Mims44 1,879 Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 On 4/18/2018 at 9:20 PM, channonc said: Go ahead and be snarky, but our system benefits those who are white, not people of color. Again, 2 white guys would not have been arrested over this. They were guilty of nothing but sitting while black. Jesus Christ.... are you being for real with that bolded statement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NolaAuTiger 3,295 Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 40 minutes ago, TitanTiger said: Don't be that guy. ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NolaAuTiger 3,295 Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 On 4/18/2018 at 8:20 PM, channonc said: Go ahead and be snarky, but our system benefits those who are white, not people of color. Again, 2 white guys would not have been arrested over this. They were guilty of nothing but sitting while black. How does our “system” benefit those who have white skin? Can you point to a regulation? What benefit(s) do I have under this “system” that a black person doesn’t have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NolaAuTiger 3,295 Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 3 hours ago, homersapien said: Sarcasm can cut "both ways". It was ambiguous. You’re the one that needs to remember this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevon67 2,368 Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 6 hours ago, TitanTiger said: I think if Starbucks thought it would vindicate them or the manager, they'd produce it. True.........I also figured employee would have been fired as opposed to being transfered within the company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McLoofus 35,182 Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 8 hours ago, Mims44 said: Jesus Christ.... are you being for real with that bolded statement? Jesus Christ... are you ignorant on purpose, or do you come by it honestly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GiveEmElle 1,559 Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 13 hours ago, TitanTiger said: I think if Starbucks thought it would vindicate them or the manager, they'd produce it. The thing that some of the right crew seem to be missing is that STARBUCKS APOLOGIZED. They are closing 8k stores for racial bias training. They admitted the actions were wrong so why speculate on whether the black men were refusing to order or taking seats that other customers needed? Perhaps because it’s easier for white people to believe that the black men were in the wrong rather than a white employee in an overpriced coffee store that profits off vanity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,393 Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 11 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said: How does our “system” benefit those who have white skin? Can you point to a regulation? What benefit(s) do I have under this “system” that a black person doesn’t have? Good grief. "System" is a term often used to designate our society/culture as a whole. https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2018/03/19/594993620/forget-wealth-and-neighborhood-the-racial-income-gap-persists https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/19/upshot/race-class-white-and-black-men.html https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/21/17139300/economic-mobility-study-race-black-white-women-men-incarceration-income-chetty-hendren-jones-porter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NolaAuTiger 3,295 Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 54 minutes ago, homersapien said: Good grief. "System" is a term often used to designate our society/culture as a whole. https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2018/03/19/594993620/forget-wealth-and-neighborhood-the-racial-income-gap-persists https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/19/upshot/race-class-white-and-black-men.html https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/21/17139300/economic-mobility-study-race-black-white-women-men-incarceration-income-chetty-hendren-jones-porter Regulations don't reflect societal values? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,393 Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 5 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said: Regulations don't reflect societal values? Yes they do in part. But certainly not in comprehensive way. Certainly not in a definitive way. The recent research on the matter - posted above - clearly confirms that. Laws obviously do not and can not effect societal values. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NolaAuTiger 3,295 Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 3 minutes ago, homersapien said: Yes they do in part. But certainly not in comprehensive way. Or even in a definitive way. The recent research on the matter - posted above - clearly confirms that. Laws obviously do not and can not effect societal values. So the inability to point to a single law is basically irrelevant, even though "'System' is a term often used to designate our society/culture as a whole?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,393 Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 2 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said: So the inability to point to a single law is basically irrelevant, even though "'System' is a term often used to designate our society/culture as a whole?" Sorry, but I don't understand the question. What do you mean by "inability to point to a single law'? And yes, "system" is a word that can refer to our society as a whole, which includes our legal system but reflects the total reality of life in our culture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NolaAuTiger 3,295 Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 1 minute ago, homersapien said: Sorry, but I don't understand the question. What do you mean by "inability to point to a single law'? And yes, "system" is a word that can refer to our society as a whole, which includes our legal system but reflects the total reality of life in our culture. If the "system" truly benefits people with white skin, then the proponent of the statement should be able to point to a law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,393 Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 6 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said: If the "system" truly benefits people with white skin, then the proponent of the statement should be able to point to a law. Nonsense. All the "proponent of the statement" needs to do is to point out outcomes. Reality if you will. Laws don't comprehensively represent our society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NolaAuTiger 3,295 Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 7 minutes ago, homersapien said: All the "proponent of the statement" needs to do is to point out outcomes. Reality if you will. Such as? 7 minutes ago, homersapien said: Laws don't comprehensively represent our society. Name something that does then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GiveEmElle 1,559 Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 12 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said: Such as? Name something that does then. 20 minutes ago, homersapien said: Nonsense. All the "proponent of the statement" needs to do is to point out outcomes. Reality if you will. Laws don't comprehensively represent our society. Prohibition of pot. https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/blunt-talk-the-racist-origins-of-pot-prohibition-w477299 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoic-one 1,548 Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 2 hours ago, GiveEmElle said: The thing that some of the right crew seem to be missing is that STARBUCKS APOLOGIZED. They are closing 8k stores for racial bias training. They admitted the actions were wrong so why speculate on whether the black men were refusing to order or taking seats that other customers needed? Perhaps because it’s easier for white people to believe that the black men were in the wrong rather than a white employee in an overpriced coffee store that profits off vanity? That's rich. They "apologized" because they were afraid of looking bad to the very people they supposedly advocate for. And yet they still aren't planning on changing their loitering rules... I think it's funny as hell. Here's an interesting story: https://www.dailywire.com/news/29625/walsh-story-starbucks-entitlement-not-racism-matt-walsh Quote WALSH: The Facts Are In. The Real Story At Starbucks Is Entitlement, Not Racism. When the controversy over two black men getting escorted out of a Starbucks by police first erupted, I was skeptical of the racism claims but I said I needed to hear all the facts. Well, now we have the facts. It is now confirmed that this incident stems not from racism but from entitlement. We were told at first that two black men sat down at a table, and, out of nowhere, for no reason other than their race, were summarily perp walked out of the establishment by an army of police officers. This already made little sense for a number of reasons, including the fact that the incident occurred at a store in Philadelphia. The store presumably sees hundreds of black customers every week. If it was in the habit of having black people randomly arrested, why is this the first time we're hearing about it? Then more information came out. It was discovered that this particular location has a problem with loitering (not surprising for a restaurant in an urban area), and the manager in question has had potentially dangerous altercations with loiterers in the past. Then we find out that the two men were warned that the cops would be coming and they responded, "Go ahead and call them. We don't care." A couple of days later, Ben Shapiro revealed that the manager, Holly, is an "SJW feminist of the highest order," according to a regular customer at that location. Certainly not the picture of a slobbering, uncontrollable racial bigot who hates black people so much that she reports them to the police without provocation. Finally, over the past several hours, two additional details have come to the surface: 1) The 911 call placed by Holly, in which she says, very reasonably, "I have two gentlemen in my cafe that are refusing to make a purchase or leave.” This is significant because it confirms that the men were given the option to at least buy something and, incredibly, they refused. 2) Their own testimony, which they gave to "Good Morning America" on Thursday. According to their own version, they walked into the store, grabbed a table, and then asked to use the restroom. The manager told them that they had to buy something to use it. They declined, and went back to sit at the table without having purchased anything. Now that they had called attention to themselves, the manager was aware of their presence and aware that they were not paying customers. She approached them and offered to get them drinks or anything else they might want. They declined. They were asked to leave and they declined. The police came and asked them to leave and they declined. This is their own version. When asked on "Good Morning America" how they would respond to people who say they broke the rules by loitering and not buying anything, their lawyer declared that Starbucks is a "place to meet." In other words, they have decided that this private establishment is more like a camping ground or a public park. A person is entitled to take up seats in a busy restaurant without buying so much as a $2 coffee in order to earn the privilege. The Starbucks CEO, who has spent all week cowering to the mob and throwing his innocent store manager under the bus, has now affirmed this interpretation. He may very well have destroyed his business in the process. So be it. But the fact remains — and it is a fact now — that these two men were not the victims of "racism." They not only broke the rules but did so brazenly and obnoxiously. What sort of person is approached politely in this kind of situation, asked to buy something so that paying customers are not deprived of the seating, and actually answers "no"? An incredibly entitled person. And now I'm sure they are about to be "entitled" to a multi-million dollar settlement, all because Starbucks tried to enforce its rules against loitering. One other thing to keep in mind here. There is a real victim in this case: the Starbucks manager whose life is now in ruins, and who is probably afraid to even leave her house, all because she tried her best to follow her company's policies. For that, she is Public Enemy Number One across the nation, and the CEO of her company has tossed her to the wolves. She was the victim of the rude and unacceptable behavior of these men, and now she is the victim of a pitchfork mob comprised of hysterical people who do not know the facts and do not care about them. If anyone should sue, it should be she. But that's not how things work in America anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NolaAuTiger 3,295 Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 51 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said: Prohibition of pot. https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/blunt-talk-the-racist-origins-of-pot-prohibition-w477299 Prohibition of pot benefits people with white skin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mims44 1,879 Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 6 hours ago, McLoofus said: Jesus Christ... are you ignorant on purpose, or do you come by it honestly? My bad, u right... white people can't get in trouble for stuff in the western world. Were you ever known by the name raptor? just wondering... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
channonc 466 Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 15 hours ago, Mims44 said: Jesus Christ.... are you being for real with that bolded statement? Very serious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McLoofus 35,182 Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 Just now, channonc said: Very serious. Willful ignorance. It's a hell of a drug. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
channonc 466 Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 15 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said: How does our “system” benefit those who have white skin? Can you point to a regulation? What benefit(s) do I have under this “system” that a black person doesn’t have? You are kidding with this question, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NolaAuTiger 3,295 Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 4 minutes ago, channonc said: You are kidding with this question, right? Nope Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GiveEmElle 1,559 Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 2 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said: Prohibition of pot benefits people with white skin? No. Read the article. Wasn’t your request to provide a law that disenfranchises poc? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NolaAuTiger 3,295 Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 7 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said: No. Read the article. Wasn’t your request to provide a law that disenfranchises poc? Yes. Can you cite the specific law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.