#BlackinAmerica

[laughing dog]

That wasn't the reaction I was referring to.

It was part of it.

]
Why? What do you get out of insisting that they're a bigot, and taking pains to make sure they understand how much better than them you think you are? What does that accomplish, other than making you feel superior?

Apparently you have an aversion to accurately describing reality. How does not letting someone engage in any unacceptable behavior or posting without feedback do anyone any good? Or do you think bigotry is is not a big enough deal to point it out?

What is truly rich is the irony of those straw men in your post. Did you feel better about yourself when you posted those unsubstantiated accusations?

 

[repoman]

See how long this stays up

 

[Emily Lake]

That wasn't the reaction I was referring to.

It was part of it.

I suppose it's possible that I don't know what my intentions were, but that somehow you have significantly better insight to my mind than I do. I deem that rather unlikely though.

Why? What do you get out of insisting that they're a bigot, and taking pains to make sure they understand how much better than them you think you are? What does that accomplish, other than making you feel superior?

Apparently you have an aversion to accurately describing reality. How does not letting someone engage in any unacceptable behavior or posting without feedback do anyone any good? Or do you think bigotry is is not a big enough deal to point it out?

I think that many people, including you, are quick to see bias and privilege as bigotry, and then to accuse others of being bigots. I think that many people who take that approach are erecting barriers to progress that really don't need to be there.

What is truly rich is the irony of those straw men in your post. Did you feel better about yourself when you posted those unsubstantiated accusations?

I feel like I'm trying to have a meaningful conversation and build understanding... and you're trying to score internet points.

- - - Updated - - -

See how long this stays up

That filter makes it look like there's a dildo sitting on his bookshelf on the right hand side.

 

[RavenSky]

a) I am not racist. I am just annoyed by racist double standards in our society.

You mean the racist double-standard that has two black men arrested for waiting for their friend for a whole TWO MINUTES before ordering?

Yeah... didn't think so.

Two wrongs do not make a right. What about double standard of excusing black racism or even pretending it doesn't exist.

Go start your own thread IF you can find any instance of white people being arrested for "trespassing" because they waiting for a friend for a whole two minutes at a Starbucks.

Otherwise, stop trying to derail this thread with your hobbyhorse.

P.S.: Also, make up your mind. Were they waiting for a friend or a business partner?

You think the man can't be both? How sad for you.

 

[RavenSky]

Looks like Starbucks is making amends by giving a free cup of coffee to all black people. Good on them!:

Giving free coffee based on race is prima facie racist behavior... And people on here keep insisting there is no such thing as black privilege. I can't go into Starbucks and demand free product just because somebody white got themselves arrested at a Starbucks somewhere.

^^^ original post.

You fell for fake news because it reinforced your favorite bias. Don't try moving the goalposts to the next county now.

The coupons may have been fake but at least one barista was giving out free coffees...

- - - Updated - - -

Where is the assertion that the guys were in Starbucks for only two minutes before the police were called?

This is not asked in a sarcastic way. It seems very possible.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...ps-minutes-black-men-arrive-article-1.3942931

 

[RavenSky]

Whoever handles social media for Starbucks certainly has their hands full at the moment, but they are trying

 

[laughing dog]

I suppose it's possible that I don't know what my intentions were, but that somehow you have significantly better insight to my mind than I do. I deem that rather unlikely though.

I was not referring to your intentions. I was referring to the actual comments of mine and others that you were commenting on.

I think that many people, including you, are quick to see bias and privilege as bigotry, and then to accuse others of being bigots. I think that many people who take that approach are erecting barriers to progress that really don't need to be there.

Um, bigotry requires bias. And I think people who willfully disregard reality are barriers to progress.

I feel like I'm trying to have a meaningful conversation and build understanding... and you're trying to score internet points.

Let me get this straight - when you accuse others of unacceptable behavior, you are trying to have a meaningful conversation and build understanding. When other people do it, they are trying to score internet points or they are doing it to feel superio. Wow.

 

[Emily Lake]

Um, bigotry requires bias.

Sure, I agree. But bias isn't synonymous with bigotry. Bias is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for bigotry.

And regardless of whether it's bias or bigotry... antagonistic approaches that demonize the other party have pretty much never been effective when it comes to discussion and progress. Now, if you're wading in hurling invective as well as stones... that's a different story Demonizing the other party is an excellent tactic for warfare and the reinforcement of tribalism, just not so much when it comes to social change.

Let me get this straight - when you accuse others of unacceptable behavior, you are trying to have a meaningful conversation and build understanding. When other people do it, they are trying to score internet points or they are doing it to feel superio. Wow.

I'm not seeing where I've accused you of unacceptable behavior. I've accused you of ineffective behavior, most definitely. It seems however that you actually admitted to your intention NOT being to further discussion or build understanding or foster change so... Not sure how you intended it to be interpreted.

 

[laughing dog]

Um, bigotry requires bias.

Sure, I agree. But bias isn't synonymous with bigotry. Bias is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for bigotry.

Is there an actual point here?

And regardless of whether it's bias or bigotry... antagonistic approaches that demonize the other party have pretty much never been effective when it comes to discussion and progress. Now, if you're wading in hurling invective as well as stones... that's a different story Demonizing the other party is an excellent tactic for warfare and the reinforcement of tribalism, just not so much when it comes to social change.

I referred to a bigoted derail. Which you somehow transformed into calling someone a bigot, and then into this silly derail. IF anyone is engaging in ineffective discussion, it's you.

I'm not seeing where I've accused you of unacceptable behavior. I've accused you of ineffective behavior, most definitely.

You engaged in passive aggressive behavior, and then you got called out on your hypocrisy, you respond with this swarmy nonsense,

It seems however that you actually admitted to your intention NOT being to further discussion or build understanding or foster change

I can see how someone with severe reading comprehension difficulties would make such a straw man interpretation.

 

[thebeave]

Looks like Hotep Jesus is a comedian and a bit of a troll. A pretty good one too, if you ask me. He doesn't have much affection for liberals, it seems:

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uom5-aTvCY[/YOUTUBE]

 

[ZiprHead]

First responder accused of spitting on 3-year-old boy and hurling racial slur at Hooters

 

[Trausti]

LAPD

Criminal trespass … On April 11 at 8:46 p.m., officers investigated a disturbance involving multiple juveniles who were loitering at the Hatboro McDonalds on North York Road and failed to leave when instructed to by management. As a result, a 16-year-old boy from Upper Moreland Township was cited for criminal trespass as he was warned previously for loitering at the restaurant. Eight other juveniles were identified and warned for trespassing and advised they will be cited should they be found loitering at the business or any other posted businesses again.

Police Blotter

April 9, 12:20 a.m.: Officers contacted a loitering man at a business when the employees there called for assistance, explaining the person had refused to leave when asked. The man decided to leave on his own and accepted the officer’s assistance in getting him to a homeless shelter for the night.

Police Blotter

What happened in the OP is hardly unusual. Nothing to do with racism. Social media has made everyone mad.

 

[Arctish]

LAPD

Criminal trespass … On April 11 at 8:46 p.m., officers investigated a disturbance involving multiple juveniles who were loitering at the Hatboro McDonalds on North York Road and failed to leave when instructed to by management. As a result, a 16-year-old boy from Upper Moreland Township was cited for criminal trespass as he was warned previously for loitering at the restaurant. Eight other juveniles were identified and warned for trespassing and advised they will be cited should they be found loitering at the business or any other posted businesses again.

Police Blotter

April 9, 12:20 a.m.: Officers contacted a loitering man at a business when the employees there called for assistance, explaining the person had refused to leave when asked. The man decided to leave on his own and accepted the officer’s assistance in getting him to a homeless shelter for the night.

Police Blotter

What happened in the OP is hardly unusual. Nothing to do with racism. Social media has made everyone mad.

It's unusual for a Starbucks to kick out customers who have no history of loitering there and were not causing a disturbance.

Starbucks encourages people to make it's coffee shop a place to meet up and linger by providing free wifi, snacks, and a wide range of widely hyped coffee drinks, like the Unicorn drink that sold out within hours.

 

[Trausti]

LAPD



Police Blotter



Police Blotter

What happened in the OP is hardly unusual. Nothing to do with racism. Social media has made everyone mad.

It's unusual for a Starbucks to kick out customers who have no history of loitering there and were not causing a disturbance.

Starbucks encourages people to make it's coffee shop a place to meet up and linger by providing free wifi, snacks [not free], and a wide range of widely hyped coffee drinks [not free], like the Unicorn drink that sold out within hours.

A business asked two men in its shop to buy something or leave. They refused. Cops called. They still refused to leave or buy anything. So they were arrested for criminal trespass. For fuck's sake, why is this a story?

 

[Arctish]

What happened in the OP is hardly unusual. Nothing to do with racism. Social media has made everyone mad.

It's unusual for a Starbucks to kick out customers who have no history of loitering there and were not causing a disturbance.

Starbucks encourages people to make it's coffee shop a place to meet up and linger by providing free wifi, snacks [not free], and a wide range of widely hyped coffee drinks [not free], like the Unicorn drink that sold out within hours.

A business asked two men in its shop to buy something or leave. They refused. Cops called. They still refused to leave or buy anything. So they were arrested for criminal trespass. For fuck's sake, why is this a story?

Because

1. because the business model of coffee shops like Starbucks is to have people linger while using the free wifi, meet up with friends, and buy coffee drinks or smoothies, not just buy a cup of coffee and leave.

2. white people waiting for friends aren't kicked out

3. if the shop decides to ask a customer to leave, the normal procedure is to do so politely and only call the cops if they refuse or are disruptive or threatening

4. white people who remain polite and cooperative aren't taken out in handcuffs and held for 8 hours but those two polite and cooperative black men were.

5. people keep making stupid arguments in defense of shitty customer service, apparent racism, and cops arresting people who were in no way causing any problems at all.

The men, Donte Robinson and Rashon Nelson, both 23, went to a downtown Starbucks on April 12 for a business meeting involving real estate that they had been working on for months, they said during an interview with ABC’s “Good Morning America.”

Mr. Nelson asked to use the restroom and was told by the manager that they were only for paying customers. He joined Mr. Robinson at a table to wait for the person they planned to meet. The manager approached, asked them if they wanted to order drinks. They declined.

According to 911 records, approximately two minutes after the men entered the store, the police were called.

“Initially, as soon as they approached us, they just said we have to leave,” Mr. Nelson said. “There was no question of, you know, was there a problem here between you guys and the manager?”

Mr. Robinson said they were put in double lock handcuffs, were not read their rights and were not told why they were being arrested. They were “escorted out and put into a squad car,” he said. “In that moment, I am trying to process what’s going on.”

<link>

They were there 2 minutes before the cops were called. The manager hadn't ask them to leave. The other customers told the cops that the two guys hadn't done anything and objected to how the men were being treated. The guy they were meeting showed up as the 2 were being placed in handcuffs and told the cops about the planned meeting. So why the arrests? Even the police chief is saying it was uncalled for, but you're claiming the laws against loitering apply to Starbucks customers holding off on ordering drinks until their friends arrive?

I usually go to a nearby Starbucks on Saturdays and to meet up with family and friends. I don't always order a latte the moment I arrive. Do you think they're going to call the cops 2 minutes after I arrive if I don't?

 

[Trausti]

A business asked two men in its shop to buy something or leave. They refused. Cops called. They still refused to leave or buy anything. So they were arrested for criminal trespass. For fuck's sake, why is this a story?

Because

1. because the business model of coffee shops like Starbucks is to have people linger while using the free wifi, meet up with friends, and buy coffee drinks or smoothies, not just buy a cup of coffee and leave.

2. white people waiting for friends aren't kicked out

3. if the shop decides to ask a customer to leave, the normal procedure is to do so politely and only call the cops if they refuse or are disruptive or threatening

4. white people who remain polite and cooperative aren't taken out in handcuffs and held for 8 hours but those two polite and cooperative black men were.

5. people keep making stupid arguments in defense of shitty customer service, apparent racism, and cops arresting people who were in no way causing any problems at all.

The men, Donte Robinson and Rashon Nelson, both 23, went to a downtown Starbucks on April 12 for a business meeting involving real estate that they had been working on for months, they said during an interview with ABC’s “Good Morning America.”

Mr. Nelson asked to use the restroom and was told by the manager that they were only for paying customers. He joined Mr. Robinson at a table to wait for the person they planned to meet. The manager approached, asked them if they wanted to order drinks. They declined.

According to 911 records, approximately two minutes after the men entered the store, the police were called.

“Initially, as soon as they approached us, they just said we have to leave,” Mr. Nelson said. “There was no question of, you know, was there a problem here between you guys and the manager?”

Mr. Robinson said they were put in double lock handcuffs, were not read their rights and were not told why they were being arrested. They were “escorted out and put into a squad car,” he said. “In that moment, I am trying to process what’s going on.”

<link>

They were there 2 minutes before the cops were called. The manager hadn't ask them to leave. The other customers told the cops that the two guys hadn't done anything and objected to how the men were being treated. The guy they were meeting showed up as the 2 were being placed in handcuffs and told the cops about the planned meeting. So why the arrests? Even the police chief is saying it was uncalled for, but you're claiming the laws against loitering apply to Starbucks customers holding off on ordering drinks until their friends arrive?

I usually go to a nearby Starbucks on Saturdays and to meet up with family and friends. I don't always order a latte the moment I arrive. Do you think they're going to call the cops 2 minutes after I arrive if I don't?

They were arrested because they were asked to leave or buy something and did not. They would not have been arrested even after the police arrived if they just left. The present moral panic is embarrassing.

 

[Arctish]

Because

1. because the business model of coffee shops like Starbucks is to have people linger while using the free wifi, meet up with friends, and buy coffee drinks or smoothies, not just buy a cup of coffee and leave.

2. white people waiting for friends aren't kicked out

3. if the shop decides to ask a customer to leave, the normal procedure is to do so politely and only call the cops if they refuse or are disruptive or threatening

4. white people who remain polite and cooperative aren't taken out in handcuffs and held for 8 hours but those two polite and cooperative black men were.

5. people keep making stupid arguments in defense of shitty customer service, apparent racism, and cops arresting people who were in no way causing any problems at all.




They were there 2 minutes before the cops were called. The manager hadn't ask them to leave. The other customers told the cops that the two guys hadn't done anything and objected to how the men were being treated. The guy they were meeting showed up as the 2 were being placed in handcuffs and told the cops about the planned meeting. So why the arrests? Even the police chief is saying it was uncalled for, but you're claiming the laws against loitering apply to Starbucks customers holding off on ordering drinks until their friends arrive?

I usually go to a nearby Starbucks on Saturdays and to meet up with family and friends. I don't always order a latte the moment I arrive. Do you think they're going to call the cops 2 minutes after I arrive if I don't?

They were arrested because they were asked to leave or buy something and did not.

No, they weren't. Didn't you read the links people have posted?

They entered the store and one of them asked to use the restroom. They were told the restrooms were for the use of paying customers. Rather than order right away, the man sat down with his friend to wait for the third person. The manager approached their table and asked if they wanted to order. They declined. They were not asked to leave. The manager simply went back to the counter and called the cops. All of this happened in the space of 2 minutes with zero attempt made by the manager to ascertain if they planned to order something in the next little while. It was a bullshit call that has all the earmarks of racial discrimination.

They would not have been arrested even after the police arrived if they just left.

They weren't asked to leave. They weren't given any indication that their presence was upsetting the manager. They did what normal people do when they arrive earlier than someone they're meeting, and waited for him to join them before placing their orders. And the cops didn't give them the chance to simply walk out. The cops arrested them even though their friend arrived and told them why the men were there and the other customers told the cops the men hadn't done a single thing to warrant an arrest.

Even if you suppose the trespassing charge was valid, that's a misdemeanor that can be handled by the cops issuing a warning or at most, a ticket.

They were there for 2 minutes before the manager called the cops who them hauled them away in handcuffs. But I guess you think that was 1 minute 50 seconds too long.

The present moral panic is embarrassing.

I'm sorry you're feeling panicked. Try not to worry. We're doing all we can to protect your civil liberties.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

NSFW.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/shes-owed-apology-father-woman-arrested-alabama-waffle/story?id=54669482

Another Waffle House story. This black lady places an order and asks for plasticware to go with it. Was it to-go maybe? It seems pretty standard to get plasticware with a to-go order but she was black. They tell her it costs 50 cents and she objects because not only is it wrong on convention, she'd been there a week earlier and they didn't charge her because they know it's ridiculous. The server removes the order. The black lady asks to get the phone number of the corporate office to complain. The staff DON'T ASK HER TO LEAVE. Operative word: DON'T. They quietly call the police out of view of the customer while not telling her they aren't getting a card with the number of the corporate office/district manager. The police arrive and start dealing with the black woman who is very confused over what is going on. They're trying to arrest her and force her into handcuffs and she is asking her what are the charges. They DON'T TELL HER WHY OR CHARGES. Again, operative word: DON'T. She's not hurting police but protecting her body as the police end up removing her top/shirt/top of dress or whatever exposing her in front of the whole restaurant and staff. She keeps asking what the charges are, micro-protesting, you know is dangerous. One of the cops tells her he is GOING TO BREAK HER ARM. So after an unjust struggle because they wouldn't tell her the charges, they hurt her enough to put handcuffs on her and take her to the station. After all is said and done, they charge her with disorderly conduct because, you know, she made a scene they treated her inconsistently and inconsistent with the rest of society, arrested her without charge, threatened her, and exposed her breasts in front of everyone.

WARNING: be careful of looking at any videos or links at work. NSFW.

 

[RavenSky]

NSFW.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/shes-owed-apology-father-woman-arrested-alabama-waffle/story?id=54669482

Another Waffle House story. This black lady places an order and asks for plasticware to go with it. Was it to-go maybe? It seems pretty standard to get plasticware with a to-go order but she was black. They tell her it costs 50 cents and she objects because not only is it wrong on convention, she'd been there a week earlier and they didn't charge her because they know it's ridiculous. The server removes the order. The black lady asks to get the phone number of the corporate office to complain. The staff DON'T ASK HER TO LEAVE. Operative word: DON'T. They quietly call the police out of view of the customer while not telling her they aren't getting a card with the number of the corporate office/district manager. The police arrive and start dealing with the black woman who is very confused over what is going on. They're trying to arrest her and force her into handcuffs and she is asking her what are the charges. They DON'T TELL HER WHY OR CHARGES. Again, operative word: DON'T. She's not hurting police but protecting her body as the police end up removing her top/shirt/top of dress or whatever exposing her in front of the whole restaurant and staff. She keeps asking what the charges are, micro-protesting, you know is dangerous. One of the cops tells her he is GOING TO BREAK HER ARM. So after an unjust struggle because they wouldn't tell her the charges, they hurt her enough to put handcuffs on her and take her to the station. After all is said and done, they charge her with disorderly conduct because, you know, she made a scene they treated her inconsistently and inconsistent with the rest of society, arrested her without charge, threatened her, and exposed her breasts in front of everyone.

WARNING: be careful of looking at any videos or links at work. NSFW.

And in this case, the company is - thus far - insisting their employee did absolutely nothing wrong.

 

[Derec]

NSFW.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/shes-owed-apology-father-woman-arrested-alabama-waffle/story?id=54669482

At least the ABC version is blurred. If you really want NSFW, the friend uploaded the uncensored version to Tumblr.

Show

https://vtt.tumblr.com/tumblr_p7la7reMGC1wqnkez_480.mp4

Another Waffle House story.

At least nobody got killed or even shot. Btw, people getting shot at wee hours in Waffle House is not that uncommon.

This black lady places an order and asks for plasticware to go with it. Was it to-go maybe? It seems pretty standard to get plasticware with a to-go order but she was black. They tell her it costs 50 cents and she objects because not only is it wrong on convention, she'd been there a week earlier and they didn't charge her because they know it's ridiculous.

Do we know she was treated any differently from other customers, much less that it was for the reason of race? Maybe it was a new policy due to rising operating costs. Plastic forks are not free.

The server removes the order. The black lady asks to get the phone number of the corporate office to complain. The staff DON'T ASK HER TO LEAVE. Operative word: DON'T. They quietly call the police out of view of the customer while not telling her they aren't getting a card with the number of the corporate office/district manager. The police arrive and start dealing with the black woman who is very confused over what is going on. They're trying to arrest her and force her into handcuffs and she is asking her what are the charges.

They should have asked her to leave, if they didn't. But once the police arrive, had she left voluntarily they would not have arrested her. Note that the video starts in medias res, not during argument with staff, and not even when the police first arrive. By the time the camera is rolling, they are already trying to arrest her.

They DON'T TELL HER WHY OR CHARGES. Again, operative word: DON'T. She's not hurting police

She is definitely resisting arrest.

but protecting her body as the police end up removing her top/shirt/top of dress or whatever exposing her in front of the whole restaurant and staff.

And Internet, thanks to her "friend" who posted it online. To be fair to police, she wasn't wearing much (back from night out, perhaps intoxicated?), so it didn't take much to remove that top.

She keeps asking what the charges are, micro-protesting, you know is dangerous.

Micro-protesting?