Support NeoGAF

[Phoenix RISING]

New news, new thread.

Follow-up piece by Time

Starbucks Training Materials "The Third Place"

Video Transcripts (for the hearing impaired).

One Northern California-based Starbucks barista said she contemplated leaving her job after the controversial arrest last month of two black men sitting at a Philadelphia location of the coffee chain for several minutes without having purchased anything.


That employee, an African-American woman who asked TIME to remain anonymous due to concerns of losing her job, was angry. And when Starbucks later announced more than 8,000 stores across the country would participate in racial bias education training, she didn’t understand why.


“I was angry we had to educate people on how to not be racist,” she recalled in an interview with TIME Tuesday night shortly after attending the hours-long training that shuttered nearly all of Starbucks’ U.S. locations.

But, after completing Starbucks’ racial bias training program Tuesday afternoon with her coworkers, the California-based barista felt her perspective had changed. “I’m a black woman; I’ve already known all of this,” she said, referring to one section of the program that detailed living day-to-day in public spaces as a person of color. “But the fact that it was a video all employees had to watch, it really warmed me.”

Jason, the only African-American employee at his Hollywood-based Starbucks location who asked TIME to identify him by his first name out of concerns over job security, said the program reiterated common conversations surrounding race like inclusion, acceptance and understanding. But he said the training failed to address how to end instances like what happened in Philadelphia from occurring in the future. While a number of the videos featured the perspectives of people of color — and particularly African-Americans — Jason wrote in a message to TIME that “there were times where I felt they missed the mark.”

“It seems like a lot of talking from the videos,” he added, “and not enough discussion from us.”

“Helpful? [I don’t know],” Jason wrote. “It kinda reaffirms things that I know already.”

Jason was not alone. Mohamed Abdi, an employee at a Starbucks location in Alexandria, Virginia, told TIME he wished the program featured more discussions between coworkers as well. “Honestly I think they should have more hands-on courses speaking to different people and customers to figure out where they’re coming from,” he said. “It’s easy sitting through something and saying you learned something than actually learning something from the course,” he added.

His reception of the course, however, was generally positive. He particularly enjoyed the documentary produced by Stanley Nelson that displayed “the different things people of color go through just by leaving the house day by day.” That video featured an array of people of color who discussed how they access and experience public spaces than their white peers. (“When I go into stores, sometimes I get followed,” one woman said in the video. “Especially being a teen of color, they assume that you’re doing something bad.”)

Ryan Curran, a white employee at a Sewell, New Jersey, location, said he and his coworkers learned a lot from the Starbucks training and wouldn’t change anything about the curriculum. “It would be helpful to continue the program when needed, for example, if a problem occurs in a certain store,” he said.

licia, a Starbucks employee at a location in San Jose, Calif., who asked to keep her last name confidential, said the training felt less genuine. As a Mexican woman, Alicia had hoped the session would be more inclusive for employees from all background and said it instead focused on the “white barista-young black male customer interaction.”


“They told us we need to be ‘color brave’ instead of color blind and it was the whitest thing I’ve ever heard,” she said, describing a journal and discussion portion held mid-way through the session. “Me and my coworkers of color felt uncomfortable the entire time.”

An Arkansas-based Starbucks employee who asked to remain anonymous out of concern over her employment, said she couldn’t imagine the curriculum would have much of an impact. “While this may be the most cost efficient way to handle the situation, I don’t feel like it will change much of anything,” the employee told TIME over text message before the training started. She added that the store she works at initially didn’t plan on closing for Tuesday’s training, but eventually did once Starbucks’ higher ups stepped in. “Just driving an hour down the road takes you to towns where racism is alive and well,” she added.

According to estimates detailed by USA Today, Starbucks likely lost around $12 million by closing its U.S.-based stores on Tuesday afternoon. Since announcing it would close down the afternoon of May 29 for the training, Starbucks has emphasized the session was just the beginning of a long-term commitment to diversity and combating racial bias. Researchers and social scientists recently told TIME that a one-time education program isn’t enough to combat racism and eradicate the use of racial biases. Hours before the programs began on Tuesday, Starbucks Executive Chairman Howard Schultz said the company plans to globalize these efforts and make similar initiatives part of the on-boarding process for new employees.

So then, we're just getting started.

And that's before even looking through the materials they provided their employees.

Interesting interviews. It seems that the consensus is that more needs to be done rather than less...especially that one franchise that wasn't going to go through with things until corporate stepped in.

 

[MMaRsu]

the only African-American employee at his Hollywood-based Starbucks location who asked TIME to identify him by his first name out of concerns over job security,

I'm sure they won't be able to identify him now

 

[buizel]

Stuff like this isn't gunna stop assholes being assholes.

No one needs a guide on 'how to not be a dick'

 

[zumphry]

That is absolutely the whitest thing I've ever read.

Stuff like this isn't gunna stop assholes being assholes.

No one needs a guide on 'how to not be a dick'

tbf, racists do

 

[5secondrulesucks]

at first i thought coyote peterson updated his tagline

 

[Robot Carnival]

Stuff like this isn't gunna stop assholes being assholes.

No one needs a guide on 'how to not be a dick'

when did being a decent human being towards other human being become so difficult...? it's now such an alien concept that they need a special session just to teach people to do it? and I'm not even talking about being nice or generous, just treat people the way you want to be treated.

 

[buizel]

That is absolutely the whitest thing I've ever read.



tbf, racists do

Nah, people know when theyre been dicks. If they don't wanna stop then theyre not gunna bother learning. So stuff like this really doesnt mean much.

when did being a decent human being towards other human being become so difficult...? so much of an alien concept that they need a special session to just to teach them to do it?

Yeah, i think the internet turned everyone into hate-machines who pretend to be happy, which in turn only fuels the real hatred even more deep down. Everyone online acts either super-supportive or super-aggressive, and i think thats rubbing off in the real world.

What am i talking about.

 

[brap]

tbf, racists do

Why don't you go to the KKK HQ and tell them to stop being meanie heads? I'm sure you'll solve everything and cause world peace.

 

[finowns]

The chick said it was the ‘whitest thing’ after her racial sensitivity training? That’s kinda of funny.

 

[Phoenix RISING]

Why don't you go to the KKK HQ and tell them to stop being meanie heads? I'm sure you'll solve everything and cause world peace.

You don't have to go that far. Just poke your head into the Thread about Roseanne being canceled and look for the posts talking about free speech and how she said wasn't all that bad.

I considered making a separate post including some of the videos but there are over 18 of them. If or when I find the time, I might post some

 

[TrainedRage]

“They told us we need to be ‘color brave’ instead of color blind and it was the whitest thing I’ve ever heard,”

LOL. Hi, welcome to Starbucks!

 

[Gander]

Lets not over complicate things. Treat people the way you want to be treated. It still holds up.

 

[Zok310]

I'm sure they won't be able to identify him now

lol

 

[Cato]

[/URL]"
licia, a Starbucks employee at a location in San Jose, Calif., who asked to keep her last name confidential, said the training felt less genuine. As a Mexican woman, Alicia had hoped the session would be more inclusive for employees from all background and said it instead focused on the “white barista-young black male customer interaction.”

Let me get this straight.
An asian (Oriental actually) POC did something seen insensitive to other black POCs.
This means Mexican POCs need training on how whites should interact with black customers?

Makes sense only on htraE.
Well spent money Starbucks. Well spent.

 

[Cato]

BTW in that carefully curated photo I can not spot any
* inuits
* native americans
* south asians
* south east asians
* south americans
* jews
...

Starbucks is racist. Confirmed.
(Shitpost if you couldn't see it already. Attempt to poke fun at their attempt to be "woke" and not just a profit seeking enterprise like everything else trying to spin a good looking narrative for PR reasons)

 

[Shifty]

That slogan is the most marketing-ass catchphrase I've heard all week.

The whole thing seems like a PR maneuver rather than a genuine desire to connect with and attempt to solve the issue.

 

[llien]

tbf, racists do

Racist will stop being racists, because someone tells them to be "color brave, not color blind" (whatever on earth that means)?

PS
That "the only black worker" at Hollywood SB that "doesn't want to be identified" thing is beyond hilarious.

 

[mckmas8808]

when did being a decent human being towards other human being become so difficult...? it's now such an alien concept that they need a special session just to teach people to do it? and I'm not even talking about being nice or generous, just treat people the way you want to be treated.

Companies have done this for decades. We call it "orientation" in America. Almost all companies give people company policy guidebooks on what you can't do and say.

 

[strange headache]

That slogan is the single most stupid thing I've read this week and I've read some of Roseanne's tweets and Erin Biba's article about Elon Musk.

• First, it implies that people who treat everybody the same by approaching them in a color blind manner are cowardly closet racists.
• Second, it promotes identity politics by praising a person's worth through immutable external characteristics.
• Third, white is a color too, so it basically tells white people to celebrate their 'whiteness'.

Is this supposed to make people more tolerant or merely brainwash them into the latest far-left identity fad?

I have a better slogan for Starbucks: "Starbucks, saving the world saving us from a PR disaster one stupid slogan at a time."

 

[BANGS]

I hope they taught them not to deny service to people after hours...

 

[Phoenix RISING]

Though cheesy, "color-brave" makes sense, and I welcome the concept being introduced into the mainstream.

 

[Dunki]

Though cheesy, "color-brave" makes sense, and I welcome the concept being introduced into the mainstream.

It only makes sense adn even then I think its stupid when you also can be brave and proud for being white and giving the atmosphere right now you can not do that at all.

I will say it againI guess if you are proud of something you had NO influence of be it your gender, or your race you look pretty pathetic to me personally. I would be proud of my own archievments my own actions and I would be also ashamed of my own failures but I would never be proud of my race, gender, or origin.

 

[Vicetrailia]

Though cheesy, "color-brave" makes sense, and I welcome the concept being introduced into the mainstream.

That's what I figured. Good message.

 

[TheMikado]

It only makes sense adn even then I think its stupid when you also can be brave and proud for being white and giving the atmosphere right now you can not do that at all.

I will say it againI guess if you are proud of something you had NO influence of be it your gender, or your race you look pretty pathetic to me personally. I would be proud of my own archievments my own actions and I would be also ashamed of my own failures but I would never be proud of my race, gender, or origin.

People should be proud of everything about themselves. It’s a crucial part of self love which includes their history: We aren’t islands we are the composition of our collective pasts, we are at present what we choose to be, and our future are what we determine for ourselves and those around us.

 

[TrainedRage]

Though cheesy, "color-brave" makes sense, and I welcome the concept being introduced into the mainstream.

"Everyone is welcome. Full Stop." So as a conceal carry owner I will be welcomed by warm greeters at the door with my gun? As a homeless man that smells of feces and has no shirt on, I will be welcomed and wanted in this "public space"?
Will the mentaly untstble woman yelling out cuss words be welcomed in to your stores?

This. Is. The. Dumbest. Thing. I. Have. Heard. In. Weeks. Full. Stop.

-----------"and now Common".....

 

[5secondrulesucks]

man that starbucks guy is such a goober. the way he and other people talk about these issues and situations is so weird and not in tune to what is going on in the real world. now lets bring out common.

 

[Dunki]

People should be proud of everything about themselves. It’s a crucial part of self love which includes their history: We aren’t islands we are the composition of our collective pasts, we are at present what we choose to be, and our future are what we determine for ourselves and those around us.

Slavery for example is not your history. Your history in my opinion is your past i can not blame people what others did ages ago for example. ut again it is just me. You will not get opression points from me when you are black. You get my support when you for example did flee from a warn torn country.

 

[TheMikado]

Slavery for example is not your history. Your history in my opinion is your past i can not blame people what others did ages ago for example. ut again it is just me. You will not get opression points from me when you are black. You get my support when you for example did flee from a warn torn country.

So then in that context nationalism and being an American means nothing. There should be no pride nor acknowledgement of what our historical context in present day means. Basically Washington, Lincoln are no longer relevant and anything that occurred before the present no longer carries weight.

This is of course ignoring that there are Millions still alive who experienced Jim Crow and racial discrimination. You don’t even have to go as far back as slavery when millions of black people in America lived under legal discrimination before the mid 1960s. Slavery is not and was not the only oppression black people overcame and it wasn’t even that long ago but you don’t want to give credit to the people who lived through it and overcame it either?

So are you saying it really doesn’t matter if they overcame and dealt with oppression themselves as part of their own personal history?

 

[<+)O Robido O(+>]

Your history in my opinion is your past i can not blame people what others did ages ago for example.

Lol. Did racism end with the Emancipation Proclamation? Or when Jim Crow ended? Or in 1964 with the Civil Rights Act? I don't get how you can reasonably state that black people are just making things up or clutching at a narrative (the general you on these boards that just has to rage about black people, not you in particular.) I get that a bunch of you aren't American and even more are super young. But the effects of racism just don't go away because you sign some bills into law.

 

[Dunki]

So then in that context nationalism and being an American means nothing. There should be no pride nor acknowledgement of what our historical context in present day means. Basically Washington, Lincoln are no longer relevant and anything that occurred before the present no longer carries weight.

This is of course ignoring that there are Millions still alive who experienced Jim Crow and racial discrimination. You don’t even have to go as far back as slavery when millions of black people in America lived under legal discrimination before the mid 1960s. Slavery is not and was not the only oppression black people overcame and it wasn’t even that long ago but you don’t want to give credit to the people who lived through it and overcame it either?

So are you saying it really doesn’t matter if they overcame and dealt with oppression themselves as part of their own personal history?

Who said it does not matter? I said that you should honor and repsect even be proud of these people not your skincolor because they also were black. Condemn the ones who were responsible and not the ones who have the same skincolor and the moemtn you go with white privilege, or white people do this balck people do this you generalize them based on your skincolor. I am sorry but I will never be proud or understand of my skincolor because white people did so much and fought for human society for peace etc.

What I can understand however is patriotism being proud what your country did in the past, future, in terms of sport or social progress. But again this has nothing to with your race or gender.

Lol. Did racism end with the Emancipation Proclamation? Or when Jim Crow ended? Or in 1964 with the Civil Rights Act? I don't get how you can reasonably state that black people are just making things up or clutching at a narrative (the general you on these boards that just has to rage about black people, not you in particular.) I get that a bunch of you aren't American and even more are super young. But the effects of racism just don't go away because you sign some bills into law.

No racism will never end but again I do not generalize people white people black people. There are racist people not white people who are racist. I also said the effects of racism are easy to solve. No they are not but A do not cry for everythign that happens racism. Like the bakery thing as an example. and B do not generalize people baed on their race. Its not white people who are racist or enjoy priviliges its people go for individuals and do not gernalize.

Everytime I hear white priviliege I have to roll my eyes. Everytime I hear white people do this and this I have to roll my eyes. Why? Because you are doing the exact same thing you accuse white people of. Its annoying, its upsetting and even more important it will only create more hate. Do you really believe that people will agree with you when you say white people are this and this and fuck white people? No they will not.

 

[LegendOfKage]

Though cheesy, "color-brave" makes sense, and I welcome the concept being introduced into the mainstream.

The problem is that "colorblind" does not mean pretending not to notice race, it means actively not caring about race* or treating people differently because of their race.

* which is not the same as not caring about racism. You can easily be "colorblind" and still have a big problem with those who are not. Just as I'm strongly opposed to identity politics, so of course I'm opposed to using someone's race as a means to attack them.

But there's also some common sense with "colorblindness" that comes with the territory. The goal of wanting to treat people equally is wanting them to feel equally treated. For example, It's probably a good idea to recognize the difference between saying a white person looks like an ape, and a black person looks like an ape.

If you're really so thick that you don't consider that a part of being colorblind (as the guy in this video seems to be, along with several people defending ape comments in the Rosanne thread), perhaps you do need some ridiculous "color-brave" mindset in your life. The rest of us can just remember the golden rule, and leave it at that.

But if Starbucks is wanting to make everyone feel welcome, they've already dropped the ball. They should just be a place that sells coffee, not coffee and ideology.

 

[Future]

Who said it does not matter? I said that you should honor and repsect even be proud of these people not your skincolor because they also were black. Condemn the ones who were responsible and not the ones who have the same skincolor and the moemtn you go with white privilege, or white people do this balck people do this you generalize them based on your skincolor. I am sorry but I will never be proud or understand of my skincolor because white people did so much and fought for human society for peace etc.

What I can understand however is patriotism being proud what your country did in the past, future, in terms of sport or social progress. But again this has nothing to with your race or gender.

Why is being patriotic of things your country did in the past more understandable than being proud of the past achievements of your race, culture, or gender?

 

[Dunki]

Why is being patriotic of things your country did in the past more understandable than being proud of the past achievements of your race, culture, or gender?

Ok maybe past was wrong. But you are part of this country you normally share the smae morals and standard of this society etc. Patriotism is love for your country, Nationalism is hate of other countries and the believe that your country is superior.

 

[LegendOfKage]

Patriotism is love for your country, Nationalism is hate of other countries and the believe that your country is superior.

It's really not. Those are just possible negative results of nationalism, not requirements:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism

Nationalism is a political, social, and economic system characterized by the promotion of the interests of a particular nation, especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining sovereignty (self-governance) over thehomeland. The political ideology of nationalism holds that a nation should govern themselves, free from outside interference, and is linked to the concept of self-determination. Nationalism is further oriented towards developing and maintaining a national identity based on shared, social characteristics, such as culture and language, religionand politics, and a belief in a common ancestry.[1][2] Nationalism, therefore, seeks to preserve a nation's culture, by way of pride in national achievements, and is closely linked to patriotism, which, in some cases, includes the belief that the nation should control the country's government and the means of production.[3]

 

[TheMikado]

Ok maybe past was wrong. But you are part of this country you normally share the smae morals and standard of this society etc. Patriotism is love for your country, Nationalism is hate of other countries and the believe that your country is superior.

But we don't all share the same past or history. Pride in America is pride in the how we circumvent history, buck trends. We have important issues like Womens Suffrage, Civil Rights, all things that people alive today have lived through. These things aren't our "past" these people who lived and fought through these times still walk among us. They didn't suddenly stop being the things they were when the gain rights that were denied to them for simply being born as they were.

Patriotism isn't a replacement for love of self, it should walk hand and hand with it. Our history is to be revered and celebrated and the reality is that race and gender are parts of that history, not separate. You can't separate history and these concepts. And you can't consider yourself a true Patriot by ignoring the history of your country and your relation to it, both good and bad.

 

[TarNaru33]

when did being a decent human being towards other human being become so difficult...? it's now such an alien concept that they need a special session just to teach people to do it? and I'm not even talking about being nice or generous, just treat people the way you want to be treated.

Are you being serious? This has always been a thing, its nothing new at all. I really don't get some of you, do many of you really believe that the world was rainbows and kittens in the past? It was actually WORSE in the past.
.

Nah, people know when theyre been dicks. If they don't wanna stop then theyre not gunna bother learning. So stuff like this really doesnt mean much.



Yeah, i think the internet turned everyone into hate-machines who pretend to be happy, which in turn only fuels the real hatred even more deep down. Everyone online acts either super-supportive or super-aggressive, and i think thats rubbing off in the real world.

What am i talking about.

I am confused here, are we all really going with the belief that this aggro shit we see more of was not a thing pre-internet? The only thing that changed is that we are able to see these things everyday and have come to realize the ideological extremes of certain people. This have not changed, there were always lots of racists, there were always racists kicking out those they hate from their stores, there were always racists doing racist shit on the streets. Literally the only thing that changed is the exposure.

Racist will stop being racists, because someone tells them to be "color brave, not color blind" (whatever on earth that means)?

PS
That "the only black worker" at Hollywood SB that "doesn't want to be identified" thing is beyond hilarious.

This isn't exactly true and you don't stop or lower racism by deciding not to teach people to keep race in mind when they carry themselves. Not everyone that is "racist" is an aggressive racist, some just don't think what they do or say is racist or have consequences and have chances of being educated.

"Everyone is welcome. Full Stop." So as a conceal carry owner I will be welcomed by warm greeters at the door with my gun? As a homeless man that smells of feces and has no shirt on, I will be welcomed and wanted in this "public space"?
Will the mentaly untstble woman yelling out cuss words be welcomed in to your stores?

This. Is. The. Dumbest. Thing. I. Have. Heard. In. Weeks. Full. Stop.

-----------"and now Common".....

You seriously going to argue semantics?

 

[TrainedRage]

Are you being serious? This has always been a thing, its nothing new at all. I really don't get some of you, do many of you really believe that the world was rainbows and kittens in the past? It was actually WORSE in the past.
.


I am confused here, are we all really going with the belief that this aggro shit we see more of was not a thing pre-internet? The only thing that changed is that we are able to see these things everyday and have come to realize the ideological extremes of certain people. This have not changed, there were always lots of racists, there were always racists kicking out those they hate from their stores, there were always racists doing racist shit on the streets. Literally the only thing that changed is the exposure.



This isn't exactly true and you don't stop or lower racism by deciding not to teach people to keep race in mind when they carry themselves. Not everyone that is "racist" is an aggressive racist, some just don't think what they do or say is racist or have consequences and have chances of being educated.



You seriously going to argue semantics?

Absolutely. And it's hardly semantics its literally what they said. It sets an unrealistic standard that IS going to be abused.
I give it a month before we start seeing stories about how Starbucks may have to change its "open door" policy.

 

[TheMikado]

"Everyone is welcome. Full Stop." So as a conceal carry owner I will be welcomed by warm greeters at the door with my gun? As a homeless man that smells of feces and has no shirt on, I will be welcomed and wanted in this "public space"?
Will the mentaly untstble woman yelling out cuss words be welcomed in to your stores?

This. Is. The. Dumbest. Thing. I. Have. Heard. In. Weeks. Full. Stop.

-----------"and now Common".....

It’s quite obvious POC forget to leave their skin in the car when they go into certain establishments or they should at least have the decency to take a bath and wash off their darker skin before leaving the house...

 

[TrainedRage]

It’s quite obvious POC forget to leave their skin in the car when they go into certain establishments or they should at least have the decency to take a bath and wash off their darker skin before leaving the house...

Who said anything about POC?

 

[TheMikado]

Absolutely. And it's hardly semantics its literally what they said. It sets an unrealistic standard that IS going to be abused.
I give it a month before we start seeing stories about how Starbucks may have to change its "open door" policy.

Yeah it’s going to be abused. But the point it they are trying to be more accepting and accommodating. They specific reference that as a challenge but it sounds like they are more interested in community building vs bottom line but the idea of community building may be to appeal to there target demographic anyway.

To use your example of a homeless crazy person. The idea wouldn’t be to call the cops and escort them out in handcuffs it would be to call a service designed to deal with individuals who may have needs like a soup kitchen or shelter etc. it makes sense in the context of who they are appealing to business wise

 

[TheMikado]

Who said anything about POC?

The context of Starbucks response is specifically in reference to the incident in Philadelphia involving POCs and the idea of being aware and welcome. I pointed out Ignored the origin of the response and referenced things that could be changed at least appearance wise within a couple minutes.

 

[Dunki]

But we don't all share the same past or history. Pride in America is pride in the how we circumvent history, buck trends. We have important issues like Womens Suffrage, Civil Rights, all things that people alive today have lived through. These things aren't our "past" these people who lived and fought through these times still walk among us. They didn't suddenly stop being the things they were when the gain rights that were denied to them for simply being born as they were.

Patriotism isn't a replacement for love of self, it should walk hand and hand with it. Our history is to be revered and celebrated and the reality is that race and gender are parts of that history, not separate. You can't separate history and these concepts. And you can't consider yourself a true Patriot by ignoring the history of your country and your relation to it, both good and bad.

That is why we have history classes. Example Germany we have from 5-12 grade amost all the time before during and after WW2. It is a lot of time to reflect but even there we do not judge. Teacher give us information wwe listen or read speeches and quotes that did happen during the time and try to understadn the context in it. We analyze the events and circumstances why it did happen and spoiler it is much much much more complexer than people were racist. But when this is over we do not are made to feel guilty we are not made to be shamed and we are not to accused of something we do not have or had no influence of.

Again you can not fight racsim with generalissations like White privilege etc. You will never ever fight racism with special rights, giving black people advantages like affirmative action etc. All you cause with this is hatred. Everytime you bring in race which it seem that people are totally obsessed with this you will cause more issues, more hatred, more jealousy etc. The only way to even have a chance to get rid of racism i to get rid of race. Again when you see the world with the eyes of a child sometimes it maybe naive but children until later. And when I hear stories how people gettiging angry at two boys not seeing their color and try to trick their teacher by having the same hairstyle I think we as people need to think very long and hard about what some here are doing.

How will you get rid of racism when these 2 boys or better their families who basically lived in a world without racism getting attacked for it because they did not teach their children about race. Seriously give me a fucking break...

I want to live in a world in which this here is not getting people fucking offended

Colorblind all the way. Fuck race.

Edit: And you know whats the worst part is? That these kids probably getting corrupted by this meaningless and stupid discussion about race,

 

[TheMikado]

That is why we have history classes. Example Germany we have from 5-12 grade amost all the time before during and after WW2. It is a lot of time to reflect but even there we do not judge. Teacher give us information wwe listen or read speeches and quotes that did happen during the time and try to understadn the context in it. We analyze the events and circumstances why it did happen and spoiler it is much much much more complexer than people were racist. But when this is over we do not are made to feel guilty we are not made to be shamed and we are not to accused of something we do not have or had no influence of.

Again you can not fight racsim with generalissations like White privilege etc. You will never ever fight racism with special rights, giving black people advantages like affirmative action etc. All you cause with this is hatred. Everytime you bring in race which it seem that people are totally obsessed with this you will cause more issues, more hatred, more jealousy etc. The only way to even have a chance to get rid of racism i to get rid of race. Again when you see the world with the eyes of a child sometimes it maybe naive but children until later. And when I hear stories how people gettiging angry at two boys not seeing their color and try to trick their teacher by having the same hairstyle I think we as people need to think very long and hard about what some here are doing.

How will you get rid of racism when these 2 boys or better their families who basically lived in a world without racism getting attacked for it because they did not teach their children about race. Seriously give me a fucking break...

I want to live in a world in which this her is not getting people fucking offended


Colorblind all the way. Fuck race

You're right, this is why we have history class!

Because you like to use the example of the 2 little boys who without the expanse of imperialism, may not have even lived on the same continent.
Who less than 50 year ago would likely not be friends because of red-lined neighborhoods, because of institutionalized racism the likely wouldn't even go to the same schools or have the same opportunities in life.

You're right, you can't fight racism with ignorance. You need to equalize. You look at affirmative action as an "advantage" after black people in America were denied entry to high paying jobs and access to Ivy League institutions for hundreds of years... I am not a fan of affirmative action but I can't help but to throw-up in my mouth when people talk about "knowing history" and ignore all the history that comes along with people how our world even exist today or why so many black people have historically been in poverty.

Not flip was hit that immediately erased all the darker spots of history. Its important to know because it's important to understand where we came from and why things and "advantages" like affirmative action exist in the first place and its attempt to correct hundreds of years of denial of service, but a couple of decades is enough for it be considered an "advantage".

Come the fuck on. The couple of thousand even millions of people helped by that program pales in comparison to the millions more who had their opportunities taken from them. Again, I'm no fan, but I understand its place in America making amends for its past.

 

[TrainedRage]

Yeah it’s going to be abused. But the point it they are trying to be more accepting and accommodating. They specific reference that as a challenge but it sounds like they are more interested in community building vs bottom line but the idea of community building may be to appeal to there target demographic anyway.

To use your example of a homeless crazy person. The idea wouldn’t be to call the cops and escort them out in handcuffs it would be to call a service designed to deal with individuals who may have needs like a soup kitchen or shelter etc. it makes sense in the context of who they are appealing to business wise

They definitely never said that in the video clip. Where are you getting this? So the policy now is just never call the cops?

 

[strange headache]

I would be proud of my own archievments my own actions and I would be also ashamed of my own failures but I would never be proud of my race, gender, or origin.

The only other people I know that are "proud" (in the strictest sense of the word) of their skin color are white supremacists and other racists... so yeah. Pride should be earned, not handed out like candy. I have enormous admiration for Stephen Hawking for example, but I don't admire his illness, I admire what he has accomplished despite his handicap.

I think they meant to say that nobody need to be ashamed of his skin or gender or handicap, etc... everybody deserves to be treated as a human being. But if that's the case, they surely formulated it in the most ass-backwards way possible.

What I can understand however is patriotism being proud what your country did in the past, future, in terms of sport or social progress.

The same principles applies to patriotism. I'm not proud of my nationality or country, but I may be proud about certain actions and ideas expressed by particular people and their accomplishments.

But the effects of racism just don't go away because you sign some bills into law.

I'm sure that alienating a vast majority of moderates by labeling them as cowards and closet racists for being colorblind will work wonders to combat the effects of racism.

 

[TheMikado]

They definitely never said that in the video clip. Where are you getting this? So the policy now is just never call the cops?

I'm not saying they said that, but in last 1 minute, they specific talked about training and changing store policy, I wasn't saying that what they will actual do but offering an alternative of what those policies could be.
But you're right, they never said anything about that specifically but neither did they said anything about open carry either. I just expounded on it like you did

 

[Dunki]

You're right, this is why we have history class!

Because you like to use the example of the 2 little boys who without the expanse of imperialism, may not have even lived on the same continent.
Who less than 50 year ago would likely not be friends because of red-lined neighborhoods, because of institutionalized racism the likely wouldn't even go to the same schools or have the same opportunities in life.

You're right, you can't fight racism with ignorance. You need to equalize. You look at affirmative action as an "advantage" after black people in America were denied entry to high paying jobs and access to Ivy League institutions for hundreds of years... I am not a fan of affirmative action but I can't help but to throw-up in my mouth when people talk about "knowing history" and ignore all the history that comes along with people how our world even exist today or why so many black people have historically been in poverty.

Not flip was hit that immediately erased all the darker spots of history. Its important to know because it's important to understand where we came from and why things and "advantages" like affirmative action exist in the first place and its attempt to correct hundreds of years of denial of service, but a couple of decades is enough for it be considered an "advantage".

Come the fuck on. The couple of thousand even millions of people helped by that program pales in comparison to the millions more who had their opportunities taken from them. Again, I'm no fan, but I understand its place in America making amends for its past.

Affirmative action and special treatment will cause more hatred because people believe they are treated unfairly which is in fact the case here. There is no positive discrimination it is still discrimination and the idea to fight discrimination with discrimination is insane to me. And while yes it has helped a million of people it also caused millions of people a job just beause they are not special and do not fit in this "programm" Also I must always laugh when in reality it looks already very different in terms of age when we compare job statistics and even wages with people of the same age. For example women already earning more than men in their 20-30s and I am pretty sure if we do the same with black and white people in their 20-30 we will see the same result. The past has already be corrected but you just do not see it in the old generations.

And for your how these 2 boys may or not may be friends does not matter fact is they are friends fact is they were attacked for being colorblind for having no bit of racism in their hearts what do you think is the message here?
Also HISTORY has nothing to do with getting a job. History is not your get out of the jail free card. This is what I was talking about History is for analyzing the past and learn of the past and not shame people because of their past do not get them advantages because of their ancentors past etc. You want equality? Then you need to be treated equally there is no other way to archive equality.

 

[TheMikado]

Affirmative action and special treatment will cause more hatred because people believe they are treated unfairly which is in fact the case here. There is no positive discrimination it is still discrimination and the idea to fight discrimination with discrimination is insane to me. And while yes it has helped a million of people it also caused millions of people a job just beause they are not special and do not fit in this "programm" Also I must always laugh when in reality it looks already very different in terms of age when we compare job statistics and even wages with people of the same age. For example women already earning more than men in their 20-30s and I am pretty sure if we do the same with black and white people in their 20-30 we will see the same result. The past has already be corrected but you just do not see it in the old generations.

And for your how these 2 boys may or not may be friends does not matter fact is they are friends fact is they were attacked for being colorblind for having no bit of racism in their hearts what do you think is the message here?
Also HISTORY has nothing to do with getting a job. History is not your get out of the jail free card. This is what I was talking about History is for analyzing the past and learn of the past and not shame people because of their past do not get them advantages because of their ancentors past etc. You want equality? Then you need to be treated equally there is no other way to archive equality.

Wait what?? This has nothing to do with anybodies ancestors, it was created for victims of discrimination.

Again this is about history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action#United_States

United States[edit]
Main article: Affirmative action in the United States
The concept of affirmative action was introduced in the early 1960s in the United States, as a way to combat racial discrimination in the hiring process, with the concept later expanded to address gender discrimination.[11] Affirmative action was first created from Executive Order 10925, which was signed by President John F. Kennedy on 6 March 1961 and required that government employers "not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin" and "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin".[71][72]

On 24 September 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed Executive Order 11246, thereby replacing Executive Order 10925 and affirming Federal Government's commitment "to promote the full realization of equal employment opportunity through a positive, continuing program in each executive department and agency".[3] Affirmative action was extended to women by Executive Order 11375 which amended Executive Order 11246 on 13 October 1967, by adding "sex" to the list of protected categories. In the U.S. affirmative action's original purpose was to pressure institutions into compliance with the nondiscrimination mandate of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[15][73] The Civil Rights Acts do not cover veterans, people with disabilities, or people over 40. These groups are protected from discrimination under different laws.[74]

Affirmative action has been the subject of numerous court cases,[75] and has been questioned upon its constitutional legitimacy. In 2003, a Supreme Court decision regarding affirmative action in higher education (Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 US 244 – Supreme Court 2003) permitted educational institutions to consider race as a factor when admitting students.[5] Alternatively, some colleges use financial criteria to attract racial groups that have typically been under-represented and typically have lower living conditions. Some states such as California (California Civil Rights Initiative), Michigan (Michigan Civil Rights Initiative), and Washington (Initiative 200) have passed constitutional amendments banning public institutions, including public schools, from practicing affirmative action within their respective states. Conservative activists have alleged that colleges quietly use illegal quotas to increase the number of minorities and have launched numerous lawsuits to stop them.[76]

Again, you are taking Affirmative Action out of the context of what and why it was created for. It was created specifically to correct the issues of discrimination which occurred before 1965 in the US. There is an argument of whether its necessary now which is a separate issue, but the claim of its inception being an "advantage" at its inception shows a gross understanding of its history. Affirmative action wasn't about slavery of their ancestors or any abstract argument. It was created because in 1963 there were NO PROTECTIONS against discrimination and Affirmative action was created to achieve equality because of the rampant discrimination of the time.

Again, you continually take for granted that these things have not always existed and the progress that has been made in a relatively short time.
The fact that we can even have equality and discussion on whether it has been achieved now is due to the very same program you are describing as unequal.
Again this is a case where history is important because it helps us understand the context for why things are they way they are in the first place. Affirmative action wasn't a concept invented recently. The only reason it is a recent discussion is because we are just now getting to the point in history where we can actually begin to question its continued need, but that does not mean it was never needed.

Again History is important, vital, to understanding these things.

 

[Dunki]

Wait what?? This has nothing to do with anybodies ancestors, it was created for victims of discrimination.

Again this is about history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action#United_States

United States[edit]
Main article: Affirmative action in the United States
The concept of affirmative action was introduced in the early 1960s in the United States, as a way to combat racial discrimination in the hiring process, with the concept later expanded to address gender discrimination.[11] Affirmative action was first created from Executive Order 10925, which was signed by President John F. Kennedy on 6 March 1961 and required that government employers "not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin" and "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin".[71][72]

On 24 September 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed Executive Order 11246, thereby replacing Executive Order 10925 and affirming Federal Government's commitment "to promote the full realization of equal employment opportunity through a positive, continuing program in each executive department and agency".[3] Affirmative action was extended to women by Executive Order 11375 which amended Executive Order 11246 on 13 October 1967, by adding "sex" to the list of protected categories. In the U.S. affirmative action's original purpose was to pressure institutions into compliance with the nondiscrimination mandate of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[15][73] The Civil Rights Acts do not cover veterans, people with disabilities, or people over 40. These groups are protected from discrimination under different laws.[74]

Affirmative action has been the subject of numerous court cases,[75] and has been questioned upon its constitutional legitimacy. In 2003, a Supreme Court decision regarding affirmative action in higher education (Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 US 244 – Supreme Court 2003) permitted educational institutions to consider race as a factor when admitting students.[5] Alternatively, some colleges use financial criteria to attract racial groups that have typically been under-represented and typically have lower living conditions. Some states such as California (California Civil Rights Initiative), Michigan (Michigan Civil Rights Initiative), and Washington (Initiative 200) have passed constitutional amendments banning public institutions, including public schools, from practicing affirmative action within their respective states. Conservative activists have alleged that colleges quietly use illegal quotas to increase the number of minorities and have launched numerous lawsuits to stop them.[76]

Again, you are taking Affirmative Action out of the context of what and why it was created for. It was created specifically to correct the issues of discrimination which occurred before 1965 in the US. There is an argument of whether its necessary now which is a separate issue, but the claim of its inception being an "advantage" at its inception shows a gross understanding of its history. Affirmative action wasn't about slavery of their ancestors or any abstract argument. It was created because in 1963 there were NO PROTECTIONS against discrimination and Affirmative action was created to achieve equality because of the rampant discrimination of the time.

Again, you continually take for granted that these things have not always existed and the progress that has been made in a relatively short time.
The fact that we can even have equality and discussion on whether it has been achieved now is due to the very same program you are describing as unequal.
Again this is a case where history is important because it helps us understand the context for why things are they way they are in the first place. Affirmative action wasn't a concept invented recently. The only reason it is a recent discussion is because we are just now getting to the point in history where we can actually begin to question its continued need, but that does not mean it was never needed.

Again History is important, vital, to understanding these things.

Again you try to argue again with the past for current situations. What was a good idea back then does not mean it still stands. We are talking about the right here and now and not 1961. We are talking about in these days and age affirmative action is not something for equallity but rather discrimination. We are not living in the 60s anymore we are living in 2018.

Also you are using History not to understand but to justify and that is not what history is for or should be used for.

 

[TheMikado]

Again you try to argue again with the past for current situations. What was a good idea back then does not mean it still stands. We are talking about the right here and now and not 1961. We are talking about in these days and age affirmative action is not something for equallity but rather discrimination. We are not living in the 60s anymore we are living in 2018.

Also you are using History not to understand but to justify and that is not what history is for or should be used for.

But I’m not, I said pretty clearly multiple times that affirmative action and if it is still being relevant today is a different discussion that needs to be explored. I was arguing the assertion of Affirmative Action being unequal as whole and was explaining the context of its creation and implementation.

I even said we are having these debates about it’s relevance today because of the gains it’s afforded people in achieving equality. I’m not advocating or justifying its continued use, I’m defending its place in history for what it has done, not dismissing it as a concept because it may not apply in 2018. That was my point, not whether it should exist now, but what it has done.

Again if it should exist now or not is a seperate discussion and most would agree we are at the point where the program is no longer needed to ensure legal protection.