• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Calls grow to boycott starbucks after two black men arrested for not making order

Da7JVoCXkAEykgv.jpg

This poor bastard. Imagine making 12 bucks an hour and having to deal with these liberal morons. He probably voted for Hillary too.
 
JoeTrumps said:
View attachment 67231794

This poor bastard. Imagine making 12 bucks an hour and having to deal with these liberal morons. He probably voted for Hillary too.
Click to expand...

Liberal SJWs don't care who they hurt, destroy or otherwise bully. He's white. That's all that matters. Well, he's a white MALE. Even worse.
 
Everyone knows you can't use the restroom at Starbucks (or most restaurants) if you're not a paying customer. I don't see an issue.
 
chuckiechan said:
From now on I will have the clerk label my cup of black coffee "Bubba". And my apologies to those who think black coffee is racist, I don't do dairy. It's racist the other way.
Click to expand...

Yeah that will show 'em... :roll:

Have you ever been inside a Starbucks- sorry Charlie, that is stretching it a bit... :peace
 
Ikari said:
Oh what the fudge ever. I mean, their were loitering and asked to leave by both management and then the police and they refused. For the love of all that is holy, why boycott it?
Click to expand...
Telling black people they are not allowed to loiter is racist

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
Nilly said:
Capitalism only really works if people vote with their wallets. It's high time people started actually started doing that, and that can only happen with the dissemination of information about what businesses do and do not do, and the ability to unify to actually have a tangible effect. You may not agree with the reasons behind the boycott, but as a left libertarian surely you should recognize the necessity of boycotts for capitalism to not go unchecked? Celebrate it.
Click to expand...

Does that mean you think gov should not regulate business too?
A free market would mean a place like Starbucks could refuse to serve black men under the age of 40 if they so choose and people would decide if they succeed or not with thier wallets



Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
Telling black people they are not allowed to loiter is racist
Click to expand...

Not generally. In this instance, it would seem that the policy wasn't held universally. But if it were, then telling black people they are not allowed to loiter wouldn't be racist.
 
Nilly said:
Actions have consequences, but only if you follow through on them. If a boycott causes a loss in revenue to starbucks (and not just a cause for apology) then maybe other companies will also take steps to prevent this becoming an issue for them in the future.

The underlying issue here is more than just 2 guys being kicked out of Starbucks, it's about systemic inequality and white privilege. From my understanding, the people who are calling for boycott understand that and wish for the boycott to call attention to that.
Click to expand...

I get that if there is some sort of company wide problem. But this was the actions of a single employee. In this era of social media we have lost all sense of proportionality.

The CEO is meeting with them to apologize, is instituting “unconscious bias training” and the person who actually committed the act no longer has a job there. That should be enough to satisfy any reasonable person. But everyone wants to be a slacktivist.

“What? Starbucks already addressed the problem? But I haven’t had a chance to go yell and protest about it yet. Screw it, I am going to go yell and protest anyway, otherwise how will people know I am a good person and think the right things?”
 
Ikari said:
Not generally. In this instance, it would seem that the policy wasn't held universally. But if it were, then telling black people they are not allowed to loiter wouldn't be racist.
Click to expand...
I was being sarcastic but on a serious note.

I have a problem with how fast and loose people throw that accusation around. Let's take this case for example. Does the store tell all black people that or only some and why? Was the clerk full of hate and being a dick? Was it because the guy hates blacks or because he was in a bad mood and it might of been anyone that he singled out to harass. Maybe the guys standing were giving off a bad aura and making people feel uneasy. There's many reasons that could of motivated them being told to leave that had nothing to do with their skin color.

So how do we determine if this racially motivated? I would say if they treat all black people that way, it's racism. If they treat some that way it's something else.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
I was being sarcastic but on a serious note.

I have a problem with how fast and loose people throw that accusation around. Let's take this case for example. Does the store tell all black people that or only some and why? Was the clerk full of hate and being a dick? Was it because the guy hates blacks or because he was in a bad mood and it might of been anyone that he singled out to harass. Maybe the guys standing were giving off a bad aura and making people feel uneasy. There's many reasons that could of motivated them being told to leave that had nothing to do with their skin color.

So how do we determine if this racially motivated? I would say if they treat all black people that way, it's racism. If they treat some that way it's something else.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Apparently, the alt-left SJWs just ties a rock around the person's waist and throw them into the river to see if they float.
 
Nilly said:
Would you have a problem with this particular Starbucks policy being selectively applied to people of color?

See post #70
Click to expand...
Of course I would.
 
leekohler2 said:
Let me ask you a question- do you think this would happen if those two guys were white? Be honest. You've never gone to a restaurant or coffee shop and waited to order before your whole party arrived? You seriously don't see the problem here?

This^
Click to expand...

I think it did happen to a white pregnant woman and her husband. Except they left when asked to leave and took up the case with Starbucks and/or social media. They did not simply refuse to leave the property.

Starbucks denies pregnant woman use of bathroom | Fox News
 
leekohler2 said:
Agreed. I worked in the business for 20 years, and this is just not something you do unless someone is causing trouble.
Click to expand...

Bull****. I worked in retail. This is exactly what higher up management does, throws workers at the lower levels under the bus at any hint at perceived racism or any other "ism" just to try to get any bad publicity under control.
 
Nilly said:
If you enforce a policy where you kick people off premise only against black people, then yes that is racist.

Like the example I gave earlier. Disneyworld have every right to kick anyone off their property at any time and for any reason. It's right there in the terms and conditions when you buy a ticket. This policy is not inherently racist.

If a security guard decided to selectively enforce said policy against only black people, and only kick black people out, that is racist. Non-racist policy can be carried out in racist ways, obviously.
Click to expand...

There is no evidence that it was only done to black people though. Anecdotal "well they didn't kick me out for that" is not evidence. We simply don't know what may have happened in the past. Most people who are asked to leave a business, leave. Then they complain either to the business, media, social media, or any combination of these (usually all nowdays).
 
Is there anything we don't boycott?
 
j-mac said:
Because, we live now in time of the great outrage....Everything must be a commentary on social behavior, and racism....
Click to expand...

As I have been saying we are entering a new dark age. This one I don't think we will ever get out of.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
I get that if there is some sort of company wide problem. But this was the actions of a single employee. In this era of social media we have lost all sense of proportionality.

The CEO is meeting with them to apologize, is instituting “unconscious bias training” and the person who actually committed the act no longer has a job there. That should be enough to satisfy any reasonable person. But everyone wants to be a slacktivist.

“What? Starbucks already addressed the problem? But I haven’t had a chance to go yell and protest about it yet. Screw it, I am going to go yell and protest anyway, otherwise how will people know I am a good person and think the right things?”
Click to expand...

If that was the action of a single employee, may be they should take that person aside. Why is an entire company being raked over the coals for this?
I just read the following in another thread and hope it is ok to post it here as an example
Praxas said:
Yep there are leftists now in congress working on passing a bill to make the America Flag Illegal to fly in the US right NOW. Urge your congress to fight this atrocity. :roll:

Seriously, one power trip inspector does not make the entire leftist group anti-American Flag. Do you have anything other to do with your time than just post idiotic partisan **** posts?
Click to expand...
 
Lovebug said:
If that was the action of a single employee, may be they should take that person aside. Why is an entire company being raked over the coals for this?
I just read the following in another thread and hope it is ok to post it here as an example
Click to expand...

Not sure why you put my quote in this thread since the quote you have from me came from this thread here:

https://www.debatepolitics.com/gene...ry-flag-service-denigrated-city-employee.html

EDIT: Never mind, I see what you did now. Need more coffee. :mrgreen:
 
Lovebug said:
If that was the action of a single employee, may be they should take that person aside. Why is an entire company being raked over the coals for this?
I just read the following in another thread and hope it is ok to post it here as an example
Click to expand...

Did they fire the manager of that store? I thought the article I read said she no longer works at that store, but that seems like they just moved her somewhere else in the company?
 
Lovebug said:
If that was the action of a single employee, may be they should take that person aside. Why is an entire company being raked over the coals for this?
I just read the following in another thread and hope it is ok to post it here as an example
Click to expand...

Because details, nuance and fairness no longer exist. What exists is the intent to destroy anything that "offends" and is not PC.
 
Praxas said:
Did they fire the manager of that store? I thought the article I read said she no longer works at that store, but that seems like they just moved her somewhere else in the company?
Click to expand...

I read that her departure was "mutual".
Starbucks is a castrated, feckless organization for not even signalling that they stand behind an employee who was simply acting on the policies of Starbucks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom