Twofer; Canada to America 'THIS is how you handle racial discrimination' / cops called on black couple for not giving up their table

[Telstra]

[Quoted Post: Removed]

If ask for prepay = racist
Nothing can help you. By the way, the judge who reward the customer $10,000 is black !!!
The judge might a racist too i would say, and according to her name, she might not born in Canada.

 

[PipeDream]

[Quoted Post: Removed]

If multiculturalism isn't a failure all over the globe, then why do I keep insisting that it is? Checkmate, Libs.

 

[peeonme]

Talking about racism does not constitute beating a dead horse, and it won't until racism ends. The best way to perpetuate racism is to sweep it under the rug.

I agree with you, being in denial doesn't help anything. At the same time name calling and false accusations shouldn't enter into the dialogue. Talking about racism is one thing, using racism as a vehicle to spread division and try to anger others only energizes racial divides.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

using racism as a vehicle to spread division and try to anger others only energizes racial divides.

Why is this always the assumption, that black people are using racism as some sort of weapon or bargaining chip for sympathy? is it possible that maybe our end game is equity and awareness and not to "take down whitey?" ya know, assuming malintent is kinda... nevermind.

 

[MakeDigitalLove]

I agree with you, being in denial doesn't help anything. At the same time name calling and false accusations shouldn't enter into the dialogue. Talking about racism is one thing, using racism as a vehicle to spread division and try to anger others only energizes racial divides.

It really shouldn't, though. Just because there are people who are more irrational about movements, shouldn't divide people from still finding racism wrong or being against it. At that point if it is, you're looking for a divide. There are plenty people who don't use these things as vehicles, why are the ones that apparently do cause one to divide?

 

[peeonme]

It really shouldn't, though. Just because there are people who are more irrational about movements, shouldn't divide people from still finding racism wrong or being against it. At that point if it is, you're looking for a divide. There are plenty people who don't use these things as vehicles, why are the ones that apparently do cause one to divide?

No it shouldn't, however when a post starts with "guess what color" or "Canada to America" it is obvious that one is looking for an argument rather than a discussion.

When one sanctimoniously declares that his nation doesn't tolerate racism (which is not true as I have shown in post 20) of course it only provokes those whom are accused to go into a defense mode as opposed to an open dialogue.

When facts and links are ignored and are only answered with more unsubstantiated fabrications it doesn't work for a forum of open discussion.

[Text: Removed]

 

[gsdx]

I've eaten at Hong Shing many, many times. You'd be shocked at how often people pull a late night dine and dash (or walk out slowly and say "fuck you, (racial slur) man. Try and stop me."

The ruling is harsh.
In the real world, the owner should pay afew free meals for their "unfair treatment" of customer.
Restaurants experienced people just eat and run, why can't they pay first and eat later ???

I do not think this is racism.
Its about whether the customer can pay or not and the owner thought the customer cannot and might do the runner. That is why the owner ask for prepay.

Discrimination is discrimination, and it is illegal in Canada. If the restaurant fears patrons 'doing a runner', then make the policy across the board during the early morning hours. Choosing who might eat and run and demanding that they prepay is discrimination. And the punishment was not too harsh. Discrimination is punished up here enough so that the guilty parties change their 'policies' and the way they do business.

 

[PipeDream]

No it shouldn't, however when a post starts with "guess what color" or "Canada to America" it is obvious that one is looking for an argument rather than a discussion.

How would you suggest these are different to your thread entitled "now, this is a real case of racism", or do you concede now that you were more interested in an argument than a discussion when you made it?

When facts and links are ignored and are only answered with more unsubstantiated fabrications it doesn't work for a forum of open discussion.

This is exactly what you did throughout the entirety of the Starbucks thread in your desperate attempt to delude yourself into believing it wasn't a case of real racism. Don't think people haven't noticed that you didn't respond to the fact that the police were called two minutes after the men entered the building.

I'm starting to see a trend here. Projection?

[Text: Removed]

First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."

Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

 

[mikey3000]

Why did you quote MLK then and his disappointment in the white man's moderation?

 

[peeonme]

How would you suggest these are different to your thread entitled "now, this is a real case of racism", or do you concede now that you were more interested in an argument than a discussion when you made it?



This is exactly what you did throughout the entirety of the Starbucks thread in your desperate attempt to delude yourself into believing it wasn't a case of real racism. Don't think people haven't noticed that you didn't respond to the fact that the police were called two minutes after the men entered the building.

I'm starting to see a trend here. Projection?

When I started that post it was because I thought that a 14 year asking for help and getting shot at was indeed racism.

As for Star Bucks, the 2 minute issue didn't surface at first. I still have to question how long they (the 2 men) were there, why they didn't order and why they didn't leave after being asked to do so by the cops.
How can you fit asking for the code to the bathroom, being told to order if you want to use it and the cops showing up within that time frame? I had read at first that there were Real Estate brokers, then it was Realtors and finally entrepreneurs. The story evolved.
Star Bucks claimed to have an open to the public rest room policy, if so, then why have a code for access?
What about a cop who was denied access?

Originally Posted by Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., 16 April 1963
First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."

Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

You might notice this quote is from 1963, I was a boy. Today it's not shallow understanding, it's a weariness, a fatigue an utter exhaustion in dealing with a people that seek no remedy, but only an ailment.

 

[PipeDream]

When I started that post it was because I thought that a 14 year asking for help and getting shot at was indeed racism.

OK, but implicit in that title is the suggestion that other discussions that were happening on JUB at the time weren't actually about incidents of 'real racism' (i.e you were using the thread title to argue that point and the thread wasn't completely about the specific news story you linked to). At the time however, you attempted to paint those who addressed the title of the topic as 'SJWs' who didn't actually care about the boy. If you simply wished to discuss that specific incident of racism, your title could have been an objective description of the story. Instead, you used the incident as a springboard to make an argumentative point, the exact behaviour you're criticising the OP for.

As for Star Bucks, the 2 minute issue didn't surface at first. I still have to question how long they (the 2 men) were there, why they didn't order and why they didn't leave after being asked to do so by the cops.
How can you fit asking for the code to the bathroom, being told to order if you want to use it and the cops showing up within that time frame? I had read at first that there were Real Estate brokers, then it was Realtors and finally entrepreneurs. The story evolved.
Star Bucks claimed to have an open to the public rest room policy, if so, then why have a code for access?
What about a cop who was denied access?

If you wish to discuss the Starbucks incident, I think it would be best for you to copy paste this in the thread about it. The reason I brought it up in the first place was not to bring the discussion here, but to use it as an example of you again behaving in the same way you're trying to criticise the OP for.

Why did you quote MLK then and his disappointment in the white man's moderation?

The reason I quoted MLK was because people often invoke his name in order to criticise black activism (or even just people who bring attention to racism) for being 'misguided' or 'malicious'. The idea is generally that they personally take issue with the methods people are using to protest against or discuss racism (whether reasonable or not) and attempt to legitimise their grievances by assuming to know how MLK would react to the current climate of racism or the discourse surrounding it. Of course, this is involves making ridiculous assumptions about the man and I was using the quote to highlight that maybe, just maybe, peeonme's presumptions about MLK might not be all that accurate.

I wasn't using it to call anybody racist. In fact, if you look back through my post history you'll find that I'm staunchly opposed to doing so in such discussions because of the way it shifts the focus from specific statements (which can be argued with objectivity) to speculation about what those statements might mean about the person making them (a subjective derailment).

 

[peeonme]

OK, but implicit in that title is the suggestion that other discussions that were happening on JUB at the time weren't actually about incidents of 'real racism' (i.e you were using the thread title to argue that point and the thread wasn't completely about the specific news story you linked to). At the time however, you attempted to paint those who addressed the title of the topic as 'SJWs' who didn't actually care about the boy. If you simply wished to discuss that specific incident of racism, your title could have been an objective description of the story. Instead, you used the incident as a springboard to make an argumentative point, the exact behaviour you're criticising the OP for.



If you wish to discuss the Starbucks incident, I think it would be best for you to copy paste this in the thread about it. The reason I brought it up in the first place was not to bring the discussion here, but to use it as an example of you again behaving in the same way you're trying to criticise the OP for.




The reason I quoted MLK was because people often invoke his name in order to criticise black activism (or even just people who bring attention to racism) for being 'misguided' or 'malicious'. The idea is generally that they personally take issue with the methods people are using to protest against or discuss racism (whether reasonable or not) and attempt to legitimise their grievances by assuming to know how MLK would react to the current climate of racism or the discourse surrounding it. Of course, this is involves making ridiculous assumptions about the man and I was using the quote to highlight that maybe, just maybe, peeonme's presumptions about MLK might not be all that accurate.

I wasn't using it to call anybody racist. In fact, if you look back through my post history you'll find that I'm staunchly opposed to doing so in such discussions because of the way it shifts the focus from specific statements (which can be argued with objectivity) to speculation about what those statements might mean about the person making them (a subjective derailment).

This is exactly what you did throughout the entirety of the Starbucks thread in your desperate attempt to delude yourself into believing it wasn't a case of real racism. Don't think people haven't noticed that you didn't respond to the fact that the police were called two minutes after the men entered the building.

You, yes you, brought up Star Bucks to me in this thread in post #50, I was replying to you.

 

[PipeDream]

You, yes you, brought up Star Bucks to me in this thread in post #50, I was replying to you.

Are you serious? I just explained to you why I brought it up. It wasn't to discuss the incident itself, but your response to it. I was using it as an example of you exhibiting the behaviour you're criticising the OP for (facts being ignored and other things being responded to with unsubstantiated fabrications).

 

[peeonme]

Are you serious? I just explained to you why I brought it up. It wasn't to discuss the incident itself, but your response to it. I was using it as an example of you exhibiting the behaviour you're criticising the OP for (facts being ignored and other things being responded to with unsubstantiated fabrications).

And I replied to you. If you don't want to discuss it, don't mention it. You opened the door.

 

[MakeDigitalLove]

Are you serious? I just explained to you why I brought it up. It wasn't to discuss the incident itself, but your response to it. I was using it as an example of you exhibiting the behaviour you're criticising the OP for (facts being ignored and other things being responded to with unsubstantiated fabrications).

It doesn't mean much. He was also calling out the OP for making an inflammatory racist comment in another but did it himself in the thread. I don’t think it really matters to him that he exhibits the behaviour he calls out others ob.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."

Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

One more time for the people in the back. There are several people here who need to print that out and tape it to their bathroom mirror so they see it every goddamn morning. And it isn't just applicable to race that prom dress thread could use this quote too

 

[mikey3000]

So you really are critizing supporters of your cause because they arent radical enough to support your agenda. Got it. You're so full of shit it ain't even funny anymore. And you're obviously to blind to see that your methods are doing way more harm than good. What a disaster.

 

[MakeDigitalLove]

So you really are critizing supporters of your cause because they arent radical enough to support your agenda. Got it. You're so full of shit it ain't even funny anymore. And you're obviously to blind to see that your methods are doing way more harm than good. What a disaster.

His methods are not doing any harm unless you want them to.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

Why did you quote MLK then and his disappointment in the white man's moderation?

Do you always ask questions you already know the answer to?

 

[Telstra]

Discrimination is discrimination, and it is illegal in Canada. If the restaurant fears patrons 'doing a runner', then make the policy across the board during the early morning hours. Choosing who might eat and run and demanding that they prepay is discrimination. And the punishment was not too harsh. Discrimination is punished up here enough so that the guilty parties change their 'policies' and the way they do business.

In the real world,
there should be a warning letter before the fine. Because it is not your money or the judge money, they just give out big fines to the hard working restaurant owner to show who is the boss. Maybe the judge should work in the restaurant for a few weeks to see if they can handle the real situation.