Unconscious Bias and Conscious Selection training.
- Thread starter PhilFish
- Start date
freyasman
Senator
Bad enough you gotta work at Starbucks, now you got to deal with being insulted and humiliated in order to keep your shitty Starbucks job.
connieb
Senator
Mass indoctrination one lefty company at a time.
S
Sickofleft
Guest
I am confused, a person or two come into your restaurant or coffee shop, sit and order nothing. They are asked to leave, they don't......Manager cannot physically remove someone from the store because they would be charged with assault......calls the police they still do not leave on their own....said persons are placed under arrest...............
So what is the training for exactly? If a person of color comes in and orders nothing and takes up space they are allowed to stay? Because asking someone to do otherwise is some "unconscious bias"?
It is amazing that Starbucks is as successful as it is because after seeing a interview with the CEO, I can only say that the company is run by a guy who appears to be functionally [Unwelcome language removed] retarded.
So what is the training for exactly? If a person of color comes in and orders nothing and takes up space they are allowed to stay? Because asking someone to do otherwise is some "unconscious bias"?
It is amazing that Starbucks is as successful as it is because after seeing a interview with the CEO, I can only say that the company is run by a guy who appears to be functionally [Unwelcome language removed] retarded.
freyasman
Senator
Among the folks that Starbucks seeks as customers, it is more important to be seen as virtue-signalling, and apologetic for your very existence, than it is to be perceived as a retard for illogical behavior. Folks who look at the reaction of Starbucks and go; "That's just [Unwelcome language removed] stupid...", are probably not spending a lot of money there anyway.
You know, don't you, @PhilFish that there are people who believe white people are racist simply because their skin is pale. Same people who think snow is racist......I'm sure of it.
Starbucks is frantically trying to cover its arse instead of standing up and saying stop this lunacy. The way corporations are run into the dirt by the media these days, can you blame Starbucks?
freyasman
Senator
We need to do what they do; stop spending our money in these places as much as possible. Stay off FB, get Gab instead of twitter, close your account with BoA, all of it, stop shopping at, and using these places that either hate us, or are just too cowardly to support us....
When a business, or service is identified as a bunch of jackasses, we need to withdraw our patronage.
No doubt that's the best way to do it.
marvin martian
Emperor
Yes! I've been practicing this for years. Haven't bought anything in a SB in at least 5 years, and I deleted my Faceborg account years ago. They don't deserve the sweat off my balls, much less a penny of the money I actually work for.
Zam-Zam
Senator
Preservation of corporate image, aka CYA......
I suspect it may be more about the press release than it is about the 'training'.......
Tor-Pete-O
Mayor
Charcat
One of the Patsy's
Can you see what's likely to come? I can see all restaurants, coffee shops, etc. being filled with BLM members and other protestors--just sitting. Of course they will be allowed to stay, thereby keeping legitimate customers from being served and a major loss of business. Why? Just because they can, and this country is totally messed up.
connieb
Senator
Let it happen. The only people who are going to allow this in their establishments will be lefty nutters anyway. It will make the rest of us know what places we should avoid. If the owners don't have the balls to stand up to such blatant intimidation - then they deserve everyhing they get.
connieb
Senator
Damn that poor schmuck doesn't get paid enough to put up with some crazed SJW nutter with a dam bull horn in his face.
freyasman
Senator
http://thefederalist.com/2018/04/17/moralizing-in-america/
From the link;
"Blame The Left For The Rise Of Moralizing In America
Progressives and social justice warriors today are in the business of moralizing, which isn't the same thing as being moral.
By John Daniel Davidson
APRIL 17, 2018
Dean Acheson, who orchestrated the Marshall Plan and helped create the North Atlantic Treaty Organizaation, had no use for moralizing in foreign policy. He once said that listening to pious Canadians discuss foreign affairs was like listening to the “stern daughter of the voice of God.”
His point was that there’s a big difference between being moral and moralizing. Being moral is about changing the way you act and actually helping others. It requires humility and tolerance because it arises from an awareness of one’s own moral failings.
Moralizing, by contrast, is about changing the way other people act—by force if necessary. Moralizing breeds intolerance and even tyranny because it springs from a belief that, like the pious Canadians, not only do you know the truth but you also have a solemn duty to impose it on others.
In America today, being moral is out and moralizing is in. Just witness the nonstop spectacle of moralizing everywhere you turn—from The New Yorker’s panicked denunciation of Chick-fil-A’s “infiltration” of New York, to gun control activist David Hogg’s boycotts, to the protestor with a megaphone shouting in a Starbucks clerk’s face.
YOUR INDUSTRY CAN BURN. HOW DARE YOU? YOU TINY SOULS. YOU MALIGNANT PROFESSIONALS. HOW DARE YOU TREAT ANYONE THIS WAY GODDAMN YOU pic.twitter.com/MUUqTa6qeV
— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) April 16, 2018
The Apu Affair
Not even “The Simpsons,” which has been around for 30 years, is immune to the moralizers of our day. We’re told now that Apu, the beloved Indian-American owner of Springfield’s Kwik-E-Mart, is a hateful racist stereotype of Indian-Americans and should be removed from the show, preferably with a simpering public apology from the show’s creators. Comedian Hari Kondabolu, an Indian-American, made an entire documentary about how he’s offended by Apu.
A recent episode of “The Simpsons” responded to Kondabolu with a scene of Marge reading Lisa a politically correct—and boring—bedtime story. At one point, Lisa faces the camera and says, “Something that started decades ago and was applauded and inoffensive is now politically incorrect. What can you do?” The camera then pans to a framed picture of Apu with the line, “Don’t have a cow!” written on it.
The Simpsons goes after politically correct critics, singling out "The Problem With Apu” https://t.co/4QRHsUJnd9 pic.twitter.com/HZRYPWoqaI
— Jon Levine (@LevineJonathan) April 9, 2018
Kondabolu and other critics proceeded to have a cow, accusing the show of trivializing their problems with Apu and the supposed racism and negative stereotyping his character foments.
Nevermind that Apu, as Tunku Varadarajan recently noted in the Wall Street Journal, “represents the American trajectory of immigrant success and assimilation,” or that he’s been a beloved character on “The Simpsons” for three decades without provoking widespread outrage. The real problem with Kondabolu’s critique is that its entire purpose is to control what others do. He wants “The Simpsons” to purge Apu from the show, apologize for causing offense, and submit to his pop cultural prerogatives.
The moral response to such moralizing is to say that if Kondabolu and others are offended by Apu’s character, they should go create their own comedy show and leave “The Simpsons” alone. In that sense, the show’s muted response demonstrates one effective way to respond to petty moralizers: not with an apology, but with disdain."
More at the link.
