Utopia Talk / Politics / Starbucks to do Political Reeducation

Aeros Member	Tue Apr 17 20:15:18 What the fucking fuck is wrong with these fucking CEO's that would literally let fucking racial communists run a fucking struggle session for their entire work staff. Fucking idiots! And make this "training" available to other companies? Fuck no. Fuck right the fuck off. Anyone who attends one of these bullshit courses has to accept the premise that they are racist as a matter of political dogma. Worse, they don't even fucking work! If anything, they make people MORE racist according to the data done on the damn things. http://new...r-racial-bias-education-may-29 Training will occur at all Starbucks company-owned stores and will apply to nearly 175,000 U.S. partners (employees) PHILADELPHIA (APRIL 17, 2018) – Starbucks Coffee Company (NASDAQ: SBUX) today announced it will be closing its more than 8,000 company-owned stores in the United States on the afternoon of May 29 to conduct racial-bias education geared toward preventing discrimination in our stores. The training will be provided to nearly 175,000 partners (employees) across the country, and will become part of the onboarding process for new partners. “I’ve spent the last few days in Philadelphia with my leadership team listening to the community, learning what we did wrong and the steps we need to take to fix it,” said Starbucks ceo Kevin Johnson. “While this is not limited to Starbucks, we’re committed to being a part of the solution. Closing our stores for racial bias training is just one step in a journey that requires dedication from every level of our company and partnerships in our local communities.” All Starbucks company-owned retail stores and corporate offices will be closed in the afternoon of Tuesday, May 29. During that time, partners will go through a training program designed to address implicit bias, promote conscious inclusion, prevent discrimination and ensure everyone inside a Starbucks store feels safe and welcome. "The company's founding values are based on humanity and inclusion," said executive chairman Howard Schultz, who joined Johnson and other senior Starbucks leaders in Philadelphia to meet with community leaders and Starbucks partners. "We will learn from our mistakes and reaffirm our commitment to creating a safe and welcoming environment for every customer." The curriculum will be developed with guidance from several national and local experts confronting racial bias, including Bryan Stevenson, founder and executive director of the Equal Justice Initiative; Sherrilyn Ifill, president and director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund; Heather McGhee, president of Demos; former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder; and Jonathan Greenblatt, ceo of the Anti-Defamation League. Starbucks will involve these experts in monitoring and reviewing the effectiveness of the measures we undertake. Earlier this week, Starbucks began a review of its training and practices to make important reforms where necessary to ensure our stores always represent our Mission and Values, by providing a safe and inclusive environment for our customers and partners. Once completed, the company will make the education materials available to other companies, including our licensee partners, for use with their employees and leadership. Curriculum to be designed by nationally recognized experts and will be available for other companies to use
Rugian Member	Tue Apr 17 20:46:50 "and ensure everyone inside a Starbucks store feels safe and welcome." Clearly. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THat_rEpzKA
Hot Rod Revved Up	Tue Apr 17 20:52:06 "What the fucking fuck is wrong with these fucking CEO's that would literally let fucking racial communists run a fucking struggle session for their entire work staff." You think that is bad? Dicks Sporting Goods is going to destroy all of the "Assault Weapons" and other equipment that goes with them. I hate this God Damned Political Correctness.
Jack Cafferty Member	Tue Apr 17 20:53:32 Oh boo fucking hoo. Racists are triggered.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Tue Apr 17 21:02:34 ^^^^^---Believes everything the liberals tell him to believe.
Dukhat Member	Wed Apr 18 00:42:50 Massive overreaction. But the CEO is new and doesn’t have any balls so bunch of workers get to waste time.
Aeros Member	Wed Apr 18 01:12:58 I would not call forcing a quarter million US citizens to undergo political reeducation under penalty of losing their jobs a "waste of time". I would argue its a very effective use of time. For the worst possible people. Of all the things to kick off the shitstorm between the political left, and the political right, its fucking starbucks. This won't stand btw. It Cannot stand. Once the political right stops laughing, they are going to realize, very fast, just what sort of principles are at stake here. And its going to get very ugly.
hood Member	Wed Apr 18 01:21:11 You're overreacting. This type of stuff has been going on for a while. About the only people who take it seriously are people who work in HR, people who order it, and the people teaching it. Everyone else literally gives 0 shits.
Aeros Member	Wed Apr 18 01:38:01 I know its been going on for awhile. I have had to sit through similar shit while in the army. Thing is, I don't think I am overreacting. Not now. This is an order of magnitude beyond simple racial tension training. They want to do unconscious bias training. That is an entirely different beast, because the "education" programs in that field run under a set of unproven assumptions. Among which primarily being the accepted belief that race informs both action, and interaction. White people are racist because they are white, and black people endure racism from white people because they are black. This entire ideology rests upon this belief, once that sits at the core of the dangerous tribal ideologies of identity politics. This is not a joke. And its not an overreaction. Once the political right in America stops laughing (which should happen in about 12 hours) they are going to wake up the inescapable truth that a quarter million US citizens are going to forced under penalty of losing their livelihoods of attending a political education course run by African American apparatchiks of the Democratic Party. This is not just a bad idea, its a fucking disaster. This shit is going to go thermonuclear. It is freighted with all the worst fears of the Right wing about the political left, coupled with a racial and ideological overlay entirely of the lefts creation. I am not overreacting. If anything I am being rather calm and praying this is not going to explode in the way I know it will.
obaminated Member	Wed Apr 18 02:09:03 Hood and cuckhat dismiss this sort of thing because "it has being gone on for a while". everyone else sees this as a horrible reaction to a logical reaction to loiters. the final truth of it is that this is what happens when social media, aka the mob, gets collective voice. people behave stupidly and companies bend to mob mentality. its honestly a very bad situation because it will not get better.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Apr 18 02:38:13 Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people": First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization. Examples are dedicated classroom teachers in an educational bureaucracy, many of the engineers and launch technicians and scientists at NASA, even some agricultural scientists and advisors in the former Soviet Union collective farming administration. Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organization itself. Examples are many of the administrators in the education system, many professors of education, many teachers union officials, much of the NASA headquarters staff, etc. The Iron Law states that in every case the second group will gain and keep control of the organization. It will write the rules, and control promotions within the organization.
Seb Member	Wed Apr 18 02:40:15 Aeros: "run under a set of unproven assumptions." Unlike anything else... Most things are unproven. "Among which primarily being the accepted belief that race informs both action, and interaction" Boil this down to "human use heuristics to make judgements rapidly which we may not consciously think through. The way people look is one of those things". This is hardly controversial. Cf. Behavioural economics for copious proof we do not process rationally and Thinking Fast and Slow for more on thought processes. That's right aeros. There's no racial discrimination. It's unproven. Imaginary. In fact it's racist to even acknowledge... oh my how my banlieurs are on fire again due to the mysterious unemployed dark skin Frenchmen that nobody will interview let alone employ even if they have equivalent qualifications. I see no race!
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Apr 18 02:46:57 It should also be known by now that "unconscious bias" or "Implicit-ssociation test" is the kind of pseudoscience supported by no evidence or tenuous evidence at best, being sold to companies that Nimatzo likes to rant about. Waaaa social science garbage! Remember?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Apr 18 02:52:05 You miss the point seb. It is about the efficacy of the solutions being sold. When your application (product/service) is based on garbage science, as the saying goes, garbage in garbage out.
Seb Member	Wed Apr 18 02:54:29 There probably wouldn't be a need for unconscious bias trainings if people didn't consistently apply differential treatment to people who look different. Like, you know, refusing to let a pair of black people use the toilet and wait without ordering until their friend arrived but choosing to let white customers do exactly that during the same period. The options are either the manager was only focusing on the black people (unconscious bias) or formed a specific view that these individuals needed to be treated differently based on their skin colour. Starbucks has said this was against their policy. Several people here have speculated "yeah but no, he was probably doing his job, fucking pc bullshit". So clearly Starbucks decided it needed to really emphasise the matter to both the market (shock - black people buy coffee) and its staff. I'll say it's a big move. I guess they wanted to leave no doubt and maximise awareness. Also, for someone defending the right of a guy to selectively remove people from the store he manages on the grounds it is legal, you sure are kicking up astink about a companies right to require staff to undertake training. Nim: The goal of Starbucks is to sell coffee and make money. Their model emphasises their stores as social settings or workplaces. I think their management here has a very clear idea of their goals.
Seb Member	Wed Apr 18 03:01:36 Nim: Oh I agree that much of the efficacy is overstated. But the basic idea of unconscious bias is sound (though I think often a smokescreen for rather more consciously felt "he looks a bad'un/slow" that people think is common sense but know is not acceptable to express). The efficacy here is probably more around letting staff understand this isn't tick box policy. Mgt care and will follow up so whatever workers personal views are, uphold corporate values or you will be fired. No staff can be under the impression they have discretion to treat minority visitors to the store differently to whites. And by doing that convince people that buying coffee in Starbucks isnt an endorsement of the kind of people that used to put up signs saying "no dogs, Irish or negros".
Seb Member	Wed Apr 18 03:03:13 First part of the post at 2:54 was to aeros.
obaminated Member	Wed Apr 18 03:03:39 There is no point in responding to seb. there is no common ground in logic with him. he thinks the US is a police state, despite never having spent time here and despite his own home country locking people up for their speech. we should all ignore his idiotic (and i am sorry but they are fucking stupid) beliefs. He isn't worth talking to anymore.
BigDickNegro Member	Wed Apr 18 03:06:34 I want them to smile at Blacks, too. Is that too much to ask?
obaminated Member	Wed Apr 18 03:11:30 And just to be clear seb, i am not dismissing you over political reasons. You are not worth talking to anymore because you ignore law in favor of what you personally feel. you are an idiot. you are not worth the time spent trying to explain it to you. black people are taken out of private property ? you jump to racism, everyone else looks at the full picture and realizes these morons were lingering without paying for anything, has nothing to do with race. EVERYONE points out to you why you are wrong and you ignore you/dismiss it because you are arrogant and ignorant. thats a fact. there is no point in talking to you, you are a troll at this point.
yankeessuck123 Member	Wed Apr 18 03:34:13 The question is whether such training is in fact warranted. The reactionary right here seems uninterested in answering that question, and instead lashes out based on their own delicate feelings.
Seb Member	Wed Apr 18 04:44:10 Obaminated: Factually wrong. They were waiting for a friend before ordering. Friend turns up as they are being arrested. There are multiple white people pointing out they themselves had been there for longer without ordering. When you have a law or policy that nominally applies to everyone but which you only apply to certain people that's called discrimination. In law. When the group you chose to apply it to is defined by their race, that's called racial discrimination. On top of that, in the US Starbucks owns it's stores. So the store belonged to Starbucks, not the manager. And he contravened Starbucks policy which actively encourages "loitering" or using the store as a place to hang out without obligation to buy coffee (they do end up selling more coffee). Trespass charges seem dubious. Manager does not own store and acting outside his authority.
smart dude Member	Wed Apr 18 05:22:11 Oh god I hate assholes who occupy seats in crowded semi-public places without buying anything. Obviously Starbucks is justified in asking them to leave, which they did, twice, before calling the cops. The fact that they were "waiting for a friend" is ludicrously irrelevant yet somehow through all of this it has been peddled as an important factor. The real question is whether any anti-loitering extends equally to all (types of) people. If you enforce it against blacks but not whites, or blacks disproportionately compared to whites, then you have a race problem. Was this trespassing allegation predicated on race? Maybe, maybe not. Nobody knows all the details or the internal motivations of the people involved. But in the current political climate it is wise for these CEOs to err on the side of caution, hence the sensitivity training (i.e. damage control).
smart dude Member	Wed Apr 18 05:31:38 "And he contravened Starbucks policy which actively encourages "loitering" or using the store as a place to hang out without obligation to buy coffee" I'd like a source for this. Starbucks, afaik, has never had a real concrete policy about this and often leaves it up to the discretion of the individual stores. Anecdotal evidence suggests that people who buy something are more or less allowed to loiter indefinitely, and that people who don't buy anything can usually stay for a while before they are asked to buy something. As far as targeting individuals, many factors come into play. A person typing on a laptop and sipping on a bottle of water is less conspicuous than someone who is sitting at an obviously empty table. The manager of this particular store (a reliable source?...who knows) claims that loitering had been a problem for a while and she had in many cases asked visitors to leave. Eventually it would become a police matter and there's a >40% chance (it's Philadelphia after all) that it would be a black person. Given the high proportion of Philly's black population and the tiny sample size (literally one instance of this), I can't understand how people can automatically assume this incident was racially motivated. I'm looking for, like, real evidence and not speculation.
Seb Member	Wed Apr 18 05:54:04 Smart dude: FFS. Of course it's relevant: 1. If lots of other people are doing the same thing at the same time in the same store and you chose to throw onlybthe black guys to leave - can't believe I need to point this out. 2. Starbucks actively encourage this. The manager was breaking their policy. "I'd like a source for this." Well I don't have a copy of the franchise agreement to hand but I recall ad campaigns focusing on Starbucks as the place to spend time, read a book, meet friends, etc. Also, I kinda point out Starbucks public statements saying they should not have been asked to leave, and shutting down their stores for racial bias training. I'd like a source for your afaik.
delude Member	Wed Apr 18 06:08:44 For fuck's sakes; I was going to address Seb in the other thread but I will do it here. But a few other points to address firstly. Aeros, you're over reacting as much as those spinning this into a complete discriminatory matter, and especially since company is purely doing this as PR move, to which in my opinion is disingenuous in itself. Along with the fact being this was an isolated incident in the first place. Back to Seb - Combining your posts from the other thread, you're brought up how America is a police state because the police came and did their job? You're claiming this is an example of outright racism and discrimination, and if I recall, could be wrong information, but the manager of that starbucks was female, and possibly black (unverified.) And if that was the case, it makes it even a stronger case that this was not racially motivated. You claim 'other white people said this and other white people said that.' Could you point that out specifically, or were they the same ones stating it as they were drinking their beverages in the café? Even in the video, I saw other patrons who appear to be ethnic or black just walking around and ordering themselves and moving on. One specifically had dreads. Yeah, seems like a antiblack establishment to me. As I said in the previous thread about loitering, this could be a region of stores that encouraged more discretion by managers due to crimes of the area and such. This is not a new concept. And lastly, if the manager asked you to purchase something or leave multiple times, then you refuse to leave and they have to call the police and then the police have to come and then they ask you to leave and you refuse. You are now asking for a confrontation. Regardless if they felt they were wronged at that point in time they can address it another way. But they chose to be put in handcuffs instead. Luckily they didn't face any charges. Which is a good thing. But, it also could have been avoided. "but their friends or person they were meeting showed up." Good for them, glad they conveniently showed up when they did. It is besides the point now. The police did not do this based up discrimination. THe manager reserves the right to ask those to leave and they utilized it. Now the police have to enforce the will of the manager because laws, policies, and local ordinances. Stop being a douche and look at the totality of the circumstances.
delude Member	Wed Apr 18 06:10:01 "1. If lots of other people are doing the same thing at the same time in the same store and you chose to throw onlybthe black guys to leave - can't believe I need to point this out. " There were other blacks in the store ordering and walking around. "Well I don't have a copy of the franchise agreement to hand but I recall ad campaigns focusing on Starbucks as the place to spend time, read a book, meet friends, etc. Also, I kinda point out Starbucks public statements saying they should not have been asked to leave, and shutting down their stores for racial bias training. " PR move.
McKobb Member	Wed Apr 18 07:08:14 Sounds like Starbucks will be shiftless on the 29th.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Apr 18 07:46:23 Let me be clear, there is no reason to think that IAT says anything valuable in predicting behavior, in this case "bias".
hood Member	Wed Apr 18 07:53:38 "Hood and cuckhat dismiss this sort of thing because "it has being gone on for a while". everyone else sees this as a horrible reaction to a logical reaction to loiters." What? I pretty clearly stated that there exist only 3 groups of people who take this crap seriously. I don't work in HR, I didn't propose the "course," nor do I teach it. That puts me pretty clearly in the camp that thinks it's a complete waste of time. I just don't see people getting uppity over it specifically because they'll just dismiss all of the bullshit and move on. "the final truth of it is that this is what happens when social media, aka the mob, gets collective voice. people behave stupidly and companies bend to mob mentality. its honestly a very bad situation because it will not get better." I have stated on many occasions that I am fully against the mob voice that calls out for vigilante justice on social media. That doesn't change my opinion that aeros is going about on his typical overreacting freak out. It doesn't change my stance on people's reaction to this: a collective "meh, this is pointless."
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Apr 18 07:57:06 "But the basic idea of unconscious bias is sound" The very basic idea, sure, but then again tests show that a lot of decisions we make have already been decided before we act, so what does unconsious bias really mean in the end?. But that we have found something that we can measure that says something useful and enables us to predict anything. No.
Seb Member	Wed Apr 18 08:27:46 Delude: "is a police state because the police came and did their job?" No you fuckwit. That so badly misses the point, and my general impression of you as someone not able to follow a straight line between two points means I'm not going to respond further.
Seb Member	Wed Apr 18 08:29:55 delude: "There were other blacks in the store ordering and walking around." So? What's your point? That it's only discrimnation if you discriminate against all blacks? Seriously. Go back, read my posts, and present a logical chain of argument - then we can talk. This is not a starting point for a conversation.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Apr 18 08:36:26 This is all kinda funny considering how the same people defending this as useful are among the same group that downplays the value of IQ tests. The evidence is fairly clear on which tool is more useful in predicting behavior. Not that IQ is the be all end all, but between the two, there is no contest. Remember that this all comes from the field of social psychology, where 90% of the teachers are progressive and the replication crisis has hit the hardest. Caution it advised when drawing conclusions from the "findings" of this field. Depending on where you read 70-80% of all studies o social psychology fail to replicate. How exactly do you falsify a theory about things that exist unconsciously?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Apr 18 08:41:15 http://www...Really-Measure-Implicit/238807 Anyway, this is a fairly good article on the topic.
Seb Member	Wed Apr 18 08:48:15 Nim: "but then again tests show that a lot of decisions we make have already been decided before we act" That's an interesting and much argued over interpretation (incidentally, one should be careful of overinterpreting these brain activity results as they tend to rely on lots of stacked assumptions - see the "dead fish" example). But in this context I would say that what it could be consistent with is Khannemans System 1 vs System 2 thinking. If conscious decisions occur in some parts of the brains architecture, then brain activity scans will identify that region and say "hey, that's where decisions are made". And then they will say "woah, look, his motor centres lit up when he caught that ball, but that decision making area didn't". However that assumes that other decisions are not made in other places in the brain. Particularly the kinds of heuristics decisions that get made all the time in day to day life we just are not really aware of. What psychology calls "the unconcious" or others might call instinct or heuristic is exactly where unconscious bias would exist: unconsciously learned or somewhat innate responses. In the case of the coffee, perhaps rather than a conscious thought of "grr, black people", maybe just a general assumption they are loitering. This is not unusual. So many people fall for the old riddle about the doctors son (http://www.lisashea.com/lisabase/fun/doctor.html) despite knowing perfectly well there is nothing illogical about the identity of the doctor - even when they are trying very hard to solve the problem. The unconscious bias training I've had to endure basically boils down to "take a step back and consciously thik about these aspects". In neurological terms - sometimes it is worth making sure that your decisions *are* coming from coscious, rational throught processes rather than instinctive, non conscious responses. This does not seem to me to be a bad idea. Because the vast, overwhelming evidence suggests we are not at all logical and rational by default. We are instinctive, irrational and profoundly creatures of habit* that are very good at rationalising and imposing a narrative on things**. *Inciddentally, this is why so many people get surprised when online adds appear to pre-empt something you've just been talking about buying. It's not (well, not neceasrily) because they are spying on you with your phone mic. It's because it's actually a lot easier to predict based on indicators the algorithms picked up over the last few days, and naturally you are talking about the thing. **There is some evidence as I recall that those with brain injuries that confabulate to explain things like the loss of a limb which they do not appear to be aware of - the dammage prevents awareness of the discrepency between reality and their pereption. But the confabulation element is just a basic feature of how we are.
Seb Member	Wed Apr 18 08:49:22 Nim: "the same people defending this as useful" Hold on, unconcious bias training isn't the same as the tests you are talking about. You are conflating two tangentially related things.
Delude Member	Wed Apr 18 08:52:43 "No you fuckwit. That so badly misses the point, and my general impression of you as someone not able to follow a straight line between two points means I'm not going to respond further." Versus someone that introduced the concept of a police state in an isolated incident interjecting the notion that this must be only racial bias as its motivator? You can take your general impression and shove up your egotistical, arrogant, condescending ass as you continue to blow the most simplest of concepts out of proportion. Remember you twat, you brought up police state to this specific incident. Why? Because you're a pretentious bitch.
Seb Member	Wed Apr 18 08:54:03 "The police did not do this based up discrimination" Delude, could you review my posts and tell me where I suggested that was the case? Or I could what you do and have a complete freak out and call you dishonest, and a lier etc. Please, you have completely missed the point and I think it is clear enough. Start again, and ask questions where you feel there is no clarity.
Delude Member	Wed Apr 18 08:56:48 "So? What's your point? That it's only discrimnation if you discriminate against all blacks?" Versus your "but but there were whites that said they do the same thing(that loiter), which you haven't provided the evidence of that. And also that fact that asks the same question. "So, what's your point?" My point is as of the same of smart dude's considering the demographic of the area. This does not appear to be a systematic racial bias issue. At which some or trying to portray or you are connecting, especially introducing "police state." Eat a dick. "Seriously. Go back, read my posts, and present a logical chain of argument - then we can talk. This is not a starting point for a conversation. " You first "police state."
Delude Member	Wed Apr 18 09:00:32 "Delude, could you review my posts and tell me where I suggested that was the case?" Previous thread when you said this must be racially motivated and then "police state" nonsense. Btw I did ask question for you to have the opportunity to clarify. You didn't and you yourself projected. So good job dishonest seb.
Seb Member	Wed Apr 18 09:01:25 Delude: "Versus someone that introduced the concept of a police state in an isolated incident interjecting the notion that this must be only racial bias as its motivator?" Again, a misreading so profound there is no way to really respond. This is word salad. "You can take your general impression and shove up your egotistical, arrogant, condescending ass" Your choice, but this is exactly what happens pretty much every time we try and converse. You completely fail to read my points. You get hysterical when the logical inconsistencies in your are questioned. You end up screaming "lies, lies" - and given you are not willing to afford good faith, why should I? You come across as an idiot. And you are also confused. The other thread was about guns. Aeros was arguing any restrition on guns was the rotting of freedoms. I was pointing out that you let your police literally get away with murder largely because of the potential threat to them due to pervaisive weapons. Then Sam and his lot were going on about "only criminals" and I raise this to show that actually, you can end up being arrested in the US for pretty fucking trivial stuff that isn't even a crime. And yes, tollerating the police to have such leeway is pretty out there for the rest of the developed world. The net effect of pervaisive guns ends up being rather than protecting people from the state, being forced to allow an otherwise unprecidented degree of police authority and licensed violence. That was obviously too complicated for you to follow as you've even got the timeline back to front.
Seb Member	Wed Apr 18 09:03:28 Delude: "Previous thread when you said this must be racially motivated" Nowhere did I suggest it was the police who were racially motivated. Read it again. Slowly. "Btw I did ask question for you to have the opportunity to clarify." A question so off topic as to make not the slightest bit of sense. I suggest more granular so you have less opportunity to diverge from reality and common sense.
Delude Member	Wed Apr 18 09:05:01 "Again, a misreading so profound there is no way to really respond. This is word salad." Then clarify your point fuckface. "You completely fail to read my points." Ironically, this is what you are normally accused of. "And you are also confused. The other thread was about guns. Aeros was arguing any restrition on guns was the rotting of freedoms." The other thread I'm referring is the one that was also discussing this incident. It appears that you are confused.
Delude Member	Wed Apr 18 09:07:03 "Nowhere did I suggest it was the police who were racially motivated. Read it again. Slowly." No where did I said that you said the police was motivated. I said this incident is considered by you as racially motivated. Read. It. Slowly.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Apr 18 09:12:40 "This is all kinda funny considering how the same people defending this as useful are among the same group that downplays the value of IQ tests. The evidence is fairly clear on which tool is more useful in predicting behavior. Not that IQ is the be all end all, but between the two, there is no contest. " Correct. Lol@seb.
Seb Member	Wed Apr 18 09:15:39 Delude: "The other thread I'm referring is the one that was also discussing this incident. It appears that you are confused." Go back to that thread and read it. I am not confused. "No where did I said that you said the police was motivated." Yes you did, see below: Wed Apr 18 06:08:44 Delude The police did not do this based up discrimination Wed Apr 18 08:54:03 Seb Delude, could you review my posts and tell me where I suggested that was the case? Wed Apr 18 09:00:32 Delude Previous thread when you said this must be racially motivated and then "police state" nonsense. Now fuck off and learn to read before wasting my time.
Seb Member	Wed Apr 18 09:16:13 Here is the other thread. About Guns. In which aeros talks about legal rot. http://www...hread=82409&time=1524060921891
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Apr 18 09:21:09 Seb The point I am making is that the science behind "unconscious bias" does not support the type of services companies buy and people have to, as you put it, endure. It is unclear if the term as studied even means anything that isn't already a subject of study in psychology. One of the largest and most replicated effects in all of social psychology is "stereotype accuracy"? That is, group stereotypes are fairly accurate r > 0.5. Relative for the field, since only a small % of SP studies exceed 0.5). Social psychologist do not talk a lot about this for some reason. This is a difficult space to extract useful things from, for several reasons. Imo the biggest one is the lack of view point diversity. Which in a field that studies how we behave towards one and _other_, well that creates a blind spot. Also too little genetic/biology goes into these departments, almost 0 cross disciplinary citation between biology and social science. Shocking. http://78....r_p62aqiLNoZ1uozpv6o2_1280.jpg Amazing that it shapes like a donut.
Wrath of Orion Member	Wed Apr 18 09:32:10 Holy shit, this thread did not disappoint. There are a lot of triggered retards in here.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Apr 18 09:41:21 "Hold on, unconcious bias training isn't the same as the tests you are talking about. You are conflating two tangentially related things." IAT (Implicit association test) is very much on topic. It is on this "scientific" bedrock that companies like Starbucks buy in consultancy hours (and courses) to make it a safer place, free from racism, which lurks even when you think you are free from it (like the holy ghost). Or rather this is the springboard from which consultants build their services. Meanwhile so many questions are unanswered, effect sizes so small that you would have to actually be the type of scientifically illiterate that we like to accuse each other of, to want to pay for it. Or in many cases educated enough to be careful questioning the validity of fields completely foreign to you. Besides on the surface it sounds great, we have found a way to train people to be less racist. I am kinda knee deep in a similar thing at work, regarding courses in "communication", which are built on even shittier grounds than IAT. Yet the consultants do no hesitate to tell people that _all_ their work is supported by science. Really? Old research that they even manage to misrepresent. Yet still the studies are meaningless even when presented correctly.
obaminated Member	Wed Apr 18 10:47:54 "Unconscious bias" Seb, you are a fucking moron.
smart dude Member	Wed Apr 18 10:53:29 " If lots of other people are doing the same thing at the same time in the same store and you chose to throw onlybthe black guys to leave - can't believe I need to point this out. " stop being a dick. this is exactly what i said in my original post. "blah blah it's not fair the rule isn't applied to everyone equally" is not automatically indicative of a racial issue. rules aren't applied consistently. this is true in every facet of life. nothing new, not necessarily racist. different managers, different times, different circumstances. "Well I don't have a copy of the franchise agreement to hand but I recall ad campaigns focusing on Starbucks as the place to spend time, read a book, meet friends, etc." so you admit you have no evidence for your claim. then don't put the onus on me to prove my point. Seb, you seem like an accomplished scientist, so this is surprising to me. You can't look at a specific incident without obvious racial bias and conclude that racial bias exists in that particular situation. You can look and trends in society and deduce that racism exists, but that logic doesn't apply to individual cases. I have two dice. One is fair, the other is loaded to roll a "6" every time. After rolling the two dice many times, it's obvious that there is a trend proving that 6 is appearing disproportionately to my expectations. But an individual incidence of 6 does not imply that that particular roll is "guilty" of that bias, because it might very well be a legitimate roll from the fair dice. Use your brain. We have a single incidence of two people treated unfairly, a clear example of the rules applied inconsistently. That does not automatically signal racial bias. Yes, it fits the narrative of racial discrimination (which absolutely does exist, btw, I'm not a retard). Why on earth you can't apply the same rigorous standards to social issues that scientists apply to science is beyond my comprehension. I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY that racial discrimination exists and exists at shocking level in American (and other) cultures. But you are making a VERY SPECIFIC claim that a very specific individual is racist based on a single event, without any evidence. That is harmful, irresponsible, and intellectually lazy.
Paramount Member	Wed Apr 18 11:06:18 Who is the regular Starbucks employee? Black, Asian? If that is the case, then these people will be taught to be nice to white people when they serve us our coffee. So why are you all so angry about it?
Forwyn Member	Wed Apr 18 11:08:14 lol http://www..._fake_starbucks_coupons_for_a/
Dukhat Member	Wed Apr 18 11:18:42 So much discussion over some sensitivity training lol.
Delude Member	Wed Apr 18 11:55:55 "Go back to that thread and read it. I am not confused." You are confused and it is quite evident. See example below: Delude: No where did I said that you said the police was motivated." "Seb: Yes you did, see below:" Delude: The police did not do this based up discrimination Dishonest Seb, please point out where I said you said police did this. Versus me repeating the sentiment that some are saying that police did this. This proves my point that while you accuse others of misinterpreting what you say or are missing your points. You purposefully, because that is the only rational thought I can think of as you do it so regularly, ignore what is being said. So instead of wasting my time putting words in my mouth like you do me and others all the time. Take the time to understand the point before you go off on your holier than thou I know more than you do bullshit. Real simple to the point you unbelievable fucktwat: Manager asked them to leave. They didn't. Police involved, gave lawful order. They didn't leave they got arrested. Fuckin the end. Not racially bias motivated as you fucking portrayed. There were others of ethnic origins in the store. You have provided evidence o the contrary about whites being in there loitering, which was asked of you. You're just being a bitch. And I'm going to keep calling you a bitch about it. General principle, is this blow out of proportion. Yes significantly and you're being part of it. You British tart.
Seb Member	Wed Apr 18 12:04:14 Nim: I think that's a reach. Ineffectiveness of IAT doesn't mean the idea of unconscious bias exists. It's pretty easy to demo state examples of bias (e.g. doctor riddle) and unless we are assuming people are being consciously biased what else do you call it. Most of the unconscious bias training stuff we've done is all pretty obvious - the main thing is around questioning assumptions you might be making; the rest about things simply not coming to mind which should. I.e. stop and think what you are doing in some situations. A special case then of any training you might force people to do on building interpersonal skills. Generally it shouldn't be necessary but there exist idiots. Smart dude: "So you admit you have no evidence for your claim." No. I've explained the evidence I do have. Demanding a franchise agreement when the company in question has advertised on the basis of "come and hang out" is daft. At best you are saying that unconscious bias, overt racism and simple oversight are all equally probable. I've explained why I don't agree based on information available. If I applied the scientific method to every facet of the world about me, I wouldn't be able to do the shopping because I can't remember how many eggs I have at home to six sigma. I'm not convicting this guy, I'm forming a judgement based on available information and balance of probabilities.
Seb Member	Wed Apr 18 12:07:02 Delude: Seriously. Learn to read. I asked you where you thought I'd suggested the police arrested based on discrimination. You said the other thread. I did not. I said I thought the managers decision was discriminatory. Kindly fuck off until you can maintain a logical chain of thought.
Delude Member	Wed Apr 18 12:12:21 And that is what I inferred. Then you decided to accuse me that I said you said police did this. I made a general statement based upon what is being used a supportive supplemental to the argument that is attached to what you said about the manager's motivation as to why she made the call to the police. Learn to comprehend, stop projecting, stop putting words in mouths of others, and stop being a bitch.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Apr 18 12:22:04 ”Most of the unconscious bias training stuff we've done is all pretty obvious” Right and I have an issue paying for people who come and tell me pretty obvious things. The irony in ”obvious unconscious”. Even linguistically you are part of a farce seb.
smart dude Member	Wed Apr 18 12:56:18 "I'm not convicting this guy" First of all, "this guy" is a woman so please learn the basic facts. "come and hang out" This doesn't mean come here and not buy anything. Obviously anyone who has been to Starbucks knows that you go there and hang out or do school or finish a project, etc. However, there are countless instances of Starbucks employees requesting that visitors buy something. You can use something called Google to find evidence of this. "balance of probabilities" Of course it's a balance of probabilities, as we aren't mind readers and we don't know all of the details. But for you to draw a conclusion of "racism" based on probability alone and a dearth of actually, like, facts prompts me to ask this simple question: why draw a conclusion to begin with?
smart dude Member	Wed Apr 18 13:14:33 Again you are making a claim that a specific person is racist. Please give me a shred of evidence that the woman who called the police is a racist other than the fact that the apprehended "suspects" happened to be black in a nearly 50% black city. It's a pretty bold claim. Yes, I know that racism is pervasive. Yes, black people are routinely discriminated against. It's a trend that is obvious when you look at the collective evidence. It's clear as day. But you can't identify a specific incident as indicative of a trend. This is 9th grade statistics. It's pretty presumptuous of you to brand this 911-caller (who is facing a pretty enormous world-wide firestorm) as a racist because of this single event, without full regard for the actual facts. Whatever, fuck evidence. It fits the narrative. That's all that matters, amirite?
Sam Adams Member	Wed Apr 18 13:32:16 Lol at 4chan bwahahahaha. Seb=triggered.
Delude Member	Wed Apr 18 13:32:55 Dishonest seb.
delude Member	Wed Apr 18 16:39:01 Oh I have to apologize to Dishonest Seb about the disconnect there is. But I will elaborate my point about that line and how it is correlating to my initial point. Seb, in the previous thread you brought up the the only reason the manager did what she did because it was racially motivated. Then you addressed Sam in the same breath discussing about the "overreach" the police did because of trespassing, then attached about the police state comment because you are arguing the concept of police shooting in general those who they are trying arrest. Yet you are arguing with Sam who holds the opinion that police should arbitrarily shoot people. 1st mistake is wasting your breath even arguing because it ridiculous. 2nd mistake you're still trying to have a philosophical debate about it. Now back to the matter at hand, that was discussed in the previous thread as it carried over here. Few things; I ask you provide the statements from the white patrons from the video where they stated they do the same thing that the black people were doing. You have repeated this as if this is a open and shut case that this can only be a racial motivated incident. Fact; the manager was female. So address them as such. Unverified fact; the female manager is possibly black. So this definitely pokes holes in your declarative. Fact: Loitering is against the law and a manager can all the police to have anyone removed. Fact: The police did their job. You pointed out in the previous thread that this action was an over-reach, while in the same breath infer this is possibly part of a 'police state.' If you are not inferring that, then clarify your position. Lastly, how in the fuck are you going to repeat about white patrons this and white patrons that to use a basis that they are doing nothing no different than loiterers in the god damn cafe. As well as you completely ignore the fact that there were actually black or ethnic patrons in the store at the time. And then still continuously argue that this must be racially motivated?
Seb Member	Wed Apr 18 17:41:09 Delude: You can't even write a well formed sentence. Stop wasting my time. Nim: " The irony in ”obvious unconscious" " Oh that's a bit facile Nim. Smart guy: "This doesn't mean come here and not buy anything." It does mean they have an expectation that people might go significant gaps without buying something. E.g. if waiting for a friend. "However, there are countless instances of Starbucks employees requesting that visitors buy something. You can use something called Google to find evidence of this." A second a go you were suggesting not presenting you with the Starbucks franchise manual was not having evidence... "Again you are making a claim that a specific person is racist." A specific action is racial discrimination, to be precise. I've given the facts supporting my conclusion repeatedly. 1. Starbucks says it's against their policy 2. There were people in the store who were there not buying stuff who she had no issue with. She even provided the door code to the toilet to a white visitor who bought nothing while refusing it to them. 3. The general disproportionate response of calling police in. This suggests to me she had formed the view that those individuals were particularly unlikely to buy and particularly troublesome compared to other people in the store doing the same thing. " But you can't identify a specific incident as indicative of a trend" I'm not saying it is necessarily a trend. I'm saying selective application of policies to a people of one race is the very definition of racial discrimination. It doesn't need to be a trend. And it doesn't need to be motivated by a clear, conscious fear of hatred of the racial group either.
TJ Member	Wed Apr 18 17:48:07 A different perspective with additional information. The incident needed a product resolution for its nationwide image. Sensitivity training was most likely the best option for Starbucks. At this point it doesn't much matter if it was racial on not. http://www...ts-kevin-johnson-20180416.html "The ACLU noted that the police service area where the Starbucks is located, part of the Ninth District, has the city’s greatest racial disparities in pedestrian stops. In 2017, 67 percent of stops in that area were of African Americans, who account for just 3 percent of the area’s population."
Sam Adams Member	Wed Apr 18 17:56:52 Every time the black man is wronged, it is instant proof of the devilish intent of the white man. Now go call jesse jackson. Ohhhhhhhh lawdy!!!! What seb sounds like.
delude Member	Wed Apr 18 17:57:38 "You can't even write a well formed sentence. Stop wasting my time. " Aww, Dishonest Seb bitch. Is your whole world crumbling because no one wants to join on your narrative? Fuck off bitch.
delude Member	Wed Apr 18 18:18:00 "'ve given the facts supporting my conclusion repeatedly. 1. Starbucks says it's against their policy 2. There were people in the store who were there not buying stuff who she had no issue with. She even provided the door code to the toilet to a white visitor who bought nothing while refusing it to them. 3. The general disproportionate response of calling police in. " Where? Where did they say this, this was asked of you to provide what you are claiming.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Wed Apr 18 21:04:38 The manager was fired.
Y2A Member	Wed Apr 18 22:07:08 Nothing wrong with this. Pretty much common sense. Only thing is that some of ghe Starbucks might be closed.
Seb Member	Thu Apr 19 01:25:51 Delude: I'll engage with all sorts of people. Stupid, argumentative, illiterate etc. But you bundle all of these with a whiny, self righteousness and a degree of incoherence that makes conversation futile and that is just too irritating to be worth the candle. There's no point even trying to engage until you are able to express yourself clearly and read perfectly simple text.
smart dude Member	Thu Apr 19 01:59:10 Seb, the Starbucks policy expert, evades the question again. He insists blah-blah something something company policy, when Starbucks company representatives have stated that there is no broad policy on the issue. I guess Seb knows more than Starbucks about Starbucks policy?
smart dude Member	Thu Apr 19 01:59:10 Seb, the Starbucks policy expert, evades the question again. He insists blah-blah something something company policy, when Starbucks company representatives have stated that there is no broad policy on the issue. I guess Seb knows more than Starbucks about Starbucks policy?
smart dude Member	Thu Apr 19 02:02:36 "A specific action is racial discrimination, to be precise." Okay, the person isn't a racist. The person just commits racially discriminatory acts. Hairsplitting much? How are you so confident that this specific event was an action of racial discrimination? It's a pretty serious allegation to make, and requires evidence. Full disclosue, I wouldn't be surprised at all. But why the need to jump to conclusions and condemn a person without any evidence?
Delude Member	Thu Apr 19 05:32:33 Dishonest Seb, all you have to say is that you're making shit up. You've made claims. Show the claims, source them. This was asked of you multiple times. The claims you've made were specific, where did you hear this or read this. You said specifically others white patrons made specific statements. Which videos were you watching? You are not providing any source to your claim other than... "This is the fact, but I'm basing this on probabilites." With all of this being requested of you and you making no effort other than complaining and resorting to insults because you're a bitch. Only leads me to believe Dishonest Seb you're making shit up.
Seb Member	Thu Apr 19 06:56:37 smart dude: Where have they stated there is no broad policy on this and what do you mean by "this"? Granted, there may be no broad policy on e.g. whether you let people use the toilet before purchasing. But that doesn't mean you can have a policy selectively applied in a given store! However, the idea of "come and linger" is something Starbucks push. https://www.fastcompany.com/887990/starbucks-third-place-and-creating-ultimate-customer-experience https://www.starbucks.co.uk/about-us/our-heritage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starbucks#.22The_Third_Place.22 Then there is the statement: "the basis for the call ... was wrong". "Regretfully, our practices and training led to a bad outcome — the basis for the call to the Philadelphia Police Department was wrong. Our store manager never intended for these men to be arrested and this should never have escalated as it did." And they sacked the manager. And it's not difficult to see why: the video and third part accounts seem to show the manager acting contrary to the mission, value statement and fundamental intent. Also it's not a franchise model, Starbucks own it's stores in the US. There is this in policy guidelines: https://globalassets.starbucks.com/assets/1d7de46ff5f845d89c01a81bebdbdb59.pdf Partner Responsibilities All employees are responsible for supporting human rights in the work environment. It is every partner’s responsibility to: • Understand Starbucks Global Human Rights Policy concerning basic human rights and uphold the provision of these rights in the workplace • Contribute to a positive experience at Starbucks, offering inclusion, equity and accessibility to employees and customers • Treat each other with respect and dignity • Foster free, direct and open communication among all employees • Raise awareness of any behaviors or business situations involving Starbucks that may compromise the company’s values around the provision of basic human rights • Report potential violations of the Policy directly to the person involved, or if not comfortable speaking directly to that person, report such concerns to his/her manager, Partner Resources representative, or Business Ethics and Compliance So all in all while it may be true that there are no specific policies directly stipulating what to be done in this situation, it's pretty clearly against the outcome that's being desired. And right that the manager should be fired. Clearly they trust managers to behave accordig to judgement in line with the desired outcome, and if the manager is unable to display that level of judgement (and in a way that so seriously escalates) then he or she is not really competent for the job. smart dude: "Okay, the person isn't a racist. The person just commits racially discriminatory acts. Hairsplitting much?" I think it's an important distinction. You are asking "well, how can we know the inner mind of this individual: surely we must look for a pattern of behaviour"? I would suggest we don't - the fact *for whatever reason* she's behaving differently in treating black and whites in the same store is a problem. Most people get caught out by the female doctor riddle I posted to Nim earlier in this thread, even if they are fully aware and have no concious problem with the idea of female doctors. The fact that they are not cackling lunatics who believe women should be in the home doesn't mean it isn't an example of an unconcious bias. And particularly in the services sector, fucking up on these points have a big impact. "How are you so confident that this specific event was an action of racial discrimination?" Well, yeah - absolutely I am: we have multiple people in the store noting that they have been doing the exact same thing that the manager is taking the black people to task for. You sound like you think it can only be racial discrimination if the manager is purposefully treating people differently with intent to disadvantage them. Which isn't the test at all. As for condemn - like I said, would you conemn someone who didn't instantly solve the Female Doctor riddle above? But basically, the only reason it is a riddle is because many, many people, it simply doesn't come to mind that the doctor in question could be the boys mother. As soon as the doctor is introduced, the defauly assumption is the character is a man and then never revisited. Here, it is most likely I think that the manager saw two black people come in (the area in question is expensive and apparently 97% white accordig to the Telegraph) and ask to use the toilet, and thought "ah, homeless people, I need to move these on, they are not going to buy anything and just looking for a place to loiter" and never bothered to revisit that and never stopped to think "hold on, if these guys were white I would assume that they are just waiting before ordering". Delude: Seriosuly, you are waisting your time. You blew any interest I might have in arguing the toss when you led with such a ridiculous interpretation and then demonstrated such obvious bad faith in keeping a consistent line on what your point you wanted to make was.
Seb Member	Thu Apr 19 07:05:49 Smart dude: And I should be clear, seeing two black people come in, ask for the toilet, and then sit down leading to an unquestioned assumption they are homeless - that in my mind is a bad thing. It is a form of biggotry. Call it unconcious bias if you like, or whatever you want. I wouldn't *punish* people for it - but in a work context I might insist on training, require it not be repeated and if I felt it was behaviour that the indiviudal could not change then it would be appropriate to fire them as it prevents them from performing basic duties required of them. The fact that it is less worse than the overt racism that Sam has, where he actually expresses the belief they are less capable and worth than a white person doesn't mean it isn't unworthy of some degree of condemnation!
smart dude Member	Thu Apr 19 08:37:07 "But that doesn't mean you can have a policy selectively applied in a given store!" Having policies selectively applied to given *stores* is fine, especially if it's left to the discretion of the managers. I mean, that might not be great company policy, and it might frustrate customers, but that isn't racism. Anyway, I doubt we really disagree much about this. Applying policies selectively to different groups of *people* is clear-cut racism (or whatever-ism), to be sure. If this incident was an instance of racism then, well, par for the course. Not surprising at all. I just don't see the need to assume or jump to conclusions without having all the facts. If these people were white (60% chance) then nobody would complain. If they are black (40% chance) then it's automatically racism. Yeah sure, 60 is bigger than 40. But no need to convict someone (I mean, even in the court of public opinion) based solely on the available information.
smart dude Member	Thu Apr 19 08:57:44 The armchair psychoanalysis ("unconscious bias") of a specific individual whom you now nothing about is not useful. Unconscious bias within a certain broad cross section of society is totally a real thing. But you can't logically conclude that this specific incident is an example of that. It's like the United Airlines incident, when many people claimed that the Vietnamese-American passenger was beaten up by airport security because of racism. Yes, Asians are discriminated against. It's an identifiable trend with plenty of evidence to support it, and it makes logical sense. But to say that one specific incident involving one specific airport employee is "racist" is borderline defamation of character. You can't compare trends to specific events. It's illogical and unscientific. I'm not saying that this wasn't the result of racism. I'm simply saying...why on Earth even come to a conclusion at all? It's simply not logical and nothing is accomplished. I bet everyone would benefit from this type of "political reeducation" that Starbucks is planning. But that opinion is based on that fact that society in general harbors racist thoughts. I'm looking at this purely statistically.
smart dude Member	Thu Apr 19 09:05:34 *I might have misunderstood the statement I quoted above. I now understand you meant that the policy was applied inconsistently in this given location. No matter. We have a pathetic sample size of exactly one. Are we now to assume that no black people have ever loitered in this store? That if they had, they would have been arrested, or had the cops called on them? It doesn't make sense. If it comes out later than the 911-calling barista had previously called the police on black loiterers, or that her Facebook or Twitter reveals her as an obvious racist, then I will eat all of my hats.
TJ Member	Thu Apr 19 09:29:20 They didn't appear to be homeless, or described as such, and were in the business of real estate according to the links I've followed. They were waiting for a white associate for a meeting. You would think they could have made a purchase and all this would have been avoided. Shameful! Should I assume and turn this into a full blown conspiracy by suggesting it was staged? :-) I don't subscribe to the link I posted and exhausted the limit of page access without subscribing, which I'm not interested in doing. Others can follow the links from what I posted above and possibly find the below paraphrase if you choose. -->Johnson said the Starbucks policy was ambiguous and could be taken different ways so he plans on making it clearly understandable and provide the unconscious bias training.<---
Sam Adams Member	Thu Apr 19 09:35:04 Lol seb you are on a roll of wrong lately.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Apr 19 09:48:04 "Oh that's a bit facile Nim." It is indicative of the kind of koolaid you are drinking. Questionable scientific basis, questionable efficacy, to then pay people money to come and tell me "obvious" stuff. I am just lifting your own words. It is another layer of lulz that even semantically this is incoherent. So while I don't know what you mean with "facile", my analysis and thinking is thorough, from theory to application, it is garbage. You seem to agree on the practical parts, but insist that in theory it is all sound (as evidence you present a riddle). Basically presented us with the analog of the ontological argument for god from some blog. GG
TJ Member	Thu Apr 19 10:05:34 If I understand unconscious bias correctly this and many other threads are prime examples of the concept. Individually formed concepts from group think no different than a small amount of thought necessary to negotiate stairways. Formative years and brain shortcuts... Pieces of the difficult individual puzzle.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Apr 19 10:08:58 "Again you are making a claim that a specific person is racist. Please give me a shred of evidence that the woman who called the police is a racist other than the fact that the apprehended "suspects" happened to be black in a nearly 50% black city. It's a pretty bold claim." So seb, why was it important for me to provide evidence that individual Muslims behavior (not that I was ever talking about specific individuals, but populations) was because of Islam, but isn't for you to paint people racist? Islam is a known set of ideas, professions of faith, explicit. Yet you would not accept that if Muslims behave according to their books, that it was because of the book. Here there is no book, it is the opposite of explicit, so I believe it is much more important that one presents clear evidence.
Seb Member	Thu Apr 19 10:12:28 smart dude: I suspect we are not disagreeing that much too. I think though it's pretty clear that the policies she'd devised were not being consistently applied *within the store during the period the incident took place* according to all accounts. Even when others pointed out they were doing the same (in written accounts and I recall in the video, though someone pointed out the person saying that might have had a coffee in front of them) - she didn't ask them to leave also. Sure you want to screen out homeless people who are loitering - but when you are only challenging minorities and you don't really have much grounds to explain why you are challenging those individuals not others, you are going to be on thin ice from a corporate perspective. "But you can't logically conclude that this specific incident is an example of that." Ok, but the facts are she chose, even when attention was drawn to it, to request only the black people to move and only call the police to remove the black people. I don't think it is sustainable to say she was enforcinng the policy uniformly. Clearly she decided the white people who actively pointed out that they hadn't yet brought anything were you know, ok, probably going to buy something. While the black guys, well, trouble makers and probably not. So, there's really only two explanations for that: un-conscious bias or conscious. You can't even say "well, those black guys were making trouble", because of course the white people protesting were also making trouble. It looks pretty bad for her. As for unscientific", as a scientist this kinda annoys me. This isn't a subject matter really amenable to the scientific method - we don't use the same standards of proof or the method of scientific deduction for handling disciplinary procedures at work, nor criminal procedures in court. Overloading science is one of the primary drivers of cargo-cult science which I dislike greatly. "Are we now to assume that no black people have ever loitered in this store? That if they had, they would have been arrested, or had the cops called on them? It doesn't make sense." I'm not sure that establishing any of these features are necessary. To give an example, suppose a racist killed a random black person - his prosecution would not necessarily hinge on issues as to whether he killed every black person (or even most) that he'd met. It's simply not necessary to establish a pattern here. The fact that she was not applying the policy uniformly at the time is the issue. TJ: "They didn't appear to be homeless, or described as such, and were in the business of real estate according to the links I've followed." I read an article with some quotes in but reading more closely I think actually that might have been a general rumination by the police commissioner, Ross, who is black, about issues he has experienced: being black in casual dress in an expensive, predominantly white area, automatic assumptions you don't belong etc. Yes, they were in real estate. But if they are wearing casual clothes and you have a certain mindset you might reach a very different conclusion from "business men waiting for a client - the kind of people and setting we actively promote Starbucks as being for" - which is precisely what seems to be the case here. "You would think they could have made a purchase and all this would have been avoided." When you walk into a bar to meet some friends, and you are maybe five or ten minutes early, do you wait for your friend and get a round in as per social custom; or do you order immediately? When I meet for coffee in a business context, I always wait so I can offer to buy the individual I'm meeting with in a way that is not hugely awkward. This is normal, and happens all the time. It is how people use coffee bars, and Starbucks has actively promoted itself this way - as "the third space" between office and home. God knows how many meetings I've had in Starbucks. So I would be highly irritated if the staff insisted I order immediately or leave. Particularly if I had explained I was waiting for a colleague to arrive, in a store which has made a global brand identity for being a venue for precisely that kind of meeting. I would be even more irritated if I could see other people doing the precise same thing and not being taken to task. And hugely so if I suspected they were doing so on the basis of the colour of my skin, given it is not the way I would expect to be treated given Starbucks intent to make itself a place for these kinds of business meetings. At that point I would be pretty angry. And the way I'd tend to express that anger might well be to give people enough rope to hang themselves with. I would probably make a point of not leaving - I tend to fight points of principle - and if they called the police I would certainly insist it be formalised because all of this, as we say in the UK, is "bang out of order". I would want to see if the business was willing to hold their manager to account for exceptionally shoddy service and what appears to be significant levels of prejudice. In short, I think the manager was massively out of line and if I was treated that way I would be complaining to the company and trying to get them fired. Yup. And you can think that's unreasonable - poor little manager - but the company in question do not. And the danger in petty exercising of authority is that occasionally you discover is that it can cut the other way if you abuse it. In the end, she was a manager - an employee not an owner - and displayed poor judgement, poor customer service, and damaged the reputation of the brand. So here's another way all this could have been avoided: "Sirs, I know you are waiting for your colleague but I'm afraid some of my customers have ordered already and need to be seated. Would you mind standing while you wait for your colleague? I'm sure some more seats will be available when your colleague arrives." She'd still have a job, and she would be treating the individuals as they described themselves rather than whatever she assumed them to be conforming to Starbucks policies of providing excellent customer service and providing the kind of environment Starbucks wants. And frankly, if she didn't think they were homeless and took at face value that they genuinely were business men waiting for a colleague then that just makes it even worse!
smart dude Member	Thu Apr 19 10:34:20 "As for unscientific", as a scientist this kinda annoys me. This isn't a subject matter really amenable to the scientific method - we don't use the same standards of proof or the method of scientific deduction for handling disciplinary procedures at work, nor criminal procedures in court." Fair point, and unscientific was a poor word choice. The scientific method doesn't apply to this, but rather something analogous to it. She wasn't applying the rule uniformly, as you say, at that particular point. That is obvious (if we are to believe the eyewitnesses, which we will for the sake of argument). But what about the day before? Or the day before that? Can we imagine non-racially-motivated factors that might motivate her to enforce the policy inconsistently at a given moment? I say yes. 1. These men might have been louder than other patrons. 2. They may have been seated at a more conspicuous location. 3. They might have been sitting at an obviously empty table (as opposed to having laptops, notebooks, outside beverages, etc.) 4. They might have appeared "homeless"* 5. Inherent inconsistency of human-applied rules (who ever applies rules consistently? I certainly don't). 6. General attitude of the men. *I live in a racially homogenous country and my assumptions about a person's homelessness (or homefulness?) is not based on race, but other forms of bias (not proud to admit this, but I also never kicked anyone out of a building or called the police). Items 1-6 on my list are not mutually exclusive to racial bias, and racial bias may very well be a factor in all of them. But racial bias is not a necessary requirement. I'm not arguing that racism didn't occur here. I just don't see enough evidence to commit to an opinion to the extent that I will insist one way or the other.
Seb Member	Thu Apr 19 10:55:10 Nim: "It is indicative of the kind of koolaid you are drinking." Saying "Obviously Unconscious" is ironic is a pun not an insight. It's wordplay - not an oxymoron. e.g. the high rates of people failing to solve the female doctor riddle is an obvious indicator of a widespread bias. "Questionable scientific basis," The questionable scientific basis is around attempting to quantify unconscious bias by the particular test you mentioned - which doesn't mean that unconscious bias is an illusory concept, and nor does that test play any role in the training (at least any I've had to do). "questionable efficacy" Well, if the scientific basis of the measurement is unsound, the efficacy cannot be assessed either way - but that is a very poor reason not to do the training. Almost all business decisions are taken with huge uncertainties of whether they are going to work. If businesses were run purely on the scientific method, and none to scientific levels of certainty (getting six sigmas of confidence that an intervention will be effective is *very* different from demanding six sigmas in confidence that a widget will perform to spec). They would probably go bankrupt pretty quickly due to analysis paralysis. "pay people money to come and tell me "obvious" stuff." Yeah, but what is obvious to you and me is not obvious to many others. Besides, you are a management consultant and having worked with oodles of them from McKinsey down to random little boutiques I can confidently say pretty much everything they say is obvious too. "I am just lifting your own words." Which are fine where they are, but then you recontextualise them and interpret them and the rot sinks in. "It is another layer of lulz that even semantically this is incoherent." Except it isn't as demonstrated above. "from theory to application, it is garbage." Oh come on! Your own words: "The very basic idea [of unconscious bias is sound], sure, but then again tests show that a lot of decisions we make have already been decided before we act, so what does unconsious bias really mean in the end?." You want irony, how is that statement for irony? "What can it possibly mean when it shows that decisions have been made before we consciously act?" er, that's the very definition of the unconscious! "You seem to agree on the practical parts" Of IAT tests - as a methodology that doesn't appear to work - which means you can't gauge efficacy in the same way a broken thermostat means you can't figure out whether the boilers broken. "but insist that in theory it is all sound (as evidence you present a riddle)." To prove that black swans exist, all you need is a black swan. The existence of the phenomenon is pretty clear no? "Basically presented us with the analog of the ontological argument for god" The ontological argument for unconscious bias would be to say "because I can conceive of un-conscious bias, it must therefore exist". What I presented to you was a concrete example of unconscious bias in practice that is easily repeatable. It is more as if I had said "well, God exists because, look over there, there he is. Right in front of you. Big bloody beard in the sky." Granted, a simple repeatable test to demonstrate phenomenology isn't the same as a robust method to quantify it. Which we agree there isn't one (not that I'm aware of) - this is not the same as saying the phenomenon doesn't exist. And I don't think you are actually arguing that the phenomenon doesn't exist. Just that you can't quantify it and therefor cannot really tell if a given intervention is working. But really, that's not a great argument for doing nothing either. Particularly if that nothing is both fairly harmless and also good PR.
Wrath of Orion Member	Thu Apr 19 11:02:58 Or, most probably, the fact that a complaint was made about them to the staff (this is true, right - I can't be bothered to follow this idiocy very closely). I can't count the number of times I have seen a manager unintentionally apply a rule/guideline/whatever inconsistently simply because one person/instance/whatever was brought to their attention. Assuming they were actually pointed out by a patron, by far the simplest and most likely explanation is the above, regardless of race.
Seb Member	Thu Apr 19 11:05:31 Nim: "So seb, why was it important for me to provide evidence that individual Muslims behavior (not that I was ever talking about specific individuals, but populations) was because of Islam," Er, because your argument was that policy interventions (which were definitely potentially harmful) should focus on peoples religions and you had completely failed to indicate that religion was causal. "but isn't for you to paint people racist?" Firstly, I said the incident was one of racial discrimination because it obviously was. People were treated differently on the sole basis of their skin. Secondly, because I'm not proposing, for example, to curtail rights of people on the basis. "Islam is a known set of ideas, professions of faith, explicit." That's not actually true though, there are numerous individual interpretations and practices. "Yet you would not accept that if Muslims behave according to their books" I do accept that some Muslims behave according to their interpretation of what is actually a pretty diverse and inconsistent set of books (you cannot abide by the letter of Islam because like Christianity it's self contradictory). I j think that "some" and "according" to be so diverse as to be meaningless so that it's really quite impossible to say how someone will behave in any meaningful or useful way from a harm minimisation perspective solely on the basis that they describe themselves as "muslim". Does that clear it up for you? "Here there is no book, it is the opposite of explicit" Yes, here there is only facts. There was a manager. Two black men came in and asked to use the toilets, she refused. They sat down. She asked them to leave, they said they were waiting for a colleague - which is not only normal for starbucks, but actively promoted. She continued to insist they leave. She called the police. White people came in and were allowed to use the toilet without paying. Other white people pointed out they had not ordered and were waiting. She did not ask those people to leave. The facts are explicit here: black people were treated differently to white people by that manager. So explicitly, that is a case of racial discrimination. Because the manager discriminated in how she applied policies to people on the sole basis of race. I don't know how 101 you want to get here Nim. The only way I can see you not getting this is if you feel racial discrimination requires that we have positive confirmation that the woman was actively harbouring malicious thoughts in her mind about the individuals. If so, that's not a definition of racial discrimination that I subscribe to.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Apr 19 11:08:01 There is about as much evidence for unconscious bias as there is for god. There are riddles in blogs and just the mere concept of god as a perfect being exist as an ontological argument. Please stop speaking about it. ”is not obvious to many others” I have yet meet anyone who said it was an awakening. Again the lack of efficacy speaks for itself or even the lack of effocacy studies to begin with. Hence why I qualified ”very basic”, as a basic concept, a term, you know like ”god”, sure. But then again I go.. So the IAT being the only attempt to meassure it and it not showing anything. You are back to ”god”. You can’t will things into existance, because you can think of them.
Seb Member	Thu Apr 19 11:08:41 WoO: That would be a fair assumption under other circumstances, but runs counter to the video and published account of the events where her attention was drawn to a number of individuals who were white and doing the same thing as the black guys... at that point I think the best you can claim is that she was acting like Orwell shooting his Elephant (google it, it's worth the read - essentially felt like backing down would loose face). And that's still a problem because it meant she knew she was going through with a blatantly discriminatory policy in practice, simply because she was too embarrassed to back down.
Seb Member	Thu Apr 19 11:11:24 Nim: "There is about as much evidence for unconscious bias as there is for god." I'm afraid we have to disagree. The riddle only works as a puzzle based on the widespread and assumption that the doctor must be a man. There is no reason to thikn that, other than this is people's default expectation of a doctor, even though almost all people are aware that doctors can and often are female (and in this case that is the only logical explanation). What would you call this other than an example of unconscious bias Nim?
Seb Member	Thu Apr 19 11:11:55 Or are you saying that actually we are all lying and everyone immediately answers "well obviously the doctor is the boys mother!".
smart dude Member	Thu Apr 19 11:13:00 "by far the simplest and most likely explanation is the above, regardless of race." The other customer's complaint might have been motivated out of racism as well. So really no difference whether some dipshit barista is racist or some dipshit customer is racist. Though it does insulate Starbucks a little bit more. "the high rates of people failing to solve the female doctor riddle is an obvious indicator of a widespread bias" Not really. To get meaningful results from the riddle you have to pose it to two different groups. In one you begin the riddle "A father and his son..." and the other group you begin "A mother and her son..." and then determine if there is a discrepency in the two groups' answers. Like, let's be rigorous? The question is inherently biased so you need a control group, but that never happens.
Wrath of Orion Member	Thu Apr 19 11:15:02 "So really no difference whether some dipshit barista is racist or some dipshit customer is racist." Actually, there is quite a large difference.
smart dude Member	Thu Apr 19 11:19:23 It's a reasonable assumption that such a discrepancy will surface, but if you are basing your argument on assumptions, then why invoke the riddle as evidence to begin with?
	show deleted posts