Starbucks — What Happened?

April, 2018

The latest incident at Starbucks in Philadelphia is an example of the black con in all its glory.

What happened

Two African American, well-dressed and well-mannered men walked into Starbucks.  One asked to use the bathroom, which has a code.

Starbucks has a policy of only customers using the bathroom, and that is the reason it has a code.  This is a familiar policy in most of the restaurants in big cities.  Otherwise the public uses the bathroom as a public bathroom.  When the bathroom becomes a public bathroom often it is trashed and periodically a drug user uses it for shooting up, taking a “bird-bath” or even passing out because of an overdose.  Often the businesses’ own customers can’t use the bathroom.

The men said that they weren’t buying anything and were only in Starbucks waiting for a friend for a real estate meeting, and they would be out of the restaurant soon.  The Starbucks worker said that they had to buy something to use the bathroom and/or to have the meeting.  They refused.

Then the worker said they had to leave, which again they refused.  Then the worker called the police.  The police came and the men may have, again, refused to leave.

(I couldn’t find out if they refused the reasonable request of the officer to leave, but there seems to be a low probability that the officers would handcuff the men before they asked them to leave, and were refused.  At any rate, the two men were escorted out in handcuffs for trespassing, and released because Starbucks didn’t press charges.)

(The head of the Philadelphia police, Richard Ross — also an African American — said the police did nothing wrong and that Starbucks should have never called the police.)

Of course, these two men accused Starbucks of racial discrimination.   But — being a long-time Starbucks customer — I have never seen any customers having a meeting without buying at least one cup of coffee.

This leaves the question, a similar question that white America must periodically ask themselves: “What should have the barista done?”  The men refused to buy a drink and were demanding to use the bathroom and use the restaurant for a meeting without buying anything.  And then they refused to leave the restaurant.

Granted, a more cleaver barista probably could have found a way to diffuse the situation – while keeping with Starbucks’ policies – without calling the cops.  But this was probably an average barista, and possibly even a newer employee.

To the black con, this experience shows what a racist company Starbucks is, and what a racist country the U.S. is. The black con used this experience to add energy to the Civil Rights movement – a.k.a. the black power movement — to establish neurotic equality, freedom and justice for all people, especially people of color.

Now Starbucks is closing for a partial day on May 30 to give all their employees racial sensitivity training.  Starbucks also has agreed to contribute $200,000 to train minorities in entrepreneurship.  And Starbucks has agreed to pay for these two men’s further education.

Because of this latest move towards neurotic freedom, there is a significant probably that existential logic and the categorical imperative may have their natural consequences.  Here are some of those possible consequences:  1) African Americans can use any restaurant’s bathrooms and hang out there without buying anything; 2) In order for a restaurant not to discriminate, now all people can use any restaurant for the any purpose without buying anything;  3) Any restaurant can be publicly accused of racism and then boycotted if they don’t comply with these policies of neurotic freedom.

This probability has become a reality.  Periodically, you can now see African America customers in a Starbucks sitting for long periods of time, socializing, using their computers, charging their phones, and often making loud noises, all without buying anything.  They are “free at last, thank God almighty, free at last.”

Meanwhile every other customer in the Starbucks follows reasonable behavior, and buys at least a of coffee or bottle of water to use the facilities.  One can also observe the manager — with his/her new racial sensitivity — helplessly allowing this neurotic (dysfunctional) phenomenon.

The need for authentic moral leadership

What this society needs instead of neurotic demands is authentic moral leadership.  The society needs African American businessmen — say, Calvin Kaepernick, who is now retired with a multi-million contract — to open a coffee shop in an African American neighborhood and have the policy that anyone can come in, spend as much time as they like, and use the bathrooms, all without buying anything.  They need to show the racist, white business owners how this can successfully be done.

Antitheses

Let’s look at some antitheses.

These two mature and educated African Americans (and they probably were mature and educated since they were having a real estate meeting), they didn’t want to buy a $2 cup of coffee in order to use the bathroom and have the meeting.

This is a manifestation of the black con’s taboo against contribution.  These men wanted to use Starbucks’ bathroom and restaurant for a business meeting for their benefit.  They refused to contribute anything to Starbucks to help them pay their rent, the employees’ salaries, and profit for the shareholders (“profit,” is a racist concept for the black con).

As part of their unconscious racialism, they may have had the unconscious cognitive beliefs that:  ”Starbucks is rich and I am poor.  Starbucks owes me something.  I am free from the duty to pay something for something I receive.”

Authentic authority

This event is also a manifestation of the black con’s taboo against obeying reasonable and authentic authority.

Starbucks is a private company.  The Starbucks building is their private property.  They have a right to have reasonable and legal business policies.  They have a right to allow only customers to use their bathrooms and only customers to use their private property.  They have a right to make reasonably demands of the customers.

In this case, they had the right to demand that the customer buy an inexpensive cup of coffee in order to use their restaurant.   Let me point out, the usual, informal Starbucks’ policy is that a group only has to buy one cup of coffee to use the facilities.  But that was too much for these two African American men.  They were free from such duties.  And they believed that Starbucks should be free for all people to use their facilities:  “This land is your land, this land is my land.”

This experience also shows the dysfunctional, infinite demands that the black con has upon the white victim.  For, few restaurants are so beneficial to African Americans, as well as to all its customers, as Starbucks.  Starbucks is an employer of thousands of African Americans and is considered to be a great employer for young people starting out in a career path.  They have excellent training and their baristas are generally talented workers with good sales personality development.  They also provide health care, and other benefits, for part-time workers.

There is hardly any other franchise restaurant in the world that is more liberal in allowing its customers to “hang out.”  Often a group or an individual sits for hours with only buying one or two drinks, and no one says anything.  But this isn’t enough for the black con’s neurotic demands.  They demand that people should be able to hang out without buying anything.

Starbucks also recently started a “Race Together” campaign that aimed at creating a useful dialogue between blacks and whites.

This campaign of course failed.  One of the reasons why it failed was because it defined “dialogue” with the black con definition of “discussions” about how blacks are good and whites are bad, that is, how whites are racists and blacks are morally pure.  “Dialogue” in the black con definition also means “discussions about how whites must give blacks more money, more goods and services, and more diversity in employment.  And get nothing in return, not even a token of gratitude.  Whites owe it to us.

Don’t tell me what to do, “Slavery is over.”

The Starbucks experience also manifests the dysfunctional belief that some African Americans (those who significantly believe in the black con philosophy) are free from obeying reasonable requests from authentic authority.  Thus, they don’t have to obey reasonable requests from such persons in authentic authority such as:  parents, teachers, or restaurant owners.

This dysfunctional belief is also related to African Americans refusal to obey reasonable requests of a police officer. That is, some African Americans believe that it is their (neurotic) right to refuse to obey a reasonable request of a cop, and then they have the right to resist arrest with all their might. This is a main cause many of the deaths of “unarmed black men.”

By the throat

The black con has Starbucks by the throat, just like they have much of the society by the throat.

Immediately after the video of the arrests of these men went viral, there were protests outside of Starbucks’ cafes.  Starbucks is a $15 billion a year business and they have 16,000 cafes throughout the country.  There is no way that Starbucks can do anything but give in to the black con’s demands.  They couldn’t afford to do anything else, and the black con knows this.  Any resistance to these neurotic demands would label Starbucks as a “racist business” and boycotts could follow.  This would be devastating for the business.

Neither is there is there any way a public commentator could present an antithesis to the whole discussion (except, of course, RG Martin, who is nuts).  A commentator presenting an antithesis would be labeled as “racist” by African Americans, Progressives, and liberals.  This could end his or her career.  There could be demands that he be fired.  If he is not fired there could be the threat that the company will be boycotted by racial and Progressive groups.  The black con has freedom of thought and freedom of speech right by the throat.

White unconscious racialism

The success of this latest spur to the Civil Rights (black power) movement could result in an another existential logical consequence.  It may create a version of this unconscious belief in the white victim’s mind:

“Many African Americans (all those demonstrating and those who support these two men) don’t want to make reasonable contributions to the society.  They don’t want to fulfill their reasonable duties.  They don’t want to obey reasonable requests or authentic authority.  They don’t want to give anything back for what they get.”

(Cognitive beliefs such as these place a dysfunctional stigma on the African American population, including the innocent 75% who believe in social contribution.)

Anyone with heretical thoughts such as these would be condemned by the black con, and his supporters (Progressives) as being a racist.

In this case, these two men wanted to make a significant profit from a real estate deal, but didn’t want to buy a lousy cup of coffee.

Anyone want to make a real estate deal with these guys?