Utopia Talk / Politics / Starbucks reeducation #2

TJ Member	Thu Apr 19 12:02:11 I was hesitant and delayed to respond in the other thread. This should probably die rather quickly. Seb: I'm only presenting facts from my discovery and not making judgments on thought processes of those involved in the incident. I will address one point with a suggestion though; courtesy is a mutual process. I believe it is wise not to judge others by what I read or think when it comes to trivial matters. When one does, it is a personally bias position. Objectively, I wouldn't hesitate purchasing a drink while waiting for a friend or business associate. If a meal was involved I would still order a drink and wait before ordering the meal out of courtesy for the establishment providing me the opportunity and those whom I am waiting to arrive. Normal for you doesn't necessarily mean normal for every individual or group. I personally have no problem with your considered thinking and choice, so why would you with mine? Normal is a two way path, no different than mutual courtesy, while waiting and especially for a delayed participant. It shouldn't be taken as an offensive action. I've not read any time frame information. If I had it probably wouldn't make a big difference in my decision process, but possibly so.
Forwyn Member	Thu Apr 19 12:04:27 "That would be a fair assumption under other circumstances, but runs counter to the video and published account of the events where her attention was drawn to a number of individuals who were white and doing the same thing as the black guys" Hurrrrrrrrrr police should have just walked away after guys refused a request to leave because a couple white hipsters walked up and said they were doing the same thing Hurrrrrrrrrr
Forwyn Member	Thu Apr 19 12:06:14 Seb's retardation has me defending the police, possibly a Utopia first ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Delude Member	Thu Apr 19 12:09:51 Forwyn is no long forsee. And is simple forwyn the common senser.
Delude Member	Thu Apr 19 12:10:18 Stupid phone. No longer *forseb
TJ Member	Thu Apr 19 12:11:54 BTW, two of the three officers in Starbucks making the arrest were black men.
Delude Member	Thu Apr 19 12:14:14 And the police chief is black
Delude Member	Thu Apr 19 12:16:18 "That would be a fair assumption under other circumstances, but runs counter to the video and published account of the events where her attention was drawn to a number of individuals who were white and doing the same thing as the black guys" Dishonest Seb, since you're "ignoring" me by stating I'm wasting my time. In that video, are you ignoring critical parts where they are sipping their beverages as they record. What is that indicative of?
Seb Member	Thu Apr 19 12:46:47 TJ: Good for you, but most people would bristle at being forced to buy a drink in a way most people (even in that store) behaving the same way wouldn't. Starbucks encourages this kind of use of its cafes. So much so they are going to take a bit on of 1 day of trading to really ram the point home to staff and the public. I think overall most people come to a different conclusion here if they place themselves in the context of the dudes arrested. That's hard to do now of course. In another context, this is "officious manager gets business men arrested and is sacked" and most people are saying "wow, that was a dumb move, customers always right. Everyone knows you wait for colleague before ordering. And they told her they were waiting for a colleague. Who pisses off exactly the clientele your company is aiming to attract?" Forwyn: Hurrrr. Nobody mentioned the police just the manager. Hurrrrr. Even in the other thread my point wasn't that the police were behaving illegally, just that it's rifovulouslg easy to get arrested. Hurrrr. Please think before making stupid points. Hurts. TJ: So? Delude: Hush. The grownups are talking.
obaminated Member	Thu Apr 19 12:54:27 So, seb, your proposal is that businesses should be treated as public property?
Seb Member	Thu Apr 19 13:11:49 Obaminated: Could you explain to me how you reached that conclusion?
TJ Member	Thu Apr 19 13:14:46 So? I placed myself in their position and explained what I would have done as a consumer, which wouldn't have led to their arrest. I would have also handled it differently than the manager and confident I've gotten a sale. i wouldn't have been fired or arrested. Do I believe that everyone directly involved in the situation should have handled it differently, not including the Police Officers, absolutely. For those directily involved hindsight is 20/20. You are correct. I'm not most people and that doesn't necessarily mean my approach is good or bad, but it is individual with courtesy at its root. I'm not an individual who believes they can think for others and that everyone should do as I do. It is for you to decide to disagree and disregard what I've said. I'll allow it to be so... :) As for context I can only go by what the CEO said about the policy being ambiguous. Should I not believe he was being truthful?
Forwyn Member	Thu Apr 19 13:20:56 "police were behaving illegally, just that it's rifovulouslg easy to get arrested." Refusing police orders is a ridiculously easy way to get arrested. Google search: philadelphia coffee shops: About 3,490,000 results (0.73 seconds) "Hey man, manager is a dick and called the cops on us for waiting too long so we're gonna roll to XYZ instead" Instead they decided to argue that because they hadn't done anything wrong, they couldn't be ordered to leave. Asinine behavior gets an asinine response.
Seb Member	Thu Apr 19 13:25:47 Tj: "So?" Was re black police officers. Having read the policy, I think the CEO is being generous. The fact of having to spell these things out to avoid stupidity is why the world is so full of bureaucracy. Principles over rules is my preference. I have very little time for those that are constantly demanding that everything g be spelt out for them. When you see a sign like "please do not feed the gorilla psychoactive substances" that seems less sensible due diligence and more the scar left by someone else's unique lack of judgement for which they were likely chastised by reality. Hence, there will now be a more detailed explanation in Starbucks staff manual, with some ghastly formulaic expression we will hear repeated again and again. And everyone who works a Starbucks will need to be tediously reminded that it's not ok to treat black and white people differently, even if you hadn't really noticed, so it's very very important to pay attention to that when dealing with black customers. Stuff that ought to be obvious yet for so so many people isn't.
Forwyn Member	Thu Apr 19 13:30:21 Now, whenever booting loiterers, be sure to send a barista to every single table and boot everyone who hasn't made a purchase, to avoid claims of racial discrimination. Be especially careful to boot white loiterers first.
Seb Member	Thu Apr 19 13:30:49 Forwyn: Would you say that to a business colleague? Might you be worried the contact might think it was because of something you did? "Hi John. Sorry, we're going to news to shift to a different coffee shop than the one we agreex. We've been kicked out. We'll try one nearby. I hope that's not inconvenient" They were perfectly peaceful. I'd have done the same as them. Force it to escalate to the point of the police. Rosa parks could have avoided arrest if she'd just sat in the right spot. And so would the suffragettes.
Seb Member	Thu Apr 19 13:33:52 Forwyn: Only, Starbucks encourages people to hang around their stores and conduct business meetings etc. So pretending this is just about loitering and not about differential treatment is a bit daft. She should have not let the white guy use the toilets and kicked out the white guys that said they hadn't bought things either. But she didn't.
TJ Member	Thu Apr 19 13:36:08 "Principles over rules is my preference." Principles are preferences from my viewpoint, and yes, stupidity is abundant as well as is conjecture.
Forwyn Member	Thu Apr 19 13:46:47 "Would you say that to a business colleague?" I wouldn't be in that situation, because if management told me I needed to make a purchase, I'd buy a water or Red Bull and there would be no escalation. "Rosa Parks" Montgomery ordinance. This isn't a fight for civil rights, it's a fight that says that private businesses can't eject non-customers if said business has a reputation for "hanging around" and the non-customers are minorities. "She should have not let the white guy use the toilets" Any indication that they asked? "kicked out the white guys that said they hadn't bought things either." Police are already present at this point. Yeah, she probably should have hammered down and booted all of the hipsters whining that they were loitering, too. Kind of our of your hands once you invite ten cops into your store though.
John Adams Member	Thu Apr 19 14:16:24 Did Seb just compare a civil rights movement to loitering?
patom Member	Thu Apr 19 14:16:45 Seb, are you saying that you can walk into any restaurant in the UK and sit down at a table and just state that you are waiting for someone and they will just leave you alone? I'm with TJ in that when I enter an establishment that sells food or coffee and sit down. I sit down with a food or coffee that I just purchased there. If I use the rest room inside even a gas station on the highway I will at least buy a candy bar or a drink. It is just common courtesy. Unfortunately in the US, our society, for some unknown reason, doesn't provide enough rest room facilities for the public. I am curious though about the UK or the rest of Europe. Do they provide seating inside privately owned restaurants for anyone to come in and sit down to wait for others?
Delude Member	Thu Apr 19 14:20:48 Dishonest seb being a bitch because the narrative isn't be supported by others. Also he is becoming hot rod and hates facts now.
Seb Member	Thu Apr 19 14:35:03 Forwyn: "it's a fight that says that private businesses can't eject non-customers" I'd just like to point out again - Starbucks is an international chain, that is well known for wanting people to hang around and marketing itself on that basis, and whose staff manual explains this. This is not unknown to business people who use it as a venue for meetings and this will colour their response to discriminatory treatment (and it was discriminatory treatment because the manager did not choose to ask anyone else to leave even after they themselves pointed out they were doing the same thing as the men she had asked to leave). This business refused to press charges, sacked the manager in question. So lets be really clear, this is not at all about the rights of businesses. Though of course the law is clear in the US that businesses can't discriminate based on race. John Adams: "Did Seb just compare a civil rights movement to loitering?" Non discrimination is a civil rights issue, if you think you are being discriminated against, of course you should be prepared to be arrested to highlight it. Turns out the employer of the manager - Starbucks - agreed with them. Patom: I don't know about you but I visit starbucks all over london for meetings. I'd say about three times a week. They are better outfitted than Costa or Nero. I often grab a table unless there are clearly not enough for those who already have a coffee, and great wifi. Hell they even have notices on their notice boards saying things like "why rent office space, come work from our stores". I never order until my colleague arrives, because I want to be able to offer it to them in a way that doesn't look patronising, and I've never been asked to leave. Why? Because Starbucks actively market themselves as the place that you can instantly go to for these kind of business meetings - and they like to make it super convenient. Because this way, they get loads of people who would never be in there at all - they are looking for a place to have a convenient meeting and even if some don't even buy a coffee, the result is a fuck load more coffee sold. Honestly, when you post the questions like this, you kinda sound as out of touch as someone who is shocked that there is no table service in McDonalds because most restaurants do that. But that's not how McDonalds works. Or stride up to the kitchen in a fancy french restaurant because thats how you place an order in McDonalds. Everyone who is having a meeting in Starbucks knows how Starbucks operates (like I said they actively promote that and talk about their goal of being "the third space" in their corporate gumf). Once you understand that you start to get an idea of why it really looks a lot like some kind of bias here. "why are you asking me to move on? Do you think I'm a hobo? I'm here to meet a colleague, we'll order then. You still want me to move? Ok, this is clearly discrimination, so I'm going to make a point of principle out of this if you are going to insist I leave." Contextually, the manager was clearly being a massive dick.
Forwyn Member	Thu Apr 19 15:32:23 Most children learn at a very young age that "They were doing it, too!" is not a defense. Negroes and Sebs missed this lesson, it would seem.
TJ Member	Thu Apr 19 15:34:41 From how we buy our coffee to how we ensure the best possible workplace for our partners, we believe it is important to operate consistent with our mission: to inspire and nurture the human spirit – one person, one cup and one neighborhood at a time. http://livingourvalues.starbucks.com/mission-values
Seb Member	Thu Apr 19 15:37:05 Forwyn: I don't think you understand here: the manager, an employee, did not have discretion to behave that way and has been fired. The guys who were arrested in the end aren't the ones needing a defense.
Seb Member	Thu Apr 19 15:39:07 TJ: "Creating a culture of warmth and belonging where everyone is welcome." Not really consistent with kicking people out who have said they are waiting before their friend arrives to order.
TJ Member	Thu Apr 19 15:50:58 Did I say it was consistent? I thought is was worthy to present their mission statement. I don't see color and only character. I'm not willing to suggest racism was or was not involved, even though the appearance of how it's been presented is a fair assessment. I've only read where it was said they were just waiting for a friend, (to order) is questionable. Could it have been assumed, sure.
Seb Member	Thu Apr 19 15:56:51 TJ: The problem with saying "I don't see colour" is that means you are erasing the fact that a person of colour does experience a fuck load of discrimination. And when you don't take that context into account, it's tantamount to denying the problem. Look at the mess France has got into trying to institutionalise that approach. You can talk all you like about Starbucks mission statement - this is how they are used and how starbucks encourages its stores to be used. Which is why they are cracking down hard.
Forwyn Member	Thu Apr 19 16:14:01 "the manager, an employee, did not have discretion to behave that way and has been fired." She certainly does have the discretion to request people leave the premises. Starcucks doesn't like how that discretion was applied because of an international media circlejerk regarding a minor detainment. "The guys who were arrested in the end aren't the ones needing a defense." Only because of police discretion. They refused a lawful police order to vacate. They could have been charged with both trespassing and interference, and the charges would have stuck.
patom Member	Thu Apr 19 16:18:15 From a couple of sites I googled. Apparently Starbucks has left store policy up to the particular stores and their managers regarding loitering. There is a lot of unanswered questions regarding this incident in Philly. http://www...525/walsh-starbucks-matt-walsh
TJ Member	Thu Apr 19 16:18:38 I don't personally place color into decisions and why I said I would've handled the situation differently than the manager. I don't know attitudes or verbal exchanges that were between them. Character! It doesn't appear that the mission statement does either. Does it bother you that I won't assume racism was part of the managers thought process? I was honest and said the appearance suggests racism could have easily been a motive. I'd wager it was cold outside and they may have just wanted a warm spot to meet and wait moving on when the person arrived and they needed a restroom. The mission statement doesn't suggest they weren't welcome without a purchase. I just won't assume because appearances can be deceiving.
Dukhat Member	Thu Apr 19 16:27:50 I blame those honky niggers. If they say you have to buy something, just buy something. All these uppity black people have to make a scene out of nothing.
Seb Member	Thu Apr 19 16:38:00 Forwyn: The company appears to say not. "They refused a lawful police order to vacate." Except the owner of the premise in question - who is not the manager - does not believe they were trespassing because they actually want people to come there and have business meetings whether or not they have bought a cup of coffee. So they could not have been charged with trespass - it's the owner, not the manager, who can say who is and is not allowed on the property. It's certainly true that at the time of the arrest the police had good reason to think that. It turns out they were wrong. Therefore there is no actual charge that can be brought. They have committed no crime. Patom: That's not quite what they say. And the Starbucks CEO was quite clear "the basis for asking them to leave was wrong". Policy on loitering may be discretionary, but Starbucks is clear that simply being in the store at a table without having yet bought a coffee shouldn't be considered loitering. You know, given all their fucking in store advertising encouraging you do precisely that. The manager starts to look massively incompetent. TJ: "It doesn't appear that the mission statement does either." I'm afraid I disagree, and I've posted links to their manual and other staff training docs in the previous thread. "Does it bother you that I won't assume racism was part of the managers thought process?" I'm not sure what you mean by that - the point about unconcious bias is that discrimination isn't a part of the thought process so much as the absense of it. By way of analogy, in criminal law there is the figure of recklessness - not having regard for something that you should reasonably have had regard for. "I'd wager it was cold outside and they may have just wanted a warm spot to meet and wait moving on when the person arrived and they needed a restroom. The mission statement doesn't suggest they weren't welcome without a purchase." I don't know really why you are so keen to bend over backwards here to assume everything is absolutely conditional on first buying a cup of coffee. That is not how starbucks operates. A great deal of people in a starbucks have not come for the coffee. They have come for a place. This is why starbucks was one of the first restaurant chains to invest in sofas, wifi stuff etc. The whole idea is to make it an environment that when you cannot be at home, or the office, you can go to. Even if some people don't buy something, it is better to make sure you have a cast iron reputation for being that place people can go and loiter because most people will also buy a coffee. Far more people will then go and buy a coffee, than if it was just restricted for people who were suddenly seized by a desire for a coffee. They explicitly call the strategy "the third space". The founder I think wrote a book with the title. I really don't get why you are so skeptical of this idea. It's not a new one. Back in the 30's, bars used to offer free lunches for those buying a drink on the basis people then bought lots of drinks. Hence the saying "ain't no such thing as a free lunch" Loss leader is a well known business strategy. In Starbucks case, the odd person sitting at a table and not buying a coffee is the loss leader. Obviously, a homeless person rocking up and hanging out all day, who obviously has no intent to buy a coffee now, ever, or in the future is not what they are looking for. But turfing people out anyone who hasn't bought a coffee is not what they are aiming for either. Can I suggest you go to a Starbucks outlet, have a wonder and look for the notice board and peruse some of the printed materials they have there. I remember one yonks back when I was a student saying basically saying "hey, come and write your thesis here, we don't care if you don't buy a coffee - but we hope you will" This is not some weird, crazy hypothesis I have. It's absolutely core to their business model and front and center of their advertising.
TJ Member	Thu Apr 19 16:44:40 "It doesn't appear that the mission statement does either." Let me clarify: The mission statement doesn't see color either and stated everyone is welcome. Not sure how that was confusing, but I'll except responsibility for a lack of clarity on my part.
TJ Member	Thu Apr 19 16:46:50 except=accept
John Adams Member	Thu Apr 19 16:53:33 "Except the owner of the premise in question - who is not the manager - does not believe they were trespassing because they actually want people to come there and have business meetings whether or not they have bought a cup of coffee. " Yes, they want people there because they are anticipating them being customers. However, if you have those there that have no intention of being customers then interferes with the revenue of the store and the appearances of the store itself with a crowd will turn away those potential customers that will want to purchase goods. So why yes, the intention they want people to come to their stores, they do not necessarily want it to become a "hang out" of sorts without any benefits to themselves. This it would just merely become a public park. However, it appears that you are confused on what the "official responses" are. In fact one official response by a spokesperson for Starbucks stated; "In this particular store, the guidelines were that partners must ask unpaying customers to leave the store, and police were to be called if they refused." Kevin Johnson the CEO also did not directly answer in regards of changing it's police that customers have to buy something. So what this establishes is that managers, district managers, or the owner have their discretion. It is also said that, by the same spokeperson, that "In this situation, the police should never have been called. And we know we have to review the practices and guidelines to help ensure it never happens again." As a policy maker and assisting in creating/formulating laws, ordinances, and the likes, this appears that they are incapable of correctly identifying what they are supposed to be doing. Partially with now they are in public image control because of the stature of the business and they do not want this negative publicity. So if we go by what the spokeperson said that managers can ask unpaying customers to leave, then that manager, regardless of how they felt about other races did reserve the right to ask them to leave and have the police involved. Then the other issue is that the police, as pointed out, which seemingly you do not want to acknowledge, did give a lawful order for them to leave. Which they did not abide, henceforth arrested. As for charges being dropped, it isn't because of "no crime was committed" per se. I can argue and definitively research and give you the law where it was violated. It is up now to discretion to determine if this was prosecutable or not.
Seb Member	Thu Apr 19 17:30:48 John Adams: "However, if you have those there that have no intention of being customers then interferes with the revenue of the store" Equally if you get the reputation of being a place that is going to hassle people having a business conversation, then suddenly a large number of people that drop into starbucks as a "third space" are suddenly not going to be going there, and hence not buying coffee. So it is highly incumbent on managers to exercise good judgement. Given the reports of the incident mention that the people in question stated they were waiting for a colleague, I would again say it looks poor judgement by the manager and again asks the question as to why she formed the opinion those specific individuals had no intention to buy a coffee, whereas there were many other in the store in the same situation and attention later drawn to that fact. Well, I haven't read the statement you are referring to. But I'd go with the CEO statement as the last word personally and again say it's pretty pathetic that we need such a detailed policy. If you are a manager and still don't get what Starbucks strategy is in this respect, you probably need to leave the organisation. But the specifics of the policy is secondary to the basic matter, even if you do have a policy of asking non paying customers to leave, but then you only ask the black people to leave and then ignore all the white people saying "hey, I haven't paid and you aren't asking me to leave", then you are on very thin ice. Again extremely poor judgement. "Then the other issue is that the police, as pointed out, which seemingly you do not want to acknowledge, did give a lawful order for them to leave. Which they did not abide, henceforth arrested." John, seriously, go read the posts again. Carefully. What I said is that no, they hadn't committed a crime so not "lucky not to be prosecuted". While the police had probable cause to suspect tresspass, and that is what they were reportedly arrested for in the end there was no tresspass unless the owner says they were not permitted on the property. And it really doesn't matter whether the policy gives discretion to the manager to determine people to be loiterers, it's the support of the owner (Starbucks) that is needed to support the charges. If Starbucks says they shouldn't have been asked to leave and the manager was wrong to report, how is that going to work? At best, and I don't know the specifics for the state it occurred in, the refusal to comply with the order might be a misdemeanor - but given the underlying background I don't think anyone is going to be pushing that issue: arresting people for refusing to comply with a police order when the owner of the property says the manager was out of line.
patom Member	Thu Apr 19 17:36:10 Seb: "arresting people for refusing to comply with a police order when the owner of the property says the manager was out of line." That isn't how police work. Not here or in the UK. They don't have time nor the authority to trace down the owner and ask him to either back up the manager or fire him.
John Adams Member	Thu Apr 19 17:41:02 "So it is highly incumbent on managers to exercise good judgement. " Which is true. Which it is imperative for them to make the right call. I would agree this was a poor call. But still their prerogative to make the call given the circumstances of the parameters that are warranted. "Given the reports of the incident mention that the people in question stated they were waiting for a colleague, I would again say it looks poor judgement by the manager and again asks the question as to why she formed the opinion those specific individuals had no intention to buy a coffee, whereas there were many other in the store in the same situation and attention later drawn to that fact. " It is poor judgement. I can say confidently that many would agree this would be poor judgement. Nonetheless a call was made. As for the same situation as others, I haven't seen nor was made aware that others were in the same situations as the black gentlemen that were not buying anything and merely loitering or waiting for friends. "If you are a manager and still don't get what Starbucks strategy is in this respect, you probably need to leave the organisation. " Once again, it also conflicting to not take into account of what was said by one of their own spokesperson, then have another conflicting statement in that regards. You have to acknowledge the confusion first and empathize as to why an incident of this nature would have occur, dismissing the racial factor. "While the police had probable cause to suspect tresspass, and that is what they were reportedly arrested for in the end there was no tresspass unless the owner says they were not permitted on the property. And it really doesn't matter whether the policy gives discretion to the manager to determine people to be loiterers, it's the support of the owner (Starbucks) that is needed to support the charges. If Starbucks says they shouldn't have been asked to leave and the manager was wrong to report, how is that going to work? " Perhaps you should review my comments. Because I said the similar. I was merely clarifying. Yes, it is up to the owner/manager to prosecute or not. But sometimes, they can be removed from the equation as well.
Seb Member	Thu Apr 19 18:03:38 patom: Sorry, was typing too quickly, that should have read "charging" or "prosecuting". " You have to acknowledge the confusion first and empathize as to why an incident of this nature would have occur, dismissing the racial factor." I think it is pretty clear. Starbucks are very, very clear that the vibe they are looking for is "Hey, we're a place in an urban setting where you can come to meet people, to hang out and do work, kill time, and conduct business... you don't have to buy a coffee but we hope you do", knowing that while there might be the odd people who come in, read a book, and don't buy a thing - generally they will get far more custom this way. Obviously, they don't want people who are taking the piss: say a homeless person who is living out of the store with no intention to ever buy anything. What that means operationally is hard to describe in a policy document and is going to sound cynical: "let middle class people who look like the kinds of people who won't think much of spending £3.50 on a pint of milk with some pretty bad coffee in it, but if they look dirt poor or destitute, move them on if you need to." So they won't. Hence warm fuzzy statements and sacking people who don't get it. And if as a manager you are saying "hey, but I have discretion", then the layer above you are going to say "yeah, but you fucked up - this was not how we intended you to use your discretion so you're fired". Particularly if the people in question are businessmen having a meeting. That's like the core demographic Starbucks is going for. People who will splurge on shit, who wouldn't be buying a coffee if it were not for the place as a venue: do please come again with more of your clients, and maybe pick up a habit for tripple chai latte with hazel nut syrup or whatever. Honestly, Starbucks has horrendous coffee: but it's really convenient for that kind of meeting. The facilities are so standardised you don't need too worry about going into some hipster place that serves amazing coffee but has dodgy wifi and wobbly tables. "Perhaps you should review my comments." You seemed in doubt as to whether I thought the police had given a lawful order. In their situation, pissed off with an officious manager, confident senior management will side with me, and full of righteous indignation on the very strongly grounded belief I was being discriminated against - I might do the same, insist on the police being called and insist they arrest or detain knowing that if the incident gets big enough I'm not going to be charged and the manager is going to get into a lot more shit than if I meekly walk out the building.
Seb Member	Thu Apr 19 18:04:26 ^john, left off the tag but most of the above is in response to your post.
Seb Member	Thu Apr 19 18:07:42 Incidentally, having seen incidents sort of like this - not exact - I think UK police might have mediated a bit more and asked the manager why she wanted them to leave rather than just straight up arresting them for tresspass. Particularly if they were calm and there were other people in the restaurant getting irritated.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Apr 19 18:18:11 "Its ok for blacks to commit tons of fucking crime, but the moment one gets kicked out of a restaraunt its the end of the fucking world." -seb.
Seb Member	Thu Apr 19 18:25:51 Sam, you are depriving some concentration camp of its... well you are not smart enough to be the kommandant. Cook maybe?
Aeros Member	Thu Apr 19 20:49:24 Even if this one store manager reacted badly, which is highly debatable, it does not justify Starbucks undertaking a company wide struggle session to cure its employees of wrong think.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Apr 19 22:36:48 Seb, is there a whiny leftist cause you dont support?
Seb Member	Fri Apr 20 03:51:13 Aeros: I find it amusing that on one hand you'll defend the right of an employee to discriminate against black people against the wishes of their employer because it's not against the law, whilst railing against the employer training their staff even though that is not only legal, but arguably necessary if failing to correctly follow shop policy can get employees fired.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Apr 20 04:55:28 >>What would you call this other than an example of unconscious bias Nim?<< Something else? Or nothing. Yet again you are willing a term into existance with a riddle, when the methods of trying to quantify it have so far failed. We have not disprove god, we can remain technically agnostic. Just spare me you divine services.
Seb Member	Fri Apr 20 05:06:00 Nim: You are confusing evidencing a phenomenology with measuring it. It's simply not scientifically accurate to say that the failure of an approach to quantifiably measure the degree of a thing means you can conclude the thing doesn't exist. For example, it was possible to know the electron was charged long before it was possible to measure its charge. Indeed, you also offered earlier evidence from neurological scans that a great deal of decision making takes place in areas that are not associated with deliberative decision making!
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Apr 20 07:44:57 sebing What you read "that the failure of an approach to quantifiably measure the degree of a thing means you can['t] conclude the thing doesn't exist." What I said "when the methods of trying to quantify it have so far failed. We have not disprove god, we can remain technically agnostic. Just spare me you divine services." I think I was clear. I remain technically agnostic about the existence of "unconscious bias". "you also offered earlier evidence from neurological scans that a great deal of decision making takes place in areas that are not associated with deliberative decision making!" You didn't really get the reason for why I mentioned that, to muddy the waters. In a thread about the unconscious, when studies show even the most mundane decisions are _seemingly_ being made without your knowledge. Counter intuitive, world change or perhaps the scientist do not know yet what the fuck they are even looking at? So when the basic research situation is like that, there is not a whole lot that can be said. Neuroscience is a young field and it cuts to the core of human experience, take it easy. Meanwhile I posted one of the largest and most replicable effects in social psychology "stereotype accuracy". I will place that juxtapose your "male doctor bias riddle". Here we have measured how accurate group stereotypes are, r >0.5. You know, just to muddy the waters that you are traversing with such confidence and certainty. http://www...g/stereotype-accuracy-response One can not think critically about subjects and entire fields, without knowing the state of affairs, what the experts say, the question they ask/are interested in and how the discussions go etc. One can argue from one's values against prejudice, that is the only way that conversation can be conducted. The science _will_ disappoint, specially those emotionally/politically invested. Anyone who understands our evolutionary legacy knows this, it was very unfair and unforgiving and very much "racist", that is the evidence we find. We can (and should) adapt our institutions to that legacy, but not vice versa. TL:DR Stop using science to combat prejudice.
Seb Member	Fri Apr 20 09:18:35 Nim: "when the methods of trying to quantify it have so far failed. We have not disprove god, we can remain technically agnostic. Just spare me you divine services." I think I was clear. I remain technically agnostic about the existence of "unconscious bias". And I am saying that this is a pretty absurd position where you yourself raised experimental evidence that the brain regularly undertakes actions without activity in the relevant brain centres associated with deliberative action. We can describe a robust phenomenology across numerous fields and numerous contexts. You are focusing on a single, failed, methodology for quantitatively measuring it as supporting "agnosticism". " In a thread about the unconscious, when studies show even the most mundane decisions are _seemingly_ being made without your knowledge." Erm. How else would you describe an unconscious decision as a decision made without your knowledge?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Apr 20 09:30:29 ”And I am saying that this is a pretty absurd position where you yourself raised experimental evidence that the brain regularly undertakes actions without activity in the relevant brain centres associated with deliberative action.” That say nothing beyond, this is interesting and wierd or maybe utterly wrong. Which btw are what the relevant people basically have to say about that. Not the faithful however.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Apr 20 09:32:23 ”Erm. How else would you describe an unconscious decision as a decision made without your knowledge?” Indeed, how do you falsify this theory?
Seb Member	Fri Apr 20 09:58:56 Nim: "Indeed, how do you falsify this theory?" I would falsify the negative - that we are conscious of all our decisions and all assumptions we are making. Which is pretty easy - I would, as you suggesst - concoct a number of problems akin to the one mentioned above, and test them and the obverse on them, and then interview those that got it right and wrong to get them to explain their thought procesess. A subset would be measured in a brain scanner.
obaminated Member	Fri Apr 20 11:20:36 I think seb is unconsciously a moron, doesn't realize he has racial bias against white people and as such as alienated himself from everyone else on this board due to his unconscious bias.
TJ Member	Fri Apr 20 11:20:55 "Stop using science to combat prejudice." Lets term it Prejudicial Science Bias?? It sort of has a ring to it much like Unconscious Bias. The unintended and the intended. Suddenly the unintended is eliminated on the path of perfection. Is that what it means to be a born sinner? Is it a sin if you don't know it is a sin since this is a godly subject? The gods of Judges, Juries, and Executioners. I'll call it Hell unintentionally. Every single individual is instantly under the control of an invisible all knowing dipstick. You may or may not be guilty, but the entire unit will pay a penance of reeducation on the way to sin no more. Defense is impossible. All I need to do is render you guilty under the Evil Unintended Act. Can you tell my intentions or am I guilty out of the womb? Everyone is a sinner so bow to the gods of unconsciousness. Maybe I'm trolling and maybe I'm not! The almighty brain fart. Did you feel the force as though it was a hurricane? The battle between the gods and the God remains Godly. This post was unintended, but I was inspired by my unconscious bias so science me into guilt. We've finally discovered the original sin and it turns out to be unintended consequences. Spare me the torture of my creation. Is the idea of unconscious bias actually an unconscious bias hiding in the unconscious? Prove that it is not... Dig deep my fellow sinners and you'll miss the surface treasure. We have created an 11th Commandant--> Thou shall not not think. If you feel like donating to Unconsciousness send to the below address. The Unconscious Society c/o TJ P.O. Box 11 Quincy, Il. 62301
Aeros Member	Fri Apr 20 13:49:18 I'm not defending discrimination. I am pointing out the actions of one individual are not proof there is such a thing as unconcious bias, and that everyone has it, and at therefore, everyone needs to go in for "training". In fact the psychological literature is pretty clear that the Aptitude tests for this stupid thing are terrible. Someone taking the test three times will get three different outcomes, meaning the test is not repeatable. Further, what literature there is on Racial bias training indicates that it makes people more racist in as much as its possible to measure such a thing. I'll just let Peterson explain. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yx1CEsUBYVM
Sam Adams Member	Fri Apr 20 14:57:49 Since these africans were discriminated against and suffered the horrible consequence of 2 whole hours in custody, the us has seen the following comitted by africans... About 105 murders 400 attempted murders 800 rapes 6500 home invasions 7500 car thefts 2.5 million cases of petty theft Priorities seb
Seb Member	Fri Apr 20 17:00:14 Aeros: If we are going to be scientific, we need to be precise and consistent. Measurement is not the same as observant. Most phenomena are discovered and observed (stamp collecting phase as someone put it) long before they are quantified, measured and made predictable. I certainly agree that the attempt to quantify and assess how biased individuals are ain't good. But that's very different to saying it doesn't exist. However if you accept that you can't measure, you really cannot say training has a negative effect as you've just said that can't be measured. Putting a qualifier "So far as this can be measured" when you've argued that "So far" is "not at all" just looks like muddy unscientific thinking. Political rhetoric dressed as science.
Seb Member	Fri Apr 20 17:00:15 Aeros: If we are going to be scientific, we need to be precise and consistent. Measurement is not the same as observant. Most phenomena are discovered and observed (stamp collecting phase as someone put it) long before they are quantified, measured and made predictable. I certainly agree that the attempt to quantify and assess how biased individuals are ain't good. But that's very different to saying it doesn't exist. However if you accept that you can't measure, you really cannot say training has a negative effect as you've just said that can't be measured. Putting a qualifier "So far as this can be measured" when you've argued that "So far" is "not at all" just looks like muddy unscientific thinking. Political rhetoric dressed as science.
Seb Member	Fri Apr 20 17:02:30 Sam: I see. And how many of those crimes did refusing to allow them to wait in store prevent? Shouldn't maybe those cops been out catching real crimindls rather than supporting a mid ranking service sector employee immolate her career? Priorities indeed!
Sam Adams Member	Sat Apr 21 10:45:26 If you truly wanted to help africans, wouldnt you want to help remove their stigma of committing crime? Also the fired manager was a sjw. Lol@leftists eating their own.
TJ Member	Sat Apr 21 11:24:12 A few of my final thoughts on this subject: 1) unconscious bias--> unrealized/not intentional 2) reeducation--> educating is not reeducating. 3) In 2015 "Race Together" a Starbucks initiative--> Failed 4) This is Starbucks picking up the torch from that failure. 5) Social change will always become political I don't believe unconscious bias is totally questionable aside from the degree/level it exists. I do believe it is termed incorrectly and offends too many people. The training is a primer and the least evil aspect of race relationships. The graduate work will become more difficult as the process moves forward. Actions of hate are mutual and intentional, which is the main root of racial unrest. In this situation demonizing the police doing what they've been assigned to do, in my opinion, subtracts from solving the entrenched problem. Slam the police that go beyond the demarcation of lawful action and I'll support the slam. Systemic ills demands careful consideration if it is going to be reduced or actually eliminated the ultimate goal. Firing the manager doesn't educate either and only creates additional animosity, which I believe is detrimental to the social goal. Indeed, priorities are extremely important and I feel as though this subject has been a worthy expenditure of my time.
Seb Member	Sun Apr 22 05:05:57 TJ: A balanced position. I don't think we are that far apart. I do observe there is a tendency by some to ignore or downplay the systemic roots of racial inequality. Where they cannot detect or prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was malicious intent - some are inclined to declare "no harm". As long as we look at acts of malicious hatred as the only unjustified element of racial inequality; and that even talking about systemic issues, unconscious bias etc. is tantamount to leveling a charge of racial hatred and intentional malice against someone and must be proven unequivocally - well we are not going to make any significant progress. And I think some of the arguments over whether "unconscious bias" even exists is an attempt to wish a problem away. The only thing I'd add is that firing the manager wasn't about education. It's about competence, reputation, and avoiding a "hostile workplace" suite - all legitimate reasons to fire an employee. You grant people discretionary powers on the assumption they will be used with reasonable judgement. I cannot imagine how an interview between that store manager and a regional director would end up with them having confidence that her judgement was sound.
TJ Member	Sun Apr 22 11:29:43 Seb: "I cannot imagine how an interview between that store manager and a regional director would end up with them having confidence that her judgement was sound." I can't imagine how the interview evolved that led to her dismissal. Possibly it is justified. The entire unconscious bias idea at its foundation is only a facet of teaching sound judgement. Of course neither of us know the particulars to arrive at a reasonable conclusion on the firing leaving it subjective. We have outside views for the reality that we seek. I don't know how long she had been a manager deciding sound or unsound judgment and in this instance possibly or possibly not deserved the consequence. It is water under the bridge, but I don't think it forwarded the original goal of Starbucks objective. In the eyes of those who agree with the manager an opportunity was missed. Sound judgment? I don't believe it was considering the topic of unconscious bias. Are you positive that you are exempt? Is anyone? Personal attacks designed to set example can lead to serious defeat. One step forward and two steps back seems be the result. The minds of millions have been hardened toward her position and it has placed some degree of fear in Starbucks employees. The fear of making a mistake unconsciously executed has led to a firing and the distaste for training on the subject. Maybe for some that appears to be a minor strike, but I view it as a major conscious event that instills a high degree of concern. Systemic doesn't confine itself to a singular color, nor attitudes between color, companies, and the public. Good for morale of employees? I don't believe so. Compassion/empathy/ sympathy interest should not be restricted to a particular color. I remain satisfied with my overall assessment. At times wordy opens a view from a different perspective. The best laid plans, kind of thing, so it is time for a coin toss. The world is an astronomical distance from a reasonable correction concerning healthy racial relationships.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Wed May 02 14:01:10 "Black men arrested at Starbucks settle for $200K program PHILADELPHIA (AP) — Two black men arrested for sitting at a Philadelphia Starbucks without ordering anything settled with the city Wednesday for a symbolic $1 each and a promise from officials to set up a $200,000 program for young entrepreneurs." MORE: http://www...ogram.html#.7518-stage-hero1-3
State Department Member	Wed May 02 16:43:26 Just to be clear, the $1 settlement is from the city. Starbucks settled for an undisclosed sum. All the headlines are making them out to be noble heroes or something...$1! $1!! $1!!!11!!
Forwyn Member	Wed May 02 17:16:52 Incredible, really, that the city would even acknowledge wrongdoing. Grow a sack. I'm sure PR-side knew they could win and said just run a cheap settlement to calm the masses, but have some fucking principles.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Wed May 02 21:20:38 State Department and you are privy to your information exactly how?
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: