I’ve been asked to leave for this before or buy something. I bought something. I was in college and sleeping out of my car. I just wanted somewhere to set up and do homework. #whiteguy
The trouble with coffee shops, in general, is that they rely on high traffic and the purchase value is quite low and markups aren’t worth shit if you aren’t slinging coffee. So, loiterers can be a problem in smaller stores.
All I know about this story is what my wife telling me the 3 sentence facts. Two Black people>arrested at SBux>loitering. That said, the burden of proof would be on Sbux for firing him, or those who say the manager was wrong, not the other way around. Typically, you have to prove fault. You know, innocent until proven guilty?
Since this is the stupid thread. This is what is stupid about this:
A. Not everything is racist. Maybe the manager was motivated by race. No one knows but her. But that label has real world consequences so she was fired not for being a racist but to make Starbucks look good.
B. The idea that blacks have to be treated like children because they, and the SJW whites, might think it’s racist and act like crybabies. This hurts all of us and it hurts blacks the most.
He’s guilty of making national headlines that make the company look bad. Unless those two guys were there for an hour, it’s not worth making a scene. As I white guy I’ve done plenty of loitering and used restrooms that were for customers only countless times, dressed nicely, or like a slob, and no one has ever said a word to me.
Innocent until proven guilty and burden of proof and all of that is for the legal system. He’s nit going to prison he was fired for embarrassing the company. Or let go, or whatever euphemism they used.
My wife was told exactly that on St. Partys day. She bought a chai tea latte and all was well.
I’m ambivalent toward it because of my own experiences. I think it was silly for the manager to call the cops, but at the same time it was dumb to wait for them and make a thing out of it.
Making the company look bad because people have jumped to conclusions. It fits a story that is controversial right now and people like to be outraged.
Yes, it’s a crucial part of our legal system. Aside from that, it should be a heuristic that is followed before accusations and conclusions are made. We really don’t know. If it comes out tomorrow that the manager approached them after 2 minutes, my opinion would be that’s bullshit. If it comes out that they were there for 30+ minutes then the manager was probably right to approach them.
For all I know, the manager had been written up because loiterers are a problem, or the manager could have a swaztika on his arm. Point is, a lot of conclusions have been drawn and accusations made without enough facts. This persons professional and personal life have been tremendously impacted; for what?
Fair enough, if they were there for 30 minutes, I would say he acted within reason and would be willing to eat crow. That’s fine.
My point is, this is the age we live in. People are filming and live streaming everything. I was live streamed at a fire recently. Fortunately I didn’t drop my helmet or fall on my face. You have to be aware of the fact that everything you do may be filmed, and you have to consider how your actions could be twisted by people with ill-intent. We don’t live in a world of rational, logical people.
I also can’t help but think about how shitty the articles I read and the nightly news piece I saw was. Big on outrage, nearly devoid of relevant facts, like how long those two young men had been loitering.
This contributes to that ambivalence. Corporate cowardice for sure. Instead of checking her (him?, i dunno) on “Is it worth it?” they chucked the manager directly in front of a bus and are trying to apologize their way into the image they’ve crafted.
Which brings me to my next issue. Its either celebrate diversity, community blahblahblah or it isn’t. Sbux spends billions on creating the image of being hip and inclusive and basically a caricature of that old blog “Stuff White People Like” , but when it comes down to it- Buy Coffee Or Get Out!
They created the image. Now they look like hypocrites. Boo hoo hoo. They only want to celebrate diversity from a distance.
Ironically, I can see myself in both parties shoes.
If I was there for 2 minutes and approached, I’d cause a scene too. The manager doesn’t know if I’m meeting someone, etc.
From the manager’s side, I’ve done far worse when working as a retail manager. I could have easily been canned and on the nightly news 10 years ago. There was a guy doing kung fu in the middle of the store while I was the manager on duty. I used physical force to stop him.
I am because I have no choice. I don’t want my kids growing up to be crybabies who think they are entitled because of their skin color. That would be setting them up for failure.
Besides, if anyone calls me a racist I just have to show them a scene from True Romance.
The hypocrisy here is enough to make a hyena puke:
In an interview with George Stephanopoulos on Good Morning America, Dick’s Sporting Goods Chairman and CEO Edward Stack said, “We’re staunch supporters of the Second Amendment. I’m a gun owner myself. We’ve just decided that based on what’s happened with these guns, we don’t want to be a part of this story and we’ve eliminated these guns permanently.”
In other words, you sold out, you have no honor and your only loyalty is to the USD. Listen little Dickie, “based on what’s has happened with these guns” means what exactly? They crawled over to the school and “made” someone fire them? Or, the weapons possess supernatural powers, forcing someone to kill others? You fucking moron.
On the one hand, as a business they have to consider money. On the other, it’s a pretty transparent, hollow and hypocritical reasoning he gives. He owns guns. He bought them somewhere so that source is part of the so called story and he is therefore part of that story.
If he said he had issues with guns and he wanted his business to reflect his values I could respect his sticking to his principles, even if I disagree with them. But to pander to one group while being part of another makes him look even worse to me.
Yes, its one thing to have your own principles, and, I , like you, would respect them it he wasn’t such a sellout.
Well since this America and since this is the communist city of Chicago, banning a citizen from owning body armor is the only thing to do. As the article says, it is a little dangerous to be working in a 7-11 at 0230, but, hey, will you have the right to wear armor it you wish? Jesus Christ.
This goes for many, if not most, Progressives. They tend not to leave their upper middle class neighborhoods to go live among those they love in the inner cities. They don’t usually demand housing projects be built in their neighborhoods, which are almost always safer than the neighborhoods in which housing projects are built. They often do what they have to in order to keep their children away from those they love so. Strange.
Of course it not a generalization. Most progressives are upper middle class despite every income statistic showing it’s not mathematically possible.
The obvious fix is to just change your definition of progressives to match Nick’s view of them. In order to be a progressive, you must first be from an upper middle class neighborhood.