• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Starbucks Will Close 8,000 US Stores May 29 for Racial-Bias Training

I don't think applying the law selectively while breaking the law by discriminating is a good look.

Focusing on "no bathroom, refused police to leave" is missing the forest for the trees.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

finowns

Member
It would interesting to hear from the manager but I suspect Starbucks will be throwing money at her to keep quiet. The only story that I read that directly quotes her, from a website I never heard of, was a bit biased against her calling her 'foolish' and other pejoratives:

https://newsone.com/3794036/white-woman-starbucks-racial-profiling/

Also claims she is still working for Starbucks at another location also has some of her social media that they claim shows her mocking Spanish speaking people but I don't see it.
 

pramod

Banned
Yeah, it's hard to get the real story since Starbucks immediately threw her under the bus. And they probably paid her a bundle of money and got her to sign a bunch of shit to keep quiet. I wonder if we will ever find out the truth of what exactly happened or her side of the story.
 
Thats not true. The police didn't press charges because starbucks didn't want to press charges, not because a crime was not committed. Thats how it works in most cases involving 2 parties. Its also why so many don't get charged with domestic violence.

Son, when is the last time you've heard of someone getting arrested without committing a crime?

While you think about that question, consider that whether or not arrests take place based upon officer's discretion not the perpetrator's in the case of domestic violence varies by state.

Additionally, a district attorney's office can choose to press charges in any case. It declined, because as I said, no crime was committed.

These gentlemen were detained in custody for eight hours.

FOR.
NO.
REASON.

I mean, we're all kind of doing that, aren't we?

So this woman was a manger, and the highest representative of Starbucks at the scene. She asked people to leave privately owned property, which she has the legal right to do so. The police show up, and tell the men that they legally are required to leave the property, which they refuse to do.

How do you think this ends in any other way but handcuffs? The police aren't there to decide if it's morally acceptable or justified for someone in charge of private property to exercise their right to remove someone from their property.

What do you feel that the police should have done instead?

No, I do not argue facts with anyone. Truth is up for debate, not facts.

Contrary to the fables spread here, such as the Commissioner changing his stance on if the officers were in the wrong because of protests/SJWs/PC, he apologized for the erroneous arrest when he learned that it is customary for patrons of Starbucks to occupy space in a store for hours at a time without making a purchase.


Yeah, it's hard to get the real story since Starbucks immediately threw her under the bus. And they probably paid her a bundle of money and got her to sign a bunch of **** to keep quiet. I wonder if we will ever find out the truth of what exactly happened or her side of the story.

"I don't like the facts reported by multiple sources from local to international, so I'm going to make up stuff in my head that sounds better to me."

Nah, ain't nobody got time for that kind of BS.
 
Last edited:

Moneal

Member
Son, when is the last time you've heard of someone getting arrested without committing a crime?

While you think about that question, consider that whether or not arrests take place based upon officer's discretion not the perpetrator's in the case of domestic violence varies by state.

Additionally, a district attorney's office can choose to press charges in any case. It declined, because as I said, no crime was committed.

These gentlemen were detained in custody for eight hours.

FOR.
NO.
REASON.



No, I do not argue facts with anyone. Truth is up for debate, not facts.

Contrary to the fables spread here, such as the Commissioner changing his stance on if the officers were in the wrong because of protests/SJWs/PC, he apologized for the erroneous arrest when he learned that it is customary for patrons of Starbucks to occupy space in a store for hours at a time without making a purchase.

First I'm not your son. Second I never said they didn't commit a crime. You did. I said a crime was committed and the charges were not pressed because the victim of the crime declined to press charges. DCs usually only press charges either when the victim wants charges pressed, because they need witness testimony to prove the crime, or when the crime is egregious or high profile.

I was at a pool hall where a fight broke out. I was knocked down by someone being pushed into me and my back was injured. I gave my statement and the parties were arrested. Later I spoke with the DC prosecuting the case. I was asked if I wanted to press charges, and was told that if I didn't the DC wouldn't press charges for the count. A crime was committed but charges were not going to be pressed unless I agreed to do so.
 

Typhares

Member
Contrary to the fables spread here, such as the Commissioner changing his stance on if the officers were in the wrong because of protests/SJWs/PC, he apologized for the erroneous arrest when he learned that it is customary for patrons of Starbucks to occupy space in a store for hours at a time without making a purchase.

I mean that doesn't make sense to me at all. If you want to put blame on someone it's either the manager or the two individuals.
The police does not have to know the 'custom' of a coffee place. They were called by the person in charge of the business and did what they had to do against the accusation of tresspassing on private property.
What were they supposed to do? Say I'm sorry miss manager but did you know you usually allow people to stay when they are not paying? Please let those stay too?
So even if you think the arrest were unwarranted the police imo doesn't have to apologise.

I am really curious what the outcome of all this is and what these racial training are about.
Either they will have to let anyone who wants to use their facilities (toilet/wifi) without purchasing in without limit. Maybe put a time limit which would be difficult to enforce?
Or say that no-one is welcome without purchase?
 
Last edited:

pramod

Banned
"I don't like the facts reported by multiple sources from local to international, so I'm going to make up stuff in my head that sounds better to me."

Nah, ain't nobody got time for that kind of BS.

Not disputing the facts, but the way you interpret facts can change when it's from a different point of view.

Maybe she had a good reason for calling the cops that quickly? I just want to hear her side of the story. Why would that be a bad thing?
 

Shiki_

Banned
It's right, a business can decide to throw customers or potential customers from the place, but it need a really good reason, because otherwise they are entitled to be sued. As we know the two black men were waiting to their friend to have a meeting. That's not a crime, you know. Even the Starbucks official page recognize people go there to have any kind of meetings, even work-related.

Expect More Than Coffee
We’re not just passionate purveyors of coffee, but everything else that goes with a full and rewarding coffeehouse experience. We also offer a selection of premium teas, fine pastries and other delectable treats to please the taste buds. And the music you hear in store is chosen for its artistry and appeal.

It’s not unusual to see people coming to Starbucks to chat, meet up or even work. We’re a neighborhood gathering place, a part of the daily routine – and we couldn’t be happier about it. Get to know us and you’ll see: we are so much more than what we brew.

We make sure everything we do is through the lens of humanity – from our commitment to the highest quality coffee in the world, to the way we engage with our customers and communities to do business responsibly.
 

ickythingz

Banned
Anyone else just sitting back and laughing as the left eats itself? Starbucks is a holy shrine to the left. Now they shall face amazing realities that they originally thought was made up lies by supposed nazis. Yes Starbucks employees, you will let these people treat you like trash and threaten your safety in the work environment or you are a racist. You better give them free coffee. Remember, they are all kings and queens. To treat them otherwise is racist.
 

Shiki_

Banned
Anyone else just sitting back and laughing as the left eats itself? Starbucks is a holy shrine to the left. Now they shall face amazing realities that they originally thought was made up lies by supposed nazis. Yes Starbucks employees, you will let these people treat you like trash and threaten your safety in the work environment or you are a racist. You better give them free coffee. Remember, they are all kings and queens. To treat them otherwise is racist.

Who are kings and queens? Black people? I didn't know to being treated with dignity and respect it's a big deal. Unless you are racist, of course.
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Because a white customer said they were in the cafe for hours without buying anything, and a different one said that just before the gentlemen came in one was allowed to go to the bathroom without buying anything. One can't keep up with every little situation, so people do sneak by, but there wasn't equal treatment and she got caught red handed.

And then Starbucks investigated and found that it was all true.

Thank you man. Not sure why most here can't see that this location was treating white people in there differently than black people.
 
It's right, a business can decide to throw customers or potential customers from the place, but it need a really good reason, because otherwise they are entitled to be sued. As we know the two black men were waiting to their friend to have a meeting. That's not a crime, you know. Even the Starbucks official page recognize people go there to have any kind of meetings, even work-related.

The starbucks quote you posted mentioned nothing about people getting together at starbucks for a meeting and then not buying anything.

A former starbucks manager in this thread has said policy was to ask people to purchase something or leave if they were busy, and also posted that managers who did not do so were reprimanded.

It is absolutely a crime to racially discriminate, but proving that happened is beyond the scope of the officers' responsibilities. Refusing to leave private property, when told to by the owner or someone representing the owner, is also a crime. The police were able to quickly prove the latter, but not the former. It wasn't that the two men might have been refusing to leave, and the woman was definitely racist. It was that the two men were definitely refusing to leave, and the woman might have been racist.

While I don't know what happened, and while we only have one side of the story, I can definitely see people making an argument that these two men were likely discriminated against. What I can't see is making an argument that suggests the police did something wrong.

Outside of a courtroom determining she was discriminating against these two men, was she within her legal right to ask them to leave? Was it against the law for her to call the police? Was it against the law for the police to ask them to leave? Did they still refuse to leave? Was that technically a trespassing crime at that point? Did the cops have the right to take them into custody? Where in any of this did the police do something wrong?

For anyone who does feel the police were right to apologize, again I have to ask what do you think the police should have done instead?
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
I am really curious what the outcome of all this is and what these racial training are about.
Either they will have to let anyone who wants to use their facilities (toilet/wifi) without purchasing in without limit. Maybe put a time limit which would be difficult to enforce?
Or say that no-one is welcome without purchase?

Here's the thing that me and some others are trying to tell you. Starbucks ALLOWS PEOPLE TO SIT IN THE STORE WITHOUT BUYING SOMETHING! I hate to yell, but it's like some of you guys are going out of your way to not understand what Starbucks is and how the average person uses it. Yes, most people buy a cup of coffee or something first, but many also go in and chill for a minute and post up. And then buy something later on when they are on their way out or after the other person they were waiting for shows up.

For anyone who does feel the police were right to apologize, again I have to ask what do you think the police should have done instead?

I think they should have talked to the store manager and the 2 guys together and actually work it out instead of forcing them to leave. The person they were waiting for showed up right after the cops got there. It was a white real estate agent that they were meeting at StarBucks. Even he was asking the cops to chill out and listen to their story. But instead it was all about kicking them out of the store.
 
Last edited:

Moneal

Member
Here's the thing that me and some others are trying to tell you. Starbucks ALLOWS PEOPLE TO SIT IN THE STORE WITHOUT BUYING SOMETHING! I hate to yell, but it's like some of you guys are going out of your way to not understand what Starbucks is and how the average person uses it. Yes, most people buy a cup of coffee or something first, but many also go in and chill for a minute and post up. And then buy something later on when they are on their way out or after the other person they were waiting for shows up.

I would guess the average person uses it to buy and drink coffee. I would also make a large bet that the amount use it without buying something would be under 10%.
 

pramod

Banned
Yeah the manager was a total douchebag, but I still don't see why this HAS to be a race issue. I mean if a white guy acted like a total jerk and got mad after he was denied the restroom, and said something like "well screw you bitch I'm just going to sit here until my friend comes", I'm sure she would have called the cops on him as well.
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Yeah the manager was a total douchebag, but I still don't see why this HAS to be a race issue. I mean if a white guy acted like a total jerk and got mad after he was denied the restroom, and said something like "well screw you bitch I'm just going to sit here until my friend comes", I'm sure she would have called the cops on him as well.

She probably would have. But that's the thing.....the other white guys didn't get a denial to use the restroom even though they didn't buy anything. These are normal white guys that are telling their story honestly. They bought nothing, stayed in the store for a decent amount of time, and still was able to use the restroom on the same day.

Same day two black guys do the exact same thing yet are told to buy something or leave. They said they were only there for a few minutes.

I personally have been in Starbucks for 5-10 minutes at a time setting up my laptop and getting connected to the Starbucks wifi before I bought something. Typically they don't hound you to "hurry up and buy" like that.
 

Shiki_

Banned
Yeah the manager was a total douchebag, but I still don't see why this HAS to be a race issue. I mean if a white guy acted like a total jerk and got mad after he was denied the restroom, and said something like "well screw you bitch I'm just going to sit here until my friend comes", I'm sure she would have called the cops on him as well.

Lmao are you real? She would have to call in that situation, because yes, it would interrupt the calm in the place. But the people in the actual story, as we know, were denied the bathroom and just returned to chill and wait their friends.
 
I think they should have talked to the store manager and the 2 guys together and actually work it out instead of forcing them to leave. The person they were waiting for showed up right after the cops got there. It was a white real estate agent that they were meeting at StarBucks. Even he was asking the cops to chill out and listen to their story. But instead it was all about kicking them out of the store.

I actually do agree that the best situation would have been to somehow work everything out, but it's hard to say what happened. The long version of the video is eight minutes long, and it still doesn't show the police as they arrived. Perhaps they did speak to the manager, and perhaps she insisted on having them removed. For the most part, it's hard to hear the audio in that clip.

While I would hope that they did try to resolve the situation amicably, at the end of the day, if someone wants you off their property then you have to leave. I don't think the police get to say no to that sort of thing.

At the very least, the video does show there was some talking that happened. Nobody was arrested immediately. If they would have left when the police arrived and filed a formal complaint to the district manager or whatever, it seems that no one would have been arrested. Just the police being called alone would likely have been enough to still appear on social media and become a news story.
 

pramod

Banned
But the people in the actual story, as we know, were denied the bathroom and just returned to chill and wait their friends.

But that's just the thing, we don't know anything except what the 2 guys claimed. Maybe one of them made a snarky comment? Or a rude gesture? We have not heard anything from the other side of the story. For such a national story there is surprisingly very little clear eyewitness accounts of what happened. Why doesn't Starbucks release security footage of the incident?
 
Last edited:
I think you're missing that the experience that these two gentlemen had is not the intended consequence of such a policy. That's why the "letter of the law defense" doesn't apply so well here.



This has PLEASE FIRE MY ASS written all over it. Even if you are thinking it, don't say it.



Because a white customer said they were in the cafe for hours without buying anything, and a different one said that just before the gentlemen came in one was allowed to go to the bathroom without buying anything. One can't keep up with every little situation, so people do sneak by, but there wasn't equal treatment and she got caught red handed.

And then Starbucks investigated and found that it was all true.

Not buying it. You are projecting out your ass here.
 
She probably would have. But that's the thing.....the other white guys didn't get a denial to use the restroom even though they didn't buy anything. These are normal white guys that are telling their story honestly. They bought nothing, stayed in the store for a decent amount of time, and still was able to use the restroom on the same day.

Same day two black guys do the exact same thing yet are told to buy something or leave. They said they were only there for a few minutes.

I personally have been in Starbucks for 5-10 minutes at a time setting up my laptop and getting connected to the Starbucks wifi before I bought something. Typically they don't hound you to "hurry up and buy" like that.

The rules are the rules. How relaxed your managers are and your employees result in a more third place setting. It is to get you to come in and think that this is the place you go when you aren't at work or home. Star Bucks is very successful in their mission statement. The problem arises through the abuse of those by loiterers. These men were loiterers but they didn't see themselves as such. That may or may not be Star Bucks overarching problem through overstretching their reach in how many stores they have to run.

Just because some white people get away with loitering doesn't mean that is the managers fault. You don't know when she went on shift or if she was busy for the other customers. The manager had a direct interaction with the 2 men and it came out badly for them, Star Bucks, the Cops and pretty much America. This doesn't seem to be a case of racism no matter how much you project it to be. I am not sure if we'll every truly know because the well is beyond poisoned now.
 

Typhares

Member
Here's the thing that me and some others are trying to tell you. Starbucks ALLOWS PEOPLE TO SIT IN THE STORE WITHOUT BUYING SOMETHING! I hate to yell, but it's like some of you guys are going out of your way to not understand what Starbucks is and how the average person uses it. Yes, most people buy a cup of coffee or something first, but many also go in and chill for a minute and post up. And then buy something later on when they are on their way out or after the other person they were waiting for shows up.



I think they should have talked to the store manager and the 2 guys together and actually work it out instead of forcing them to leave. The person they were waiting for showed up right after the cops got there. It was a white real estate agent that they were meeting at StarBucks. Even he was asking the cops to chill out and listen to their story. But instead it was all about kicking them out of the store.

Ok then they will make it an extra clear company policy that under no circumstances (except direct violence I guess) someone can be removed for loitering. Because at the moment from what I understand it is at the discretion of the employees/manager that have the power to do so if they feel it is warranted resulting in different outcomes.
To be fair in europe (France/UK) I have never seen anyone go into a coffee shop and not buy anything, people sitting for hours without re-ordering yes.
 
Good for Starbucks, I'm really happy whenever any company takes action to try to improve a shit situation that we all need to get better. Sad that this needs to be overthought by nearly everyone, Twitter generation is really going to be the downfall of mankind.
 

prag16

Banned
Good for Starbucks, I'm really happy whenever any company takes action to try to improve a shit situation that we all need to get better. Sad that this needs to be overthought by nearly everyone, Twitter generation is really going to be the downfall of mankind.
The irony in this post.

"Twitter generation" is the only reason Starbucks "had" to react this way. And it's strictly a PR move, 100%.

I may agree on the downfall comment, but apparently for different reasons.
 
180420-Weil-Fox-Newser-Starbucks-hoax-hero_uytyql
Trolls on the message board 4chan attempted to enter the controversy earlier this week, forging vouchers pretending to offer free coffee for people of color. The hoax made it onto Ingraham’s television show “The Ingraham Angle” within day of taking off on 4chan.

The only person who appears to have got a free coffee from the hoax was Bryan “Hotep Jesus” Sharpe, a black comedian and conspiracy theorist who has appeared on a white nationalist-affiliated internet program.

On Wednesday, Sharpe uploaded a YouTube video of himself demanding a free coffee in Starbucks.

“I heard you guys don’t like black people, so I wanted to get my Starbucks reparations voucher,” Sharpe told the barista. The young woman responded that she’d seen the voucher on Twitter, and gave Sharpe a free coffee. She told him she was a student, and that it was her last day at the store until fall.

Hours after uploading a video to YouTube, Sharpe appeared on Ingraham’s show to discuss the prank. “I told you about someone who wanted to see just how far Starbucks' liberal guilt would go,” Ingraham introduced Sharpe to viewers.

“I am sick and tired of liberals using black people, and making us look like victims, making us look soft with their liberal dogma,” Sharpe told Ingraham. “I said ‘I bet if I go into Starbucks and I follow a liberal narrative, I’ll make the news.’ And voila, here I am.”

But the free coffee stunt did not originate with liberals. It first appeared earlier this week on 4chan’s notoriously racist /pol/ message board, where users collaborated on a fake Starbucks flyer advertising free coffee for people of color.

https://amp.thedailybeast.com/4chan...-black-customers-reaches-laura-ingrahams-show
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Hulk_Smash

Banned
Meh, businesses are not stupid. If someone uses Starbucks as a meet-up spot without the intention of buying something, the probability they will buy a Starbucks something anyway is is anywhere from 0% to 100% - if they do the meet-up somewhere that is not Starbucks, the chance they buy something from Starbucks is 0% to 0%. The idea that they should prosecute every single non-purchaser on the grounds they are loitering in their store is comically naive - the goal of a business is first and foremost to get people in the door.

The people claiming "aw shucks, just be good boys and girls and follow company policy at all times" aren't making a convincing case - if you were, Starbucks wouldn't be jumping through hoops right now to fix this PR fiasco. I imagine they have a better grasp on the financial stakes of taking this seriously vs. ignoring it compared to the arm-chair CEOs on the internet.
This guy gets it.

Why not approach them with a free sample? Tell them about what’s in special. Try to turn them into customers instead of turning them away. As long as they aren’t taking up tables when there’s a line or causing problems, I don’t see why any manager would ask them to leave.
 

longdi

Banned
The simple answer is Starbucks CEO reviewed the recordings and they were not favorable and had to go through this exercise of shutting down business.
If the manager did no wrong and the black guys were the one creating trouble, Starbucks will be better to defend its position. Right now they are admitting they were wrong.
 

MC Safety

Member
You are labeling them loiterers for being less 15 minutes not buying something at a Starbucks. Give me a fucking break.

The time element is irrelevant. What matters is the company's discretion.

Starbucks has a reasonable expectation its premises and facilities will be used by customers. If someone refuses to purchase something, they can be asked to leave at the company's discretion. Should they refuse the request to leave, the police may be called to remove them.

The rest of the what-ifs and whatabouts and buts only serve to obfuscate the issue.
 
The time element is irrelevant. What matters is the company's discretion.

Starbucks has a reasonable expectation its premises and facilities will be used by customers. If someone refuses to purchase something, they can be asked to leave at the company's discretion. Should they refuse the request to leave, the police may be called to remove them.

The rest of the what-ifs and whatabouts and buts only serve to obfuscate the issue.

The issue lies in not whether she was capable of kicking them out, but that she did it due to bias. That's the main story.

Clinging to the lowest common demoninator doesn't really solve anything.

Also this:

Former Starbucks manager Holly Hylton, who called the cops and got two law abiding Black men arrested inside the coffee shop, is being called out by a former employee who says that Hylton’s a controlling racist who targeted and demoted Black employees, reports the Daily Mail.

Ieshaa Cash says last year Hylton was hired on as a manager at the 18th and Spruce Starbucks in Philadelphia and employees warned her that her new boss was “controlling, aggressive, and emotional.” That Starbucks location is under fire because that is where two Black men were arrested while sitting and waiting for a friend.

Cash said she was the only Black employee besides an assistant manager at the Starbucks and she soon felt the wrath of Hylton who cut her pay without explanation, had her demoted from a supervisory position, avoided dealing with Black customers and called the cops often on Black people.

“She always found a reason to kick Black people out, she was way more likely to ask them to leave over white people who hadn’t made a purchase,” she said.

And when it came to serving Black customers at the counter, she said Hylton would make them wait and tended attentively to white people first.

“She was cold and standoffish to everyone else and would say “they can wait”,” explained Cash. “She often made the baristas serve them so she wouldn’t have to. Holly was very attentive with all the white customers, always making sure they were happy and served quickly,” she said.

It’s because of this type of racial bias against minorities that Starbucks is closing all 8,000 of its stores May 29 to conduct racial-bias education training geared toward preventing discrimination in their stores, the company said in a statement.

The public outcry and protests were swift after two men, one identified as Omega Psi Phi Fraternity member Rashon Nelson, was hauled off to jail after the manager called the cops on them for sitting and waiting for a friend at the facility. A video of the incident went viral, causing online outrage and protests at the store. Starbucks CEO Kevin Johnson has met with the two men arrested to offer a face-to-face apology and he has vowed to implement new policies and procedures to prevent situations like this from occurring again.

Hylton no longer works at the Philly Starbucks in what has been called a “mutual decision” for her to part ways with the company.

Cash said Hylton made her job so difficult, writing her up for ordering extra coffee sleeves and “nit-picking” her every move that she decided to transfer to another Starbucks. But even that didn’t stop Hylton from coming for Cash.

She said Hylton called her into her office and had her demoted from supervisor to a barista. Cash said Hylton told her she was “not comfortable” with her remaining as a supervisor and with the demotion came a pay cut and an assignment to a new store.

When asked why, Cash said Hylton told her “’That’s the way I feel.”

“I’ve never been in trouble or disciplined and all the regular customers loved me,” Cash said.

The mom of three decided to ultimately quit. But she says she’s not surprised about the recent situation given Hylton’s controversial past.

“Holly was always very careful with what she said, but you could see her racism from the way she acted around people of color,” Cash said.

If stuff like this comes out (and if it is true, now we have probability), it's actually good that Starbucks jumped on this opportunity, which they probably found out during their investigation blah-blah-blah.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I heard the manager was a full on social justice warrior so let’s take these accounts lightly of character assasination. I’m sure wish the demographics of Philadelphia this isn’t her first run in with black customers, however if she’s enforcing company policy what is racist about this?
 

Shiki_

Banned
Damn details about the manager are being revealed (which just confirms she has showed negative bias against black people) but many of you surely wish the customers were a jerk with her and that's why the police was called. Why are trying to deny the former and want to happen the latter? That's so transparents about what only matter of you.
 

finowns

Member
Damn details about the manager are being revealed (which just confirms she has showed negative bias against black people) but many of you surely wish the customers were a jerk with her and that's why the police was called. Why are trying to deny the former and want to happen the latter? That's so transparents about what only matter of you.

That was a women the manger demoted she might be biased.

This story was low on emotion: https://www.wsj.com/articles/starbu...-employees-on-non-paying-customers-1524308400

There still seems to be a big part of this story missing though.
 
Last edited:

JimboJones

Member
This guy gets it.

Why not approach them with a free sample? Tell them about what’s in special. Try to turn them into customers instead of turning them away. As long as they aren’t taking up tables when there’s a line or causing problems, I don’t see why any manager would ask them to leave.

Get those types every now and again, stickler for rules types. There just cowards who can't think for themselves and enjoy that tiny little bit of power they have.
 
Last edited:
Get those types every now and again, stickler for rules types. There just cowards who can't think for themselves and enjoy that tiny little bit of power they have.

Constant adherence to policy is absolutely the best way to ensure that bias, even unconscious bias, doesn't affect some people while not affecting others. Otherwise, what's the point in having a policy in the first place?
 
Constant adherence to policy is absolutely the best way to ensure that bias, even unconscious bias, doesn't affect some people while not affecting others. Otherwise, what's the point in having a policy in the first place?

For situation specific instances. Managers should have the decision making capabilities, but there's are always bad apples/mistakes.
 

pramod

Banned
Its hard for me to believe Starbucks would hire a racist to manage their store in one of the most liberal and diverse cities. They must have really awful screening procedures.
 

JimboJones

Member
Constant adherence to policy is absolutely the best way to ensure that bias, even unconscious bias, doesn't affect some people while not affecting others. Otherwise, what's the point in having a policy in the first place?
I mean it kinda goes without saying you shouldn't really go out of your way to use rules to make another persons life shitty. It's pretty bizarre they couldn't bend the rules in this case and just leave them alone, they felt the need to get them out so bad they phoned the police. Crazy.
 

Shiki_

Banned
Its hard for me to believe Starbucks would hire a racist to manage their store in one of the most liberal and diverse cities. They must have really awful screening procedures.

Racist people are good to hide their true colores you know. And it's not like living in a diverse city help you to don't being a racist.
 
The irony in this post.

"Twitter generation" is the only reason Starbucks "had" to react this way. And it's strictly a PR move, 100%.

I may agree on the downfall comment, but apparently for different reasons.

You're kind of right, but I think there is a problem of communication between different cultures which we should try to fix. Race barrier never stopped being a thing and there's definitely a wide conceptual gap in how to face it. Maybe twitter overreacting caused this, but by itself this is not a bad deal. It shouldn't offend anyone, it doesn't harm anyone, maybe something good comes out of it, I fail to see any downside.

About it being a PR move sadly you're probably right lol but I try to be more optimistic about this stuff.
 

Dunki

Member
You're kind of right, but I think there is a problem of communication between different cultures which we should try to fix. Race barrier never stopped being a thing and there's definitely a wide conceptual gap in how to face it. Maybe twitter overreacting caused this, but by itself this is not a bad deal. It shouldn't offend anyone, it doesn't harm anyone, maybe something good comes out of it, I fail to see any downside.

About it being a PR move sadly you're probably right lol but I try to be more optimistic about this stuff.
Actually there was a post about how these kind of forced diversity training will make everything worse through resentment

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/star...l-bias-training.1461997/page-3#post-253241261
 

MC Safety

Member
The issue lies in not whether she was capable of kicking them out, but that she did it due to bias. That's the main story.

Clinging to the lowest common demoninator doesn't really solve anything.

What would solve things is if Starbucks created a store-wide policy to address the issue of people who just want to use the bathroom or sit down at the tables and have a business meeting without engaging as customers.

Were the policy spelled out, your feelings about a real or perceived bias would be more irrelevant than they already are.
 
Last edited:
Actually there was a post about how these kind of forced diversity training will make everything worse through resentment

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/star...l-bias-training.1461997/page-3#post-253241261

While I don't claim to have any knowledge on the situation to give a proper opinion, I think it really depends on how it's done. If it's done like this:

0cdnf2a03sjz.jpg


Yeah it would fail. But if it focuses on communication and understanding each other instead of white guilt it could work out nice. It's not so much about "you should treat this dude better because he's black", but rather "this dude could behave a little bit different than you're used to but it's not malicious".
 

bucyou

Member
You are labeling them loiterers for being less 15 minutes not buying something at a Starbucks. Give me a fucking break.


Someone doesnt know the simple definitiion of loiter, I will help you.

loi·ter
ˈloidər/
verb
  1. stand or wait around idly or without apparent purpose.
 

Shiki_

Banned
Someone doesnt know the simple definitiion of loiter, I will help you.

loi·ter
ˈloidər/
verb
  1. stand or wait around idly or without apparent purpose.

They were waiting for their friend. Starbucks is not a restaurant where you need to order something immediatly. And well, I said 15 minutes just to show how ridiculous it was the situation, but it seems the reports say they were less 5 minutes when the police was called, so that's more fucked if you think about it.
 

lil puff

Member
I did not like any of the protest against Starbucks. IMO it was one incident that should not reflect upon the company.
 

lil puff

Member
i don't think that sign was indicative of the protest, so that might be cherry picking, but I still think this entire thing blew up way too far.
 
First I'm not your son. Second I never said they didn't commit a crime. You did.

zzzz:

Thats not true. The police didn't press charges because starbucks didn't want to press charges, not because a crime was not committed. Thats how it works in most cases involving 2 parties. Its also why so many don't get charged with domestic violence.

I don't have time to engage with the level of pedantry such that you end up using double-negatives and confusing yourself trying to play Devil's Advocate. You get one chance for me to take you seriously and you blew it.

sonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

I mean that doesn't make sense to me at all. If you want to put blame on someone it's either the manager or the two individuals.
The police does not have to know the 'custom' of a coffee place. They were called by the person in charge of the business and did what they had to do against the accusation of tresspassing on private property.
What were they supposed to do? Say I'm sorry miss manager but did you know you usually allow people to stay when they are not paying? Please let those stay too?
So even if you think the arrest were unwarranted the police imo doesn't have to apologise.


Yes. The (good) police are freakin tired of racists wasting their time.

In 2015 WP published an entire article on similar events.

So yes, the mugfuggin po-lease, who are synonymous with hanging out at coffee shops, should have turned to this lady and said precisely that.

Thank you man. Not sure why most here can't see that this location was treating white people in there differently than black people.

You know precisely why. You're just polite about it. I'm not.

Not disputing the facts, but the way you interpret facts can change when it's from a different point of view.

Maybe she had a good reason for calling the cops that quickly? I just want to hear her side of the story. Why would that be a bad thing?

There is no "interpretation" of facts. That is why they are facts. For example, what time the men arrived at Starbucks, and what time the 911 call was logged, and what time the police arrived are facts.

What yall are doing is giving the manager and the police every single benefit of doubt that you can possibly squeeze out of this, such as "Surely, there must be some reason (besides racist douchebaggery) that this manager called the police within two minutes of the black gentlemen's arrival," and "The were arrested, so they had to have done something (besides the crime of being black)."

I am amazed that yall do not find all of these attempts to shift blame exhausting:

I would guess the average person uses it to buy and drink coffee. I would also make a large bet that the amount use it without buying something would be under 10%.

SPECULATION

Yeah the manager was a total douchebag, but I still don't see why this HAS to be a race issue. I mean if a white guy acted like a total jerk and got mad after he was denied the restroom, and said something like "well screw you **** I'm just going to sit here until my friend comes", I'm sure she would have called the cops on him as well.

MORE SPECULATION

Its hard for me to believe Starbucks would hire a racist to manage their store in one of the most liberal and diverse cities. They must have really awful screening procedures.

Racism is not exclusive to conservatives. Bill Clinton's "Tough on Crime" policies, for example, contributed to the mass incarceration of blacks who just wanted to smoke MJ.

And who can forget (except, perhaps people who don't think that two black men being arrested in a Starbucks for no reason was not racially motivated) Hillary's 2008 campaign against Obama?

Examples:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/trailhead/2008/02/25/obama_gets_dressed.html
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/25/barackobama.hillaryclinton

https://www.washingtonpost.com/?utm_term=.4492bf83f5ea
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2008/08/penn-strategy-memo-march-19-2008/37952/
But that's just the thing, we don't know anything except what the 2 guys claimed. Maybe one of them made a snarky comment? Or a rude gesture? We have not heard anything from the other side of the story. For such a national story there is surprisingly very little clear eyewitness accounts of what happened. Why doesn't Starbucks release security footage of the incident?

You have unveiled your true colors with this post.

The main reason we know about this story, is that an eyewitness posted a video on Twitter of the incident, explaining what happened.

But you are still sitting here asking all of these asinine questions, and negating the validity of Melissa DePino's account because the narrative dose not fit your perspective that black men must be responsible for their negative interactions with police.

Your undermining of DePino's testimony reeks of sexism too alongside your diet racism.



Updated OP again.




Meh, businesses are not stupid. If someone uses Starbucks as a meet-up spot without the intention of buying something, the probability they will buy a Starbucks something anyway is is anywhere from 0% to 100% - if they do the meet-up somewhere that is not Starbucks, the chance they buy something from Starbucks is 0% to 0%. The idea that they should prosecute every single non-purchaser on the grounds they are loitering in their store is comically naive - the goal of a business is first and foremost to get people in the door.

The people claiming "aw shucks, just be good boys and girls and follow company policy at all times" aren't making a convincing case - if you were, Starbucks wouldn't be jumping through hoops right now to fix this PR fiasco. I imagine they have a better grasp on the financial stakes of taking this seriously vs. ignoring it compared to the arm-chair CEOs on the internet.


I don't know how I missed this, but yes, this is an A+ post.

And that's before I add the allegory that I work in supply chain of a major midwestern retailer, and yes, one of the primary reason why we run promotions, configure the store layout in a way that a "quick run" means walking at least half the length of the store, etc., is to get people in the store, and keep them there, because the longer a customer is there, the more likely you are to make purchases you didn't plan to make.

Like, have these people never been to a mall, where literally hundreds of people walk into a store in a day and don't buy anything? Sit down in a food court restaurant just to chill? THIS IS COMMON!

The simple answer is Starbucks CEO reviewed the recordings and they were not favorable and had to go through this exercise of shutting down business.

If the manager did no wrong and the black guys were the one creating trouble, Starbucks will be better to defend its position. Right now they are admitting they were wrong.

#FACTS

But that's not good enough for some folks.

Damn details about the manager are being revealed (which just confirms she has showed negative bias against black people) but many of you surely wish the customers were a jerk with her and that's why the police was called. Why are trying to deny the former and want to happen the latter? That's so transparents about what only matter of you.

Man...there are only so many times or ways that one can say the same thing.
 
Top Bottom