Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

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

#5202 Jun 12 2018 at 12:34 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,454 posts
De Niro is pretty pro-Canada, so I'm going to let his crazy slide for now.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#5203 Jun 12 2018 at 4:01 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,384 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'll also go out on a limb and assume that at no point did she say something like "these two men were black and in my store, so I wanted them gone". Right?
Many racists wouldn't/wont as they don't want decent people knowing.


The reason why is irrelevant. The fact that she didn't is. The police aren't going to be told "I just don't like black people, so I want them gone". They're going to be told something like "They were causing a disturbance, I asked them to leave, and they refused", or "They threatened me when I asked them if they were going to buy something", or frankly any of a long list of things she almost certainly told them when they inevitably asked "why did you ask these guys to leave?".

The police aren't going to speculate that the manager of the property is lying to them, and then "side" with the defendant or something. This isn't a court of law. Obviously, if we're dealing with two sides with equal authority (like a domestic dispute, or any argument between two random people in a public place), the officers have to engage in discretion. But when the two sides are "manger of a business" and "two people inside that business", the police are always going to side with the manager of the business. This isn't a case of two equal "sides". One side has full authority to decide who gets to remain on the property and the other side doesn't.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#5204 Jun 12 2018 at 4:41 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,626 posts
This is exactly the problem, and what I mentioned earlier. If you know the police are automatically going to side with you, then you can give them any old bushlit reasoning. The problem here isn't the cops, that are supposedly just doing their job, but the fact that racists can pull this stunt, until recently, with impunity.

Edited, Jun 12th 2018 6:42pm by Debalic
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#5205 Jun 12 2018 at 5:39 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,761 posts
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'll also go out on a limb and assume that at no point did she say something like "these two men were black and in my store, so I wanted them gone". Right?
Many racists wouldn't/wont as they don't want decent people knowing.


The reason why is irrelevant. The fact that she didn't is. The police aren't going to be told "I just don't like black people, so I want them gone". They're going to be told something like "They were causing a disturbance, I asked them to leave, and they refused", or "They threatened me when I asked them if they were going to buy something", or frankly any of a long list of things she almost certainly told them when they inevitably asked "why did you ask these guys to leave?".

The police aren't going to speculate that the manager of the property is lying to them, and then "side" with the defendant or something. This isn't a court of law. Obviously, if we're dealing with two sides with equal authority (like a domestic dispute, or any argument between two random people in a public place), the officers have to engage in discretion. But when the two sides are "manger of a business" and "two people inside that business", the police are always going to side with the manager of the business. This isn't a case of two equal "sides". One side has full authority to decide who gets to remain on the property and the other side doesn't.


I guess we are discounting the establishments customers, who helped inform the police?
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#5206 Jun 12 2018 at 5:55 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,384 posts
Debalic wrote:
This is exactly the problem, and what I mentioned earlier. If you know the police are automatically going to side with you, then you can give them any old bushlit reasoning. The problem here isn't the cops, that are supposedly just doing their job, but the fact that racistsanyone granted the authority to do so by the business owner can pull this stunt, until recently, with impunity.


It's not about racists though. That's putting the cart before the horse. It's a base condition of "being in charge" of a business. The consequence, of course, is that if you abuse that authority you may find yourself out of a job.

The only thing that "until recently" applies to is the use of the media to create an assumed narrative to the event in question. And one can make the same "BS" argument in that case. If you know that the media is going to side with your narrative, then you can give them any BS claim about racism you want, and it'll be believed, and reported as such, and the masses who read the media will believe it, and react to it. And it doesn't matter what the truth actually is. You also know that the business will react in exactly the way Starbucks acted. So the "side" of the barista will never be heard.

That's just as much a problem IMO. I'll repeat something I mentioned earlier, and ask you to do this simple mental test:

Imagine that the two men directly threatened the manager. Told her they would beat her silly if she didn't shut her mouth and let them hang out. Choose whatever threatening and/or offensive language you wish, but for the sake of argument let's assume it's something that you agree would 100% justify the manager calling the cops. Now, imagine everything else played out exactly as it did. Manager calls the cops, reporting exactly what was reported (two men inside the store, were asked to leave, refused to do so, she wants the cops to come remove them). Imagine the cops take exactly the actions we saw on the video. Everything else past the point of calling the cops is exactly the same, we're just assuming that her motivation for asking them to leave and calling the cops was 100% justified.

If the same video of the police interaction went viral, and if the media covered it the exact same way. Would you know the difference? Would you hear the employees side? Or would she be silenced by Starbucks? Would we know any difference? Would the reaction have changed?

My assumption is that no, we'd not be able to detect any difference in terms of how this would play out in the public eye. None of the information about the details we're missing would be made public, so we'd never know them. And in that absence the "it must be racism" assumption would fill that void. Let me be clear, I'm not assuming this was the case, only that we can't assume it *wasn't*. We can't assume anything at all. But, because of the racial assumption, we're actively *not* hearing the full story.

In the absence of an hysterical media reporting "RACISM!!!" at every turn, we'd likely have heard the employees side, right? We'd be able to hear a more balanced version of events and make a decision as to what we believe. But the hysteria itself has shut down any countering facts to that assumptive narrative. For me, this is less about concern about racism, but about whether we're doing a disservice to "the truth" with this process. I tend to not like the idea of social narrative being driven by the equivalent of a mob wielding torches and pitchforks. Let's allow full discourse and see where it leads.

"Until recently" we had that discourse. Now we don't. And no, I don't see that as a good thing at all.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#5207 Jun 12 2018 at 6:01 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,178 posts
Gbaji wrote:
But the hysteria itself has shut down any countering facts to that assumptive narrative
Between Fox News and MSNBC, every version is represented. The counter narrative wasn't reflected because the barista simply didn't provide it.

It's obvious that you simply don't want the truth to be true.
#5208 Jun 12 2018 at 6:14 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
21,004 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Between Fox News and MSNBC

You didn't get the memo? The Overton Window has shifted. It's between Fox News and CNN now.
#5209 Jun 12 2018 at 6:29 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,626 posts
In the absence of social media, we wouldn't have heard this story at all. The offensive black men would have gone to jail, and the racist angel of a manager would have gone merrily on her way. I guess there are some people who wouldn't want everyday racism exposed to the rest of the world.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#5210 Jun 12 2018 at 9:36 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,612 posts
I'll ask you, gbaji to do this simple mental test: START with the assumption it was racism and let the manger show/prove demonstrably otherwise. If the black folk were out of line, that should be simple to show, yes?
____________________________
Smash wrote:
My next mixed metaphor will include chocolate cake.

#5211 Jun 12 2018 at 9:42 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,292 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
START with the assumption it was racism and let the manger show/prove demonstrably otherwise

Does that honestly sound like a good way to approach any interactions like this? Automatic assumption of racism?

"Welp, it happened to a black person. Guess it must be racist."

Who ever this woman is she's doing exactly what she should be doing. Because no matter what the truth is, she trying to defend herself would not go over well, and would just put her in the public eye and a target for backlash.

Edited, Jun 12th 2018 11:44pm by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#5212 Jun 12 2018 at 10:45 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,761 posts
TirithRR wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
START with the assumption it was racism and let the manger show/prove demonstrably otherwise

Does that honestly sound like a good way to approach any interactions like this? Automatic assumption of racism?

"Welp, it happened to a black person. Guess it must be racist."

Who ever this woman is she's doing exactly what she should be doing. Because no matter what the truth is, she trying to defend herself would not go over well, and would just put her in the public eye and a target for backlash.

Edited, Jun 12th 2018 11:44pm by TirithRR


Honest question, who here thinks it is okay to start out with the assumption that racism wasn't a component.

And, how many of you that answered it is okay to start with the assumption that race had no bearing, how many have ever been personally affected by racist behavior?
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#5213 Jun 12 2018 at 10:50 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,384 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
But the hysteria itself has shut down any countering facts to that assumptive narrative
Between Fox News and MSNBC, every version is represented. The counter narrative wasn't reflected because the barista simply didn't provide it.


And why do you suppose she didn't provide it?

Quote:
It's obvious that you simply don't want the truth to be true.


That's an interesting claim coming from someone effectively defending a "story" with just one side. And ignoring why there's only one side to the story being heard, even after I've already written at length as to why we're not hearing that side, and also why it's a very bad thing that we're not.

In case you're still confused. She's not giving her side of the story because she's literally terrified that she'll be harassed, threatened, possibly harmed, and likely have to move states, change her name, etc just to avoid being hounded for the rest of her life. All for the crime of being on the wrong side of a PC narrative. She could choose to throw herself on that sword, but she's chosen to just keep her mouth shut, not say anything, and move on.

She literally would never be able to get any job anywhere again if her name was to be made public. It does not matter what the facts are. The mob has spoken. No amount of her "telling her side of the story" will *ever* be accepted. Because that would require literally millions of people to have to admit that they got it wrong, over reacted, believed a fake story, etc. And that's just not going to happen. Once a mob mentality is reached, no amount of facts, or data, or counter information will ever be accepted. Anything she says will be rejected as the lies of a racist. Period. The media will double down on her, because she'll be the enemy of the "cause".

She's (sadly) doing the right thing for herself. But this sort of fear is exactly what should not exist in a free society. The fact that you seem unconcerned about it, is what concerns me the most.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#5214 Jun 12 2018 at 11:01 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,384 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
Honest question, who here thinks it is okay to start out with the assumption that racism wasn't a component.


I made no assumption in either direction. I have been responding to the assumption that it was racism.

I'll ask the opposite question. Do you think it's ok to start out with the assumption that racism *was* a component?

Quote:
And, how many of you that answered it is okay to start with the assumption that race had no bearing, how many have ever been personally affected by racist behavior?


Same opposite question. If you answered yes to that, have you ever been negatively affected by an action by someone in which the cause of that negative action wasn't racially motivated?


Assuming the answer to the second question is "yes", then the next question is: "Why on earth would you assume that if the person who did the action is white and the person on the receiving end of the negative effect of that action is black that it must be about race. You clearly can grasp that someone can do something which negatively affects someone else without race being a motivating factor. But in this case... it must be? Why? There's literally no other reason to make that assumption except that the employee was white and the two men who were arrested were black. nothing else.

One "side" is making a wild assumption. And it's not me. I'm the one pointing out that we can't make that assumption. Not only can't make it, but should not. Yet, here we are anyway. And yeah. I find that to be a huge problem.

Edited, Jun 12th 2018 10:02pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#5215 Jun 13 2018 at 7:36 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,674 posts
gbaji wrote:
But the hysteria itself has shut down any countering facts to that assumptive narrative.
You're the guy who proudly boasted that his narrative is based on speculation and still haven't provided any actual facts ...
gbaji wrote:
One "side" is making a wild assumption. And it's not me.
You're also the guy who thinks cops aren't allowed to assess situations and have to mindlessly arrest whoever is being accused and you believe you're not the one making wild assumptions?

Edited, Jun 13th 2018 9:38am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#5216 Jun 13 2018 at 7:44 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,292 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
START with the assumption it was racism and let the manger show/prove demonstrably otherwise

Does that honestly sound like a good way to approach any interactions like this? Automatic assumption of racism?

"Welp, it happened to a black person. Guess it must be racist."

Who ever this woman is she's doing exactly what she should be doing. Because no matter what the truth is, she trying to defend herself would not go over well, and would just put her in the public eye and a target for backlash.


Honest question, who here thinks it is okay to start out with the assumption that racism wasn't a component.


I guess it doesn't matter which assumption is made when all you need to prove that the person is racist is that someone says they are racist, right? That whole "You don't get to decide what is racist, only someone else can tell you if you are racist". Guess since someone else said her actions were because of racism, she has no way to defend or counter it.

Exactly how would she be able to prove she wasn't racist when starting with the default assumption that she was, because the person she was a bitch with was black? Bijou is stuck on the idea that if she wasn't racist, then the two black men must have done something wrong. But I don't think those are the only two choices here.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#5217 Jun 13 2018 at 9:50 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,761 posts
Thank you Tirith, that was a well thought out reply.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#5218 Jun 13 2018 at 10:14 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,761 posts
gbaji wrote:
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
Honest question, who here thinks it is okay to start out with the assumption that racism wasn't a component.


I made no assumption in either direction. I have been responding to the assumption that it was racism.

I'll ask the opposite question. Do you think it's ok to start out with the assumption that racism *was* a component?


Hey, this is my corner for taking polls, if you want to take polls, go hang in front of the Smart and Final!

Edited, Jun 13th 2018 9:15am by stupidmonkey
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#5219 Jun 13 2018 at 10:14 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,674 posts
TirithRR wrote:
Exactly how would she be able to prove she wasn't racist when starting with the default assumption that she was,
Maybe she should have waited more than five minutes to call the cops on people not doing anything wrong.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#5220 Jun 13 2018 at 10:39 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,292 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
Exactly how would she be able to prove she wasn't racist when starting with the default assumption that she was,
Maybe she should have waited more than five minutes to call the cops on people not doing anything wrong.
But just because she was wrong doesn't mean she was racist.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#5221 Jun 13 2018 at 11:00 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,674 posts
Maybe she's not racist, but it doesn't mean she didn't do something that was.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#5222 Jun 13 2018 at 11:10 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,292 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Maybe she's not racist, but it doesn't mean she didn't do something that was.
And if she wasn't a racist, then why would what she did be racist? Because it happened to a someone who wasn't the same skin color as her?
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#5223 Jun 13 2018 at 11:37 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,674 posts
Historical precedent.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#5224 Jun 13 2018 at 1:29 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,612 posts
TirithRR wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
START with the assumption it was racism and let the manger show/prove demonstrably otherwise

Does that honestly sound like a good way to approach any interactions like this? Automatic assumption of racism?
Since I clearly stated that GBAJI apply it to THIS situation, I'll take "no" for $400, Alex.
____________________________
Smash wrote:
My next mixed metaphor will include chocolate cake.

#5225 Jun 13 2018 at 1:53 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,761 posts
TirithRR wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
Exactly how would she be able to prove she wasn't racist when starting with the default assumption that she was,
Maybe she should have waited more than five minutes to call the cops on people not doing anything wrong.
But just because she was wrong doesn't mean she was racist.


It doesn't mean that she's NOT racist, so you shouldn't take it off the table as a possible root cause when trying to decide what the actual fuck is going on. Also, it could have been someone just enforcing the rules back in the 50's and 60's, and just because it was the rule / law doesn't mean that it wasn't racist. (Looking at you, water fountains)
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#5226 Jun 13 2018 at 2:17 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,454 posts
I don't think Tirrith has taken it off the table but since everyone else has, (except gbaji who isn't a credible option here,) he's pointing out that it could be something else. Which none of you are showing as something you've honestly considered.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 75 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (75)