| "the men hadn’t ordered anything and were reportedly waiting for a business associate to arrive" Yes, because you won't get a coffee or something just to look a bit more casual when making that million dollar deal. These suspicions are retarded. |
| I never liked Starbucks anyway |
 Nico- said: Conversations with people pinging/quoting me to argue about some old post I wrote years ago will not be entertained@Comic_Sans oh no y arnt ppl dieing i need more ppl dieing rly gud plot avansement jus liek tokyo ghoul if erbudy dies amirite |
Comic_Sans said: I never liked Starbucks anyway I know, it's overpriced and geared towards far left sjws. |
 |
| Disgusting. People loiter all the fucking time anywhere, this was absolutely a race issue. Just goes to show, if you're black in the US, you better not sit anywhere, say anything, look at white people, drive and especially do not be holding anything in your hand. Hoppy said: Comic_Sans said: I never liked Starbucks anyway I know, it's overpriced and geared towards far left sjws. I know you have a hate boner for the far left sjw boogeyman, maybe you'd be a little more comfortable at a nice little Fascist Cafe? Would that be more your speed? |
 |
Hias said: Disgusting. People loiter all the fucking time anywhere, this was absolutely a race issue. Just goes to show, if you're black in the US, you better not sit anywhere, say anything, look at white people, drive and especially do not be holding anything in your hand. I know you have a hate boner for the far left sjw boogeyman, maybe you'd be a little more comfortable at a nice little Fascist Cafe? Would that be more your speed? No, I want no extremism at all, left or right. |
|
| Testimony from the girl who shot the video saying that other people in the same Starbucks on the same day were “loitering” & admitted to doing so, but were never asked to leave for it http://6abc.com/amp/what-a-witness-says-happened-during-phila-starbucks-arrests/3342444/?__twitter_impression=true apparent eyewitness testimony from twitter as well  What the fuck is wrong with this country? |
nicethings said: Testimony from the girl who shot the video saying that other people in the same Starbucks on the same day were “loitering” & admitted to doing so, but were never asked to leave for it http://6abc.com/amp/what-a-witness-says-happened-during-phila-starbucks-arrests/3342444/?__twitter_impression=true apparent eyewitness testimony from twitter as well What the fuck is wrong with this country? everything. Luckily I don't live in America. |
What's worse are the idiots who are defending the action of the police and swearing left and right that there must more to this; a little problematic on their part if their first assumption is that these two were doing something wrong just because they were black. And the people who love to say that "they're just upholding the law!" are equally worse, you have assholes who come in with their laptops and just use their wifi all day, why didn't any Starbucks management team call the police on them? They're using a precious table that could have been used for someone else who was dumb enough to buy a $5 coffee. |
|
| A Coffeehouse is a private Property. As such, they have every Right in the World to call the Police when someone doesn't abide by their Rules. |
Hias said: What's worse are the idiots who are defending the action of the police and swearing left and right that there must more to this; a little problematic on their part if their first assumption is that these two were doing something wrong just because they were black. And the people who love to say that "they're just upholding the law!" are equally worse, you have assholes who come in with their laptops and just use their wifi all day, why didn't any Starbucks management team call the police on them? They're using a precious table that could have been used for someone else who was dumb enough to buy a $5 coffee. You've already mentioned the points i was going to make when i entered the thread. So i'll just bump this instead for all those that'll inevitably enter this thread with same bullshit assumptions. |
 Recommend me some short Manga! |
Noboru said: A Coffeehouse is a private Property. As such, they have every Right in the World to call the Police when someone doesn't abide by their Rules. Except the CEO has been doing damage control, and has said that he wants to meet the both of them for a face-to-face apology. I expect the racist ass manager who called the police in the first place won't be having a job much longer either. So you defending this doesn't make much sense since even the CEO of the company apparently isn't going to let this slide into obscurity. |
|
Noboru said: A Coffeehouse is a private Property. As such, they have every Right in the World to call the Police when someone doesn't abide by their Rules. Uh? what rules where they breaking? |
alaciko_ said: Noboru said: A Coffeehouse is a private Property. As such, they have every Right in the World to call the Police when someone doesn't abide by their Rules. Uh? what rules where they breaking? apparently the coffeehouse is now skyrim  |
| "among monsters and humans, there are only two types. Those who undergo suffering and spread it to others. And those who undergo suffering and avoid giving it to others." -Alice “Beauty is no quality in things themselves: It exists merely in the mind which contemplates them; and each mind perceives a different beauty.” David Hume “Evil is created when someone gives up on someone else. It appears when everyone gives up on someone as a lost cause and removes their path to salvation. Once they are cut off from everyone else, they become evil.” -Othinus  |
| I read the thread of a girl who was there and it's just maddening to me. It's racism people. Wake the fuck up. |
 |
| t AdolChri said: Noboru said: A Coffeehouse is a private Property. As such, they have every Right in the World to call the Police when someone doesn't abide by their Rules. Oh yes, let's call the police on every person that enters in a shop and doesn't immediately buy anything immediately. For ANYONE. Let's see how fun it is. that is why you go to family owned coffee businesses |
| Yeah if you loiter around and refuse to leave when asked, you deserve to get arrested. The employees at the store aren't able to read their mind and determine they're telling the truth. They could be waiting for the ideal opportunity to rob the place. If you refuse to do business, then you have no business remaining inside of a business. |
| I hesitate to blame Starbucks (the corporation), since they can only have so much control over their hundreds of thousands of employees. The staff responsible should definitely be fired though, at minimum. Not really sure what the police were thinking either. The guys deserve compensation. Noboru said: A Coffeehouse is a private Property. As such, they have every Right in the World to call the Police when someone doesn't abide by their Rules. Thrashinuva said: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=tone-deafYeah if you loiter around and refuse to leave when asked, you deserve to get arrested. The employees at the store aren't able to read their mind and determine they're telling the truth. They could be waiting for the ideal opportunity to rob the place. If you refuse to do business, then you have no business remaining inside of a business. |
LoneWolf said: @Josh makes me sad to call myself Canadian. |
| That'll teach them to be black! Thrashinuva said: Yeah if you loiter around and refuse to leave when asked, you deserve to get arrested. The employees at the store aren't able to read their mind and determine they're telling the truth. They could be waiting for the ideal opportunity to rob the place. If you refuse to do business, then you have no business remaining inside of a business. Starbucks of all places is the one spot where people go specifically to loiter.... I've seen people go with laptops and sit there for hours and not even order anything... If anything this makes Starbucks look really fucking bad...which is fine by me, because FUCK Starbucks and their insanely overpriced coffee. As for the guys...I would've told the employees to go fuck themselves and their minimum wage status and taken my business elsewhere. These black dudes learned a valuable lesson...if some wagecuck asks you to leave...you should probably do so. They have a shit job and any small amount of power they get, they'll make sure to use. |
alaciko_ said: Read the f.. ine Article linked in the OP before asking stupid Questions:Uh? what rules where they breaking? The staff reportedly called 911 because Starbucks does “not allow nonpaying people from the public to come in and use the restroom,” Philadelphia Police Commissioner Richard Ross told the Philadelphia Inquirer. The employees said the men were trespassing and had refused to leave the restaurant. This also applies to @AdolChriHias said: He only needed Damage Control because the Reactions had been blown out of Proportions. Had a Person of Caucasian, European Origin been kicked out after refusing to leave like that, I'm sure that no one would have cared. Except the CEO has been doing damage control, and has said that he wants to meet the both of them for a face-to-face apology. I expect the racist ass manager who called the police in the first place won't be having a job much longer either. @Josh: Say directly what you want to say or let it be. |
NoboruApr 15, 2018 12:05 PM
Noboru said: alaciko_ said: Read the f.. ine Article linked in the OP before asking stupid Questions:Uh? what rules where they breaking? Thats not a rule. I've been starbucks plently of times and sat down without ordering a drink. Its discrimination dumbass. If starbucks did that they wouldn't get as much customers . |
alaciko_ said: The Reasoning given was that Starbucks does "not allow nonpaying people from the public to come in and use the restroom", so why is that People still talk about "leeching off WiFi" and/or about just sitting down "without ordering a drink"?Thats not a rule. I've been starbucks plently of times and sat down without ordering a drink. Its discrimination dumbass. If starbucks did that they wouldn't get as much customers . Are Reading Comprehension Skills that bad or do some Users here have just a short Attention Span? |
| Anyone defending the wagecuck employees or the Starbucks "rules" needs to get remember that Starbucks is very well known for having people walk in and just chill at their establishment....regardless if they're paying customers or not. Is Starbucks gonna come out and say "OK, no more loitering at our locations"? I don't think so. Fire the employee responsible (because, who fucking cares, he's just a number anyway) do damage control, offer the guys free coffee for a year or something and you'll be fine. |
Noboru said: alaciko_ said: The Reasoning given was that Starbucks does "not allow nonpaying people from the public to come in and use the restroom", so why is that People still talk about "leeching off WiFi" and/or about just sitting down "without ordering a drink"?Thats not a rule. I've been starbucks plently of times and sat down without ordering a drink. Its discrimination dumbass. If starbucks did that they wouldn't get as much customers . Are Reading Comprehension Skills that bad or do some Users here have just a short Attention Span? Have you ever been Starbucks? |
alaciko_ said: No, because I cannot be a Shop. If you've meant "Have you ever been to Starbucks?" and I assume that "to Starbucks" means "to a Starbucks Shop", then yes, I have been to one. If however for some Reason you were referring to the Starbucks Headquarters, then no, I haven't been there. Have you ever been Starbucks? |
| Good. The black man has no business inside a Starbucks. Mocha frappuccinos and pumpkin spice lattes are only for white people. |
 |
| @Noboru It's very simple. (1) Waiting until your full party arrives before ordering is an utterly normal practice in North America. Anyone working at a restaurant or cafe would be familiar with it. (2) Starbucks is known for having an extremely lax view of loitering. It's nearly impossible to go into any Starbucks and not find at least a few people loitering or appearing to do so. (3) Racism in America. The combination of those points explain why it is difficult to believe that the staff called the police on the men because they were reasonably interpreted as being disruptive "nonpaying people." The alternative explanation — that the men were racially profiled — is much easier to believe. |
LoneWolf said: @Josh makes me sad to call myself Canadian. |
| That's a stupid reason to arrest people, especially if they said they were waiting for someone. Maybe if they were there for an hour and people were waiting to sit down, and then they told them to fuck off when confronted. I'm not quite ready to abandon all intellectual honesty as to not side with "the left" on something. |
 I can see you |
--ALEX-- said: Anyone defending the wagecuck employees or the Starbucks "rules" needs to get remember that Starbucks is very well known for having people walk in and just chill at their establishment....regardless if they're paying customers or not. Is Starbucks gonna come out and say "OK, no more loitering at our locations"? I don't think so. Fire the employee responsible (because, who fucking cares, he's just a number anyway) do damage control, offer the guys free coffee for a year or something and you'll be fine. This, it's probably some disgruntled employee, you get a lot of them these days in restaurants since the 2008 economic crisis, even Mcdonalds have some really testy employees lately that was unheard of 15-20 years ago. |
|
Josh said: Even simpler: refer to #23 or to https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/4/14/17238494/what-happened-at-starbucks-black-men-arrested-philadelphia from #1. It's very simple. |
--ALEX-- said: If they decided to be customers then I'm sure they would have been allowed to stay.That'll teach them to be black! Thrashinuva said: Yeah if you loiter around and refuse to leave when asked, you deserve to get arrested. The employees at the store aren't able to read their mind and determine they're telling the truth. They could be waiting for the ideal opportunity to rob the place. If you refuse to do business, then you have no business remaining inside of a business. Starbucks of all places is the one spot where people go specifically to loiter.... I've seen people go with laptops and sit there for hours and not even order anything... If anything this makes Starbucks look really fucking bad...which is fine by me, because FUCK Starbucks and their insanely overpriced coffee. As for the guys...I would've told the employees to go fuck themselves and their minimum wage status and taken my business elsewhere. These black dudes learned a valuable lesson...if some wagecuck asks you to leave...you should probably do so. They have a shit job and any small amount of power they get, they'll make sure to use. And I'm sure the majority of people who use it to hang out also know they should at least buy something to drink. Just because one establishment lets you get away with it doesn't mean they all should or will. |
Noboru said: alaciko_ said: The Reasoning given was that Starbucks does "not allow nonpaying people from the public to come in and use the restroom", so why is that People still talk about "leeching off WiFi" and/or about just sitting down "without ordering a drink"?Thats not a rule. I've been starbucks plently of times and sat down without ordering a drink. Its discrimination dumbass. If starbucks did that they wouldn't get as much customers . Are Reading Comprehension Skills that bad or do some Users here have just a short Attention Span? Maybe because both of them are basically abusing the business services without paying? So it's kind of stupid to say "okay loitering is fine in any situation but if you ask to use the bathroom once you're a nuisance and will be directed to leave or be arrested" I also highly doubt that any reasonable business would have such a strict implementation of an extremely specific scenario given how lax they are with people loitering in the shop. Hell imagine the horror if one of the several people loitering in an average Starbucks actually went into the bathroom without asking might as well burn down the store at that point. |
Noboru said: Hence "tone-deaf." Your interpretation ignores all of the relevant context and instead converts reality into an over-simplistic set of logical propositions. "A is against the rules. Acting against the rules gets you arrested. They did A. They acted against the rules. They got arrested. Everything checks outs!"Josh said: Even simpler: refer to #23 or to https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/4/14/17238494/what-happened-at-starbucks-black-men-arrested-philadelphia from #1. It's very simple. |
LoneWolf said: @Josh makes me sad to call myself Canadian. |
| lmao why doesn't this suprise me.. |
 |
AdolChri said: They were called after refusing to leave.Yeah, except Caucasians don't get called the police called on them because they are waiting to order. Josh said: I can listen to Music fine and dandy. ]Hence "tone-deaf." Your interpretation ignores all of the relevant context and instead converts reality into an over-simplistic set of logical propositions. "A is against the rules. Acting against the rules gets you arrested. They did A. They acted against the rules. They got arrested. Everything checks outs!" What if it's really a simple Issue that gets blown up in a "racial" Issue where it's actually not one? Similar to how a single Case alone won't prove that People of a certain Origin are more or less likely to become Criminals. GamerDLM said: That's a fair enough Point and I would have appreciated it, if People had worded it like that from the Beginning instead of playing Language Games and letting others fill in the missing Information (which is that it was meant as a Comparison) for themselves.Maybe because both of them are basically abusing the business services without paying? So it's kind of stupid to say "okay loitering is fine in any situation but if you ask to use the bathroom once you're a nuisance and will be directed to leave or be arrested" I guess the Problem about the Comparison is that when you just sit around, you're much less suspicious. Maybe they learn to just not ask and play stupid next Time ("Sorry, I didn't know it") or to just order some Water. |
| i've loitered at starbucks before with no issues racist or not it was a huge overreaction |
 |
| So let's summarize: If this wasn't starbucks, none of you would care. If these were white guys, none of you would care. But because they're black and they're at starbucks, you care. May I suggest that maybe the employee at starbucks didn't care about either fact, that it was at starbucks or that they were black? May I also suggest that none of you who care actually have ever had to deal with a customer who wouldn't leave? "But I break the rules all the time! Why can't they be allowed to break the rules?!" Get out of here with that stupid logic. "But Starbucks NEVER enforces loitering rules." What are you, present in every Starbucks 24/7? Grow a brain for a second and learn to doubt your snap judgements. I'll tell you how to come to the biased conclusion you want to come to: Go find out how long these two were loitering for, find out the other side of the story, and find out how often this particular Starbucks had to enforce a loitering policy. Find out if these two men have created problems in the past and are repeat offenders. If you want to cry racism, find out the race and race relations surrounding the employee(s) who called for police. Present these facts and their sources for us to see and accept your judgement. If you can't even do this, then you're judgemental garbage. Learn to not be so holier than thou and grow some consideration. |
| What the hell? My friends and I go to Starbucks just to study for our exams. Maybe occasionally we buy shit but usually we just use their wifi, lol. I hope the people who called the cops get in trouble and I hope the cops who arrested them get fined & fired. Screw racism. Also Dunkin Donuts FTW. |
 |
| I recommend you watch the police chiefs video he made explaining the situation. I bet VOX probably didn't include that in their article. I could be wrong though. |
 |
I'm surprised the Starbucks didn't have Bulletproof glass like all the other stores there.  |
Thrashinuva said: So let's summarize: If this wasn't starbucks, none of you would care. If these were white guys, none of you would care. But because they're black and they're at starbucks, you care. May I suggest that maybe the employee at starbucks didn't care about either fact, that it was at starbucks or that they were black? May I also suggest that none of you who care actually have ever had to deal with a customer who wouldn't leave? "But I break the rules all the time! Why can't they be allowed to break the rules?!" Get out of here with that stupid logic. "But Starbucks NEVER enforces loitering rules." What are you, present in every Starbucks 24/7? Grow a brain for a second and learn to doubt your snap judgements. I'll tell you how to come to the biased conclusion you want to come to: Go find out how long these two were loitering for, find out the other side of the story, and find out how often this particular Starbucks had to enforce a loitering policy. Find out if these two men have created problems in the past and are repeat offenders. If you want to cry racism, find out the race and race relations surrounding the employee(s) who called for police. Present these facts and their sources for us to see and accept your judgement. If you can't even do this, then you're judgemental garbage. Learn to not be so holier than thou and grow some consideration. This is Starbucks own fault for NOT having a loitering policy which a ton of people take advantage of. No one is going to loiter in a bank (for example) because banks have strict rules about that. But Starbucks is notorious for allowing people inside, letting them stay for HOURS and being cool with that. IF tomorrow the company says “ok, no more loitering, get your coffee and leave”....what do you think the response will be? It will be negative....because Starbucks WANTS you to loiter....this increases the chance that you buy their coffee or food...even if you didn’t originally intended to purchase something at the beginning. The context matters a lot in this case....the fact that the company is already APOLOGIZING means they know they fucked up and didn’t handle the situation correctly. |
--ALEX-- said: Thrashinuva said: So let's summarize: If this wasn't starbucks, none of you would care. If these were white guys, none of you would care. But because they're black and they're at starbucks, you care. May I suggest that maybe the employee at starbucks didn't care about either fact, that it was at starbucks or that they were black? May I also suggest that none of you who care actually have ever had to deal with a customer who wouldn't leave? "But I break the rules all the time! Why can't they be allowed to break the rules?!" Get out of here with that stupid logic. "But Starbucks NEVER enforces loitering rules." What are you, present in every Starbucks 24/7? Grow a brain for a second and learn to doubt your snap judgements. I'll tell you how to come to the biased conclusion you want to come to: Go find out how long these two were loitering for, find out the other side of the story, and find out how often this particular Starbucks had to enforce a loitering policy. Find out if these two men have created problems in the past and are repeat offenders. If you want to cry racism, find out the race and race relations surrounding the employee(s) who called for police. Present these facts and their sources for us to see and accept your judgement. If you can't even do this, then you're judgemental garbage. Learn to not be so holier than thou and grow some consideration. This is Starbucks own fault for NOT having a loitering policy which a ton of people take advantage of. No one is going to loiter in a bank (for example) because banks have strict rules about that. But Starbucks is notorious for allowing people inside, letting them stay for HOURS and being cool with that. IF tomorrow the company says “ok, no more loitering, get your coffee and leave”....what do you think the response will be? It will be negative....because Starbucks WANTS you to loiter....this increases the chance that you buy their coffee or food...even if you didn’t originally intended to purchase something at the beginning. The context matters a lot in this case....the fact that the company is already APOLOGIZING means they know they fucked up and didn’t handle the situation correctly. What are you blind? I already addressed all of this, in what you quoted no less. ""But Starbucks NEVER enforces loitering rules." What are you, present in every Starbucks 24/7? Grow a brain for a second and learn to doubt your snap judgements." First of all even if Starbucks as a whole had a policy to let people loiter, they were still asked to leave, and should have done so then. This is the reason they were arrested, because they refused to leave when asked, not because they were seen loitering. |
| >Be Starbucks >Have no active loitering rule >notorious for “hang out” spot where people leech off their wifi and chill >Random wagecuck decides to be a big man and enforce non-existing loitering rule >Customer is justifiably surprised by barista fuck trying to kick his ass out >Starfuck employee uses “I’m gonna call the cops” card, so brave, Customer is a clear and present danger >Customer still mystified by some lowly coffee mule, shrugs off empty threat >Philly Police show up >Black Customer >IFuckedup.jpg |
More topics from this board
Sticky: » The Current Events Board Will Be Closed on Friday JST ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Luna - Aug 2, 2021 |
271 |
by traed
»»
Aug 5, 2021 5:56 PM |
|
» Third shot of Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine offers big increase in antibody levels: study ( 1 2 )Desolated - Jul 30, 2021 |
50 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:24 PM |
|
» Western vaccine producers engage in shameless profiteering while poorer countries are supplied mainly by China.Desolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
1 |
by Bourmegar
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:23 PM |
|
» NLRB officer says Amazon violated US labor lawDesolated - Aug 3, 2021 |
17 |
by kitsune0
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:41 PM |
|
» China Backs Cuba in Saying US Should Apply Sanctions To ItselfDesolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
10 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:36 PM |