Arrested for being black....at starbucks?

[BUFORDGAWOLVES]

12 hours ago, Belly Bob said:

It's a good description of the event, given the available evidence, without any added interpretation.

The problem, I think, is that you're refusing to acknowledge the obvious, namely, that the fact of the blackness of the two men was not incidental to the event. 

I know that there isn't a ton of hard evidence to support that claim, but that's entirely beside the point.

Me and you pull the same stunt, it's no news.

Media blast, full blown.

Not mnimizing the peripheral issues that precipitates this hypersensitivity.

Complex and no hope in unraveling this racial animus.

[Guest]

And people wonder why there are widespread protest during the anthem.

It wont ever stop until bullshit like this stops...

[Belly Bob]

2 hours ago, noonereal said:

that is an assumption that I am not sure I agree with 

We may never know the answer.

Never heard of evidence being irrelevant before. 

I'd encourage you to reread the many different threads on this topic.

We have a consistent account of the event. The three different reports of the event I've read all agree on the details of the event: two black guys sat in Starbucks for a period of time, didn't buy anything, asked to use the bathroom, were told that the bathroom is for paying customers only, were asked to buy something or to leave, didn't buy anything or leave, were asked by the police to leave, and didn't leave, were arrested on suspicion of trespassing, and were released from custody when Starbucks declined to press charges. 

We have simple, straightforward, sufficient explanations of why the two guys were refused access to the bathroom, why they were asked to leave, and why they were arrested, none of which appeal to the fact that the guys were black.

So you tell me: if a lack of evidence for the claim that the fact of their blackness wasn't incidental to this matter, then why is the title of the thread "Arrested for being black?" and why are so many posters convinced that Starbuck or the police (or both) are obviously guilty of racism? Why is the BLM protesting? Why are certain people refusing to accept the CEO's apology and calling for the manager to be fired? 

You're a psychology guy. You tell me whether evidence really matters. 

 

[Belly Bob]

1 hour ago, BUFORDGAWOLVES said:

[...]

Media blast, full blown.

Not mnimizing the peripheral issues that precipitates this hypersensitivity.

Complex and no hope in unraveling this racial animus.

I suspect that this is relevant and important: people are hypersensitive to these sorts of events because of the peripheral issues which are not to be minimized.

I think it is a complex issue, but I don't care for the claim that it's hopeless. 

[noonereal]

2 minutes ago, Belly Bob said:

 

We have a simple, straightforward, sufficient explanations of why the two guys were refused access to the bathroom, why they were asked to leave, and why they were arrested, none of which appeal to the fact that the guys were black.

Agree.

but sometimes people lie (ever watch the president?)as to their motives and we don't know enough to form a definitive judgement.

Just what is company policy and just what has been recent past practice at this particular location. . 

 

 

[noonereal]

2 minutes ago, Belly Bob said:

I suspect that this is relevant and important: people are hypersensitive to these sorts of events because of the peripheral issues which are not to be minimized.

I think it is a complex issue, but I don't care for the claim that it's hopeless. 

I might disagree with the highlighted a we are dealing with humans. 

[Belly Bob]

1 minute ago, noonereal said:

Agree.

but sometimes people lie (ever watch the president?)as to their motives and we don't know enough to form a definitive judgement.

And sometimes people are mistaken about their own motives.

But f*ck me, that doesn't slow people down from making definitive judgments anyway and calling for people to be fired etc. 

[noonereal]

Just now, Belly Bob said:

And sometimes people are mistaken about their own motives.

 

Most the time, about always in fact. 

 

[Belly Bob]

4 minutes ago, noonereal said:

[...]

Just what is company policy and just what has been recent past practice at this particular location. . 

Good questions. I would have thought that we'd want answers to these questions before we weighed in on whether anyone was guilty of anything or whether anyone should be fired or reprimanded for how they behaved. 

[noonereal]

Just now, Belly Bob said:

Good questions. I would have thought that we'd want answers to these questions before we weighed in on whether anyone was guilty of anything or whether anyone should be fired or reprimanded for how they behaved. 

As you know, this is confirmation bias run amuck with very few actually looking objectively.

Look at the other threads and my posts.  

 

[Belly Bob]

2 hours ago, noonereal said:

Just what is it about Starbucks that makes it "sissy?"

How about the fact that every time I go in there, there is a long line of school girls ordering what appear to be milkshakes of some kind which take forever to make?

[Belly Bob]

2 minutes ago, noonereal said:

As you know, this is confirmation bias run amuck with very few actually looking objectively.

Look at the other threads and my posts.  

Yes, if you say, "Maybe we should slow down a bit because we don't yet have all the relevant information," the typical response is "You're a fu*king idiot!"

[Horsefly]

21 minutes ago, Belly Bob said:

I'd encourage you to reread the many different threads on this topic.

We have a consistent account of the event. The three different reports of the event I've read all agree on the details of the event: two black guys sat in Starbucks for a period of time, didn't buy anything, asked to use the bathroom, were told that the bathroom is for paying customers only, were asked to buy something or to leave, didn't buy anything or leave, were asked by the police to leave, and didn't leave, were arrested on suspicion of trespassing, and were released from custody when Starbucks declined to press charges. 

We have simple, straightforward, sufficient explanations of why the two guys were refused access to the bathroom, why they were asked to leave, and why they were arrested, none of which appeal to the fact that the guys were black.

So you tell me: if a lack of evidence for the claim that the fact of their blackness wasn't incidental to this matter, then why is the title of the thread "Arrested for being black?" and why are so many posters convinced that Starbuck or the police (or both) are obviously guilty of racism? Why is the BLM protesting? Why are certain people refusing to accept the CEO's apology and calling for the manager to be fired? 

You're a psychology guy. You tell me whether evidence really matters. 

 

One of the things I said from the very beginning was to pay attention to what the witnesses were saying.  And many complained that they had themselves not bought anything, used the restroom without incident.  It's a common practice at Starbucks that it's treated as a public place to do business, etc.  being black is not incidental, it's integral as many accuse this Starbucks mgt of implicit bias.  That's the issue.  

Not really want to get into a back and forth, the subject is tiring.  Just offering how others are viewing it.  

 

[noonereal]

Just now, Drummer61 said:

Those little snot nosed, picky, sweettoothed and faggy walking and talking subjects from the left........No brothers with baggy pants or gold teeth go there either,that pisses me off.....

You know, I admit I don't care much for people but I don't hate them at all. 

You, my brother, hate an awful lot of them but I never hear you admit it straight up as I admit my disappointment in them. 

[Belly Bob]

7 minutes ago, Horsefly said:

One of the things I said from the very beginning was to pay attention to what the witnesses were saying.  And many complained that they had themselves not bought anything, used the restroom without incident.  It's a common practice at Starbucks that it's treated as a public place to do business, etc.  being black is not incidental, it's integral as many accuse this Starbucks mgt of implicit bias.  That's the issue.  

Not really want to get into a back and forth, the subject is tiring.  Just offering how others are viewing it.  

I didn't read that "many had complained that they had themselves not bought anything". I read one lady who tweeted something like "all the white ppl were wondering why this never happens to them," which struck me as wildly implausible.

Different Starbucks run differently. The one's near UC Berkeley, for example, do not let you use the bathroom or hang out and study unless you buy something. 

I don't know why you would think that it's okay to use a Starbucks to do business if you don't buy anything, especially after the employees there tell you that Starbucks is not a public place to do business unless you buy something. 

[noonereal]

Just now, Horsefly said:

One of the things I said from the very beginning was to pay attention to what the witnesses were saying.  And many complained that they had themselves not bought anything, used the restroom without incident.  It's a common practice at Starbucks that it's treated as a public place to do business, etc.  being black is not incidental, it's integral as many accuse this Starbucks mgt of implicit bias.  That's the issue.  

 

 

All the witnesses can do is tell what happened not why it happened. 

As with the examples I gave yesterday, that I lived, people always see through biased eyes. 

I would suspect if this happened in a non liberal area, maybe in a deep red state, the "good ole boys" would have witnessed no racism just two guys loitering. 

Both groups of witnesses then passing polygraphs.

It's just how humans are. 

[Belly Bob]

2 minutes ago, noonereal said:

All the witnesses can do is tell what happened not why it happened. 

[...]

Exactly.

What the witnesses report is evidence, but it's not by itself sufficient to determine anything. 

[Horsefly]

Just now, Belly Bob said:

I didn't read that "many had complained that they had themselves not bought anything". I read one lady who tweeted that something like "all the white ppl were wondering why this never happens to them," which struck me as wildly implausible.

Different Starbucks run differently. The one's near UC Berkeley, for example, do not let you use the bathroom or hang out and study unless you buy something. 

I don't know you would think that it's okay to use a Starbucks to do business if you don't buy anything, especially after the employees there tell you that Starbucks is not a public place to do business unless you buy something. 

they wondered that bc they themselves had done the very thing in the past.  From their view there was no reason to single out these guys for something that is routine for that Starbucks.  

The store has a right to run their business however they want.  I dont hang out at a location unless I buy something, but that's me.

[Horsefly]

9 minutes ago, noonereal said:

All the witnesses can do is tell what happened not why it happened. 

As with the examples I gave yesterday, that I lived, people always see through biased eyes. 

I would suspect if this happened in a non liberal area, maybe in a deep red state, the "good ole boys" would have witnessed no racism just two guys loitering. 

Both groups of witnesses then passing polygraphs.

It's just how humans are. 

You may never know the true WHY, people do lie to cya all the time.  

Biases exist but we try to mitigate the impact as much as possible.  We all don't throw up our hands and so "oh well" 

[Belly Bob]

13 minutes ago, Horsefly said:

[...]  being black is not incidental, it's integral as many accuse this Starbucks mgt of implicit bias.  That's the issue.  

[...]

But the question is what the hard evidence is for the accusation that implicit bias was an important factor here and why anyone would call for the manager to be reprimanded or fired for having implicit biases. They're implicit biases.

[noonereal]

Just now, Horsefly said:

You may never know the true WHY, people do lie 

agree

But I need to know more, the questions I asked above,  before I am able to summarize. 

 

[Belly Bob]

5 minutes ago, Horsefly said:

they wondered that bc they themselves had done the very thing in the past.  From their view there was no reason to single out these guys for something that is routine for that Starbucks.  

[...]

Where's the hard evidence for claim that these guys were singled out on this particular occasion?

[Horsefly]

I wil also say I think the national attention this has gotten is way over the top.  This is a singular event at one store and is not indicative of a systemic problem, unlike Plessy Vs Ferguson or Brown vs Board of education which had national implications for separate and equal facilities.  

[Belly Bob]

9 minutes ago, Horsefly said:

[...]

Biases exist but we try to mitigate the impact as much as possible.  We all don't throw up our hands and so "oh well" 

I agree 100 percent.

But implicit bias is itself a complicated issue. There isn't yet broad consensus among psychologists that the tests for implicit biases show what they're supposed to show and it's anything but clear how to correct for them. 

NOR may have more to say about this, but the impression I get is that "implicit bias training" is generally looked at with suspicion among psychologists.

[noonereal]

Just now, Drummer61 said:

No hate.

It sure comes off as hate.