She brings up very valid points

@MethDozer But they were there to literally change their lives 🙄

@AcidBurn lmao.

@MethDozer Yeah, you know how guys waiting for their friend for a whopping two minutes can wreak havoc. I suppose that "screenwriter" in the corner nursing one small cup of coffee for 4 and 1/2 hours is an upstanding citizen, though...

@Graylight As long as the screenwriter is white, all is well. They can stay there as long as they like. Blacks, two minute limit. If they stay there longer, it upsets white supremacist snowflakes.

🙄@Graylight @windinhishair
🎼Looking for racism in all the wrong places. Look for racism in roomy faces.


(Loitering without purchase isn't allowed and no reason it should be.)

@MethDozer Even the white people there complained that the black men were being racially profiled and had done nothing wrong. You may prefer an America where that is not only allowed but glorified. Most people don't.

@MethDozer [quote]Loitering without purchase isn't allowed and no reason it should be.[/quote]

Fair enough, then apply that fairly and across the board to EVERYONE, not just the two black guys.

@windinhishair oh man, even a few of the white hipsters at the Starbucks interviewed think that.🙄

Yo, when you you into a place and are asked to buy something or leave you are obligated to do one or the other. This is how it's always been and is for everyone. FFS get real. Loitering without a purchase IS wrong. It's a business, not a park bench.

@Pherick It pretty much is Pherick. It just doesn't make the sensationalist news.

Been the subject of it hmyself and done it before at places I worked.

@MethDozer You can't really think thats true.

You think if this was two white ladies, and they said they would order soon, they were waiting to meet a friend, that the cops would have been called on them????

Seriously???

@MethDozer The point, as Pherick just pointed out, is that it is only selectively enforced on black people. White people are immune. You just don't get it. Starbucks gets it and apologized for the action of their manager, and I believe she was terminated.

@Pherick 🙄.... Begging the hypothetical question. Not a tangible argument.

@windinhishair Prove it. Show the evidence to support your wild claim.


Starbucks apologized because they want business and cater to the Moonie snowflake fringe. They did it because it was good for their manufactured image.

@MethDozer It is a very tangible argument when you are dealing with race issues.

"How would another race be treated in the same situation?"

@MethDozer How about you show us an instance where two white women, or men, were arrested for loitering after spending two minutes in a restaurant or coffee place?

Since it happens all the time, according to you, you shouldn't have any trouble. @MethDozer

@windinhishair I'm waiting for your proof that this was targeted by the staff because they were black and all the white people who are allowed to sit without purchase even though is a common and well.known policy of any establishment and within the law.


You and Pherick are making assumptions and strawmaning to tow the manufactured narrative.

@Pherick Lmao. No issue is given special privilege to suspend facts of the matter. Hypothetical s that are unprovable are not valid.

@MethDozer Your making assumptions that just because you apparently what it to be so, that everyone in the world, treats everyone of different skin color the same.

Sorry to break it to you, thats not how it works. People have pre-conceived notions and prejudices and they make decisions based on those. To that manager, two black guys sitting around looked dangerous and required a call to the police. I doubt two white ladies would have looked the same.

@MethDozer Starbucks admitted the manager was wrong to target the black men. She was terminated. That's not enough proof for you?

@MethDozer You still haven't proven with any facts that this kind of thing happens all the time. I mean if it happens all the time, it should be easy for you to post some sources right?

@Pherick It is similar to the issue of "driving while black". Black people, especially black men, are much more likely to be stopped than whites.

@Pherick No Pherick. I and other are going on the facts of the matter and the law as it stands. Y'all are going on the closeted racism thinking that whenever anything happens involved ing a black person in society it always is them being a victim of racism.

You're even suggesting that it is some fact that every person sees black skin as a clear threat without any deviation from that. What you " doubt" is not relevant to the facts presented. It's almost suggestive of you that it is at best a near impossibility of any negative consequence involving two people of different skin tones as being anything but the result of racism. Ridiculous arguments.

@windinhishair You're attributing different issues as a proof.

@MethDozer Oh right because the laws have never been applied differently to black people as opposed to white people right??? Give me a break.

[quote]You're even suggesting that it is some fact that every person sees black skin as a clear threat without any deviation from that. [/quote]

I am certainly not saying that, though its cute of you to try and twist my words. I said people have prejudices and pre-conceived notions, which they do, thats a fact, no one is a clean slate. People use those to make snap judgments about people, again a fact.

I find it interesting that the people involved, plus multiple people at the time of the action thought it was about racism, yet you, apparently know better than them all?