If Mort Divine ruled the world

[Onder]

There aren't alternative stories. There's one story:

Two black guys entered a Starbucks and one asked to use the bathroom. The manager said the bathroom is for paying customers only, so the two guys went and sat down to wait for someone else they were meeting (i.e. didn't try and use the bathroom). The manager then called the police because the two black guys didn't buy anything, despite the fact that white people go into Starbucks without buying stuff all the time. She didn't ask them to leave, as far as I know. She simply saw they didn't buy anything and called the police.

It was a stupid situation caused by a stupid manager.

Is this like the biggest news story overseas now?

 

[Dak]

There aren't alternative stories. There's one story:

Two black guys entered a Starbucks and one asked to use the bathroom. The manager said the bathroom is for paying customers only, so the two guys went and sat down to wait for someone else they were meeting (i.e. didn't try and use the bathroom). The manager then called the police because the two black guys didn't buy anything, despite the fact that white people go into Starbucks without buying stuff all the time. She didn't ask them to leave, as far as I know. She simply saw they didn't buy anything and called the police.

It was a stupid situation caused by a stupid manager.

Whether or not it was a good policy or one that was enforced equitably, the manager followed the policy of the store.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...911-no-longer-with-the-company-chairman-says/

When asked what the company’s policy is about making purchases, a Starbucks spokesperson said: “In this particular store, the guidelines were that partners must ask unpaying customers to leave the store, and police were to be called if they refused.”

“In this situation,” the spokesperson said, “the police should never have been called. And we know we have to review the practices and guidelines to help ensure it never happens again.”

"In this situation" = someone played the race card.

The men in question refused to leave when asked by both the employees and the police.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/14/us/philadelphia-police-starbucks-arrests/index.html

The employees told officers the two men wanted to use the restroom but were told the facilities are only for paying customers. The Starbucks employees then asked the men to leave, but they refused, Ross said.

Officers responded and asked the men three times "politely to leave the location because they were being asked to leave by employees because they were trespassing." When the men again refused to leave, they were arrested "without incident," Ross said.

You know what I do when I'm told the policy is to buy something? I buy it. Hell, I don't even have to be asked. I buy a drink or something. I've been asked to buy something or leave at an independent coffee shop despite all my white privilege and the fact that other people in my group were ordering. Bad business practice (the place did eventually go out of business) but not necessarily a racial issue. But certainly if the police ask that I leave a place I comply. This kerfluffle isn't as bad as the defense of Michael Brown but it's in that direction.

Conversely, anecdotally I know of a black guy who works as a conatruction contractor for home renovations, who has had the cops called on him when he has shown up early for job appointments. Now there is bias and the guy is trying to work, not a violent criminal or a couple of recalcitrant mooches.

 

[rms]

"In this situation" = someone played the race card.

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

 

[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?