(04-18-2018, 10:02 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Does that say they were asked to leave by the manager? I don't see that claim there. You're inferring that, but she doesn't even say that she asked them to leave or even spoke to them. No witness accounts describe the manager talking to these two men first.
This is either extreme ignorance due to not understanding the huge amounts of information out there on this subject, or it is a willful lie/refusal to accept the facts of the matter. Take your pick.
Another instance two days later (different location).
(04-18-2018, 10:07 AM)bfine32 Wrote: For real? How would she know they refused to leave if they were not asked to do so? Are you inferring that the manager was lying?
I'm inferring that they were told they couldn't use the bathroom and they took a seat. I don't see that the manager said she asked them to leave. I've heard people use that phrase a lot when there is no actual request made. I've not seen anyone come out and say the manager had asked them to not sit at the table without ordering something before she called the police. So I'm saying that you are inferring something from the manager's words that may not have been implied, which is not calling her a liar.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(04-18-2018, 10:06 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: If the application of the directive is applied disproportionately to black people over white people, then yes, the actions are racist. If a person gives more leeway to a white person over a black person on the loitering front, then that is racist. The fact that this directive was for inner city locations, where it would affect primarily minority customers does speak to the corporate effort, which is probably why Starbucks hasn't come out about that.
If there is a company wide memo about this talking about reducing loitering without purchases, fine. But when your application of such a policy, whether through the location selection or through the discretion by the manager, impacts minorities in a disproportionate way then it is a policy that is rooted in racial bias.
If the issue is more prevalent in inner cities, then a company has every right to address that specific issue.
A logic I cannot follow:
There is a problem in our inner city locations where non-paying folks are taking up space and not allowing room for paying customers. We don't have this issue in our rural and suburban locations; therefore, I want my managers in the inner city to be more proactive in removing non-paying folks so that paying customers can dine.
RACIST!!
Now if the memo says we have problems with African Americans then you may be able to pull out the card
(04-18-2018, 10:11 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm inferring that they were told they couldn't use the bathroom and they took a seat. I don't see that the manager said she asked them to leave. I've heard people use that phrase a lot when there is no actual request made. I've not seen anyone come out and say the manager had asked them to not sit at the table without ordering something before she called the police. So I'm saying that you are inferring something from the manager's words that may not have been implied, which is not calling her a liar.
You didn't answer how she would know they refused to leave if they were not asked to do so?
(04-18-2018, 10:13 AM)bfine32 Wrote: If the issue is more prevalent in inner cities, then a company has every right to address that specific issue.
A logic I cannot follow:
There is a problem in our inner city locations where non-paying folks are taking up space and not allowing room for paying customers. We don't have this issue in our rural and suburban locations; therefore, I want my managers in the inner city to be more proactive in removing non-paying folks so that paying customers can dine.
RACIST!!
Now if the memo says we have problems with African Americans then you may be able to pull out the card
It doesn't just happen in inner cities. I see it happen at our local locations on a regular basis.
People think we live in a colorblind society and that these policies are colorblind. They aren't. When policies like this disproportionately affect people of color there is a reason behind that. I get that this idea makes some people uneasy, you're not alone in that. This is why organizations aren't going to overtly express targeting people of color, but they still find ways.
(04-18-2018, 10:15 AM)bfine32 Wrote: You didn't answer how she would know they refused to leave if they were not asked to do so?
Are you sure Dino hasn't hacked your account?
Actually, I did. I said that I have heard/seen the phrase used without a request being made plenty of times. It's actually very common.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(04-18-2018, 10:11 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm inferring that they were told they couldn't use the bathroom and they took a seat. I don't see that the manager said she asked them to leave. I've heard people use that phrase a lot when there is no actual request made. I've not seen anyone come out and say the manager had asked them to not sit at the table without ordering something before she called the police. So I'm saying that you are inferring something from the manager's words that may not have been implied, which is not calling her a liar.
I thought it was inferred too. I haven't seen anything from the employee or the two men arrested or any attorneys that said anything either way, but if she did NOT ask them that will certainly come out.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(04-18-2018, 10:20 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: It doesn't just happen in inner cities. I see it happen at our local locations on a regular basis.
People think we live in a colorblind society and that these policies are colorblind. They aren't. When policies like this disproportionately affect people of color there is a reason behind that. I get that this idea makes some people uneasy, you're not alone in that. This is why organizations aren't going to overtly express targeting people of color, but they still find ways.
Actually, I did. I said that I have heard/seen the phrase used without a request being made plenty of times. It's actually very common.
Well if you you you as the subject matter expert (I've seen it plenty of times) then you are never going to think you are wrong. But logic leads me to believe that when it is stated that someone refuses to leave they have been asked to do so. She didn't say won't leave she said the refuse. Something has to be offered before it can be refused. You speak about folks inferring. It takes a whole new level of inference to look at this situation as racist. I know it makes some folks uneasy to think every time a person of color is asked to follow the rules that it is not racist. You are not alone.
(04-18-2018, 10:06 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: If the application of the directive is applied disproportionately to black people over white people, then yes, the actions are racist. If a person gives more leeway to a white person over a black person on the loitering front, then that is racist. The fact that this directive was for inner city locations, where it would affect primarily minority customers does speak to the corporate effort, which is probably why Starbucks hasn't come out about that.
If there is a company wide memo about this talking about reducing loitering without purchases, fine. But when your application of such a policy, whether through the location selection or through the discretion by the manager, impacts minorities in a disproportionate way then it is a policy that is rooted in racial bias.
I agree that Starbucks should come forward and take ownership of their policy decision, rather than staging some companywide re-teaching effort for show. I highly doubt that the directive itself was intended to be racist, but intended to keep loiterers in general from choking out business in those areas. The fact that people are making an issue of the people involved being black is what is ironic. If it were white people that refused to leave, no one would likely bat an eye. They were asked to leave, they refused to go. At that point, they are lawbreakers. Why the sympathy and "outrage", simply because of the offender's race?
Is Starbucks supposed to ignore the fact that they are loitering, because they are black, and that makes it OK?
Volson is meh, but I like him, and he has far exceeded my expectations
(04-18-2018, 10:26 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Well if you you you as the subject matter expert (I've seen it plenty of times) then you are never going to think you are wrong. But logic leads me to believe that when it is stated that someone refuses to leave they have been asked to do so. She didn't say won't leave she said the refuse. Something has to be offered before it can be refused. You speak about folks inferring. It takes a whole new level of inference to look at this situation as racist. I know it makes some folks uneasy to think every time a person of color is asked to follow the rules that it is not racist. You are not alone.
If proper language rules were being applied, then sure, we could easily infer from her statement that she asked them to leave. But experience leads me to not infer that based upon the frequent use of the phrase without someone being asked. If you haven't seen/heard that, then you would be less likely to think the way I do. Maybe everyone around you only uses proper language all the time.
It is also experience, data, research, studies, and a whole host of other things that lead me to infer that this situation involved racial bias. If someone refuses to acknowledge the existence of the plethora of information on this topic, though, then they may be less likely to see the racial bias involved. Some people just don't understand all this, and some people don't want to know.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(04-18-2018, 10:27 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I agree that Starbucks should come forward and take ownership of their policy decision, rather than staging some companywide re-teaching effort for show. I highly doubt that the directive itself was intended to be racist, but intended to keep loiterers in general from choking out business in those areas. The fact that people are making an issue of the people involved being black is what is ironic. If it were white people that refused to leave, no one would likely bat an eye. They were asked to leave, they refused to go. At that point, they are lawbreakers. Why the sympathy and "outrage", simply because of the offender's race?
Is Starbucks supposed to ignore the fact that they are loitering, because they are black, and that makes it OK?
I actually don't think the majority of incidents like this, or policies, are intended to be racially biased. This is why I talk so much about implicit biases. These are unconscious biases that do, in fact, guide a lot of our decisions in life. I contend that if these were white people, then cops would not have been called. Even if cops had been called, they would not have responded in the way they did. Those things are the result of implicit racial biases.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(04-18-2018, 10:27 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I agree that Starbucks should come forward and take ownership of their policy decision, rather than staging some companywide re-teaching effort for show. I highly doubt that the directive itself was intended to be racist, but intended to keep loiterers in general from choking out business in those areas. The fact that people are making an issue of the people involved being black is what is ironic. If it were white people that refused to leave, no one would likely bat an eye. They were asked to leave, they refused to go. At that point, they are lawbreakers. Why the sympathy and "outrage", simply because of the offender's race?
Is Starbucks supposed to ignore the fact that they are loitering, because they are black, and that makes it OK?
If only white people were being asked to leave you can bet your sweet bitty that it would be on the news.
But, again, it is because black people have a history with being singled out. So when it happens (again) then tend to get upset about it.
I agree that the easiest answer would be the company saying they had a policy to try and weed out loiterers and they need to train employees to better handle the situations as they arise before the police get involved and a scene is made. The fact that they did NOT say that makes me wonder if this was a regional thing rather than a countrywide thing.
That might come out in the wash too.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(04-18-2018, 10:32 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: If proper language rules were being applied, then sure, we could easily infer from her statement that she asked them to leave. But experience leads me to not infer that based upon the frequent use of the phrase without someone being asked. If you haven't seen/heard that, then you would be less likely to think the way I do. Maybe everyone around you only uses proper language all the time.
It is also experience, data, research, studies, and a whole host of other things that lead me to infer that this situation involved racial bias. If someone refuses to acknowledge the existence of the plethora of information on this topic, though, then they may be less likely to see the racial bias involved. Some people just don't understand all this, and some people don't want to know.
However, you are truly enlightened and know this is an issue of racism.
(04-18-2018, 10:37 AM)bfine32 Wrote: However, you are truly enlightened and know this is an issue of racism.
One thing we have to try and remember is that when Matt starts talking about stats and facts he has researched them.
That doesn't make him "the" expert on any particular subject, but it means he has done the legwork (usually unrelated to this board and its topics) and has the info to back up his assumptions and statements.
He isn't one to just spout off an opinion based on what he "feels" or what he has experienced himself with no other background data.
That's why so many respect his opinion.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(04-18-2018, 10:35 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I actually don't think the majority of incidents like this, or policies, are intended to be racially biased. This is why I talk so much about implicit biases. These are unconscious biases that do, in fact, guide a lot of our decisions in life. I contend that if these were white people, then cops would not have been called. Even if cops had been called, they would not have responded in the way they did. Those things are the result of implicit racial biases.
I understand that principal, I just feel like it get's extrapolated and applied into too many areas in society. By that same logic, should we condemn laws against dealing drugs on the street because they unfairly target black males? Should we condemn laws against prostitution because they unfairly target drug addicted females?
Rules and policies are designed with the intent of protecting people's rights from offenders. In our situation here, Starbucks' right to efficiently conduct business. Instead of a racial overtone to the Starbucks story, the headline should have been more like "Starbucks cracking down on loitering at busy Metro locations".
Volson is meh, but I like him, and he has far exceeded my expectations
(04-18-2018, 10:37 AM)bfine32 Wrote: However, you are truly enlightened and know this is an issue of racism.
(04-18-2018, 10:41 AM)GMDino Wrote: One thing we have to try and remember is that when Matt starts talking about stats and facts he has researched them.
That doesn't make him "the" expert on any particular subject, but it means he has done the legwork (usually unrelated to this board and its topics) and has the info to back up his assumptions and statements.
He isn't one to just spout off an opinion based on what he "feels" or what he has experienced himself with no other background data.
That's why so many respect his opinion.
I appreciate the defense, and it is true. I am actually at home right now writing an article that focuses on the disproportional impact of the criminal justice system on people of color. I'm writing an article on felony disenfranchisement in the southern states and the history of race involved with that. This policy is written to be colorblind, but because of policies like the concept of broken windows policing, the application results in more than 20% of the black voting age population in four states being disenfranchised. I am currently and quite literally surrounded by academic papers, news articles, books, and legal briefs talking about all of these things.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(04-18-2018, 10:54 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I understand that principal, I just feel like it get's extrapolated and applied into too many areas in society. By that same logic, should we condemn laws against dealing drugs on the street because they unfairly target black males? Should we condemn laws against prostitution because they unfairly target drug addicted females?
What is funny is that you focus on drug enforcement, which is absolutely something we should be looking at. White people are just as likely, if not more likely, to be drug users and/or dealers, yet the rate at which people of color are arrested, charged, and imprisoned for drug crimes is multiple times higher than for white people. They also receive stiffer sentences when they are found guilty. We should look at our drug laws, especially things like how we treat crack differently than cocaine which means black people are punished in much harsher ways than white people for the same sort of crimes.
Prostitution gets into some other issues that veer away from this discussion.
(04-18-2018, 10:54 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Rules and policies are designed with the intent of protecting people's rights from offenders. In our situation here, Starbucks' right to efficiently conduct business. Instead of a racial overtone to the Starbucks story, the headline should have been more like "Starbucks cracking down on loitering at busy Metro locations".
This is what they should be designed for. This is not what they are usually designed for.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(04-18-2018, 10:41 AM)GMDino Wrote: One thing we have to try and remember is that when Matt starts talking about stats and facts he has researched them.
That doesn't make him "the" expert on any particular subject, but it means he has done the legwork (usually unrelated to this board and its topics) and has the info to back up his assumptions and statements.
He isn't one to just spout off an opinion based on what he "feels" or what he has experienced himself with no other background data.
That's why so many respect his opinion.
Nothing wrong with respecting nor is there anything wrong with recognizing bias. When someone listens (reads) a 911 call stating "The Gentlemen are refusing to leave" and you state you have no indication that they have been asked to do so. Then your bias may be influencing your expert opinion.
(04-18-2018, 11:03 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Nothing wrong with respecting nor is there anything wrong with recognizing bias. When someone listens (reads) a 911 call stating "The Gentlemen are refusing to leave" and you state you have no indication that they have been asked to do so. Then your bias may be influencing your expert opinion.
I agree it was certainly implied they were asked to leave. But I'm sure you can understand that there may be more to it as no one involved directly has said what happened.
What if the two men say no one ever came up to them and asked them to leave? Or they say they were told they needed to order something or they would be asked to leave and they said they would order when the third part got there.
The inference is that "someone" told them directly to leave and they said no. We just have to see if that happened or if there is more to it. That's all.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
![[Image: bfine-guns2.png]](https://i.ibb.co/YBkDQJV/bfine-guns2.png)
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
