Is it time to switch from Starbucks to Peet's? - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Is it time to switch from Starbucks to Peet's?

Yes++ I already drink Peet's. Starbucks is for sissies.
No votes
0%
Yes. WTF are they thinking?
4
19%
No. I prefer an establishment that lectures me on racism and caters to loiterers over paying customers.
7
33%
Other.
10
48%
#14907875
Sivad wrote:It's not hate, but implicit bias is a problem. Unfortunately certain demographics are subconsciously associated with trouble, but that's due almost entirely to the dysfunctional behavior prevalent within those demographics, not some deep rooted bigotry. I'm sure it seems like bigotry to the more functional within those demographics when they encounter it, but it's really not.

You do realize you just said bigotry is the - black, brown, yellow, red, - peoples own fault?

They are collectively guilty of "dysfunctional behavior."

That's straight out of the Klu Klux Clan's handbook. ?

Zam
#14907880
Um, no.

Loitering laws are still enforced everywhere. They are not obsolete.

Tell that to mum and pop businesses. They'd laugh at you, then call the cops on you. Cops would come tell you to leave.

Even Shopping Centres get cleared out by their security.

They do apply. Only idiots who've never been involved in small business themselves think the Customer is God, therefore cannot be legally kicked out for any reason.
Last edited by colliric on 20 Apr 2018 09:13, edited 1 time in total.
#14907884
Other - NO.
I prefer not spending $5 for a coffee.

Good job, Blackjack21. Keep up the good work on making conservatives awesome, with your awesomely childish poll.

Sivad wrote:Most forums only have like one or two people who are always saying dumb shit and can't keep up, pofo has an assload. What's up with that?
You can always stop saying dumb shit, and keep up. :D
#14907908
Zamuel wrote:They proved you wrong ... Little old ladies who defy illegal government use of authority cannot be "arrested" with impunity for doing so, as you suggested. This is a principle that applies in quite a variety of pertinent situations. In the Video you haven't got time to watch, 3 people are stopped at an immigration check point and asked if they are citizens. They decline to answer. When asked to pull into a detention area, they refuse (a polite no thank you) and state their desire to continue on their way. The immigration guys try and insist that setting up a checkpoint gives them some kind of right to stop people without any probable cause. It doesn't. And after threatening and intimidating these guys for about 5 minutes ... the immigration guys just let them go.


The guys at the Starbucks were arrested for trespassing on the basis of the managers complaint. Vagrancy and loitering laws are obsolete in this day of homeless people and shopping malls. They do not apply. I'm sure the cops told them to leave, and they refused ... Hence the arrest. In this case, confronting the police did provide a solution ... That will likely have a lasting effect (at Starbucks anyway.)

This was just a small tyranny, perpetrated by a manager with some personal issues. But confronting tyranny, no matter how small the issue, is essential to the American way of life. Police or no police, it is not wrong to do so. it is the only acceptable solution. Allowing it breeds new Nazis, and we have to many of those already.

It's not inconsequential ... it's freedom, for all of us.

Zam


What possible reason is there not to answer if you are a US citizen? Whether it is a cop or a stranger on the street, what’s the big deal? Why make an issue out of a harmless question?
I agree we should all be willing to stand up to tyranny. I object to people believing these are examples of tyranny. This is just pettiness. Pull at too many harmless threads and everything unravels.
This is the problem I see today. Too many people with no real problems eager to create some so they can be heroes in their own minds. As you have shown, people posting their ‘bravery’ for not answering a question.
Same with the Starbucks issue. Depending upon which story you believe, someone is trying to be a hero in their own mind.
#14907913
Whether you can use the bathroom in Starbucks without paying (which is not exactly what these guys did) depends a lot upon the nature of the area you're in. If it's in a nice area they'll probably let you do it. If it isn't, they probably won't.

So here's the catch-22 for the left. Areas with more blacks are not as nice, so you're less likely to get to use the restroom there without a key. And according to the modern definition of racism, that's racist, even though this Starbucks was apparently run by a far-left vegan lesbian, said manager is still going to do basic things to keep thee business running successfully, so now we have a racist far-left vegan lesbian Starbucks manager.
#14907920
One Degree wrote:I agree we should all be willing to stand up to tyranny. I object to people believing these are examples of tyranny.

So? you figure it was ok when the Gestapo were doing the same things ... ?

Papers please ...

Zam
#14907922
Zamuel wrote:So? you figure it was ok when the Gestapo were doing the same things ... ?

Papers please ...

Zam


No one asked for papers. They asked a question. Even if they ask for ‘proof of citizenship’, why would you be entering another country without identification? I fail to see any reason to object.
#14907925
colliric wrote:Um, no. Loitering laws are still enforced everywhere. They are not obsolete.

I didn't say they weren't on the books, I said - "Vagrancy and loitering laws are obsolete in this day of homeless people and shopping malls." They are generally not enforceable. Here's a short summary on loitering and the SC decisions supporting it.

https://www.citylab.com/life/2014/09/a-guide-to-legal-loitering/380615/

Loitering is protected, first and foremost, by the 14th Amendment. The courts have generally recognized that the right to due process includes the liberty to “remove from one place to another according to inclination,” in the words of a 1900 decision. The right to loiter has also faced two substantial recent challenges. In 1972, Margaret Papachristou challenged a vagrancy ordinance in Jacksonville, Florida, on the grounds that it was too vague; she won. The court found the ordinance encouraged arbitrary and erratic arrests, placing “almost unfettered discretion in the hands of the police.”

Twenty-five years later, the Chicago v. Morales case challenged a 1990 city ordinance banning gang members from loitering. Though the ordinance had support from some members of Chicago's minority communities, the defendant, with backing from the ACLU, won. "[T]he vagueness that dooms this ordinance is not the product of uncertainty about the normal meaning of 'loitering,'" then Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in his majority opinion. (In the words of another Supreme Court justice, you know it when you see it). "[B]ut rather, [it is] about what loitering is covered by the ordinance." If a reasonable person is unable to determine when she is breaking the law—do I look like I’m idling without apparent purpose right now? How about now?—then that law, the court decided, cannot be enforced.

Put more simply, it’s been affirmed again and again that you have the right to “stroll around from place to place without lawful purpose or object,” in the words of the Jacksonville ordinance invalidated by the court.


In the light of these decisions few arrests on Vagrancy or Loitering are made these days ... It's to costly for municipalities to pursue such cases such cases ... especially when they know they will lose them.

Zam
#14907927
One Degree wrote:No one asked for papers. They asked a question. Even if they ask for ‘proof of citizenship’, why would you be entering another country without identification? I fail to see any reason to object.

That's what the Germans said too ... ask the Jews how they feel about it.

Zam
#14907928
@Zamuel Can you see this does not make it ‘right’? This is just a modern liberal court placing individual rights above community rights. They decided a gang members right to loiter is more important than a community’s right to be free of loitering gang members. This is why I keep trying to demonstrate our differences are not between right and wrong but individual rights versus community rights.
The assumption individual rights are what matters is a very recent and unproven experiment. It lacks historical basis and is only supported by a ‘religious’ belief it is correct.
#14907950
One Degree wrote:@ZamuelCan you see this does not make it ‘right’?

No ... I can see it makes it "Constitutional." Which is America's guiding principle, whether you like it or not ... you cannot replace it with popular morality that favors your concept of community (from which you exclude those you do not approve of.) ie: loitering gang members.

This is why I keep trying to demonstrate our differences are not between right and wrong but individual rights versus community rights.

Ah ... new names for right and wrong ... that changes everything, doesn't it !

The assumption individual rights are what matters is a very recent and unproven experiment. It lacks historical basis

Sure - only 200 years old and enshrined in the constitution ...

Zam
#14907951
Zamuel wrote:No ... I can see it makes it "Constitutional." Which is America's guiding principle, whether you like it or not ... you cannot replace it with popular morality that favors your concept of community (from which you exclude those you do not approve of.) ie: loitering gang members.


Ah ... new names for right and wrong ... that changes everything, doesn't it !


Sure - only 200 years old and enshrined in the constitution ...

Zam


This eliminates communities solving their own unique problems. If your community does not have problems due to people loitering, then it is an unnecessary infringement upon personal freedom. If your community has gang problems, then it is a reasonable infringement upon personal freedom for the good of the whole community. Making these decisions on a national level is to address idealism and ignore reality.
#14907975
Albert wrote:Starbucks should be boycotted and punished for its stupidity.

The weird thing is that they are losing business by their own choice. I think the notion of "unconscious bias" is as comical as "organic foods." The left doesn't understand the meaning of basic terms. For example, if a food uses an anti-biotic, it can't be labelled "organic," even though antibiotics are generally derived from organic chemistry. How can you train people to be aware of something that they claim is "unconscious"? It's obviously absurd, but precisely the sort of financial shakedown offered by social justice charlatans. It makes Trump University seem like a much better investment by comparison.

Albert wrote:It baffles me how can the people that run the company be so dense as to take these accusations against them seriously.

What's stranger still is that all the manager did was to follow the corporate directive on how to handle that situation. They don't take responsibility for their own actions.

Albert wrote:Future generations are going to read about these times in history books bewildered.

Well, it certainly will make them wonder why the left ever thought a multi-racial, multi-ethnic, multi-cultural society was a good idea. If people within the society are "unconscious" of their own bias, then it is wrongful to find them at fault given basic legal theory since there is no malicious intent. Asking people to be part of a society that is going to implicitly discriminate against them or see them charged with something they have no control over by definition is its own form of cruelty.

Sivad wrote:Regardless of how anyone feels about loitering, their loitering was what brought the cops, not some racial animus the Starbucks employees were harboring.

It was the loiterers who injected race into the conversation as well.

One Degree wrote:I chose ‘other’ because I have no idea what Peet’s is.

It's higher quality than Starbucks for more or less the same price. If you're not into coffee, you wouldn't like it either. Peet's is totally commie too. They're celebrating "Earth Day" with 10% off.

Albert wrote:At the same time Starbucks is white libercuck establishment.

Well, that's what makes it so humorous. The left are firing on themselves, which is fine with me.

Rancid wrote:Starbucks has to go with the popular opinion, which is why they are shutting down. That's how business works.

Bwahahha. But it is only for a day. Why not for a month? It must take more than a day to address an "unconscious" problem.

Rancid wrote:I see both sides at fault here.

I don't see any problem here, other than the weirdness of the political left.

Rancid wrote:At the same time, maybe this kind of shit needs to happen, so white people can stop getting all weird all the time and calling the cops for every little thing. :D

Well, it was the loitering guys who created a racial issue out of it.

Libertarian353 wrote:Oh leave it to the most inverted anti-Black poster in the sub to make a post about things related to Black misery.

What does "inverted" mean in this context? Generally, my views are anti-leftist. Politically speaking, most blacks in the United States are tools of the political left. So who's upset about this? Blacks and leftists. What is the political distinction? None. So Starbucks is going to lose a whole day of business by kow towing to a bunch of leftists who are their customers anyway. If you can afford to pay $3 for a cup of coffee, I'm guessing your misery is some sort of "victim" mentality.

When trolling the left, I usually have to go to much more absurd lengths. For example:

Coffee is black. Cream and sugar are white. Is adding cream and sugar to coffee to make it less black a racist act?

See? That's how you troll stupid leftists.

Sivad wrote:Unfortunately certain demographics are subconsciously associated with trouble, but that's due almost entirely to the dysfunctional behavior prevalent within those demographics, not some deep rooted bigotry.

Well, that's why I would argue it isn't subconscious. The black men in this case were told the reason why they weren't getting the restroom key. It was perfectly lawful and perfectly reasonable. They, in conjunction with the media, have raised their issue to a level where an international chain is going to shut down for a day--almost suggesting that the whole thing was probably a rigged stunt to begin with.

colliric wrote:Fact is that McDonald's serves better coffee through their McCafe brand than Starbucks does in Australia.

That's probably true.

Zamuel wrote:Vagrancy and loitering laws are obsolete in this day of homeless people and shopping malls.

Maybe in a major metropolitan area run by Democrats, that's the case. Since poverty and social problems are endemic in places run by Democrats, there doesn't seem to be a real distinction between vagrancy and loitering and the rest of the general population. For the leftists who live in those places, they consider it "economic diversity."

Zamuel wrote:This was just a small tyranny, perpetrated by a manager with some personal issues.

A lesbian with an authority complex? That's a rich vein. Let's explore that further...

Zamuel wrote:Police or no police, it is not wrong to do so. it is the only acceptable solution.

Well, couldn't the lesbian barista--a profession Hillary Clinton derided on the campaign trail--be said to be preventing the tyranny of adverse possession of private property? It certainly seems to be the case.

Zamuel wrote:You do realize you just said bigotry is the - black, brown, yellow, red, - peoples own fault?

They are collectively guilty of "dysfunctional behavior."

Sivad said "certain demographics." You read what you wanted to read into that statement.

Zamuel wrote:That's straight out of the Klu Klux Clan's handbook. ?

You are familiar with the Ku Klux Klan's handbook are you? Tell us more...

Godstud wrote:Good job, Blackjack21. Keep up the good work on making conservatives awesome, with your awesomely childish poll.

Thanks! Unfortunately, most conservatives don't go to Starbucks. So we don't get to enjoy the freak show up close. Have a Bai Miang tea with sweetened condensed milk for me. If the cream rises to the top, is it racism?

Zamuel wrote:So? you figure it was ok when the Gestapo were doing the same things ... ?

I rather doubt they were enforcing vagrancy and loitering laws.

Zamuel wrote:In the light of these decisions few arrests on Vagrancy or Loitering are made these days ... It's to costly for municipalities to pursue such cases such cases ... especially when they know they will lose them.

It's not costly if they lose the cases. It's costly, because if they win they will have to jail people and the jails are already full. The state prosecutes people and defends them simultaneously. It's an absurd reality, but that is how it works.
#14907978
blackjack21 wrote:Bwahahha. But it is only for a day. Why not for a month? It must take more than a day to address an "unconscious" problem.


Lots of corporate trainings are a single day. They aren't going to make issues go away, their purpose is just to plant a seed in people's head.
#14907992
One Degree wrote:This eliminates communities solving their own unique problems.

Certainly not, it prevents them from solving their problems at the expense of individual rights ... which is to say, by creating a bigger problem.

If your community has gang problems, then it is a reasonable infringement upon personal freedom for the good of the whole community.

That kind of depends on who is deciding what constitutes "Gang Problems." There are lots of ready solutions for criminal activity. People of a specific race making themselves visible and spoiling the view for the rich and powerful elite is not a criminal activity.

Making these decisions on a national level is to address idealism and ignore reality.

No. Firstly these decisions at a national level reflects the failure of the local government to comply with constitutional guarantees. There is ample opportunity for local government to do so and in most instances they do. The acceptance of a case by the SC indicates a significant constitution question exists.

Secondly, the "idealism" of the supreme court ignores nothing ... the substance of an issue is thoroughly presented by opposing sides, on legal grounds, not pie in the sky. The court is composed of the best legal minds available with lifetimes of practical experience behind them. There are none better suited to the job they do. It is not a perfect system ... but it's damn close.

I really think your issue is with the constitution, not with these side issues.

Zam
#14907994
blackjack21 wrote:the notion of "unconscious bias" is as comical as "organic foods."

We agree ... (scary isn't it).

Sivad said "certain demographics." You read what you wanted to read into that statement.

You are familiar with the Ku Klux Klan's handbook are you? Tell us more... .

Sure, they are a rabid group of racists :moron: devoted to exterminating "certain demographics."

Zam
#14907995
Zamuel wrote:Certainly not, it prevents them from solving their problems at the expense of individual rights ... which is to say, by creating a bigger problem.


That kind of depends on who is deciding what constitutes "Gang Problems." There are lots of ready solutions for criminal activity. People of a specific race making themselves visible and spoiling the view for the rich and powerful elite is not a criminal activity.


No. Firstly these decisions at a national level reflects the failure of the local government to comply with constitutional guarantees. There is ample opportunity for local government to do so and in most instances they do. The acceptance of a case by the SC indicates a significant constitution question exists.

Secondly, the "idealism" of the supreme court ignores nothing ... the substance of an issue is thoroughly presented by opposing sides, on legal grounds, not pie in the sky. The court is composed of the best legal minds available with lifetimes of practical experience behind them. There are none better suited to the job they do. It is not a perfect system ... but it's damn close.

I really think your issue is with the constitution, not with these side issues.

Zam


You are bright enough to know your constitutional arguments are nonsense. The constitution is not valuable because of what it says, but because it allows for interpretation and alteration. No one today is willing to live by the original intent of the constitution. The power given to individual rights today comes from interpretation.
Also, the Supreme Court was not intended to be made up of legal minds. They actually hinder interpretation for current needs. Your arguments are all based upon acceptance of a view that the founding fathers would not agree with. You are simply preaching liberal philosophy as the only philosophy. We are allowed to interpret the constitution to restore the community to being superior to the individual. It is a choice and nothing prevents that choice from being made. Why people believe we should destroy the very basis of civilization is beyond me. I bring up community rights and am treated as if it some foreign concept no one has ever heard of. Appalling.
#14908002
One Degree wrote:You are bright enough to know your constitutional arguments are nonsense. The constitution is not valuable because of what it says, but because it allows for interpretation and alteration. No one today is willing to live by the original intent of the constitution.

This is hilarious ... :lol: No one is willing to? ... but everyone does ... :lol: :lol: :lol: (except maybe Donald Trump.)

I bring up community rights and am treated as if it some foreign concept no one has ever heard of. Appalling.

As I understand the Community Rights program, it's essentially aimed at preventing corporate malfeasance and government collaboration to circumvent environmental considerations ... (like the Flint Michigan water situation). I suppose there may be some "fringies" trying to exploit it's legitimate concerns into some kind of neocon manifesto ... like you are ? They meet at Starbucks I think.

Zam

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

The "Russian empire" story line is inve[…]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]