to increase, not violence itself (whatever that might mean). What I mean is that guns, although they might be used in self-defense, overall facilitate the execution of violence, i.e. violent incidents.

So yes, casualties are bound to increase, but so is the number of violent incidents (even those that don't result in casualties).

 

[rms]

For the record, I'm not saying we should more like China. I'm simply comparing one specific factor.

just havin' a laugh, man

Well, sure; but I'm not sure I understand the objection to my comment.

"violent incidents" means incidents that are violent

100 shootings that kill 1 person each is different than 1 person killing 100 people at one time. the obvious answer the left has to gun violence is 100 instances killing one is better than 1 instance killing 100.

but so is the number of violent incidents

if the assumption is that guns are more prone to self/accidental harm than knives, that's about the only difference