[Parmy]

Originally Posted by Ashley.

They were sitting down, actually.

Who mentioned menacingly, anyway? No proof of that whatsoever.

Have you read the link i posted?

[Jamie89]

If they were a couple of elderly white ladies this would never have happened and you all know it. Racism doesn't have to be explicit for it to be obvious.

[Christmas Dynasnow]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

If they were a couple of elderly white ladies this would never have happened and you all know it. Racism doesn't have to be explicit for it to be obvious.

what a pointless comparison

if they were a couple of muslims with backpacks, what then?

or two schoolgirls

or ant and dec

get a grip

[Candy Annie Cane]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

what a pointless comparison

if they were a couple of muslims with backpacks, what then?

or two schoolgirls

or ant and dec

get a grip

Could be an interesting experiment. Two old ladies, two muslims, two teenagers etc all hit different Starbucks at the same time asking to use the bathrooms without purchasing anything just to see what reaction they get. i would imagine the results would be illuminating.

[Amy Jade]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

Could be an interesting experiment. Two old ladies, two muslims, two teenagers etc all hit different Starbucks at the same time asking to use the bathrooms without purchasing anything just to see what reaction they get. i would imagine the results would be illuminating.

You may enjoy the youtube channel What Would You Do? Annie, they do experiments just like that so see how the public react.

[Candy Annie Cane]

Originally Posted by Amy Jade

You may enjoy the youtube channel What Would You Do? Annie, they do experiments just like that so see how the public react.

I'll check it out Amy, thanks

[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by Amy Jade

You may enjoy the youtube channel What Would You Do? Annie, they do experiments just like that so see how the public react.

Youtube video

[ChristmasNeeve]

Indeed

[Yuki Maru Hoshi]

This story has a lot of emotional bias surrounding it, so I'll just cut to the chase. The lady who took the video is only just a bit overzealous. I read her twitter account and she's fully on board with making this into a political matter... Twitter is known for smear campaigns and this is not the exception, as she and others are intent on going after Starbucks and posting the business cards of the shop employees in order to encourage a witch hunt... Other people were on there posting they're cutting up gift cards, deleting apps, boycotting simply because Starbucks weren't quick enough to call it racial profiling, because they wanted a little time to investigate what actually happened and get all the facts first... that seems reasonable. Twitter's reaction? Not so much.

I see two sides to the reaction. One side wants to defend the shop staff no matter because there must be "some reason" these people were singled out and asked to leave... and the other side wants to get behind the underdog, because there's the emotional element to it, and because there's just "no good reason" they were removed from the shop...

What's true for both sides, is people are choosing to side with whichever they feel is the "good guy", i.e. whatever makes them feel good... in other words, we're playing judge, jury and executioner without all the facts... in either case, both conclusions are emotionally biased and we're not mind readers.

My thought, it's horrible bad customer service to call the police on someone who had only been in your shop for 15 minutes for "trespassing". Especially when coffee shops are common public meeting areas. Is it unreasonable to meet a client for example, in a public location, where other people often congregate and have small interviews and consultations? Or to exchange money? Or to meet a stranger for the first time? Was it racial profiling? Quite possibly. Can we know for sure? No. Maybe the manager woke up on the wrong side of the bed, went on a power trip that day after they didn't get their way... the patron's attitude may have very well been very rude, but how much of that rudeness was overly unreasonable? Or rather, how uncommon really is a sh***y customer? Many people hate being told they can't use the bathroom if they're not paying customers. And staff always hate when customers come in and be complete d*cks. Still ridiculous to get the police involved when there was no obvious safety issue or any sort of altercation. So I think the mgr/staff may have bit off more than they could chew by calling the police, as they escalated a situation that could've easily been resolved with a compromise...

Ask yourself what would be reasonable for you. If you were only in a shop for 15 minutes, and you asked to use the bathroom while waiting for a friend, and you were refused and told to buy something or leave. You'd probably be pretty unhappy. Especially if you really had to pee.... but maybe you didn't feel like just leaving and wanted to make a point of it. Maybe the manager sees this and decides to go on a power trip and so the police are called because you dared to tell them in their shop where they should shove it and it becomes a battle of egos... this absolutely does happen in customer service and so I can see this also being a possibility. The low wage employee and the customer both thinking they have the upper hand in that battle and both deciding to stick it to one another. So rather than leave, the customers stick around to make a point...

99% of the time, it's not worth fighting the customer on a policy that could be relaxed. It's not worth the headache, it's not worth potentially escalating it and it's certainly not worth your job... so the fact that they go so far to fight the customer anyway and call the police instead, that makes me think the customer service at that Starbucks is total crap or that particular staff member are very unprofessional. Only because there's no other reason being given why the police were called. Did they break property? Did they scream at other customers? Oh they're just upset? So what? The staff could easily make an exception in that case to allow them RR access to deescalate the situation... and then soon they would be on their way and no longer a problem.

The police shouldn't be called in to solve such petty disputes. They could've handled it without the police being called... is my opinion.

[GiRTh]

They did one where a guy was harassing a woman in a bar, but I cant find it. It was quite enlightening the number of people who helped her.

Youtube video

This isnt the one I was referring to and its a bit off topic but well done to the people who helped her.

[Christmas Dynasnow]

Originally Posted by Amy Jade

You're not a mod.

We have no Mods they all got sacked or resigned

Unless you know otherwise

[Yuki Maru Hoshi]

ANOTHER Racially-Charged Starbucks Video Goes Viral
https://www.dailywire.com/news/29516...-james-barrett

[Yuki Maru Hoshi]

Another perspective from a right-wing source...

WALSH: Here's Why You Shouldn't Necessarily Believe The Racism Claims Against Starbucks
https://www.dailywire.com/news/29525...cks-matt-walsh

Starbucks is in the process of being consumed by the liberal pitchfork mob it spent years placating. It's certainly tempting to sit back and enjoy the schadenfreude. But my disdain for pitchfork mobs is greater than my disdain for liberal corporations, so I will now do something I never thought I would do: defend Starbucks. Sort of.

Let's first take a look at the mess Starbucks has fallen into. The company is currently the subject of protests and boycotts and extremely bad press because of two "racist" incidents that occurred in two different locations over the span of a few days. It all started when a video surfaced of two black men being arrested at a store in Philadelphia. We were not given many details — and still we do not have many details — but the image of two black men being led out in cuffs was enough, in the minds of the mob, to prove bigotry. No other explanation has been entertained. No further evidence has been sought.

Then, on Monday, a video from a Starbucks in Los Angeles went viral. In this case, a black man was denied the code to the bathroom because he was not a paying customer. He then took out his phone and began filming. He discovered that a white man had been given access to the bathroom without buying anything, so he proceeded to berate the manager on duty (who was, by appearances, not white). Now that manager's face has been plastered everywhere online, and she has been labeled a bigot and a racist without anyone stopping to even consider what her side of the story might be.

Perhaps racism is really the culprit in both cases. Perhaps it is the culprit in one and not the other. But a rational and honest person would want to consider the entire context of these incidents before accusing anyone of something as serious as racism. It is just unfortunate that there aren't very many rational or honest people left in America. And there are none at all in a pitchfork mob.

The situation in Philadelphia obviously looks quite bad, but looks — especially the look of a viral video devoid of context — can be deceptive. Here is the missing context (or some of it, anyway): the two men were sitting in the store, taking up seats, without having actually purchased anything. That is, technically, loitering and trespassing. It just so happens that the Starbucks in Philadelphia has a policy against loitering. Loitering is apparently a significant problem at that location and the manager says that she has had some tense moments with loiterers in the past, including one incident where someone chased her around the store after refusing to leave.

The store employees tried to deal with the men peacefully. The men were informed that only customers can sit at the tables or use the restrooms — which is, again, a policy that this particular establishment has a history of enforcing — but the two refused to abide by the policy. When they were told that the police would have to be called, they responded, "Go ahead and call the police. We don't care."

The police arrived and negotiated with the men for several minutes. Still they would not leave. Finally the officers arrested them because there was literally no other option. A police officer cannot just allow someone to trespass on private property. If a trespasser will not clear off the premises, the police cannot say, "Well, okay, then. Never mind." They must uphold the law.

Of course it is claimed that white people loiter in Starbucks all the time without being asked to leave. This must prove that these men were singled out for their race. Perhaps it does. But if the men were arrested for "being black in Starbucks," you'd think there must be many similar stories from that same Starbucks location. Presumably, the Starbucks in Philadelphia has hundreds of black patrons come in and out every single week. If the manager is so uncontrollably racist that she actually called the cops on two black men simply because they are black, why didn't she do the same with any of the hundreds or thousands of other black customers she's seen in the store?

And here's another question: Has this manager ever done the same to white people? She says she has enforced the loitering rule plenty of times in the past. Were they always black people? If she has done exactly the same to people of her own race, wouldn't that disprove racism with absolute certainty? Are we sure that the loitering policy at the Starbucks in Philadelphia was enforced based on skin color? How are we sure? Does someone have proof?

The bathroom incident in Los Angeles is even murkier. It is standard policy in almost any urban restaurant or store of any kind to give bathroom privileges only to paying customers. Just last week I was refused the restroom at a cafe in D.C. because I hadn't purchased anything. So, I purchased something. It never occurred to me that my rights may have been infringed upon.

It is not necessarily significant that a white man had been able to use the restroom even as a black man was not. It could be evidence of racism, or it could simply be that the white man is a regular customer and the staff knew he would buy something. Regular customers often enjoy special privilege, regardless of their race. It could also be that he was given the restroom code by an employee who was more lax about the rules, and the black man was refused the code by an employee who was not so lax. Either of these explanations seem more plausible than the idea that a non-white woman working at a Starbucks in Los Angeles is racist against black people. Again, if that's the case, one must wonder how she has functioned at a store where an extremely high percentage of the customers are racial minorities. Was this her first day on the job? And her first day in Los Angeles?

Perhaps it was. Perhaps she's a filthy racist. Perhaps the manager in Philadelphia is a filthy racist. But I have seen no evidence to support those charges. And until someone can provide some, I won't be grabbing my pitchfork. And neither should you.

The difficult part for me is that because we were not present ourselves when these videos and incidents were recorded, we are going off hearsay. So we don't know if there are any inconsistencies to the story. We just know what is being presented... and I think boycotts/pitchfork mobs and Twitter witch hunts are bad examples of public discourse and is bad for democracy.

On the other hand, we should talk about these topics, because of course profiling exists and if we just allow our institutions to function without any any scrutiny, then that profiling goes from bad to worse in those instances... but it is a problem when are looking for perceived violations of social norms underneath every rock... surely we're all capable of profiling someone, or excluding others on a subconscious basis, and we're not perfect. Of course, we have to discriminate in order to filter things... which leads to inevitable blind spots, ingrained biases, if we always think those prejudices can be supported by social justice. Just as an example.

[user104658]

See... I doubt they were stopped from using the bathroom and sitting in because they were black. It's likely because the manager thought they might be "trouble".

So the only question of racism is; did the manager suspect they might be trouble because they are black... Or for unrelated reasons? And, well... There's just not enough footage available to make that call.

[Twosugars]

https://www.theguardian.com/business...-stores-may-us
The employee doesn't work there anymore
All Starbucks staff in 8000 US coffee shops will have race bias training
Looks like it was about them being black

[arista]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

https://www.theguardian.com/business...-stores-may-us
The employee doesn't work there anymore
All Starbucks staff in 8000 US coffee shops will have race bias training
Looks like it was about them being black

Yes a Afternoon of Proper training

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

https://www.theguardian.com/business...-stores-may-us
The employee doesn't work there anymore
All Starbucks staff in 8000 US coffee shops will have race bias training
Looks like it was about them being black

Again, not necessarily, Starbucks are having a PR nightmare over this and need to be "seen to be doing something". It doesn't really matter what actually happened at this point.

That said; extra training in impartiality can only be a good thing. If done well, of course. Most of the time these training days are a bit of a patronising waste of time...

[Ammi]

...I do agree with TS on this story../...incident ...in that I’m not sure racial profiling does apply...in the 911 call which was made, there was no ethnic mentioning at all...it wasn’t an ‘anxious’ call either....more just, they haven’t bought anything, have refused a request to leave etc...I don’t know what to do, can you help me please, can you come...really just at a loss of handling a situation, so called the police...which has obviously escalated it even further...not just with the two men’s awful experience but with racial profiling being immediately assumed as well in the media etc...


...it’s good that there is training happening now ...which I think should also be general de-escalating training as well...they appeared to be non-offensive, non threatening, not hostile in any way etc..so basic training should have resolved the ‘issue’ so easily without calling on police time...especially as it was a manager, I believe....the person the other staff would have called for any perceived delicate situation...and just basically and seemingly no clue themselves...for such a big chain organisation, it’s quite unbelievable really...Starbucks did leave themselves open to and invited this kind of negativity with the protests by lack of training of staff...anyways, I’m only going on the little bits I’ve seen and my own perceptions, which could be completely wrong also...

[Oliver_W]

So men being taken out of a shop has sparked protests. Because of course.

Protesters gathered at a Philadelphia Starbucks on Sunday and planned to regroup again on Monday morning after two black men were arrested there last week when they allegedly refused to leave.

Demonstrators carried megaphones and signs that said phrases like, “Too Little Too Latte,” and confronted the employees behind the register, according to NBC Philadelphia.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

confronted the employees behind the register

Who had absolutely nothing to do with any of it and don't get paid anywhere NEAR enough to deal with that ****

Too Little Too Latte

[Parmy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Who had absolutely nothing to do with any of it and don't get paid anywhere NEAR enough to deal with that ****

So call the police...and around and around we go.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by parmnion

So call the police...and around and around we go.

Oh god, there's gonna be loads of "sit ins" aren't there, where saddoes are gonna spend ages filling the place by taking up tables without buying anything....

[Parmy]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Oh god, there's gonna be loads of "sit ins" aren't there, where saddoes are gonna spend ages filling the place by taking up tables without buying anything....

Then it will all be as staged as this made up bollocks.

[ChristmasNeeve]

“Too Little Too Latte,”

genius

[Yuki Maru Hoshi]

Hearsay obviously but would be hilarious if true...

Philadelphia Starbucks Customer: Supposedly Racist Manager 'Is An SJW Feminist Of The Highest Order'
https://www.dailywire.com/news/29557...st-ben-shapiro

On Tuesday, Starbucks announced a national day of retraining for all of its employees in the wake of a supposedly racist incident: a Philadelphia store manager named Holly calling the police on two black men for allegedly loitering, after refusing them access to the restroom since they had not bought anything. Holly, the media claimed, was obviously acting out of racial intent.

The same day as Starbucks’ announcement, a listener to my show emailed me from Philadelphia to talk about Holly. According to the listener, who regularly frequents the now-infamous Philadelphia Starbucks in question, “I don’t know what happened last week with the two guys. I wasn’t there. But I highly doubt that she saw the two men and decided to call the police based solely on the fact that they are black.”

Why not? According to this patron, “From my observations and interactions with her, I was actually under the impression that Holly is an SJW feminist of the highest order. Once I even overheard her scorn a male barista for not using the proper neutral pronouns with somebody. That's why this whole situation is so shocking to me! Even though I did not agree with her and all the SJW pins that adorn her beanie, I think calling her a racist all over the news and doxing her name, address, phone, family, etc. is disgusting.”

This patron explained that Holly “is not racist and doesn’t deserve what is happening to her here in Philly.” The patrons of the Starbucks are “both black and white, and I’ve personally seen Holly give the oh-so-coveted restroom code to both black and white people, patrons and non-patrons. I’ve seen her train both black and white staff members and she has been nothing but nice to everyone, and I’ve never witnessed any racist behavior.”

The patron added, “I may not agree with the way she carries herself with the colorful hair and the hippie pins, but I can recognize when someone is doing their job well.”

This customer also points out that if Holly were truly racist, she’d “have to be on the phone all day calling the cops on every other patron,” since Philadelphia is so heavily minority.

I mean it would not be surprising I guess, given the company's values. But goes to show, that none of us are immune to a good ol' fashion witch hunt... I mean literally any of us could fall victim, regardless of our "reputation"... doesn't mean much on Twitter or to the mainstream media.