Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Things we'd be talking about if the forum wasn't deadFollow

#5027 Apr 23 2018 at 1:29 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,750 posts
TirithRR wrote:
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
Well, I’ve already explained why I think it’s not likely just “because they were black” so... feel free to think “hard” all you want because it's obvious that i didn't.


FTFY, Any interaction with a black person is automatically racist.


Same.


The first post, where I made the joke that you were racist was, indeed a joke, but I think you are dismissing the possibility of the event being the effect of racism too easily. That's all.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#5028 Apr 23 2018 at 8:03 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,640 posts
gbaji wrote:
tons of claims that "if a white person had done X, Y, or Z" this wouldn't have happened, but no actual facts to back any of that up.
gbaji wrote:
I'm reasonably certain that if couple white guys had done the exact same actions, they'd have been led out in handcuffs as well.
Kek.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#5029 Apr 26 2018 at 3:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,331 posts
Are we all just numb to the chaos at this point?
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#5030 Apr 26 2018 at 4:31 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,273 posts
Samira wrote:
Are we all just numb to the chaos at this point?

Sort of. But it's not like anything has really changed in the last few days. Other than Cosby getting convicted today I guess.

But in the end, my life's been pretty good recently. None of this has actually had any affect on me, with the exception of a possible positive from the corporate tax breaks (hard to show causation vs correlation). Exponential and International growth at work, with two 10% raises in the past two years and 10% bonuses each year. Only downside being that it's been hard to actually use those 25 vacation days. One month from the end of the vacation year and I still have 19 days banked.

One of these days I need to do some international travel outside of work. Just feels odd to go walking around somewhere foreign without a group though (downside to being single / no family... just feels odd to go places by myself).

Edit:

I guess there is this.

And NBC's mistaken caption

Quote:
A 118 -year-old statue of songwriter Stephen Foster was removed from a Pittsburgh park. Foster wrote the song “Oh! Susanna.” The statue was voted to be removed because the song contains a lyric about a slave plucking a banjo, while sitting at someone’s feet.


I read that and thought "I don't remember those lyrics in the song" and had to look it up. It seems the lyrics weren't what was the criticism (or what had a slave plucking a banjo at their feet). The statue itself depicted the slave plucking a banjo at the man's feet. Other articles correctly pointed the criticism to the statue's depiction, and not the lyrics of the song "Oh Susanna".

Edited, Apr 26th 2018 9:34pm by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#5031 Apr 26 2018 at 8:16 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,380 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gabji wrote:
That's directly contradicted by multiple other sources...
Link(s) to those sources, please.


It's in the video. It's in virtually every single account of the event. The police asked the two men, repeatedly, to leave *or* they would have to arrest them. The two men refused to leave. It's strange that you're even asking this question, given that you trimmed out the surrounding text in your quote, which more or less answers it:

gbaji wrote:
The one guy claiming he didn't know what was going on or think it was serious until he was in cuffs? Um... That's directly contradicted by multiple other sources, stating they were repeatedly asked to leave, told what would happen if they did, and at least a few stating that they responded to the police with curses and yelling. So no, I'm having a bit of trouble accepting their side of the story as total truth.


I was referencing a direct quote in their interview. One of the men claimed he had no clue what was going on, or that he was in any risk of consequences, until... like suddenly, out of nowhere, the cuffs were put on him and he was being led out. I get that there's a desire to really really play up the whole victim angle in situation like this, but that's (as I stated above) directly contradicted by the facts of the video of the arrest itself. It's clear that the police told them they were trespassing. It's clear that they asked them to leave and that if they did, nothing would happen (ie: they would not be arrested). It's clear that the police told them repeatedly that if they continued to refuse to leave, they would be arrested. So yeah, for the guy to claim he had no clue what was going on until the cuffs were placed on him is complete BS.

When the cops tell you that you need to leave or they'll arrest you, and you respond with cursing and yelling, and *not* with simply getting up and leaving, you can't later claim to have had no clue why you got arrested. And yet, that's exactly what the guy claimed in the interview. The same interview in which they insisted they'd only been there two minutes before the manager called the cops. So yeah, one blatant lie in the interview makes me less likely to believe other claims made in the same interview by the same person.

Again. This does not prove the opposite is true. It just put serious doubt on the veracity of their account of events.

Edited, Apr 26th 2018 7:19pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#5032 Apr 26 2018 at 8:39 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,380 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Yes. However, I would assume that most black patrons probably go straight in line. Out of the remaining that decide to sit, I would guess that they would either purchase or leave upon the request.


So you're saying that the actions of the two men are what differentiated them from other patrons, and not the color of their skin? That's what I was saying.

Quote:
Furthermore, people don't always act out on their emotions. Just because a person did something wrong once, doesn't mean that they must do the same thing every time. Let's say the manager did the same action legitimately to customers of various demographics, do you think that manager would be around long? So, it is not unreasonable to accept a scenario of a biased manager with few complaints.


It's also not unreasonable to accept a scenario in which the two men did more than just "sit in a Starbucks while black". Your own statement basically supports this. If this manager routinely did this sort of thing, you'd think there would have been complaints, and she likely would not have been a manager for long. So either she'd been a manager for a very short period of time (we don't know how long she had her position), or this was not a "normal" action for her. And if it's not her normal behavior, we can either speculate that something else was going on (had a bad day, whatever) which caused her to massively overreact to these two men or that they did something more than they're admitting to which caused her to call the police.

Either case suggests this is not about racism though. Which was more or less my point.

Gbaji wrote:
Who asks a barista at Starbucks to use the restroom, unless it's locked?


I'm not a regular customer at Starbucks, but from what I've been reading since this incident occurred, a lot of Starbucks stores do lock their restrooms and have a code to unlock it, which they will give to a paying customer (and only paying customers). This is done precisely in locations where there is a problem with too many people using the restroom facilities who are not paying customers, and often when those restrooms are being jacked up by non paying customers using them. I don't know if this is the case at this store, but that would explain why he'd need to ask and why she'd make a point about how it's for paying customers only in response.

Quote:
If they were asked to purchase or leave for two hours, why in the world would they feel obliged to ASK permission to use the restroom? That doesn't make any sense at all.


Yup. It doesn't make any sense at all. Hence why I have repeatedly stated that there's probably more to the story than we've been told. According to the interview, they asked to use the bathroom immediately upon entering the store and got the response mentioned above. They then sat down after being told the restroom was for paying customers only.

One of the other things that doesn't make sense to me is that the manager allegedly went to their table and asked them if they were going to order anything. But this came *after* the request to use the bathroom. One of the other interesting tidbits, is that they stated that one of them asked to use the restroom, and that she told them it was for paying customers only, but I haven't been able to find any source that directly factually states that he didn't use the restroom. It's possible that he said he was going to order something, was allowed to use the restroom because he was a "paying customer", and then instead of going to the counter to order something, he just sat at the table.

Just a theory, of course, but it would explain the discrepancy there as well (and perhaps why the store manager would have been so upset and quick to ask them to leave). My point is that there are a lot of gaps in the story about what happened *before* the call to police. We all know what happened after police arrived. There's video of it. But everything about what happened prior to that is pretty much speculation. Given that the primary cries for racial discrimination rest on the parts that we don't know, my position on this is "we don't know".

Could she have been discriminating based on this skin? It's possible. Could they have done something that justified her asking them to leave and later calling the cops? It's possible. My point is that we don't know. And in the absence of knowing, we should not leap to an assumption that it must have been about race.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#5033 Apr 26 2018 at 8:55 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,380 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Tirith wrote:
The police actions were recorded. I'm not aware of any recording of the interaction between the men and the woman that lead up to the police call.
Yes, but there were people during the interaction, even if they had left before the police. They saw what happened and no one has yet come out to counter the perceived narrative. Furthermore, you can hear a woman in the tape clearly say that the guys didn't do anything wrong when the friend asked the police what did they do to get arrested. These were white people that witnessed the interaction answering the friend's question.


You are aware that store employees don't normally announce on loudspeaker when some kind of conflict is going on, right? Have you ever been in a bar where a bouncer grabs someone and pulls them out of the bar? Odds are your first clue that something was going on was the bouncer's actions, and possible some yelling and whatnot from the guy being manhandled. You probably had no clue there was a problem until that happened.

Same deal here. Whatever altercation occurred between the two men and the manager may very well have been something other patrons were not even aware of. Even if they were in the store at the time. Certainly, upon seeing police coming in and talking to the two men, you would not know why they were there. Watching them talk to the guys for some time, you still would not know what's going on. Then when they put cuffs on them and take them outside, what is your reaction going to be? OMG! What did they do? I didn't see anything.

People in those professions are trained to minimize the amount of disruption caused by their actions. But that does not mean that the two men *didn't* do something which justified them being asked to leave. The fact that bystanders didn't know what it was doesn't affect that one bit.

Quote:
It's possible that they saw what they wanted to see, but the fact remains that there is yet any counter narrative from witnesses. Therefore, there is no reason to assume anything outside of what has been presented.


Right. So there's no reason to assume that they were arrested for being black. That's what you meant, right? You get that this is the massive assumption being made here, right? Or do you?

Silly me. My default assumption when I see someone being arrested is that the person must have done something to justify the arrest. Barring evidence to the contrary, that's reasonable. I don't assume that because I don't know what that something was, there must have been nothing, and thus the arrest must be unjustified. Because that's silly. Yet, that's precisely what this entire thing is predicated on.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#5034 Apr 27 2018 at 1:01 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,608 posts
gbaji wrote:
Whatever altercation occurred between the two men and the manager may very well have been something other patrons were not even aware of.
Again...where are your multiple sources.

Your word.


As in ..link them like I asked.

Edited, Apr 27th 2018 1:02am by Bijou
____________________________
Smash wrote:
My next mixed metaphor will include chocolate cake.

#5035 Apr 27 2018 at 9:02 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Samira wrote:
Are we all just numb to the chaos at this point?
Feels like a lot of just watching and waiting over here right now. Mueller's thing is winding through its filings and investigation and such. The Koreas are chatting it up. Twitter arguments continue unabated, making the normal background noise. No motivation to do much because Friday. There's still time to get all the end of the month stuff done on Monday. Our main instrument is down so little data is being produced. The printer is fixed though, so that's some good news. Grey day after a week of sun leaves everyone in a mellow relaxed mood until the rain starts.

Maybe will browse google street view, drive around Peru or something. Seems like that kind of day.

Edited, Apr 27th 2018 8:03am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#5036 Apr 27 2018 at 7:20 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,380 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Whatever altercation occurred between the two men and the manager may very well have been something other patrons were not even aware of.
Again...where are your multiple sources.


What part of "may very well have been" makes you demand that I provide links to sources for this? I'm speculating. My point is that there's a pretty simple and rational explanation for why so many of the witnesses would not be aware of why the two men were being arrested at the time they were arrested. Obviously, since my speculation is specifically about witnesses not knowing something, it's kinda hard to find witness accounts to support it.

Quote:
Your word.


Yeah. My word. Have you ever been in proximity to police arresting someone? Did you know why they were there, or what the person did? No. You almost certainly did not, unless you were personally involved in calling the police. if you were just standing around, or happened to be walking by when it happened, you would have no clue what transpired prior to that point which resulted in the arrest.

Most sane people, when they see something like that, make the reasonable assumption that the men being arrested must have done something to justify the arrest. It's odd to me that, in our current social climate, if the cops are white and the people being arrested are black, increasingly the assumption is "they must have been arrested for being black". I'm sorry, but I find that weak.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The fact that you, a witness to the arrest, did not see what happened to cause the arrest, does not automatically mean that nothing happened, and that the arrest was unwarranted. And frankly, in this case, we all know why they were actually arrested. The police arrived on a call in which the manager had asked the men to leave and they refused. This is a crime called "trespassing". For the police, they have exactly two options here. They can either get the men to leave on their own, and call it a day, or they are required to arrest the two men. Period. That's it. And when the police arrived, they repeatedly offered the two men a simple out: Just walk out of the Starbucks. The two men refused. That's why they were arrested.

We know why they were arrested. What we're not 100% clear on is exactly what caused the manager to call the cops in the first place. But yeah, I happen to be of the opinion that it's incredibly unlikely that it was simply because the two men were black. If I were a betting man, I'd put money down that they said something offensive to the manager in response to her statement that they had to be paying customers to use the restroom, and so she asked them to leave, to which they likely again responded with some sort of offensive verbal response, a clear refusal to leave, and possibly even threatening language or behavior. Obviously, that's speculation on my part, but the alternative is the absurd idea that someone working in customer service just randomly decided to target people because of their skin color and call the cops on them.

Again, this is based on years of working in a retail job, and seeing the full gamut of customers from friendly to absurdly offensive. And yes, I'll freely admit that part of my view of this is based on some of my own personal experiences. It's not like it's uncommon as a white person working retail to be subjected to the false claims of racism anytime you fail to break the rules for a person of color. Happens all the time, in fact.

I once had a black woman come into the store and attempt to use the ATM, but wasn't able to get her card to work, get money out of her account, etc. She then asked if I could cash a personal check, which is 100% against store policy. We also did not allow cash back for checks, nor third party checks, etc. I explained this to her, was super apologetic, etc. She responded by calling me just about every single racially offensive name you can. Redneck, racist, bigot, whitey, ******, etc. Everything. I was shocked that someone would assume that my reason for applying store police could not be because it was store policy, but because I must be a racist. That was not the first time, nor remotely the last time I had such an experience.

So yeah. You'll have to excuse me for not immediately buying the same "it must be because the store manager was racist" line. Seen it. Been there. Got the t-shirt. This claim is pretty much *always* BS (I've never seen it not be, but I can't rule out the possibility that there might, somewhere out there, actually be some racist people working in a store who might do something intentionally to ***** with people they don't like). The problem is that far too many people go out of their way to find some way to blame whatever thing upset them on racism instead of the far more likely explanations. So yeah, I'm going to be very cautious about such claims, and tend towards the idea that there's probably a more reasonable explanation to what happened.

And in this case, the more reasonable explanation is that the men engaged in some sort of behavior that prompted the call to the police. I just don't even buy the whole "they said they were waiting for a friend, but she tossed them anyway" bit. Doesn't make sense. If I'm working there, and I ask some people who walked in and sat down if they are planning on buying something, and they respond literally with "we're waiting for a friend to get here", my assumption is going to be that they're waiting for the friend to get there, and then they're going to order something. Why on earth would I demand they leave, much less call the cops? It makes zero sense. They're assumed to be customers at that point. Again, there's a huge gap in this story, and I suspect that gap includes something they did that caused the store manager to call the cops that wasn't simply "being in a store while black".


Having seen lots of really really poor behavior from customers, I can think of a long list of things that might have been. And frankly, anyone on this thread who has ever worked any sort of retail job also knows what kinds of things would prompt them to ask a customer to leave, and call the cops if they don't. And I'm betting not one of them includes the person's skin color. So it seems silly to assume that's what it was in her case and not some more logical and rational reason. I get the whole "worlds full of racists" narrative. But put yourself in the store manager's position and ask "what would have had to have happened to me to call the cops". That's probably the correct answer. Certainly more correct than assuming she must just be a racist.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#5037 Apr 27 2018 at 8:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Samira wrote:
Are we all just numb to the chaos at this point?

Well, hey, we found out that Trump's personal physician is a workplace drunk who pushes pills when he's not getting into DUIs.

This certainly lends clarity to the "Trump is in the best physical condition ever!" reports.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#5038 Apr 27 2018 at 8:42 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,608 posts
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Whatever altercation occurred between the two men and the manager may very well have been something other patrons were not even aware of.
Again...where are your multiple sources.
What part of "may very well have been" makes you demand that I provide links to sources for this? I'm speculating.
There's a word for making definitive statements with no proof. It's called lying.

No different than me saying "Trump may very well have been sacrificing infants to Moloch". You can't prove it's false, so it must be true?
____________________________
Smash wrote:
My next mixed metaphor will include chocolate cake.

#5039 Apr 27 2018 at 11:52 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,750 posts
Moloch demands tribute
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#5040 Apr 28 2018 at 7:14 AM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,178 posts
Gbaji wrote:
So you're saying that the actions of the two men are what differentiated them from other patrons, and not the color of their skin? That's what I was saying.

I'm not saying either. I don't know the protocol. It's possible that their actions raised legitimate concern, but it is also simutaneously possible that the *actions* taken in response were not protocol or normal practice.

Gbaji wrote:
It's also not unreasonable to accept a scenario in which the two men did more than just "sit in a Starbucks while black".
I acknowledged this.

Gbaji wrote:
Could she have been discriminating based on this skin? It's possible. Could they have done something that justified her asking them to leave and later calling the cops? It's possible. My point is that we don't know. And in the absence of knowing, we should not leap to an assumption that it must have been about race.
You say this, but it appears that you are arguing that it wasn't about race.
#5041 Apr 28 2018 at 7:22 AM Rating: Good
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,178 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Same deal here. Whatever altercation occurred between the two men and the manager may very well have been something other patrons were not even aware of.
Coffee shops are more like libraries. If there is a disturbance, it is more likely to be known than in a bar with loud music and alcohol. If the patrons were unaware of anything, that only supports that the customers were at least speaking and behaving normally from afar.

Gbaji wrote:
Right. So there's no reason to assume that they were arrested for being black. That's what you meant, right?
I didn't assume that at all. What I meant is that you can't ignore witnesses because it doesn't fit your narrative.

Gbaji wrote:
Silly me. My default assumption when I see someone being arrested is that the person must have done something to justify the arrest.
That my friend, is White Privilege. Smiley: schooled
#5042 Apr 28 2018 at 8:27 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,331 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Samira wrote:
Are we all just numb to the chaos at this point?

Well, hey, we found out that Trump's personal physician is a workplace drunk who pushes pills when he's not getting into DUIs.

This certainly lends clarity to the "Trump is in the best physical condition ever!" reports.


There was a leaked report out of Walter Reed that he actually weighs 289, has moderately high blood pressure and high cholesterol, all of which makes more sense than the report from Jackson.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#5043 Apr 28 2018 at 8:04 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,273 posts
Yodabunny wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
I was just going by the paragraph description about humans expanding throughout the galaxy, and stumbling upon something "bad" (or, assumed bad, by the description given).

And my 15 year old recollection of Halo 1 and 2, Humans uncovered the Flood (alien race) unintentionally releasing them to rampage across the universe again. Flood = Zerg, basically. Starcraft, Halo, all share similar elements. Though some details may be different, the idea that Humanity mistakenly uncovers or comes into contact with something that others who had been there before us would have preferred stayed hidden or left alone.


Yep, that's about how it starts.


So, does this book, The Reality Dysfunction, stand by itself? Audible says it's part of a trilogy. Just curious if I "read" this first one, will I have to get the remaining two to finish the story?

Also, Amazon/Audible are very weird with their pricing. Standard pricing on audio books are (understandably) pretty big. Yet you can get the audio book as a bonus for buying the Kindle version on many titles with a minimal additional cost. This one as an example. 49$ full price, 35$ member price, but Kindle price is 10$, and paying 7.50$ more will give you the Audio book copy, so... 17.50$.

I have to check if my digital credits will count toward Kindle purchases. Cause Amazon gives out 1$ for choosing standard delivery instead of two day for prime members. And yet most of the time i still get the items 2-3 days after ordering, so they give me 1$ and I still get the item quickly.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#5044 Apr 29 2018 at 8:39 AM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,178 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Yup. It doesn't make any sense at all. Hence why I have repeatedly stated that there's probably more to the story than we've been told. According to the interview, they asked to use the bathroom immediately upon entering the store and got the response mentioned above. They then sat down after being told the restroom was for paying customers only.

One of the other things that doesn't make sense to me is that the manager allegedly went to their table and asked them if they were going to order anything. But this came *after* the request to use the bathroom. One of the other interesting tidbits, is that they stated that one of them asked to use the restroom, and that she told them it was for paying customers only, but I haven't been able to find any source that directly factually states that he didn't use the restroom. It's possible that he said he was going to order something, was allowed to use the restroom because he was a "paying customer", and then instead of going to the counter to order something, he just sat at the table.

Just a theory, of course, but it would explain the discrepancy there as well (and perhaps why the store manager would have been so upset and quick to ask them to leave). My point is that there are a lot of gaps in the story about what happened *before* the call to police


So, when I first read this, I didn't respond because I haven't been following the story, just responding to what was posted here. Since then, I ran across an article that I semi read. Essentially, they came in and asked to use the restroom. They were told it was for paying customers. They "left it at that" and sat down. When approached if they were going to order something, they stated that they were waiting for a meeting. There was no altercation, just cops showing up. True or false, I don't see any discrepancy. If it seems odd and missing something, that's the reason for the outrage (assuming the story is true).
#5045 Apr 30 2018 at 7:56 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,640 posts
gbaji wrote:
What part of "may very well have been" makes you demand that I provide links to sources for this? I'm speculating. My point is that there's a pretty simple and rational explanation for why so many of the witnesses would not be aware of why the two men were being arrested at the time they were arrested.
Speculation isn't explanation.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#5046 Apr 30 2018 at 12:14 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,574 posts
TirithRR wrote:
So, does this book, The Reality Dysfunction, stand by itself? Audible says it's part of a trilogy. Just curious if I "read" this first one, will I have to get the remaining two to finish the story?


You will absolutely want the other books afterwards.
#5047 May 01 2018 at 6:07 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,380 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Whatever altercation occurred between the two men and the manager may very well have been something other patrons were not even aware of.
Again...where are your multiple sources.
What part of "may very well have been" makes you demand that I provide links to sources for this? I'm speculating.
There's a word for making definitive statements with no proof.


"May very well have been" is not a definitive statement though. It's a speculative one. How on earth did you miss the exact point I just made in my reply?

Quote:
It's called lying.


No. It's called speculation. As in "It may very well rain today", or "it may very well be that she's evil", or "it may very well be that Bijou is terrible at reading comprehension". All of those are speculation.

Quote:
No different than me saying "Trump may very well have been sacrificing infants to Moloch". You can't prove it's false, so it must be true?


Uh... That's not how logic works. You get that there's a whole middle ground between "proven to be false" and "proven to be true". It's that range where "we don't know for sure" exists. Which is somewhat the entire point I've been trying to make here. We don't know for sure, so in the absence of certainty, we should not just assume one specific thing must be true. Our answer should be "we don't know".

Some of us have repeatedly been pointing out that "we don't know" what exactly happened. Others have repeatedly insisted that it must have been racism. Note that I have also repeatedly stated that I don't know for sure it *wasn't* racism. I have included that as a possible explanation in every post I've made on the subject. What I'm not doing is assuming that this is true though. And yes, speculating about alternative explanations. And also, making a statistical assessment of the likelihood of those alternatives versus "she's a racist" being the truth.

Keyword being "likelihood". My argument is about probabilities. I find it far more likely that the two men did or said something that prompted them being booted from the store than that the store manager did it solely because she's a bigot. And I've given ample reasoning to support that. However, at the end of the day, it's just speculation on my part. I suppose the difference is that I'm admitting that I'm just speculating. I have no problem with that. Do you?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#5048 May 01 2018 at 7:26 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,380 posts
Almalieque wrote:
So, when I first read this, I didn't respond because I haven't been following the story, just responding to what was posted here. Since then, I ran across an article that I semi read. Essentially, they came in and asked to use the restroom. They were told it was for paying customers.


Correct. At least as far as we know.

Quote:
They "left it at that" and sat down.


We don't know if they simply "left it at that", or if there were additional words, grumbling, etc that went on. We do know that they did sit down after that point though.

Quote:
When approached if they were going to order something, they stated that they were waiting for a meeting.


We don't actually know what they said at that time. They told the police they were waiting for someone. They told people after they were arrested that they were waiting for someone. Both of those occurred *after* the manager called the cops though. We can't assume they simply told her "we're waiting for a friend to arrive" and that was it. I mentioned this in a previous post that I find it highly unlikely that was the entire extent of the conversation, since, in the absence of any additional back and forth, the default assumption by the manager would be that they would be buying something at that time.

Honestly, that whole bit sounds fishy to me, since if we take the order and content of the bathroom issue at face value, then there would have been no need for her to have asked them after that point if they planned on buying something. She would have already known the answer. Something here doesn't add up.

Quote:
There was no altercation, just cops showing up.


From the point of view of witnesses of the cops showing up. An altercation need not be loud to exist. It could very easily have been that the man who requested to use the bathroom said something offensive in response. Possibly not loudly enough for anyone but the person he was talking to to hear it. Which, if you've ever worked retail, will tend to tick you off. If he then plopped down at a table, said manager might have decided that the previous rudeness means that you don't get to sit at a table "for free". So while she might normally not bother someone who just sat down without buying something, in this case, she's already ticked off, so she goes up to ask them one more time to buy something, and if not, to leave. This having nothing to do with skin color and a lot to do with behavior.

Again, this is pure speculation on my part. But I just don't buy the idea that they did "nothing" at all to prompt the managers reaction. I just can't help but get the feeling there was an escalation of some kind that occurred here. Again, this did not have to be anywhere near loud enough for other patrons to hear, but could easily have resulted in her decision to call the police.

Quote:
True or false, I don't see any discrepancy. If it seems odd and missing something, that's the reason for the outrage (assuming the story is true).


It does seem odd and to be missing something. But I tend to veer into the thing missing being something they did or said that set up the entire sequence of events. It could very well have been as simple as the notion that if you are going to do something like sit in a Starbucks without paying, you probably should be super polite to the folks working there. I tend to believe that it's far more likely that the reason they were asked to leave had something to do with what they did or said than with their skin color.


And yeah, I have enough direct experience with these sorts of encounters to know that the rude, obnoxious, offensive, or even threatening customers will always insist that they did "nothing at all". Every. Single. Time. I take that as absolutely zero evidence of anything at all. And the sad part is that we will likely never ever hear the store manager's side of events, since she's probably doing everything she can to keep her identity hidden for fear of the mob that has formed. There's nothing she can say that will dissuade the angry mob that she's the worst racist since Bull Connor, and so there's no value to her to speaking up.

Which, unfortunately, means that the mob wins. Their version of events will be assumed to be "the truth", no matter how unlikely it really is. And it'll be added into the social narrative the next time something similar happens, and be used as evidence for said narrative: "We know this sort of thing happens. Remember the racist Starbucks manager who had those guys arrested for being black?". And it goes on and on.


Edited, May 1st 2018 6:48pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#5049 May 01 2018 at 7:37 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,608 posts
gbaji wrote:
I tend to believe that it's far more likely that the reason they were asked to leave had something to do with what they did or said than with their skin color.
Funny how all your "speculation" puts the blame on those two customers, eh?

I speculate that the only reason you haven't personaly sacrificed a child to Moloch is that you haven't had a kid of your own. I speculate that you've watched the process lots, though.

Edited, May 1st 2018 7:38pm by Bijou
____________________________
Smash wrote:
My next mixed metaphor will include chocolate cake.

#5050 May 01 2018 at 7:56 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,380 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I tend to believe that it's far more likely that the reason they were asked to leave had something to do with what they did or said than with their skin color.
Funny how all your "speculation" puts the blame on those two customers, eh?


The probability is that given the millions of people who enter a Starbucks on any given day (6.5 million by my rough count) without getting arrested that these two men did something different than those millions of other people which resulted in them getting arrested.

I get that this doesn't satisfy the narrative you seem to want to push, but that's not my problem. That's yours.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#5051 May 01 2018 at 8:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
3,750 posts
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I tend to believe that it's far more likely that the reason they were asked to leave had something to do with what they did or said than with their skin color.
Funny how all your "speculation" puts the blame on those two customers, eh?


The probability is that given the millions of people who enter a Starbucks on any given day (6.5 million by my rough count) without getting arrested that these two men did something different than those millions of other people which resulted in them getting arrested.

I get that this doesn't satisfy the narrative you seem to want to push, but that's not my problem. That's yours.


But it could just as easily be that they were different, not their behavior, but they themselves. It is JUST as likely.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 0 All times are in CDT