#BoycottStarbucks

[Aloha Hoosier]

I'm noticing many of my liberal friends posting on Facebook about boycotting Starbucks which really surprised me. According to those posts it's also trending with the tweeting twits on Twitter as #BoycottStarbucks. Starbucks is a famously liberal corporation headed by a self-avowed solid Democrat. He publically endorsed Hillary and claimed he was going to hire refugees in protest of Trump's Executive Order to ban travel from certain majority Muslim countries (I don't like the ban either so don't attack me for mentioning it). I don't personally care about Starbucks or the CEO's political leanings and I don't care about the leanings of any corporation (conservative, liberal, Republican or Democrat), that's more of a liberal thing. I do kind of enjoy it when liberals attack their own. I say boycott away, but I'm not participating just as I've never participated in any lame boycott that have been started by conservatives. Well, I'm kind of participating in that I don't drink coffee.

Apparently, this is the cause of the budding boycott.

 

[UncleMark]

Apparently, this is the cause of the budding boycott.

Dudes shouldn't have asked for permission.

 

[Morrison]

I'm noticing many of my liberal friends posting on Facebook about boycotting Starbucks which really surprised me. According to those posts it's also trending with the tweeting twits on Twitter as #BoycottStarbucks. Starbucks is a famously liberal corporation headed by a self-avowed solid Democrat. He publically endorsed Hillary and claimed he was going to hire refugees in protest of Trump's Executive Order to ban travel from certain majority Muslim countries (I don't like the ban either so don't attack me for mentioning it). I don't personally care about Starbucks or the CEO's political leanings and I don't care about the leanings of any corporation (conservative, liberal, Republican or Democrat), that's more of a liberal thing. I do kind of enjoy it when liberals attack their own. I say boycott away, but I'm not participating just as I've never participated in any lame boycott that have been started by conservatives. Well, I'm kind of participating in that I don't drink coffee.

Apparently, this is the cause of the budding boycott.

You don’t drink coffee? I’m genuinely worried about you. Starbucks is the Antichrist, btw.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I'm noticing many of my liberal friends posting on Facebook about boycotting Starbucks which really surprised me. According to those posts it's also trending with the tweeting twits on Twitter as #BoycottStarbucks. Starbucks is a famously liberal corporation headed by a self-avowed solid Democrat. He publically endorsed Hillary and claimed he was going to hire refugees in protest of Trump's Executive Order to ban travel from certain majority Muslim countries (I don't like the ban either so don't attack me for mentioning it). I don't personally care about Starbucks or the CEO's political leanings and I don't care about the leanings of any corporation (conservative, liberal, Republican or Democrat), that's more of a liberal thing. I do kind of enjoy it when liberals attack their own. I say boycott away, but I'm not participating just as I've never participated in any lame boycott that have been started by conservatives. Well, I'm kind of participating in that I don't drink coffee.

Apparently, this is the cause of the budding boycott.

So what's your problem, exactly?

 

[UncleMark]

Starbucks is the Antichrist, btw.

Their logo is Satanic.

 

[Morrison]

Their logo is Satanic.

Didn’t know that, but not surprising. I meant that in a light hearted way, but I actually do think there’s a correlation with the rise of Starbucks and liberal’s acceptance and complicity in the corporatization of American politics and way of life. Starbucks made it cool to be a corporatist. I’m not communicating my thoughts very well, but I think you know what I’m saying.

 

[UncleMark]

...I actually do think there’s a correlation with the rise of Starbucks and liberal’s acceptance and complicity in the corporatization of American politics and way of life. Starbucks made it cool to be a corporatist.

Steve Jobs got there first. Vegan artist Berniecrats tied to their Macbooks and iPhones are my favorite.

 

[Sope Creek]

Steve Jobs got there first. Vegan artist Berniecrats tied to their Macbooks and iPhones are my favorite.

You're just a Linux elitist snob.

 

[meridian]

So what's your problem, exactly?

Yeah, I read Aloha's post 3 times, trying to figure out where the problem is, but could not find it. I concluded that Aloha just does not like Starbucks and the liberals, therefore, lumped them together to make a case.

 

[UncleMark]

You're just a Linux elitist snob.

I run what I can afford.

 

[Sope Creek]

I'm noticing many of my liberal friends posting on Facebook about boycotting Starbucks which really surprised me. According to those posts it's also trending with the tweeting twits on Twitter as #BoycottStarbucks. Starbucks is a famously liberal corporation headed by a self-avowed solid Democrat. He publically endorsed Hillary and claimed he was going to hire refugees in protest of Trump's Executive Order to ban travel from certain majority Muslim countries (I don't like the ban either so don't attack me for mentioning it). I don't personally care about Starbucks or the CEO's political leanings and I don't care about the leanings of any corporation (conservative, liberal, Republican or Democrat), that's more of a liberal thing. I do kind of enjoy it when liberals attack their own. I say boycott away, but I'm not participating just as I've never participated in any lame boycott that have been started by conservatives. Well, I'm kind of participating in that I don't drink coffee.

Apparently, this is the cause of the budding boycott.

Starbucks used to have decent hot chocolate, but not any more . . . it's really weakened from what it was. Caribou has better hot chocolate, by a long shot.

Starbucks overroasts their coffee beans, which makes it taste burned and also makes it more habit-forming.

I have no love for Starbucks . . . and I don't base my choices about what I buy on the politics of the business . . .

. . . that said, I reserve the right not to buy a business' products or services based on their politics. Plenty of good steaks out there without ever having to set foot in a steak house with a tawdry drug addict's radio show fouling the atmosphere . . . .

 

[meridian]

Didn’t know that, but not surprising. I meant that in a light hearted way, but I actually do think there’s a correlation with the rise of Starbucks and liberal’s acceptance and complicity in the corporatization of American politics and way of life. Starbucks made it cool to be a corporatist. I’m not communicating my thoughts very well, but I think you know what I’m saying.

You are honest, and I appreciate it, and no, I do not know what you are saying.

 

[Sope Creek]

I run what I can afford.

Uh-hunh . . .

. . . Hunh-unh, you're not getting away with that one . . . I've read your posts about other OS . . . .

 

[UncleMark]

Uh-hunh . . .

. . . Hunh-unh, you're not getting away with that one . . . I've read your posts about other OS . . . .

I don't run Windows. I have an IU license for W7 I got on the down low and use it once a year to run Tax Act. I could do it online through the browser if I needed to, but I'm anal about doing that sort of thing locally. Otherwise I wouldn't pay $135 to run that crap.

I picked up a machine today that has totally corrupted load of W7 on it. No rescuing it at all. The W7 boot disk doesn't even recognize there's an operating system on the drive. However, I was able to boot a Linux disk, load it in RAM, and copy the users profile to an old box in the corner running a ten year old version of Ubuntu that serves as my NAS. It's going to take me two days and cost the user $150 to get back up and running. Thanks MSFT.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

So what's your problem, exactly?

No problem. I just think the boycott is amusing.

 

[Morrison]

You are honest, and I appreciate it, and no, I do not know what you are saying.

@UncleMark is old enough to understand liquored up half statements from a fellow boomer. We have our own language. You’ll get there.

 

[zeke4ahs]

I'm noticing many of my liberal friends posting on Facebook about boycotting Starbucks which really surprised me. According to those posts it's also trending with the tweeting twits on Twitter as #BoycottStarbucks. Starbucks is a famously liberal corporation headed by a self-avowed solid Democrat. He publically endorsed Hillary and claimed he was going to hire refugees in protest of Trump's Executive Order to ban travel from certain majority Muslim countries (I don't like the ban either so don't attack me for mentioning it). I don't personally care about Starbucks or the CEO's political leanings and I don't care about the leanings of any corporation (conservative, liberal, Republican or Democrat), that's more of a liberal thing. I do kind of enjoy it when liberals attack their own. I say boycott away, but I'm not participating just as I've never participated in any lame boycott that have been started by conservatives. Well, I'm kind of participating in that I don't drink coffee.

Apparently, this is the cause of the budding boycott.

So doesn't that show that actually they are disconcerting about the cause? Like if someone is treated wrong, they don't care if it's a conservative or liberal corporation? That's to be applauded, IMO.

 

[wiede]

I'm noticing many of my liberal friends posting on Facebook about boycotting Starbucks which really surprised me. According to those posts it's also trending with the tweeting twits on Twitter as #BoycottStarbucks. Starbucks is a famously liberal corporation headed by a self-avowed solid Democrat. He publically endorsed Hillary and claimed he was going to hire refugees in protest of Trump's Executive Order to ban travel from certain majority Muslim countries (I don't like the ban either so don't attack me for mentioning it). I don't personally care about Starbucks or the CEO's political leanings and I don't care about the leanings of any corporation (conservative, liberal, Republican or Democrat), that's more of a liberal thing. I do kind of enjoy it when liberals attack their own. I say boycott away, but I'm not participating just as I've never participated in any lame boycott that have been started by conservatives. Well, I'm kind of participating in that I don't drink coffee.

Apparently, this is the cause of the budding boycott.

Not everybody is purely tribal??? This is a bad thing, why?

Companies that do chit like this SHOULD be outed for doing it. And the best way to hurt them is to hit their bank account.

I wish more folks listened to the “other” side. We’ve become captives of whatever media bubble we prefer.

 

[Rockfish1]

According to the reports I've seen, two peaceable black men were handcuffed and arrested for waiting while black in a Starbucks. This upset other patrons, who took video, and when the video went viral it upset a lot of other people who also don't like it that people can be arrested for waiting while black in a Starbucks. This caused some of Aloha's liberal Facebook friends to talk about boycotting Starbucks.

Aloha expresses no concern that two men could be arrested for waiting while black, but he smugly finds it amusing that liberals would object to something Starbucks did, because "Starbucks is a famously liberal corporation headed by a self-avowed solid Democrat." Ignoring the reason why liberals were offended by the arrest, Aloha says, "I do kind of enjoy it when liberals attack their own."

Aloha is correctly regarded as one of the board's reasonable Republicans. Nevertheless, his reaction to what looks like a racially motivated arrest entirely ignores the racial component, and instead expresses cynical partisan amusement that silly liberals don't get that they're supposed to behave tribally -- like Republicans do.

Republicans and Democrats really do view the world in different ways.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

According to the reports I've seen, two peaceable black men were handcuffed and arrested for waiting while black in a Starbucks. This upset other patrons, who took video, and when the video went viral it upset a lot of other people who also don't like it that people can be arrested for waiting while black in a Starbucks. This caused some of Aloha's liberal Facebook friends to talk about boycotting Starbucks.

Aloha expresses no concern that two men could be arrested for waiting while black, but he smugly finds it amusing that liberals would object to something Starbucks did, because "Starbucks is a famously liberal corporation headed by a self-avowed solid Democrat." Ignoring the reason why liberals were offended by the arrest, Aloha says, "I do kind of enjoy it when liberals attack their own."

Aloha is correctly regarded as one of the board's reasonable Republicans. Nevertheless, his reaction to what looks like a racially motivated arrest entirely ignores the racial component, and instead expresses cynical partisan amusement that silly liberals don't get that they're supposed to behave tribally -- like Republicans do.

Republicans and Democrats really do view the world in different ways.

This happened at one store and I don't approve of that - as I've never approved of people being treated differently or disrespectfully due to race. There are about 30,000 Starbucks stores and it just strikes me as silly to initiate a boycott of the entire company, which is well-known as a supporter of Democrats and causes that liberals support as well, over what happened at one store. However, as I said, boycott away.

Also, the idea that liberals are less tribal than Republicans is pretty silly. #Resist, #BocottStarbucks, #ThisAndThatLiberalThing, and all that.

 

[zeke4ahs]

This happened at one store and I don't approve of that - as I've never approved of people being treated differently or disrespectfully due to race. There are about 30,000 Starbucks stores and it just strikes me as silly to initiate a boycott of the entire company, which is well-known as a supporter of Democrats and causes that liberals support as well, over what happened at one store. However, as I said, boycott away.

Also, the idea that liberals are less tribal than Republicans is pretty silly. #Resist, #BocottStarbucks, #ThisAndThatLiberalThing, and all that.

But your whole point of pointing this out ignores the fact that liberals are actually concerned about treating people correctly and NOT as much who is doing it, conservative or liberal.

 

[iu_a_att]

According to the reports I've seen, two peaceable black men were handcuffed and arrested for waiting while black in a Starbucks. This upset other patrons, who took video, and when the video went viral it upset a lot of other people who also don't like it that people can be arrested for waiting while black in a Starbucks. This caused some of Aloha's liberal Facebook friends to talk about boycotting Starbucks.

Aloha expresses no concern that two men could be arrested for waiting while black, but he smugly finds it amusing that liberals would object to something Starbucks did, because "Starbucks is a famously liberal corporation headed by a self-avowed solid Democrat." Ignoring the reason why liberals were offended by the arrest, Aloha says, "I do kind of enjoy it when liberals attack their own."

Aloha is correctly regarded as one of the board's reasonable Republicans. Nevertheless, his reaction to what looks like a racially motivated arrest entirely ignores the racial component, and instead expresses cynical partisan amusement that silly liberals don't get that they're supposed to behave tribally -- like Republicans do.

Republicans and Democrats really do view the world in different ways.

I appreciate your taking the time to respond...I tried several times but couldn't quite put it together as you have done....My thought is that Aloha's OP is about 75% troll and 25% content. It would be better if the proportions were reversed in my view. The problem of people calling the police about the presence of black people is important. The fact that it is happening in "liberal" Starbucks suggests the problem is widespread. Imagine how infuriating this must be for the African Americans who would just like to have a cup of coffee with friends.

 

[iuwclurker1]

[Aloha's] reaction to what looks like a racially motivated arrest entirely ignores the racial component

Aloha can do that because he's not racist, the only requisite to ignoring racism.

 

[iu_a_att]

Also, the idea that liberals are less tribal than Republicans is pretty silly. #Resist, #BocottStarbucks, #ThisAndThatLiberalThing, and all that.

http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~jessegra/pa...ations of liberals and conservatives.JPSP.pdf

How and why do moral judgments vary across the political spectrum? To test moral foundations theory (J. Haidt & J. Graham, 2007; J. Haidt & C. Joseph, 2004), the authors developed several ways to measure people’s use of 5 sets of moral intuitions: Harm/care, Fairness/reciprocity, Ingroup/loyalty, Authority/respect, and Purity/sanctity. Across 4 studies using multiple methods, liberals consistently showed greater endorsement and use of the Harm/care and Fairness/reciprocity foundations compared to the other 3 foundations, whereas conservatives endorsed and used the 5 foundations more equally. This difference
was observed in abstract assessments of the moral relevance of foundation-related concerns such as violence or loyalty (Study 1), moral judgments of statements and scenarios (Study 2), “sacredness” reactions to taboo trade-offs (Study 3), and use of foundation-related words in the moral texts of religious sermons (Study 4). These findings help to illuminate the nature and intractability of moral disagreements in the American “culture war.”​

Jonathan Haidt, academic darling of the right, says that liberals consistently show greater endorsement of harm/care and fairness/reciprocity while conservatives put much more weight comparatively on Ingroup/loyalty...all of this is to say that conservatives are more tribal.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

But your whole point of pointing this out ignores the fact that liberals are actually concerned about treating people correctly and NOT as much who is doing it, conservative or liberal.

Don't agree. Treating people correctly is not in dispute. Aloha's point is that boycotts are tribal, reactionary, and emotional. Boycotts are more about opportunity and being noticed. Wiede gets it. He defends boycotts by saying they are intended to hurt certain people and institutions of the left's choosing. He proves boycotts ar a largely emotional and adolescent responses. Not logical responses. Hurting and silencing is preferable and easier than using words and logic to build arguments. That is so junior high.

And FWIW, your idea that liberals care about treating people correctly, (whatever that means) implying that conservatives do not, is bigoted at its core.

 

[iuwclurker1]

This happened at one store and I don't approve of that - as I've never approved of people being treated differently or disrespectfully due to race. There are about 30,000 Starbucks stores and it just strikes me as silly to initiate a boycott of the entire company, which is well-known as a supporter of Democrats and causes that liberals support as well, over what happened at one store.

Company policy dictates employee behavior. You know that, Captain.

 

[iuwclurker1]

http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~jessegra/papers/GrahamHaidtNosek.2009.Moral foundations of liberals and conservatives.JPSP.pdf

How and why do moral judgments vary across the political spectrum? To test moral foundations theory (J. Haidt & J. Graham, 2007; J. Haidt & C. Joseph, 2004), the authors developed several ways to measure people’s use of 5 sets of moral intuitions: Harm/care, Fairness/reciprocity, Ingroup/loyalty, Authority/respect, and Purity/sanctity. Across 4 studies using multiple methods, liberals consistently showed greater endorsement and use of the Harm/care and Fairness/reciprocity foundations compared to the other 3 foundations, whereas conservatives endorsed and used the 5 foundations more equally. This difference
was observed in abstract assessments of the moral relevance of foundation-related concerns such as violence or loyalty (Study 1), moral judgments of statements and scenarios (Study 2), “sacredness” reactions to taboo trade-offs (Study 3), and use of foundation-related words in the moral texts of religious sermons (Study 4). These findings help to illuminate the nature and intractability of moral disagreements in the American “culture war.”​

Jonathan Haidt, academic darling of the right, says that liberals consistently show greater endorsement of harm/care and fairness/reciprocity while conservatives put much more weight comparatively on Ingroup/loyalty...all of this is to say that conservatives are more tribal.

Shorter* att: Erudite scientific studies, therefore conservatives are [pejorative].

*Fair and balanced...

 

[CO. Hoosier]

http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~jessegra/papers/GrahamHaidtNosek.2009.Moral foundations of liberals and conservatives.JPSP.pdf

How and why do moral judgments vary across the political spectrum? To test moral foundations theory (J. Haidt & J. Graham, 2007; J. Haidt & C. Joseph, 2004), the authors developed several ways to measure people’s use of 5 sets of moral intuitions: Harm/care, Fairness/reciprocity, Ingroup/loyalty, Authority/respect, and Purity/sanctity. Across 4 studies using multiple methods, liberals consistently showed greater endorsement and use of the Harm/care and Fairness/reciprocity foundations compared to the other 3 foundations, whereas conservatives endorsed and used the 5 foundations more equally. This difference
was observed in abstract assessments of the moral relevance of foundation-related concerns such as violence or loyalty (Study 1), moral judgments of statements and scenarios (Study 2), “sacredness” reactions to taboo trade-offs (Study 3), and use of foundation-related words in the moral texts of religious sermons (Study 4). These findings help to illuminate the nature and intractability of moral disagreements in the American “culture war.”​

Jonathan Haidt, academic darling of the right, says that liberals consistently show greater endorsement of harm/care and fairness/reciprocity while conservatives put much more weight comparatively on Ingroup/loyalty...all of this is to say that conservatives are more tribal.

Nope. You are using "tribal" as a political pejorative. For purposes of this post I'll agree that the study shows conservatives to be "tribal." But instead of being a pejorative, I think tribal means "community"--a favorite word of the left. When the left uses phrases like the "LBGT community" or the "Latino community," or the "black community" they are really talking about LBGT, Latino and black tribes. Meaning they are really talking about people who are bound together in thoughts, words, and deeds.

 

[iu_a_att]

Shorter* att: Erudite scientific studies, therefore conservatives are [pejorative].

*Fair and balanced...

Jonathan Haidt along with Jordan Peterson is one of the leading academic lights on the right. You see ingroup/loyalty (i.e., tribalism) as a pejorative...Haidt doesn't...that is a key difference between liberals and conservatives.

 

[zeke4ahs]

But your whole point of pointing this out ignores the fact that liberals are actually concerned about treating people correctly and NOT as much who is doing it, conservative or liberal.

Don't agree. Treating people correctly is not in dispute. Aloha's point is that boycotts are tribal, reactionary, and emotional. Boycotts are more about opportunity and being noticed. Wiede gets it. He defends boycotts by saying they are intended to hurt certain people and institutions of the left's choosing. He proves boycotts ar a largely emotional and adolescent responses. Not logical responses. Hurting and silencing is preferable and easier than using words and logic to build arguments. That is so junior high.

And FWIW, your idea that liberals care about treating people correctly, (whatever that means) implying that conservatives do not, is bigoted at its core.

No, you don’t get to interpret for him. He made very clear his point was that he thought it was funny that liberals were boycotting liberals. He didn’t prove a damn thing. And you’re the one that took my statement and care to a conclusion I didn’t.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Company policy dictates employee behavior. You know that, Captain.

Starbucks has a company policy to treat black people less well than white people?

 

[iu_a_att]

Nope. You are using "tribal" as a political pejorative. For purposes of this post I'll agree that the study shows conservatives to be "tribal." But instead of being a pejorative, I think tribal means "community"--a favorite word of the left. When the left uses phrases like the "LBGT community" or the "Latino community," or the "black community" they are really talking about LBGT, Latino and black tribes. Meaning they are really talking about people who are bound together in thoughts, words, and deeds.

I use tribal as a pejorative because I don't see ingroup/loyalty (i.e., tribalism) as a virtue. Haidt and many others regard ingroup/loyalty as a virtue. There are some Democrats who are actually conservative in this way...i.e., they put high value on ingroup loyalty. There are some Republicans who don't value ingroup/loyalty i.e., who are more liberal. As Haidt shows, it is a mistake to think that liberals and conservatives are some simple mirror image of one another.

I don't use "community" to mean a "tribe". A tribal identity means a sense of belonging too and favoring those in one's tribe. You and I may be part of the same community without sharing any sense of shared identity or obligation to favor one another.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I use tribal as a pejorative because I don't see ingroup/loyalty (i.e., tribalism) as a virtue. Haidt and many others regard ingroup/loyalty as a virtue. There are some Democrats who are actually conservative in this way...i.e., they put high value on ingroup loyalty. There are some Republicans who don't value ingroup/loyalty i.e., who are more liberal. As Haidt shows, it is a mistake to think that liberals and conservatives are some simple mirror image of one another.

Well, unless you want to be a hermit and live in a cave; in-group loyalty is indeed not only a virtue, but absolutely vital for a well organized society. That isn't to say that the idea of ingroup loyalty cannot be misapplied, like ISIS, but a common culture built around common values and virtue is necessary for all of us. Humans are social animals. We need to coalesce around a common culture. This is why I am quite disturbed by those who find political and individual value in finding more and more ways to divide us into smaller and smaller groups for sole purpose of rejecting and suppressing, silencing, or destroying other groups.

 

[iu_a_att]

Well, unless you want to be a hermit and live in a cave; in-group loyalty is indeed not only a virtue, but absolutely vital for a well organized society. That isn't to say that the idea of ingroup loyalty cannot be misapplied, like ISIS, but a common culture built around common values and virtue is necessary for all of us. Humans are social animals. We need to coalesce around a common culture. This is why I am quite disturbed by those who find political and individual value in finding more and more ways to divide us into smaller and smaller groups for sole purpose of rejecting and suppressing, silencing, or destroying other groups.

I think you are deeply muddled. Thankfully, common values are in no way necessary for mass societies. People, being social animals, form factions--groups defined by ingroup/loyalty--almost as easily as they breath. Such factions are always a very good method for capturing a piece of the collective pie. But one thing a faction can NEVER be is inclusive of all. That defeats the purpose of capturing a disproportionate share of the collective goodies. Mass societies depend upon the functionality of arrangements that prevent the permanent dominance of any one faction. The miracle of American democracy is that it has been able to hold factionalism in check. The only times that America has really behaved more like a common group is during wartime. That is, when the threat from factions without is much greater than the threat from factions within.

 

[Hoosier_Hack]

I appreciate your taking the time to respond...I tried several times but couldn't quite put it together as you have done....My thought is that Aloha's OP is about 75% troll and 25% content. It would be better if the proportions were reversed in my view. The problem of people calling the police about the presence of black people is important. The fact that it is happening in "liberal" Starbucks suggests the problem is widespread. Imagine how infuriating this must be for the African Americans who would just like to have a cup of coffee with friends.

I did not read the linked story but did read a story on a news feed. My understanding is the two black guys asked to use the bathroom and were refused because they did not purchase anything. When they were told the bathrooms were for customers only they still didn’t purchase anything and refused to leave. They were asked to leave if they were not going to buy anything. The police were called and they asked them to leave twice before being arrested for trespassing. The store followed corporate policy that bathrooms were for paying customers .... black, white, green, purple etc... did I miss anything?

How many of you have pulled into a gas station on a trip and been told you gotta buy something to use the facilities?

 

[iu_a_att]

I did not read the linked story but did read a story on a news feed. My understanding is the two black guys asked to use the bathroom and were refused because they did not purchase anything. When they were told the bathrooms were for customers only they still didn’t purchase anything and refused to leave. They were asked to leave if they were not going to buy anything. The police were called and they asked them to leave twice before being arrested for trespassing. The store followed corporate policy that bathrooms were for paying customers .... black, white, green, purple etc... did I miss anything?

How many of you have pulled into a gas station on a trip and been told you gotta buy something to use the facilities?

This is a useful discussion to have...much more productive than the OP. I can't remember a time when I was told that I had to buy something in order to use the facilities on a trip. In the city this occurs more often. I can remember feeling very uncomfortable when a homeless guy with mental health issues was sitting near me in the Starbucks. I can imagine that the presence of such types makes many customers uncomfortable and, thus, hurts business. I can imagine many such franchises actively looking for pretexts to push such types out. By the way, upscale restaurants in urban settings don't like to have many older people in their restaurant...it turns off the younger crowd. So these restaurants have started playing loud music. Younger ears can hear what people say over the loud music...older ears not so much. I think that many times the "rules" in establishments are selectively enforced in ways that serve a discriminatory intent.

(after thought) discrimination routinely occurs against those with disabilities. there are well known results that people are "handicap averse".
I know those who do advocacy work for the handicapped. There are laws on the books that require making public facilities accessible to the handicapped. some of the business resistance to implementing accessibility is no doubt cost related. But it is overlooked that there is another cost to business that is not generally recognized...that is the cost in lost business from consumers who are made nervous or disturbed by the presence of the handicapped. I expect that a good deal of the discrimination that businesses do against minorities, the handicapped, the transgendered etc is due to the business they will lose from customers who are make "uncomfortable".

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I think you are deeply muddled. Thankfully, common values are in no way necessary for mass societies. People, being social animals, form factions--groups defined by ingroup/loyalty--almost as easily as they breath. Such factions are always a very good method for capturing a piece of the collective pie. But one thing a faction can NEVER be is inclusive of all. That defeats the purpose of capturing a disproportionate share of the collective goodies. Mass societies depend upon the functionality of arrangements that prevent the permanent dominance of any one faction. The miracle of American democracy is that it has been able to hold factionalism in check. The only times that America has really behaved more like a common group is during wartime. That is, when the threat from factions without is much greater than the threat from factions within.

I don't know about muddled, but I think you are misunderstanding the whole idea of factions and groups. But I think that is natural for the modern liberal--and I definitely don't intend that as a pejorative. You seem to assume that an individual's group identity is largely a singularity as liberals strive for a society based upon ideas of sameness and egalitarianism. In my case, I consider an identity crossing many different groups and interests. A healthy diversity of "tribes" is important for all civilizations. It is this diversity that produces betterments in all aspects of life. There are reasons why the enforced sameness of places like the old Soviet Union and Venezuela were such miserable failures. That being said, and as I tried to point out, as we proceed up the social ladder, the more we must come together under a common umbrella. For lack of a better example, I think Jefferson nailed those commonalities in the Declaration of Independence. There are billions of people in the world who reject those ideas. But the diversity of the tribes, mostly without notions of supremacy and oppression, is what causes the umbrella to be constantly changed and and made better. I guess you could say my ideas about this are situational. I think that would be kinda accurate.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I can't remember a time when I was told that I had to buy something in order to use the facilities on a trip.

Really? I often see signs to the effect that "restrooms for customers only". Perhaps there is less of that than before, but it definitely is present.

 

[iu_a_att]

Really? I often see signs to the effect that "restrooms for customers only". Perhaps there is less of that than before, but it definitely is present.

Such signs are ubiquitous...enforcement selective.

 

[iu_a_att]

I don't know about muddled, but I think you are misunderstanding the whole idea of factions and groups. But I think that is natural for the modern liberal--and I definitely don't intend that as a pejorative. You seem to assume that an individual's group identity is largely a singularity as liberals strive for a society based upon ideas of sameness and egalitarianism. In my case, I consider an identity crossing many different groups and interests. A healthy diversity of "tribes" is important for all civilizations. It is this diversity that produces betterments in all aspects of life. There are reasons why the enforced sameness of places like the old Soviet Union and Venezuela were such miserable failures. That being said, and as I tried to point out, as we proceed up the social ladder, the more we must come together under a common umbrella. For lack of a better example, I think Jefferson nailed those commonalities in the Declaration of Independence. There are billions of people in the world who reject those ideas. But the diversity of the tribes, mostly without notions of supremacy and oppression, is what causes the umbrella to be constantly changed and and made better. I guess you could say my ideas about this are situational. I think that would be kinda accurate.

The founding fathers were clear about their distaste for factions and factionalism. The last thing they wanted were, for example, political parties. But the parties appeared almost immediately. If the success of the constitution depended upon the absence of factionalism the whole American experiment would not have made it to the start of the 19th century let alone up till today.

I don't assume that a group identity is a "singularity"...I don't even know what that means. The core values for liberals are, as Haidt notes, harm/care and fairness/reciprocity. The fundamental statement of such liberal values is in the declaration of independence. But the declaration does not claim that people have common values...rather it claims that each has the right to pursue his or her own values.