:lamo Projection. When stiff-brained ideologues are challenged with arguments they cannot refute.....the do just was you did: they redirect the arguments they couldn't rebut onto their opponents. It's very simple-minded stuff. Of course, you and I both know that you can't rebut a word of what I've said.
1. Of course you're emotional. Every argument you've presented in this thread has been a baseless, emotional opinion. You just don't realize it, because you're an ideologue.
The funny part is that I haven't posted any of the studies, yet you've already determined they "aren't worth crap" simply because you were informed that the results conflict your fact-free, emotional, right wing brainwashing.
Please try to focus. No one has ever claimed that all 60 million Trump voters were driven by racial resentment. What has been noted is that multiple peer-reviewed academic studies have proven that racial resentment was the #1 (among many) factors that was predictive of support for Donald Trump in the 2016 election. That is a FACT, Period. Now try to focus on that incontrovertible, scientifically documented FACT without shifting the subject to one of your may white entitlement/grievance issues, if you can.
We can start with your very first baseless claims:
Don't start weaseling now, "Mr. Truth". You claimed them to be facts, not opinions. And when asked to present evidence to back them up, you couldn't do it. Throughout this thread, you have misrepresented your personal OPINIONS as the acknowledge facts of this case. I (and others) have been correcting you.
Opinions that cannot be supported with facts are worthless drivel. That's what you've offered in this thread....worthless drivel based upon a privileged worldview. Barely a single documented, verifiable fact to back up your opinions. So as usual, your grasp of my perspective seems to be distorted.
That's a question for Starbucks' CEO. Most culturally informed people understand that this incident reeks of (at the very least) some implicit racial bias from the store manager. Obviously, the Starbucks' CEO agrees. That's why all of the faux-outrage from the usual white grievance/victimhood suspects that followed was so ridiculous.
Questions like this make it clear that a lot of people on your side of this issue simply do not really understand what racism is. The reports are that the manager was a white female....so.......NO, it would not be no claims of racism or implicit racial bias in the treatment of two white men asked to leave for not purchasing a product. Does that confuse you?
I'mnot sure what you're talking about here, but first person/eye witness accounts of people in the store at the time (via the phone videos) as well as those reported by news organizations are not "hearsay". In fact, they are considered the antithesis of "hearsay". Perhaps you should look up the definition of the word "hearsay". I'm afraid the only "hearsay" we've seen in this particular case have come from your side. For example, we keep hearing that the manager was fired, when the FACT is that she was only removed from that store. And I could go on and on with the "hearsay" arguments, but almost all of it has come from your side of this argument, not mine.
Well, if you did, then you were wrong. It is NOT a Starbucks policy. This was an individual store policy, and the CEO of Starbucks confirmed that the manager wasn't even correctly following her own store policy calling the police.
??? Tell what, exactly, to the pregnant lady? She wasn't arrested. The police were not called on her (or her husband) even after they created a (very justifiable) disturbance in that store (unlike the 2 black men who simply sat down and continued waiting for their business client to arrive). So....tell her what, exactly? And btw, let's also note that her scenario ALSO went viral, leading to another formal apology from Starbucks...which only further discredits the entire "This would never be reported by the 'liberal media' if it happened to a white person" argument that you guys have been pushing in this thread.
You're right, it was an opinion NOT a "fact", as you originally claimed. And of course the race of the manager matters. The issue isn't the bathroom policy. It's the knee-jerk decision to call the police on 2 people who had done nothing wrong. The store policy was "no purchase, no restroom".....NOT "no purchase, leave or be arrested". Do you honestly....seriously NOT get that?
Well, here's what I would tell you. I don't need to google anything. The question to you is a simply one: How many police blotters have you reviewed? Your argument was predicated upon a "fact" about police blotters. If the answer to my questions is "zero" (as it obviously is)....then your "fact" about the content of police blotters in cities was a total fabrication. As I've been saying, you have a tendency to MAKE UP your "facts" based upon nothing more than your own strongly-held personal opinions and feelings. And your "big city police blotter" fake-fact is a good example of that. And you know it. So that's what I would tell you.
:roll: Once again, the only "fact" here is that this is your strongly-held personal opinion. The story here is one of racial bias (either implicit or explicit), and the record of events backs that up. Your personal assessment appears to be "the liberal media" highlights racism against black people, but ignores stories of mistreatment of white people. That's a perspective that is not atypical of a lot of white conservatives who don't really understand what racism is, because they don't experience it.
Not necessarily. Some opinions are well-grounded in objective data and provable facts....and others are little more than emotion-based burps reflecting personal biases. You haven't provided ANY evidence in this thread. As you have demonstrated with your "police blotter" argument (among others), some people have opinions that are emotional and circumstantial.
Nope. You're still confused. On one hand, there is a body of objective, verifiable, reproducible science that justifies saying that the "sun will come up tomorrow". That's an example of what we call "knowledge". On the other hand (i.e. in your case), there was/is no such body of objective, verifiable, reproducible information behind any of the claims you made earlier in this thread. You have have a PERSONAL view that this was not a example of racial bias....and that this would never have been a news story if 2 white guys had been arrested under the same circumstances....etc.etc.. You can't prove ANY of the components of your original arguments. None. And THAT, my friend, is the "difference that you seem incapable of figuring out".
Now we've come full circle in this discussion. Because, ANYTHING you assert as a "fact" is subject to proof. As I said many days ago, you're got this all backwards. It's not incumbent upon others to accept your unprovable arguments as "facts" (as you have insisted). It's YOUR obligation to either PROVE your "facts", or STOP using them as such in a debate of ideas. If you cannot back up your "facts", your arguments have little merit....especially when contrasted with real facts on the other side. Fact is, we see these kinds incidents happening all the time to black and brown people in our society. So to dismiss them on the basis of a set of BELIEFS in a conspiracy against white people who are (in your opinion) equally affected but "IGNORED BY THE LIBERAL MEDIA"....and are due to "POLITICAL CORRECTNESS" that favors minorities and which is akin to "TOTALITARIANISM"....etc.etc.........are just not a credible argument. It's a statement of an extreme personal ideology and denial of reality.
You're the one saying that I'm deluded. You tell me.