Video of Starbucks employee in UK branch

[FisherthemsFriend]

https://twitter.com/RupertMyers/status/1655477645184835586

It’s not clear what the customer said, it’s presumed she misgenders the employee as he calls her transphobic. He calls her Karen and then either grabs the phone or the person who’s filming.

It’s got the lot

Indeed,I've never seen anything half as thrilling in Costa.

We cannot make anyone pregnant by force. The crime stats at National Office for Statistics show that men of any race massively outrank women of any race for both physical and sexual assault. Had Emmett Till been granted the same presumption of innocence as his white counterparts, he would not have been murdered by those men. It's not on to blame a woman for what men did and doing so is an example of the first rule of misogyny.

As for Central Park dog woman, the fact that she was fired for her behaviour whilst the gentleman who she threatened was unharmed would indicate that perhaps she doesn't have the level of white privilege that you claim she does. Stokely Carmichael said that racism comes from power, not attitude. The combination of camera phones and public outrage is doing a lot to remove that power from white people.

Which he could well have done if this Karen’s partner hadn’t been outside and filmed the incident. From the body language I think the manager thought she was on her own and he would get to brag about forcing ‘Karen’ to leave without a refund.

Things took a more physically violent turn when he spotted her partner and the film rolling.

Yes, it is absolutely appaling!

Also, it is as misogynist as fuck to expect any woman, no matter her race, to not complain if she is sexually harassed by a man, no matter his race. In the case of Emmett Till, we will never know whether he did harass her or not because the poor lad was murdered instead of tried.

It's the exact same misogynist "logic" used to pressure women into withdrawing rape complaints, "come on, you don't want to ruin his life now", instead of trusting juries to acquit unless sure of guilt. Don't blame white women, fight for a justice system that isn't racist.

Emmet Till's accuser being one , and a more recent case being Amy Cooper, the Central Park case a few years back.

You cite two cases. Both are from the US. One is from 1955. That doesn't sound to me like you've made an overwhelming case for the danger white women present to others.

In contrast, if I wanted to make a case for the danger that men present to women, I wouldn't even know where to start. You can find a dozen examples in the papers every single day.

In fairness, there's more cases from the US, for example, the misunderstanding in a lift that resulted in the burning and aerial bombing of the district of Tulsa (I think that was the city) known as "Black Wall Street". But again, it's misogyny to blame the young white woman, who screamed when startled by a young black man jumping into the lift as the doors were closing, for the fact that the black man was presumed to have molested the white woman by a white man who overheard the scream. She said afterwards that the black man hadn't touched her, he'd just startled her. Had he been presumed innocent like his white counterparts, I doubt he would have even been charged because her testimony would have exonerated him. And Black Wall Street would still be standing. But this is not her fault.

And if they hadn't had race segregated loos, he wouldn't have been in the lift at all, because he was on his way to the nearest "colored bathroom" having passed at least one "white bathroom" to get to the lift. Also not her fault.

In the case of Emmett Till, we will never know whether he did harass her or not because the poor lad was murdered instead of tried
She admitted to making it up.

I'll admit to skim-reading the wikipedia page quickly because I had no prior awareness of the case. I missed that detail.

It doesn't undermine my argument because presumption of innocence is there to protect the falsely-accused. If a white woman has the power to kill a black man with a false accusation, the real problem is the lack of presumption of innocence for him, not her lie. It's known that people of both sexes and all races sometimes lie. Some people are compulsive liars. Some are just nasty. A justice system needs to assume that liars exist.

And none of this is relevant to a thread about a white man inserting himself into a conversation between two white women, only to turn abusive and violent when one of the white women is polite enough to refer to the other as a lady.

Starbucks also has the full CCTV, I understand, showing all the incident from even before the poor lady's husband started filming the Starbucks' trans staff appalling action.
I have certainly never had a coffee shop man clap into my face like that (nor ever done it to anyone). I was in Caffe Nero the other day having a nice chat to the young foreign staff member about the monarchy (he was anti I was pro but it was not heated and we were laughing) and I assumed he was Italian, asked him (most staff in our branch are) but he was Portguese as he then told me. We talked about when Portugal ceased to have a monarchy. In other words I a middle aged British (and white) woman ask him if he were from Italy and he was fine in saying no Portugal. That is a normal exchange between humans. He didn't turn to violence, despite being wrongly in a sense named or that I had wrongly suggested he was from Italy. The problem with some of the trans people more generally is they are mentally ill and are under a lot of pressure because of the nature of their condition and they must not be allowed to take that out on innocent customers.

I mean, "white woman tells a lie so it's her fault that white men choose to lynch a black man" is first rule of misogyny again. How about holding the men who pulled the trigger responsible for their actions?

I think it’s really fucking off to be going on about “white women’s tears” in a country where there is an ongoing, racialised mass sexual abuse scandal, systemically enabled and condoned by the authorities, where most of the victims are white girls.

Actually no, I don’t think it’s off. I think it’s fucking contemptible. I don’t want the thread to be further derailed but but I needed to express my extreme disgust at that poster.

Anyway, as you were, I know the topic is the abusive male Starbucks manager, not Very Online Person’s halfwitted takes on US racial politics nor my take on the appropriateness of copy/pasting Very Online political interpretations onto the UK context.

Hope he’s prosecuted. But Shite Man Tears seem to be much more effective in this country than the other thing. I wonder if the cops will even bother.

I mean, "white woman tells a lie so it's her fault that white men choose to lynch a black man"
Nobody has actually said that though, of course the men are responsible for their own actions and need locking up.
I was just saying " least dangerous" was a minimising and dismissive comment, it doesn't always have to be physical to be dangerous.

"A lie is as bad as a violent action" is the same "logic" that pretends that a false rape accusation is exactly as bad as a rape. Perverting the course of justice is rightly a fairly serious offence because it undermines our justice system. But it's not as bad as actually shoving your dick in someone's body without their consent. MRAs like to pretend that it is.

And it's the same "logic" that allows violent trans activists like the subject of this thread to pretend that dissenting opinions are violence and misgendering is violence.

So let's stop pretending that telling a lie is as bad as an act of violence, because they aren't the same thing. They are both wrong, but to very different degrees.

@DarkDayforMN Thank you for this post. You said what I was thinking and put it really well

She also said she didn’t make any complaint to anyone until a customer told her husband.

Nobody really knows what happened - but the people (male) who actually murdered Emmett Till seem to have been consistently overlooked in favour of accusing someone (female) who may or may not have complained about the boy’s behaviour and then went on to perjure herself at her husband’s trial.

Wtaf does the colour of the woman involved have to do with the inappropriacy of a person becoming wholly unhinged and behaving in ways that end up on the front page of newspapers?

Is this some bizarre argument that the colour of your skin predicates the level of abuse you're required to accept quietly, in case of harming the poor man who was just innocently losing his shit everywhere?

Wtf are some people on for crying out loud?!

If people don't want the behaviour to be commented on, what was it even brought up in the first place for by a poster?!
If you're going to comment stuff like "least damgerous" expect people to sometimes disagree with you, not just back clap each other or all agree echo chamber like.

Yeah, funny that. It's almost like first rule of misogyny applies here.

"Women are responsible for what men do."

Whether it's a white woman who might or might not have complained about sexual harassment from a black boy, or a woman calling another woman a "lady" in front of a man, women are always responsible for what men do.

@DarkDayforMN If you came up with Shite Man Tears, I applaud you. It's a work of genius. Shite Men's Tears would also work.

From the PinkNews article -

"The employee then attempted to stop a person who was filming the interaction between herself and the customer. The clip has since gone viral on social media."

"Herself"? But they is a they! PinkNews misgendered them!

As an aside, the Mail Online were using a sort of 'close up' version of the video, so that the counter-staff was visible. Throughout the altercation, they were looking down, not once did I see them look up at what was happening in front of them.

Why would they do that?

The only possibilities I can think of are

1. distraught at being misgendered as a 'lady', holding back the tars
2. Their arsehole manager does this sort of thing so often that they're inwardly rolling their eyes and thinking 'not again ...'

IIRC (and I am not re-reading the whole damned thread) the risk white women pose to others was mentioned as part of a critique of the use of the term "Karen" by the thread subject. That's why it was mentioned in the first place.

Your counter-argument, that white women pose a huge danger to black people, is flawed. You presented two cases as anecdotes. The more recent of the two cases you presented backfired spectacularly on the white woman involved, indicating that she isn't actually a hazard to the man she was intent on lying about because camera phones have caused such a profound shift in racial power relations in the US that "a white woman said so" won't cut it any more. So you presented one case where a white woman might (because we will never know what actually happened in that shop that day) have abused a flawed system to get a black man killed, from half a century ago. That does not overrule the crime stats which say that white women commit the least violence towards others. Unless you have some study that demonstrates that white women commit more perjury than anyone else, you have no valid counter-argument.