Starbucks has black men arrested for trespassing

[snootchiebootchies]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

When I see a lot of manufactured social media outrage, I always try applying the reversed identity test to stories like this one. If in exactly the same situation, the two guys being asked to leave were really unlikable/polarizing characters, say, two neo-nazis covered in swastikas, would the reactions on social media have been same or would they really focus on owners' right to remove someone from premises, because, you know, it's the right thing to do?

I'm not sure you can say outrage this is manufactured. The two men were put in handcuffs and arrested. And shouldn't the reversed identity test you should be asking yourself is whether this would be acceptable if a member of your family was treated in this manner? I think you are also ignoring some facts as to why there has been this outrage, such as the Starbucks manager waiting only two minutes after the men entered the shop before calling the cops. No matter how busy the foot traffic in this store, calling cops on someone loitering for only two minutes is unreasonable.

Philadelphia Starbucks only took 2 minutes before calling the cops on 2 black men

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/...on-2-black-men

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Acey

...I don't think rational people have a problem with them being asked to leave. It's the selective enforcement of this policy by Starbucks that is the problem.

OK. Use the same test I did. If the police have arrested two neo-nazis for refusing to leave, do you believe the reaction on social media would be the same (an outrage) or opposite (defending the police actions)?

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

When I see a lot of manufactured social media outrage, I always try applying the reversed identity test to stories like this one. If in exactly the same situation, the two guys being asked to leave were really unlikable/polarizing characters, say, two neo-nazis covered in swastikas, would the reactions on social media have been same or would they really focus on owners' right to remove someone from premises, because, you know, it's the right thing to do?

Right, because having black skin and having swastika tattoos are totally the same thing.

Both sides, many sides...

BTW, a business owner in the United States is legally permitted to refuse to serve someone with swastika tattoos because being a neo-Nazi isn't a protected class. The same business owner cannot legally refuse service to an African-American because race is a protected class.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Right, because having black skin and having swastika tattoos are totally the same thing...

They are really not. Read my post again.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

They are really not. Read my post again.

I did read your post. Your argument is this:

1. Starbucks calls the police to eject two black men who were sitting in the restaurant without first making a purchase. SJW snowflakes on social media lose their minds.

2. Starbucks calls the police to eject two neo-Nazis who were sitting in the restaurant without first making a purchase. SJW snowflakes on social media are either silent or support the business. OMG THE HYPOCRISY CHECKMATE LEFTISTS

Except there isn't any hypocrisy there. As has been mentioned multiple times by other posters in this thread, the problem isn't that Starbucks asked the two men to either buy something or leave. The problem is that they chose to selectively enforce their own policies. White people in the same Starbucks at the same time were not asked to leave even though they hadn't bought anything. At another Starbucks location, a white person was given access to the restroom even though he hadn't bought anything but a black person had the same request denied. That's the problem, and these are not just two isolated incidents. People of colour experience this type of discrimination ALL THE TIME.

[CaptainYooh]

You keep sliding into the same ditch again. Go past your two approximate reconstructions of my argument right into your third paragraph. I wasn't talking about racism or Nazism, at all. My only question was about the likely reactions on social media if these two were not black people, but unlikable characters. And, yes, I do believe, these reactions in a second scenario would have been polar opposite despite the exact same circumstances. Do you not?

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Except there isn't any hypocrisy there. As has been mentioned multiple times by other posters in this thread, the problem isn't that Starbucks asked the two men to either buy something or leave. The problem is that they chose to selectively enforce their own policies. White people in the same Starbucks at the same time were not asked to leave even though they hadn't bought anything.

I haven't seen anything reported that mentions a white person being in that same Starbucks, asking to use the washroom and then sitting down without buying anything and being allowed to stay.

Like all these things, there is the story each side tells and the truth is somewhere in middle. There is probably more to the story, but doubtful we'll hear it.

WRT your other post about refusing service, having non-paying customers leave/removed or not allowing them use of your facilities isn't denial of service.

[PepsiFree]

Why is a comparable to a black man someone that is a visible member of a hate-group?

How about, “white person.”

“Hey, would social media react the same if people from the most hated and hateful group in history were arrested? I BET NOT!”

Of course not, ffs.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

OK. Use the same test I did. If the police have arrested two neo-nazis for refusing to leave, do you believe the reaction on social media would be the same (an outrage) or opposite (defending the police actions)?

Uhhhhhhhhhhhh, the equivalent to two black people would be two white people, not two neo-nazis, right captainyooh?

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

You keep sliding into the same ditch again. Go past your two approximate reconstructions of my argument right into your third paragraph. I wasn't talking about racism or Nazism, at all. My only question was about the likely reactions on social media if these two were not black people, but unlikable characters. And, yes, I do believe, these reactions in a second scenario would have been polar opposite despite the exact same circumstances. Do you not?

They're only the "exact same circumstances" if you genuinely believe that sitting while black and sitting while Nazi-ing are equivalent.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

You keep sliding into the same ditch again. Go past your two approximate reconstructions of my argument right into your third paragraph. I wasn't talking about racism or Nazism, at all. My only question was about the likely reactions on social media if these two were not black people, but unlikable characters. And, yes, I do believe, these reactions in a second scenario would have been polar opposite despite the exact same circumstances. Do you not?

No no no no, you can't do that. Two black men are two black men, that's who they are, they can't change that. Joining a hate group is a choice, of course the damn reaction would be the exact opposite, nobody would argue otherwise, your comparison being absurd is what should be argued. Jesus.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

I haven't seen anything reported that mentions a white person being in that same Starbucks, asking to use the washroom and then sitting down without buying anything and being allowed to stay.

Like all these things, there is the story each side tells and the truth is somewhere in middle. There is probably more to the story, but doubtful we'll hear it.

See post #31 by icecube in this very thread. There's even a video at the link so you can watch and judge for yourself.

https://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpo...6&postcount=31

Note: this incident took place at a different Starbucks, and my post mentioned that explicitly.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

I haven't seen anything reported that mentions a white person being in that same Starbucks, asking to use the washroom and then sitting down without buying anything and being allowed to stay.

Like all these things, there is the story each side tells and the truth is somewhere in middle. There is probably more to the story, but doubtful we'll hear it.

WRT your other post about refusing service, having non-paying customers leave/removed or not allowing them use of your facilities isn't denial of service.

http://www.complex.com/life/2018/04/...calling-police
http://6abc.com/what-a-witness-says-...rests/3342444/

“Lauren said another woman had entered the Starbucks minutes before the men were arrested and was given the bathroom code without having to buy anything and that another person in the restaurant at the time of the incident ‘announced that she had been sitting at Starbucks for the past couple of hours without buying anything,’” WPVI’s Danny Clemens reported.

[llwhiteoutll]

Posted while typing

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

The bolded portion of your post is what I was asking about. Which of the two incidents are you mentioning in that part, since it sounds like you address the second reported incident separately right after.

See Oling_Roachinen's post immediately above.

[ResAlien]

Sometimes when two black guys sit there for two minutes you have to call the cops. Rules are rules after all. I mean like if the water fountains were clearly labeled “coloured” and “white” I don’t see why they couldn’t just use the proper water fountain and not force the manager to involve the police in this. It’s like they refuse to follow the rules. There are many sides to a situation like this.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

Sometimes when two black guys sit there for two minutes you have to call the cops. Rules are rules after all. I mean like if the water fountains were clearly labeled “coloured” and “white”, I don’t see why they couldn’t just use the proper water fountain and not force the manager to involve the police in this. It’s like they refuse to follow the rules. There aren’t many sides to a situation like this.

Yeah man, how hard is it to just buy a $5 coffee to use the bathroom like white people don't.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

You keep sliding into the same ditch again. Go past your two approximate reconstructions of my argument right into your third paragraph. I wasn't talking about racism or Nazism, at all. My only question was about the likely reactions on social media if these two were not black people, but unlikable characters. And, yes, I do believe, these reactions in a second scenario would have been polar opposite despite the exact same circumstances. Do you not?

How are they the exact same circumstances? Two black people v. two members of a hate group....wtf.

If these bros were sitting there this 100% would not have happened.

[Shazam]

If you're not a plump white woman ordering a Venti Frappucino/Latte, you do stand a good chance of getting in trouble at a Starbucks.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

You keep sliding into the same ditch again. Go past your two approximate reconstructions of my argument right into your third paragraph. I wasn't talking about racism or Nazism, at all. My only question was about the likely reactions on social media if these two were not black people, but unlikable characters. And, yes, I do believe, these reactions in a second scenario would have been polar opposite despite the exact same circumstances. Do you not?

Just to reiterate what others have said because it's that important. Kicking someone out because of their race, and kicking someone out because they are racists, are not remotely the same circumstances. If you don't see an issue with swapping black people and neo-Nazi's and saying it's the "exact same circumstance" there's clearly something amiss with you. One is discrimination, one is not.

You should read up on discrimination. You're so very clearly lost on that topic.
https://www.chrc-ccdp.gc.ca/eng/cont...scrimination-1