Starbucks coffee. Any colour but black.

Post Reply
User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Starbucks coffee. Any colour but black.

Post by Forty Two » Wed Apr 25, 2018 3:54 pm

laklak wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 3:36 pm
Dunno. Legacy?

He wasn't wrong on everything, for instance he generally opposed foreign military interventions, including the Vietnam war. But he was most definitely an old school Southern Democrat, with all the baggage that entails.
He supported the Vietnam war.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Starbucks coffee. Any colour but black.

Post by Forty Two » Wed Apr 25, 2018 3:58 pm

pErvinalia wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 2:49 pm
Forty Two wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 1:45 pm
pErvinalia wrote:
Tue Apr 24, 2018 2:44 pm
42 selectively editing history again.
wiki wrote: Beginning in the 1970s, Byrd explicitly renounced his earlier views favoring racial segregation.[20][61] Byrd said that he regretted filibustering and voting against the Civil Rights Act of 1964[62]
If you look up both of the citations there for "Beginning in the 1970s..." (footnotes 20 and 61) Neither of them provide any indication that in the 1970s he renounced his earlier views. that statement of regret (footnote 62) relates to comments he made in the 1990s, when he was over 75 years old.

Note - the reason that I raised this issue of Robert Byrd was to address the issue of whether one can be a good person and support a racist.
But if the testimony of Byrd is to be believed, he's no longer a racist. So you are comparing an alleged racist to a non-racist. Your comparison is flawed. Why would he recant stuff he doesn't believe in when he's retired and waiting to die? That would seem to be the point where he no longer had to hold his tongue and could let fly with anything he wanted.
Trump was never a racist like Byrd, where there indisputable, overt, objective proof of racism. The only thing in relation to Trump is the ALLEGATION that he is racist. He denies being a racist and says he never was a racist. The comparison is not flawed.

Your flaw is that you have a guy who was a massive racist - overtly and unapologetic - for many decades - a member of the Klan for crying out loud, and you accept his apology and alleged conversion. Trump, who was none of those things, and who is being charged with racism because he is against illegal immigration, and wants a Wall, etc., even though he vehemently denies being a racist, you don't give him that consideration at all.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Starbucks coffee. Any colour but black.

Post by Forty Two » Wed Apr 25, 2018 4:02 pm

pErvinalia wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 2:49 pm

Or, one of you could have acted like a normal human being, and prompted me by asking "42, did you see this? How do you think that impacts the issue of good people supporting racists?"
Why the fuck would we do that? You've got a long history of ignoring inconvenient posts.
[/quote]

I do not have that history, but you do. I have a history of facing issues head on and providing evidence, support, links, and detailed argument. You have a long history of posting vague one-liners, and ignoring multiple requests for evidence, support or argument supporting your declarations.

Regardless, even though you repeatedly act that way, and refuse to provide support for your own arguments, and you ignore posts you find inconvenient, I at least still give you common courtesy and ask you straight out for your evidence.

Prime example - the recent thread where you were claiming meme-attacks. I politely asked you to back up your claim with an example. You refused. You said it was too hard to find one example of the "not infrequent" meme attacks you've been subjected to. That's your long history - you do that all the time.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
laklak
Posts: 20981
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 1:07 pm
About me: My preferred pronoun is "Massah"
Location: Tannhauser Gate
Contact:

Re: Starbucks coffee. Any colour but black.

Post by laklak » Wed Apr 25, 2018 4:05 pm

My mistake, he did support the war though he expressed a lot of concerns over how it was being done. LBJ didn't listen to him.
Yeah well that's just, like, your opinion, man.

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: Starbucks coffee. Any colour but black.

Post by Hermit » Wed Apr 25, 2018 8:16 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 1:04 pm
I have pErvin on my ignore list, and I am trying not to open his posts. Why would I? He hardly ever responds without insults, namecalling and personal attacks.

I did not "studiously circumvent" any post.
For someone claiming to have pErv on ignore you read and reply to his posts often enough to make me wonder why you placed him on your ignore list. You read and replied to his posts five times directly in this thread alone since asserting he's on ignore, and I could not be bothered counting how many times you did likewise before. And then there's your epic spat with pErv in Dev's thread. Face it: You cannot ignore him. You read every post of his.

Forty Two wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 1:29 pm
In the future, if you feel I have not addressed a point that you want addressed, please prompt me to do so.
Last time I did you flew off the handle. Kindly refresh your memory about this and your next two posts.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

User avatar
Rum
Absent Minded Processor
Posts: 37285
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:25 pm
Location: South of the border..though not down Mexico way..
Contact:

Re: Starbucks coffee. Any colour but black.

Post by Rum » Wed Apr 25, 2018 8:33 pm

I have Crumple and the racist Cunt on ignore...but....but.... :mrgreen:

(That's not 'Cunt' btw!..though he is something else again)

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 37953
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Starbucks coffee. Any colour but black.

Post by Brian Peacock » Wed Apr 25, 2018 10:30 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 12:45 pm
Brian Peacock wrote:
Tue Apr 24, 2018 9:51 pm
Forty Two wrote:
Animavore wrote:Yay! A thread of white people talking about how the discrimination they don't suffer from in society is no big deal.
Maybe in Ireland blacks are singled out in this way, but in the US, I assure, you, loitering without being a customer of the store is frowned upon regardless of race, color, creed or national origin.
Loitering for two minutes is a problem!?
I don't know that it was only 2 minutes. Is that what the story says? My understanding was that the employee only asked them to make a purchase when he had asked for the bathroom key. So she asked if they were going to make a purchase. That's normal. I don't even wait to be asked. If I go to a filling station for a bathroom break, I buy a coke or a stick of gum. It's customary. Everybody knows it's the general rule.
I'm sure Google can help you verify the two minute thing, as well as Starbucks' mission statement about their stores providing a neighbourhood meeting place. Starbucks are a pretty cool company in many ways - I don't think they're institutionally racist as it were. This is probably the result of a single individual's, shall we say, over-zealous commitment to coffee delivery rather than a corporate failing.
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Starbucks coffee. Any colour but black.

Post by Forty Two » Wed Apr 25, 2018 10:42 pm

Hermit wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 8:16 pm
Forty Two wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 1:04 pm
I have pErvin on my ignore list, and I am trying not to open his posts. Why would I? He hardly ever responds without insults, namecalling and personal attacks.

I did not "studiously circumvent" any post.
For someone claiming to have pErv on ignore you read and reply to his posts often enough to make me wonder why you placed him on your ignore list. You read and replied to his posts five times directly in this thread alone since asserting he's on ignore, and I could not be bothered counting how many times you did likewise before. And then there's your epic spat with pErv in Dev's thread. Face it: You cannot ignore him. You read every post of his.
He wasn't always on my ignore list. But, yes, I replied to his posts five times directly since asserting he's on ignore, because I saw that I was being accused of running away from his posts.

You're also right, that I find it difficult to ignore him, and I should. The problem is that even when I have ignored him and not responded for extended periods of time, I still read (in posts replied to and quoted by others) his constant sniping at me. It doesn't stop. Yes, I should ignore it. Yes, that's my failing.


Hermit wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 8:16 pm
Forty Two wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 1:29 pm
In the future, if you feel I have not addressed a point that you want addressed, please prompt me to do so.
Last time I did you flew off the handle. Kindly refresh your memory about this and your next two posts.
Lol - yes, Pervin posts nasty bullshit to the effect of "stand by for 8 pages of equivocation" (from the master of equivocation, that was hilarious). Then you talked about "pointing out 42's blunder," and how I've "chosen to ignore it." I hadn't ignored anything, nor did I commit any "blunder" and I did not equivocate. I responded appropriately as follows: "Defend? It says what it says. You posted your interpretation. I don't have to respond to every one of your posts. You and others leave lots of items unrebutted. Just because I rebut something of yours doesn't appear to require you to post lengthy sur-replies." That's what you call "flying of the handle?"

In the next post, pervin writes sarcastically: "FUCK OFF, he doesn't leave things undefended! He addresses everything. And if he doesn't address it, it doesn't need addressing, because reasons." So, I respond with this, to pervin: "Because like everyone else I don't respond to everything on the board, and my reasons are that I don't give a fuck what you think. Screw off." -- so, as usual, I'm being badgered and pestered like this, and so I respond -- I dont' respond to every last post on the board, nor does anyone else - so screw off. I stand by that.

Then another jab from Seabass - no substance - just another jab - "So, Forty Two calls real news fake news, and posts fake news as if it's real news." I didn't call real news fake news. I did not post fake news as if it's real news. This was a question of differing interpretations of the same quotes.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 73014
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Starbucks coffee. Any colour but black.

Post by JimC » Wed Apr 25, 2018 10:53 pm

If we were to magically make all the posts in which members were venting their spleen at other members (without even crossing the PA line) disappear, the forum would be greatly shrunk... ;)
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
mistermack
Posts: 15093
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.
Contact:

Re: Starbucks coffee. Any colour but black.

Post by mistermack » Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:07 pm

rachelbean wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 1:00 pm
I've gone into a Starbucks and used the bathroom before buying anything (as peeing was my top priority) and have never had a problem. Definitely never seen the cops called on anyone, it was a ridiculous and unnecessary escalation.
It was, but I don't think it was the manager's fault. When she asked them to either buy something or leave, they refused to do either. I don't think that you would have done that.

And what was the manager supposed to do, when someone says I'm not buying something, and I'm not going to leave?
If you refuse to leave premises when asked by the management, that definitely is a police matter.
(it might be different if you HAD bought something, and wanted to consume it on the premises, which is what you paid for)
Actually, even in those circumstances, you would find that they have a right to require you to leave, if they judge your behaviour unacceptable.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Starbucks coffee. Any colour but black.

Post by Forty Two » Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:56 pm

Brian Peacock wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 10:30 pm
Forty Two wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 12:45 pm

I don't know that it was only 2 minutes. Is that what the story says? My understanding was that the employee only asked them to make a purchase when he had asked for the bathroom key. So she asked if they were going to make a purchase. That's normal. I don't even wait to be asked. If I go to a filling station for a bathroom break, I buy a coke or a stick of gum. It's customary. Everybody knows it's the general rule.
I'm sure Google can help you verify the two minute thing, as well as Starbucks' mission statement about their stores providing a neighbourhood meeting place. Starbucks are a pretty cool company in many ways - I don't think they're institutionally racist as it were. This is probably the result of a single individual's, shall we say, over-zealous commitment to coffee delivery rather than a corporate failing.
According to the articles I've read, the Starbucks left this issue, among most day-to-day operations issues, up to the individual franchise stores, and this store had a longstanding, enforced policy against loitering, because it was an ongoing problem in that particular store.

Here's what should have happened - they're in the store without making a purchase - if they are going to take up a table, they should make a purchase. If they are asked to make a purchase or leave, they should make a purchase or leave. That's what I would do, if I were them. And, I've spent plenty of time in Starbucks. There was a while where I would have to wait for my wife for about an hour, and I would sit in the local starbucks to surf the net. I don't like their coffee, but it wouldn't even occur to me to sit there an hang about without ordering something. It would even feel odd to me to do so, like I'm doing something wrong. Nobody ever asked me to buy something, but then again, I always bought something.

When I was a privileged suburban white CIS male high school kid and such, when I would hang about various places with my friends, we were routinely asked to buy something or get going. I never felt put upon. We'd usually grab a soda from the 7-Eleven we were loitering around. I'm as white as can be. But, my lived experience can't be generalized, that I'm aware of.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Starbucks coffee. Any colour but black.

Post by Forty Two » Thu Apr 26, 2018 12:09 am

mistermack wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:07 pm
rachelbean wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 1:00 pm
I've gone into a Starbucks and used the bathroom before buying anything (as peeing was my top priority) and have never had a problem. Definitely never seen the cops called on anyone, it was a ridiculous and unnecessary escalation.
It was, but I don't think it was the manager's fault. When she asked them to either buy something or leave, they refused to do either. I don't think that you would have done that.
There is something different about the Starbucks in question. I've been to a fair number of Starbucks, and never have I seen one where the bathrooms were locked. That says something about the kind of neighborhood they're in. They would only do that if they had experience with the bathroom being defaced and vandalized a time or two. And, the employee who made the call reported that loitering was a big problem at that store, meaning they had to have this rule to try to clear out tables for paying customers, or it was just a bunch of people hanging out with their friends.

It's the bathroom key thing that raises my antennae on this.

And, the woman's call to the police was quite calm, and matter-of-fact. There are a couple of gentlemen here who refuse to buy something and won't leave.

The only option for the employee at that point was to let these guys run the show - they'll stay there, and damn well commandeer a table, and piss/shit in the restroom, if they like and they don't have to buy a $2.30 cup of coffee. And, buy they way, we'll use the wi-fi too, while we're at it. Once she allows that, she has to allow everyone, and gone goes their policy against loitering altogether.

So, she tells them she'll call the police, and they say "go ahead, we don't care." And, so, she does. Apparently, they do care. Once the cops get there, the issue is clear. Are you going to buy something? No? Then leave. No? O.k., hands behind your back.

This isn't even alarming, much less outrageous. If they were white, nobody would care. They'd say, "good, next time, buy a coffee."

If this employee or Starbucks has a habit of only ousting black people from the restaurant, while allowing white people to lounge around without buying stuff, then there would be a point. But, thus far, that seems to be the assumption only, with no proof. And, I highly doubt it, based on the material I read and saw, there is no real reason why this should be assumed to be racial. That employee likely served black customers all day long. Is there any reason to think she was like, "we don't like yer kind in here...?"
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 37953
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Starbucks coffee. Any colour but black.

Post by Brian Peacock » Thu Apr 26, 2018 12:14 am

Forty Two wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:56 pm
Brian Peacock wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 10:30 pm
Forty Two wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 12:45 pm

I don't know that it was only 2 minutes. Is that what the story says? My understanding was that the employee only asked them to make a purchase when he had asked for the bathroom key. So she asked if they were going to make a purchase. That's normal. I don't even wait to be asked. If I go to a filling station for a bathroom break, I buy a coke or a stick of gum. It's customary. Everybody knows it's the general rule.
I'm sure Google can help you verify the two minute thing, as well as Starbucks' mission statement about their stores providing a neighbourhood meeting place. Starbucks are a pretty cool company in many ways - I don't think they're institutionally racist as it were. This is probably the result of a single individual's, shall we say, over-zealous commitment to coffee delivery rather than a corporate failing.
According to the articles I've read, the Starbucks left this issue, among most day-to-day operations issues, up to the individual franchise stores, and this store had a longstanding, enforced policy against loitering, because it was an ongoing problem in that particular store.

Here's what should have happened - they're in the store without making a purchase - if they are going to take up a table, they should make a purchase. If they are asked to make a purchase or leave, they should make a purchase or leave. That's what I would do, if I were them. And, I've spent plenty of time in Starbucks. There was a while where I would have to wait for my wife for about an hour, and I would sit in the local starbucks to surf the net. I don't like their coffee, but it wouldn't even occur to me to sit there an hang about without ordering something. It would even feel odd to me to do so, like I'm doing something wrong. Nobody ever asked me to buy something, but then again, I always bought something.

When I was a privileged suburban white CIS male high school kid and such, when I would hang about various places with my friends, we were routinely asked to buy something or get going. I never felt put upon. We'd usually grab a soda from the 7-Eleven we were loitering around. I'm as white as can be. But, my lived experience can't be generalized, that I'm aware of.
No, what should have happened is that the police should have found out exactly who the dudes were and what was going on before clapping them in irons.
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Starbucks coffee. Any colour but black.

Post by Forty Two » Thu Apr 26, 2018 12:16 am

It doesn't matter who they are. Whether they are saints or sinners, they aren't entitled to be there if they don't make a purchase. It's a private business. What would interviewing them find out? They were entitled to be there, while someone who wasn't meeting some friend for a real estate deal would have to leave?
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 37953
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Starbucks coffee. Any colour but black.

Post by Brian Peacock » Thu Apr 26, 2018 12:46 am

You're excusing a failure in policing for which the chief of police has apologised, and for the actions of a member of the Starbucks' team for which the CEO has also apologised. It does kind of look like two guys were arrested for being Black, and let's remember that at no point were they asked to leave (contrary to the 911 call), that they were arrested without being informed of the grounds of their detention, that they were never charged with an offence, that they were detained in custody for 11 hours, that they were not read their rights when they were arrested, and that the manager called 911 around two minutes after they walked through the door. Perhaps they were just waiting for the other member of the party to arrive before ordering - nobody seemed interested in finding out.
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 30 guests