They actually cut ties with NBC because of the perceived bias against the poor republicans by that network.
I honestly don't get it. Obviously Ben Carson and company does not understand the meaning of the word debate. In a debate you are supposed to get tough questions and answer them to the satisfaction of the person asking them.
"'We were betrayed,” he (Rance Priebus) said, “and I think the candidates were betrayed by CNBC.”'
Huh? "Betrayed"? These men (and woman) are trying to lead the most powerful country on earth and they can't handle a couple of questions from CNBC moderators? That's not a good look. Hillary hung in for 11 hours while facing down Trey Howdy Gowdy and his faux Benghazi (drink,drink, gulp) hearings. They are lucky Black folks don't care about them, because, like Hillary, they would have had to deal with the Black Lives Matter kids as well.
“It’s not about me and gotcha questions, it’s abut the American people and whether they have the right to actually hear what we think,” Carson insisted.
Ben, we hear what you think, we just can't believe that you are serious.
Finally, I bring you eating while black.
"Elmer's Restaurant told a state investigator that it did not discriminate against an African-American customer by making him prepay for his breakfast, as the customer claims in a lawsuit.
Rather, the Vancouver restaurant told an investigator with the Washington State Human Rights Commission that it made customer Brian Eason prepay for his meal only because he sat in the lounge area, where customers had previously left without paying.
Eason has filed a complaint with the commission stating that two white customers dining in the lounge area hadn't been told to prepay, but the restaurant responded by saying those customers hadn't ordered alcohol while Eason had.
That's all according to a report released Thursday, a day after The Oregonian/OregonLive requested the report and broke news about Eason's lawsuit.
Eason filed a $100,000 racial discrimination lawsuit against the restaurant after the state investigator closed the case without taking any action, finding insufficient evidence to show racism. Investigator Jeremy Page found there was "No Reasonable Cause to conclude that discrimination took place."
Elmer's Restaurants have declined to comment to The Oregonian/OregonLive about the details of the incident.
Mark McDougal, a Portland attorney representing Eason, criticized the investigator's finding and described the restaurant's explanation as a "ridiculous" story conjured up to defend itself.
"It's not believable," McDougal said. "What else are they going to say? They have to come up with some explanation."
Eason filed the complaint in January 2015 after he dined at the Elmer's near the Vancouver Mall on Dec. 16, 2014. Eason told The Oregonian/OregonLive that he got the sense that the investigator who took his complaint wasn't taking him seriously, so he turned to the law firm of Kafoury & McDougal to file a lawsuit.
The lawsuit was filed Tuesday, about two weeks after the state investigator issued his findings.
Eason's lawsuit is reminiscent of complaints in the early 1990s of thousands of black customers nationwide who had accused the Denny's restaurant chain of discriminatory treatment, including demanding prepayment or refusing to serve them. Faced with widespread evidence, Denny's settled in 1994 for $54 million.
For readers who missed Wednesday's story about Eason, here's some background:
Eason had visited the restaurant to find a quiet place to write out Christmas cards to his clients, according to his suit. He is a real-estate agent, as well as a Multnomah County sheriff's deputy.
Eason said after ordering his breakfast and a Bloody Mary, the waitress told him he'd have to prepay because a few people had recently left the restaurant without paying. Eason said he didn't think anything of prepaying, but when he later ordered a second drink and the waitress again said he'd have to prepay, he questioned her more about it.
"I said, 'This is kind of odd that I have to prepay every time I order my food and drink,'" Eason recounted. "She said, 'I think it's discrimination and my boss is here, and she's forcing me to have me do this.'"
Eason told The Oregonian/OregonLive that the waitress was very apologetic. He said he saw another woman he thought might be the manager who appeared to be watching over the waitress.
About 30 minutes after leaving, Eason said he grew to be so bothered by what had transpired that he returned to the restaurant and asked two white customers who were sitting at the table where he had been if they'd also been told to prepay. The customers said no, and Eason got their contact information from them, Eason said.
On Thursday, McDougal said he doesn't believe the distinction that the restaurant made between Eason and the white customers -- that the white customers weren't ordered to prepay because they didn't order alcohol.
If the restaurant wanted to curb theft, asking only customers who sat in the lounge or only customers who ordered alcohol to prepay doesn't make much sense, McDougal said.
"You can order pancakes and walk out," McDougal said. "The idea that people who order drinks are less likely to pay is nonsense."
In the Vancouver Elmer's response to the Human Rights Commission, the restaurant stated there may have been some confusion about its policy of asking customers in the lounge area to prepay, according to the investigator's summary. The restaurant stated the white couple was served by a different waitress, who believed the prepay policy only applied to people who ordered alcohol, according to the investigator's summary. [Source]
*Pic from tripadvisor.com
48 comments:
I find it interesting that, if you were to literally just walk down the street and ask people about some fucked-up shit they've had happen to them, I bet you a long list would rail off some stuff that'd make you scratch your chin.
For instance, a new restaurant opened up across the street from Anthony's Pizza, in a poorer part of town here, so I went in after work one day, when I was doing tree work in my early 20s to pay for school, looking the part of a workman, and I was denied service. I was asked to leave.
In the Golden Corral with a few of my friends one day when we skipped high school and pooled our lunch money to all eat from one buffet ticket, we got away with it. I went back a few weeks later with my family, we were all stopped and harassed, our tickets checked, and my father ended up having to pay for two more buffets for some mysterious policy (reasons).
But I find it interesting, and sometimes entertaining, that while these fucked-up things tend to happen to everyone, they can't happen to a black person without it being discrimination.
I know this seems like fucking magical, mystical stuff here, but what if, maybe, just maybe, it was just some fucked-up shit and not actually because the guy was black? What if it just happened to happen to him?
Was it racism? Perhaps. But it doesn't take long until "'cause I'm black!" shoots out and everybody's a racist. Could just be a misunderstanding and the investigator investigated properly. But who the hell likes that story? Racist white restaurant makes black customer pay extra for being black -- more at 11. Now, that's a headline!
It turns into more than a restaurant being racist. The story is spun out until which point it becomes a systemic problem in society that this happened to the guy. The restaurant's racist, the fix is in with the investigator, the courts don't care, society don't care, and on and on. I admit that this one seems incredibly odd. But it also causes me to ask a few questions. For instance, why not just get the guy to leave if they're racists? Why not fuck up his service? Why go through the rigmarole of a cover-up? This throws everyone working there in harm's way. This is one of those stranger than fiction things.
Ha! The people who want to be the leaders of the free world can't even handle a few questions from the business channel that started the tea party bullshit? Really? Tough guys like Chris Christie who says he'd shoot down Russian planes can't handle a question from a tv host? There guys are a joke and who can seriously think of voting for them? I mean of course I'm stuck on massa's plantation thankful for my Obama phone but besides that.
Going back into conspiracy mode I think they had to do something to get out of a debate on Telemundo which is owned by NBC's parent company. Aside from Bush, Cruz and Rubio I think the other candidates would be shredded because of their past statements about Latinos and other immigrants. It would be a bad sight to see the gop front runner grilled by Latino moderators. Not a good look so they had to bail somehow and this was a convenient excuse. It was a choice of either looking like punks or getting torn down on national tv and they chose to look like punks.
http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2015/10/gop-decision-means-no-presidential-debate-for-miami-based-telemundo.html
Pretty smart decision because they have written off the Latino vote anyway.
JOSH, I usually agree with you on most racial issues. My peeps are quick to cry "racism" at the drop of a hat. But this one? Come on, man even you have got to admit this was discriminatory.
Hell, their excuses re: ordering alcohol vs NOT ordering alcohol and sitting in the lounge vs NOT sitting in the lounge was absolute bullshit. The restaurant targeted that black man and treated him less than the way they treated their white customers.
What bothers me the most is the prosecutor threw out the case which was clearly an injustice to this man. That means Elmers Restaurant can continue their policy of discrimination against Blacks.
I am surprised that you would 'deny' a clear and definite unfair action against this man.
JOSH-"But I find it interesting, and sometimes entertaining, that while these fucked-up things tend to happen to everyone, they can't happen to a black person without it being discrimination."
You ought to be specific about this situation. You seem to be unable to make a decision about specific instances without painting the entire black race as screaming about discrimination.
It's absurd. Even a moronic racist would have to admit Elmer's was dead wrong. They discriminated and humiliated this bm. Considering you grew up around Blacks surely you have some sensitivity about racism? I mean, Blacks aren't making this shit about racism up. It's been here in America since slavery and shows no signs of letting up.
What did you expect the bm to do? go home and forget about it? Well, too many Blacks do just that. And that is probably why it happened to him. Eventually, somebody has to stand up against such degrading treatment. Whites certainly aren't going to do it.
Even the waitress, who was White, was apologetic about it. Nevertheless, she did not refuse to NOT discriminate against the man. That's a big problem in our country. Too many Whites like yourself unwilling to do the right thing.
Slow clap for anon 1:00am.
"Come on, man even you have got to admit this was discriminatory."
Okay. But, now what you're explicitly saying is that everyone involved is on it. It becomes bigger than the restaurant, you realize, and what you're saying is that it's a conspiracy against this one dude. The investigator was in on it. The justice system was in on it. Everybody's lying, everybody's racist.
Look, I don't say that they didn't treat this man like shit. As I initially said, this is incredibly odd and, yes, could be racism.
However, why can't it just be that they saw that man there, chose to take advantage of him as a sucker because he bit once and they wanted to keep him on the line? Why can't they just be trying to get over on a fucking human being in a shady way? Why can't they just treat him like an asshole because they're the assholes and want to milk dry someone who's actually paying without just getting up and storming out?
The reason, which you know, which the other anon knows, which everybody knows: Because of his skin color! (Irony doesn't cut it.)
It could well be racist and everybody is in on it! Most certainly not outside the realm of possibility.
But just ask yourself what's more likely:
1) They decided to treat the dude like a sucker because he was willing to play along.
2) The restaurant owner, the waitress, the investigator, and the justice system are all discriminating against this one guy because he's black.
Even assuming they did decide to single this man out and discriminate against him, why does it have to be because he's black? It can very well be that these shady mofos just used that "drink" angle as a con, and he was drinking, and he bit and got played for a sucker!
By these standards, a pickpocket who robs a black guy only did so because it was a black guy, not because the pickpocket is a thief.
"You ought to be specific about this situation. You seem to be unable to make a decision about specific instances without painting the entire black race as screaming about discrimination."
1) Okay. I'll take that under advisement. Honest Abe, I will. I might be generalizing a bit there, so I'll try to watch that.
"That's a big problem in our country. Too many Whites like yourself unwilling to do the right thing."
2) Oh, for fuck's sake! You claim I'm generalizing too much about blacks claiming discrimination, then you claim discrimination while generalizing about whites! LMFAO, the double-think is strong like a tsunami.
3) You're making the presupposition that it is in fact racism, which means you're saying the investigator and justice system were both in on it, alongside the restaurant, all trying to get over on this man because he's a black man. And you wonder why I'd generalize?
4) I can probably deduce what you think the "right thing" is. Stand up against something you think is discrimination. I, however, want to be SURE as to not engage in a witch hunt and ruin people's fucking lives on false accusations and/or misunderstandings.
If it turns out this was racism, fuck this restaurant. I hope it goes out of business and the investigator doesn't investigate shit else. But while you have your starting presupposition that is racism, can only be racism, I want to know for sure that it is. That's problematic for you, I understand. The accusation is proof in your world. Right now, it's sounding more like a conspiracy -- the restaurant acted shady, but because of his skin color?
JOSH, "Even assuming they did decide to single this man out and discriminate against him, why does it have to be because he's black? It can very well be that these shady mofos just used that "drink" angle as a con, and he was drinking, and he bit and got played for a sucker!"
To answer your question, "they discriminated against him because he happened to be Black." I am not sure if you can 'hear' that. It seems you want to take the man's skin color out of the situation, which is to 'whitewash' the entire situation and therefore no discrimination happened. You are double-talking, which is what Whites do in order to NOT own up to what really happened and to NOT do what is right.
It doesn't take a genius to see this was a clear case of discrimination. Once again, I call your attention to the server who admitted and apologized for her actions. Even 'she' knew it was discriminatory because he was Black but YOU want to take a possible detour from the obvious to consider some obscure ridiculous unreasonable possibilities.
Hell, you want to consider anything but the obvious. As I have said before, I do consider you know black culture but your attitude about what happened to Eason might have been discriminatory because he ordered a bloody mary with his breakfast caused these degrading things to him is absurd and profound denial.
And yes, the justice system failed Eason and it failed Elmer's. Because Elmer's Restaurant will continue to discriminate against Blacks until #BLM show up in protest. Of course, you'll be the first to criticize Blacks for that.
I don't get you. You seem to want to do the right thing but something inside you blocks you from doing it. What is it?
JOSH--"4) I can probably deduce what you think the "right thing" is. Stand up against something you think is discrimination. I, however, want to be SURE as to not engage in a witch hunt and ruin people's fucking lives on false accusations and/or misunderstandings."
SURE? You want to be SURE? What's it going to take to be SURE? Hell, from your perspective to be SURE means to remain in an UNSURE state which makes it all a waste of time. Therefore, discrimination and racism will NEVER be proven by your standards so Blacks need to STFU, and take whatever happens to them...
It's all hopeless when it comes to a fair justice system for Blacks because "we can NEVER be SURE those Negroes have been discriminated against."
Good thinking. I am SURE it works for you but it sure as hell doesn't work for me. And that is what the damn problem has been for over 400 years.
"It seems you want to take the man's skin color out of the situation, which is to 'whitewash' the entire situation and therefore no discrimination happened. You are double-talking, which is what Whites do in order to NOT own up to what really happened and to NOT do what is right."
It seems you didn't even bother reading my comment. I have said multiple times that I think this was discrimination. However, just because you discriminate against a black person doesn't mean you discriminated BECAUSE they are black! It's nothing to do with white-washing; it's just a simple principle of logic that victimization collectivists refuse to acknowledge because they must view a person as only a representative of a group and nothing else.
As I said, by this standard, a pickpocket who lifts a black man's wallet does so only because it was a black man. This is literally what you're arguing.
Why can't they have discriminated against a human being who they felt was a sucker? I'm not removing the guy's race; you just want to insert it to insist that it's only possibly because he's black that he was discriminated against.
This is something that's always confused me here. When I call PC a cunt, it's because I think he's a cunt. Though to ask him, it's because he's black. Why? Why can't I insult a black person without it being because the person is black? Tell me, anon; help me understand why it MUST be racial discrimination because he's black.
"I don't get you. You seem to want to do the right thing but something inside you blocks you from doing it. What is it?"
Don't condescend to me. I'm asking some very simple questions and making some pretty clear observations. You're the one in here with the presupposition: Black man was discriminated against, therefore it has to be because he's black.
Ironically, in a world where every person is treated equally, a black man can be the sucker in a scam too! Equality: Where everyone can be a sucker! Though this seems impossible to you. You refuse to see this man as anything but black, and accuse people who view him as just a person of "white-washing" him.
What I'm saying: Yes, the restaurant fucked this dude over. Because he was black? Okay -- like I said, this means everyone else is on on it! Where's the history of them discriminating? Where's the evidence beyond this guy just being black, and a lawyer--the guy's lawyer, for fuck's sake--saying it's racism?
As I've plainly said, but you pretend you don't see: It may well be racism! But before I personally drag someone through the mud as a racist, I'd like to know it was actually racism and not just people running a scam on a gullible sucker who kept paying for shit he shouldn't have paid for. I mean, they let him in. He sat down. They treated him well. Then, here comes some weird "policy" that gets him to pay twice. He did it. Then, again, they get him to pay again.
Sorry, but to me this seems like a fucking scam, not a "Haha, negro, take this, you subhuman gorilla! You're inferior and I'm white!"
As a skeptic, I'd like to have some pretty simple questions answered. For you, however, it's obvious that it was racial discrimination and everyone's in on it. Yet there's something "inside me" that you find wrong.
I'll never quite understand the mind of a collectivist who judges people by only what they are and not who they are. And the way they judge people not participating in the cult, well...there's always something wrong with asking question and being skeptical.
Listen and believe.
What you guys call "racism" we call "common sense". So you experienced racism all your life? That's because WE have experienced your TNB and monkeyshines all OUR lives.
Of course, the talented-tenth kneegrows who read this site probably aren't doing the fucked-up shit the hood rats are doing, but unfortunately, well, y'all look alike to us. And we're on guard. We have to be; our lives may depend on it.
(Cue idiotic "white trash little dick trailer park meth addict" comments in 3 ... 2 ...)
"SURE? You want to be SURE? What's it going to take to be SURE? Hell, from your perspective to be SURE means to remain in an UNSURE state which makes it all a waste of time. Therefore, discrimination and racism will NEVER be proven by your standards so Blacks need to STFU, and take whatever happens to them..."
This is no appeal to closure. Though good attempt at reductionism. There are plenty of things which would lead me to a conclusion that this was racism.
1) A history of the restaurant doing this to other minorities.
2) The investigation turning up some evidence of racial discrimination.
3) The waitress spilling the beans on the owner as a racist, not simply apologizing to the black man because she's scared and feels guilty and pressured.
4) Any semblance of a pattern of behavior.
5) A situation that didn't read as a classic scam played on a gullible patron.
6) People who treated him poorly, going after the "black" and not the "green."
There have been many instances on Field's where I have agreed that something was racism. There have been many instances where I've called racism out when reading it in the comments section (though that becomes an exercise in futility because it's just back-and-forth with white racists saying stupid shit, and black racists saying stupid shit).
So you're reducing the argument to a slogan in order to avoid it and creating a straw-man of my stance in the process.
Seeing as you're apparently 400 years old, one might think you would have taken at least an introduction to logic in all that time. But I guess it's busywork constantly fighting that good fight. No time to learn how to make sense.
Well, let's see: The waitress said the restaurant discriminated against Eason. Eason asked 'other' people in the lounge if they had to prepay and they said "no."
Of course, Josh thinks this could be a scam on Eason not because he is Black but he was an easy target.
And just what is the scam? Eason didn't pay more money, they just made him pay up front to insure he COULD pay....It reminds me of being followed around some stores by store employees to make sure I don't steal anything. You know how that goes:
"Blacks are thieves and they can't be trusted."
Of course, let's be SURE that this was the case in Eason's situation. If we can't be SURE, then it didn't happen. Which is what the judge concluded.
Right on. He got fucked over but it was because of a restaurant scam on a customer....guess they needed to be SURE they got the money up front from this man, who coincidentally was Black. But it had nothing to do with his color.
Yep. For Whites like Josh, Blacks are too paranoid, for no good reason.
Carson raised $2m in the 24 hours after the debate, Cruz $1m, Rubio $750k. When they complain about the debate, & act all indignant toward the press their donations go up; so they complain about the debate & act indignant about the press. But the last thing they want is to lose that free media exposure & mainstreem press punching bags. NBC will host that debate, Cruz' wingnut dream team won't, and this meeting on Sunday to rewrite the debates won't change a damm thing. Too bad too; I'd love to see the Republiklan debate turn into a how extreme Tbag can you go fest rather than them trying to convince us how centrist they really are.
"The waitress said the restaurant discriminated against Eason. Eason asked 'other' people in the lounge if they had to prepay and they said "no."
That poor little young waitress, dragged into this story, thought initially to be one of the racists. And you expect her to, what, exactly? Of course she's apologizing and of course she wants the man to know she's not a racist!
"Of course, Josh thinks this could be a scam on Eason not because he is Black but he was an easy target."
Then of course you go on to omit some details. That's very Field-esque ala his Bucks' black man jewelry store piece, where he conveniently omitted the details about the Tahoe looking the same as one reported stolen, and the police telling the jewelry store to call.
"You know how that goes:"
Actually I do know how that goes. Very well. You see, while "'Cause I'm black!" is the mantra, black people aren't the only ones to whom these things happen. Growing up dirty poor with hand-me-down clothing, I couldn't walk through K-Mart or Roses or Martin's without security on my ass, mysteriously stopping me on every aisle to see if they could help me find something, and sometimes even frisking me before I left the store. But, different, because reasons. The struggle!
"who coincidentally was Black"
Why would it need to be a fucking coincidence? Do you listen to yourself when you say shit?
If you're operating a restaurant where you think you can scam a gullible customer, using some "but you had alcohol and they didn't" angle, trying to milk more money, why would it be a "coincidence" that the man is black? It's called happenstance. Learn words.
You're still using the presupposition that is must be racial discrimination, therefore to not be would be some great, unheard of, universal anomaly "coincidence" because, after all, the man is black!
This one requires special attention: "If we can't be SURE, then it didn't happen. Which is what the judge concluded."
Holy shit. You DON'T listen to yourself, do you? You are literally being snarky--i.e. complaining!--because a judge in a modern western secular system of law demanded a burden of proof be met before finding a party guilty of a crime!
You are literally butthurt over the fact that we in the west have a system of law whereby one is innocent until proven guilty, and a party proven guilty must be proven so beyond all reasonable doubt!
Is that you, PX? Field? Please, anon, please tell me you're one of them and not yet another witch-hunter who literally makes the case that a black person making an accusation is in itself the proof of that accusation! Please, man. You aren't that bathed in the dogma, are you?
JOSH, "Seeing as you're apparently 400 years old, one might think you would have taken at least an introduction to logic in all that time. But I guess it's busywork constantly fighting that good fight. No time to learn how to make sense."
3:02 AM
------------------
Logic? Is racism for 400 years logical? Cop in SC shooting a bm in the back, is that logical?
With many years of experience as a bm in America, racism has never been logical to me and neither has slavery or Jim Crow. However, 400 years of white 'logic'-- I DO understand and find it destructive to the well-being of Blacks. Furthermore, it has been lacking in substance and fairness. It just doesn't add up to what I consider as logically and rationally honorable.
You see, if your logic and reason were so good, then we would have a 'good' justice system and a 'good' society where the color of a person's skin does not matter. But the color of a man's skin DOES matter in America and it has been that way for centuries.
Now, I understand the 'logic' behind discrimination and the 'logic' in breaking the spirit and dignity of Blacks, but that logic is il-logical and destructive to me.
Nevertheless, I DO understand your brand of logic, but I cannot in good conscience ascribe to. Somehow, there is something in me where I just can't bring myself to go against myself.
Bottom line: Discrimination and racism toward Blacks in America began on day #1 and it hasn't stopped. It makes people crazy and no amount of rationale and logic applied to it makes sense. Racism is like a crazy homeless man standing on the corner whom everybody knows it is a waste of time to try logic and reason with.
You've got to find another logical way than your brand of reasoning which has failed again and again. Brother Josh, try something new, if you can.
And let me clear something up.
When I say milk more money, I'm talking about the check scam. I mean, am I seriously the only person here who knows about this? I'm the only guy to ever sit at the table, have a couple of drinks, and have them try to pull the double-billing on them? I mean, hell -- this is common. I know plenty of people whose nights were ruined arguing with employees because they paid up-front for a pitcher but then got tabbed with some random drink they didn't order.
No, I'm not saying this is definitely what it was. I have said, on more than two occasions now, that it might well be legit racism. But anon's ass will accept nothing less than me calling the restaurant racist and damning all white people for the past 400 years.
Anyway: You get a person to pay up front. The person is drinking alcohol. He drinks one, he drinks two. He pays up front each time. Before he leaves, he gets a check. "But I paid already!" "No, sir, you paid for X, and as you can see here, this charge is for Y." I'm assuming here that Eason didn't sit in there to get drunk, so they couldn't finish out with the scam.
And, yes, it's pure speculation on my part that they were trying to run that scam. I don't know if that's what they were doing. However, that "alcohol" angle makes it sound awfully similar to the check game they've been running at bars and taverns for years!
Though there's a gas station right up the street at Handy Mart. For regular, unleaded and premium, you have to pay up-front. For diesel, you don't. I don't know why; I reckon diesel is rarer for them and they haven't had problems with people pumping and bouncing out. Is it truly outside the realm of possibilities that this restaurant's policy is that people who drink alcohol need to pay first because, in their experience, people who drink dine and dash?
I still think they were trying to run the check scam but Eason didn't get drunk like they suspected. But anyway...
"You see, if your logic and reason were so good, then we would have a 'good' justice system and a 'good' society where the color of a person's skin does not matter"
I'm a 35-year-old average guy who lives paycheck to paycheck like the vast majority of people I know. I'm not a god. Sorry to disappoint. I don't control the justice system or society; I don't set standards of how one judges another.
Why you putting these things on me? 'Cause I'm white?
JOSH-"You are literally butthurt over the fact that we in the west have a system of law whereby one is innocent until proven guilty, and a party proven guilty must be proven so beyond all reasonable doubt!"
A system of law in America in this case has once again failed miserably to deliver justice. That man was the victim of racism and he knew it. That is why he couldn't let it go, and could not sleep at night. Elmer's Restaurant clearly discriminated against Eason...no ifs, buts or ands. Yet, the judge found the restaurant 'innocent'? That is absolute bullshit and a miscarriage of justice and I think you know that.
JOSH, "Is that you, PX? Field? Please, anon, please tell me you're one of them and not yet another witch-hunter who literally makes the case that a black person making an accusation is in itself the proof of that accusation! Please, man. You aren't that bathed in the dogma, are you?"
Nope, it's me the anon who Field has said often, "u are not Black". I am the anon whom PC, and PX and Field have called me White.
I am the anon who have used the phrase "as a bm" practically all of my life and they call me DIGITAL BLACKFACE for using it.
I am the anon who finds the word "blah" degrading and insulting. I am the anon who loves SAP2 simply because he writes truth and we both are Vietnam Vets.
I am the anon who welcomed you back because I missed your comments, style of writing, and your views on racism.
I am the anon who more often than not, agree with your views, and sometimes try to defend you when everybody else is piling in on you.
Finally, I am the anon who relates to Eason and what happened to him in Elmer's Restaurant and feel the pain of that. Why? Because it has happened to me numerous times during my lifetime.
You see, I believe that 2+2=4. I don't need to do an algebraic equation and then do calculus to be SURE. What happened to Eason in that restaurant was as simple as adding 2+2. To me, it was racism clear and simple.
For the judge to come up with something else is saying that 2+2 does not equal 4. To him, it is 22 because he used differential equations instead of basic arithmetic.
You see, in this case, it bothers the hell out of me whenever obvious racism is supported by the so-called justice system by a corrupt judge who refuses to do the right thing.
Meanwhile, Eason got no justice and Elmer's Restaurant got away with 'blatant' racism.
So yeah, in this case, it is obvious to me it was racism. And I did it with pure arithmetic...no need to do algebra, calculus or differential equations...2+2=4.
"(Cue idiotic "white trash little dick trailer park meth addict" comments in 3 ... 2 ...)"
Ah the racist white troll doesn't like it when stereotypical bullshit is thrown back at him. Stop living in a glass house.
"Nope, it's me the anon who Field has said often, "u are not Black". I am the anon whom PC, and PX and Field have called me White."
You know anon there is a very simple fix to that. You can always choose a screen name or is there a particular reason you choose not to do so? I have a few ideas if you want.
"I'm a 35-year-old average guy who lives paycheck to paycheck like the vast majority of people I know. I'm not a god. Sorry to disappoint. I don't control the justice system or society; I don't set standards of how one judges another.
Why you putting these things on me? 'Cause I'm white?"
3:48 AM
----------------
No, I am not putting these things on you because you are White. In fact, I think you are a soul with good character who is striving to become even better. In the FN world, you rank above most folks on FN. Of course, PC would disagree, but hey...you can't win 'em all.
You make more sense to me than most on FN. I just don't agree with you about Eason. He did not deserve what happened to him and quite frankly, it that kind of shit that eats away at people...it corrupts the perpetrators and does enormous pain to the dignity and self-respect of the offended.
You are still ok with me.
PX, "You know anon there is a very simple fix to that. You can always choose a screen name or is there a particular reason you choose not to do so? I have a few ideas if you want."
4:32 AM
--------------
I prefer to remain anonymous. I saw what you guys did to Constructive Feedback, and a few others with IDs. You had such deep-seated prejudices against CF you couldn't hear a word he said.... I have concluded that it would be safer to remain anonymous. Besides, you guys have called me so many anti-Black names that I have become immune to all of it.
Besides, I am not like the bm you, Field and PC think I should be. So it doesn't matter. And, I must be true to myself, otherwise, what's the point of living if you can't be who you are? I like who I am.
Hey field, let me know when Hillary and Bernie grows the onions to face Fox News moderators...How can we expect Hillary and Bernie to lead our country and keep us safe when they scared of Fox News????????
I'm glad to see field is being stupid for the cause...
Can't understand? Really field? You can't understand the pro-Obama,Hillary,Democrat moderators out and out lying? You can't understand the CNBC moderators not sticking to the agreed upon topic? You can't understand the CNBC moderators using leftwing talking points that they themselves debunked weeks ago? You can't understand how disorganized the moderators were?
Even the liberal Washington Post and the New York Times were critical of CNBC. But not field. Like the trusty house negro, he will defend massa and attack anyone who is a threat to his plantation way of living.
''They lucky black folks don't care about them''
This is the short sighted, cut your nose off despite your face plantation thinking we get from blahs. Funnie thing is, blahs wonder why we say the democrat plantation is a thing.
And field, how much was these ''black kids'' paid????
No, actually, Kinky, it is what your wingnut friends said that was "debunked" by every fact checking organization in the country.
Josh, I am trying, but I cannot follow the logic of your argument.
The fact that this man is black IS why he was told to prepay. I am not sure which part of that you don't understand. No one is saying that all restaurants (or white people) are racists. But the white people in THIS particular restaurant were.
I think it's great that black customers are launching lawsuits for these petty insults. Must be hundreds, thousands who don't bother, who haven't bothered, who can't afford or don't know how to bother, but only when businesses get the message that there may be blowback for this crap will it begin to stop. Shopper harassment, asking to see receipts, tailing customers in stores, that goes on here in good ol' NYC, where fortunately there are two lawyers for every normal citizen, and lawsuits and threats of lawsuits are common. In the hinterlands recourse to civil attorneys has been less likely. But the Dumb will stop when the businessman thinks he/she may not be able to get away with it.
You're black and go into these restaurants making a heap of noise about something or another, you don't know WHAT will be put in your food after that bruh ha ha, you're liable to receive a boiled turd in your chow. You need to COOK AND EAT HOME.
"The fact that this man is black IS why he was told to prepay. I am not sure which part of that you don't understand."
Fact? That's the part I don't understand; how it becomes a "fact" with the only piece of evidence of racial discrimination being this guy's skin color. Herp de dur.
Fact? Though not according to an investigation, and a court of law.
But, of course, it's much, much better that way. Now it becomes more of a widespread problem, and the investigator is also a racist, and the justice system is also systemically fucked.
That's the more likely thing here, according to the Fields of the world. Everybody's racist, rather than this simply being an instance of a guy, a fucking human being, just happening to have black skin.
..
"So yeah, in this case, it is obvious to me it was racism. And I did it with pure arithmetic...no need to do algebra, calculus or differential equations...2+2=4."
Try as I might, this is all I can see:
Black man = 2
Fucked over by restaurant = 2
Therefore = racial discrimination (4)
And in order to reach that conclusion, everyone else is complicit in the racism: The restaurant owner (manager, whatever) is lying, the investigator is lying, the court is screwing the guy over. To you, that's not only more likely, but it's "obvious."
Sorry, man, but those things aren't "obvious" to me. Sorry; I'm a skeptic. My brain literally does not and cannot work like that. I cannot suspend disbelief to create this perfect storm whereby a situation bereft of all evidence save this man's feelings mean that it was "obvious" racism.
Maybe this was. But you're saying that I should see how "obvious" it is that everyone's in on it against this black guy. That's just not "obvious" to me.
People who have families and careers and public images, all of which can be mightily damaged if they're even accused of being racists, and they're going to risk it all just to act racist toward this one fucking black guy and his breakfast tab?
For me, it doesn't add up.
field negro said...
The fact that this man is black IS why he was told to prepay. I am not sure which part of that you don't understand.
Do you believe fake hate crimes are giving people cause to doubt?
Did you mention these church fires?
Man charged with arson in St. Louis area black church fires; no evidence of hate crime
http://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2015/10/30/man-arrested-in-string-of-st-louis-church-fires
Trying to set churches on fire is hateful.
What the government means it wasn't the politically correct type of hate crime.
What is more troubling about this event is this 'deputy' ordered not one but two bloody marys with breakfast for gods sake. He was sitting alone so did he drive to the restaurant? Was he 'over the limit' or otherwise impaired as most people would be? Was he concerned about killing some innocent person in a car accident on the way home? Didn't seem like it to me. Or was he more concerned about his precious 'respect'. Did the restaurant staff figure any doofus trying to get drunk in the morning with breakfast is probably gonna cause problems somewhere down the line? I sure would.
Lets share the blame here. A drunk deputy getting back into his car, probably carrying an off-duty firearm, is far more of a hazard than some manager trying to keep the lid on.
Sorry, I must have skimmed over this:
"A system of law in America in this case has once again failed miserably to deliver justice."
There is no question that justice is sometimes wonky and outright wrong. Innocent people go to jail, a guy who downloaded a few files to his PC can get more time than a rapist, the pointless drug war with its mandatory sentences. No, the justice system doesn't always get it right.
But does that mean one need balk at the idea of a burden of proof? That's precisely what you did. You weren't saying that the system was rigged, as in they had the proof and just fucked the guy. You were complaining because, since they couldn't prove racism beyond a reasonable doubt, it was concluded no racism took place. You're taking a stance against the burden of proof!
Man, those are the standards. Those are the best standards in the world. That isn't to say that justice doesn't sometimes fail. But needing to meet a burden of proof before finding a party guilty is the best system in the history of mankind! You're literally advocating for witch hunts; the accusation being proof.
You know as much about the situation as anyone else who's read about it, yet you place yourself there and decide that your take on it is the objective fact, and anything less than that is a miscarriage of justice.
Seeing as Field and PX love using this method of "justice" against those they deem to have digital blackface, one might think another accused of such in witch-hunt fashion would respect needing to prove a claim before that claim is considered proven.
I can't tell y'all fucking anons apart. Get a damn screen name! But whichever one of y'all is breaking my balls and saying that I'm setting an impossible standard and that I'd never conclude this was racism, bullshit. That y'all view the accusation as the proof and refuse to see it as anything but racism turns into projection whereby I'll never conclude it is.
Sargon's Law.
Y'all might be good people. The anons, Field, PX, the lot. Y'all might be great at your careers. You may treat your family impeccably. Y'all might give to the community and lead good, morally upright lives. But I'm so fucking thankful that people like y'all aren't in charge of creating laws or maintaining the justice system. Truthfully! In the past two weeks alone, I count nearly half a dozen arguments where someone is making the case that an accusation is proof, and then being snarky and treating me like I'm just a racist argument troll by telling them that's stupid witch trial shit.
In this modern age, where "racism" as a smear alone can literally ruin one's life, where everything race is under a microscope, where if racism is found it's pounced on by the bulk of media in the nation and dozens of groups. Not to even mention racism proven is a damn criminal charge for businesses and the like. Yet to get over on this one black man, the restaurant, the investigator, and the justice system are all in on it, and all racists.
That's "obvious," whereas this guy who just happens to be black, dealing with a fucked-up restaurant policy, is supposedly the Loch Ness Monster here. That's the story that seems outlandish. That's what cannot be believed. That everyone is in on screwing this one dude over, risking their businesses and careers and fines and criminal charges, and even jail time potentially for an investigator and judge, that's what's obviously happening.
That's the "fact" of the situation.
Man alive...my brain's drawing a blank. Just-- wow.
JOSH, "Y'all might be good people. The anons, Field, PX, the lot. Y'all might be great at your careers. You may treat your family impeccably. Y'all might give to the community and lead good, morally upright lives. But I'm so fucking thankful that people like y'all aren't in charge of creating laws or maintaining the justice system. Truthfully! In the past two weeks alone, I count nearly half a dozen arguments where someone is making the case that an accusation is proof, and then being snarky and treating me like I'm just a racist argument troll by telling them that's stupid witch trial shit."
I never called you a racist in all the time you have been on FN--not even once! I have respected your opinion even though I have disagreed with you regarding Elmer's Restaurant. Again, as I have said before, what happened to Eason was most definitely racist. There is no ifs, ands, and buts about it. Making him prepay for breakfast AND the fact that he was Black, makes it damn obvious to me. As further support, even the waitress was apologetic for the blatant racism. She was White btw.
As a bm who has encountered numerous instances because of the color of my skin, for over 70+ years, I know racism when I see it....esp in America. I also know that the justice system isn't worth a shit when it comes to racism...that has been my experience, and at my age and the pain of being treated like shit by police, restaurants, golf clubs, and even religious groups, I don't expect anything much to change....EVER.
However, let me make it clear once more. If you can't hear it this time, I am going to assume you can't get past racism either, which, imo is the most wretched evil phenomenon perpetrated on American soil and history:
I have never called you a racist ever on FN. In fact, I have agreed with you most of the time. I have no allegiance to Field, PX and PC. I don't consider them my brothers. You have been around long enough to know it's virtually impossible for Blacks to stand together. In fact, Blacks treat Blacks worse than white racists do.....That's a fact.
Any Black who is honest will have to admit that the people who have hurt them the most; the ones who have betrayed them the most; the ones who have humiliated them the most; the ones who have degraded them the most; the ones who "stabbed them in the back the most"; the ones who have ripped them off the most....have been Black= their own people.
So, I am sure, with your experience among Blacks you have GOT to know this, or at least seen it. Bottom Line: Being Black in America is a curse...Black Magic.
We are a sick race, much like the white race is. There is a 'minor' difference though: Whites have the power, the money, and they have little mercy for what happens to Blacks. That simple obvious degrading discriminatory event that happened to a bm who just wanted to be treated like everyone else, had his unconscious hopes shattered....AGAIN, by Elmer's, by the justice system, and now by minds logical and rational thinking minds like yours.
I don't think you ARE a racist. But I do wonder about your heart.
"However, let me make it clear once more. If you can't hear it this time, I am going to assume you can't get past racism either, which..."
Sorry, bro, I won't be held hostage by a with-me-or-against-me dichotomy whereby I must view this situation as "obvious" racism lest I'm X. You are free to think of me whatsoever you wish, assuming I can or cannot get past whatever it is you want to insert there as a hurdle.
It doesn't add up. People are risking their entire livelihoods, their businesses, their jobs, their careers, and even their freedom, and all so they can racially discriminate against this one guy? The restaurant, the investigation, the courts -- all racist. In your view, it literally cannot be a happenstance of a dumb-ass policy unfairly targeting a person; it must be racism, to the point that anyone disagreeing with you will be judged on the whole as negative and having something literally wrong with them that they can't see.
I don't do dogma. It's why I'm a fucking skeptic, to avoid it.
It's your world; I'm just typing in it. Carry it how you feel.
And BTW: No one has ever answered me yet.
Why, if something happens to a black person, does it happen only because the person is black?
I've been asking this question for two years now. Nobody has ever answered it. But every single time a relevant topic comes up, that's the standard. If it happens to a black person, it happened because the person was black. It is held as a literal impossibility that it could have happened any other way.
It can never be just something that happened to a human being whose skin happened to be black. 100% of the time, it happened because the person was black.
Why does the universe change here?
So in other words if insult you as anon you can shrug it off but if you get a screen name it'll chase you away? Really man? You survived vietnam but are afraid of a little internet ribbing? Ok, carry on soldier.
Interesting point you make, you can't show common cause with the brothas and accuse others of being the problem. Yeah your ass better not be Black if you are you are one Tomming ass coon. And for the record young Josh is only called a racist when he spews racist shit. And he does and yet you will never criticize a white guy who writes anti-Blah non-sense but can go after me and Field who do our damndest to support our race. Go kick rocks Tom. And you're right, you don't need a screen name but if you do Uncle Tom will suit your cooning ass just fine now go back to doing the buck dance for massa.
"Why, if something happens to a black person, does it happen only because the person is black?"
We don't know that answer to that question. You might want to ask your "color aroused" friends.
Besides, we only concern ourselves if "something happens" BECAUSE the person is black.
I honestly don't get it. Obviously Ben Carson and company does not understand the meaning of the word debate. In a debate you are supposed to get tough questions and answer them to the satisfaction of the person asking them.
The Field Negro isn't kidding when he says he doesn't get it. A debate is when the parties to the debate are given a topic and they attempt to persuasively argue their position against the other debaters. The moderators in this particular debate were not participants in the debate as their job was to provide a topic to debate. In this case the moderators acted as inquisitors demanding answers to questions designed to be personal attacks by the moderators. Questions such as asking a candidate where all his money went or asking another if he can do math does not provide a debatable topic between the participants. What NBC presented was something other than a debate. The Field Negro's credibility would be improved if he would learn what a word means before announcing that someone else doesn't know what it means. Perhaps credibility isn't important to FN.
"You might want to ask your "color aroused" friends."
I'll be sure to float that one by at the next Privileged White Men of the World meeting. We're supposed to be having a conference in Kentucky next month. Not in any venue, but the entire state. There's over a billion of us! Although the conference is only supposed to be about potential troubleshooting methods to employ at the build-a-white-person factory in Greenland, I'm sure I can find a few (million) white men who can field such a question.
After all, it's racism for a white person to assume all blacks are the same; it's just a given that blacks can assume all we whites know each other, are friends, pal around, and come off the assembly line with an upgraded 2.0 Privilege chipset.
Though while people can read the question and be snarky about it, I still wonder why no one will just offer a fucking honest answer. I mean, I'm being told that it's supposed to be obvious that Eason was only targeted because he was black. I'm asking why is it literally impossible to even concede the possibility that perhaps he just got a raw deal as a human being who happens to be black?
I know, questions are agitations here.
Never question Bruce Diskinson!
People would rather be insulted as cunts or motherfuckers than to see the dreaded question mark.
Like beating egg whites and having them collapse if any fat (i.e. yolk) gets into the mix, collectivist ideologically literally implodes at the first breath of individualism.
"And for the record young Josh is only called a racist when he spews racist shit."
Young Josh has asked on over 50 occasions for someone to quote me on this supposed "racist shit" I've said.
And like very simple questions I ask here, I'm still waiting for the results...
In the previous thread, I called out two guys who were trying to put that slammed school girl thing on her race, painting it as a black thing. I said that was over the line and I disagreed. And I'm on record here defending the black IQ and the idea of "black" being genetically inferior. Yet none of that matters. The evidence of my "racism" is that I dare disagree with black people, which is called "hurling abuse," on a "black blog."
I'm not challenging Stephen Hawking. I'll never in my life create something that rivals special relativity. But don't patronize and treat me as if I'm a fucking dullard. I know how it operates in collectivist circles. I understand perfectly the with-us-or-against-us mentality and the demands for ideological purity. And, hell, I don't even have to be a "Tomming ass coon" to see it.
Blogger Josh said...
"And BTW: No one has ever answered me yet.
Why, if something happens to a black person, does it happen only because the person is black?
I've been asking this question for two years now. Nobody has ever answered it. But every single time a relevant topic comes up, that's the standard. If it happens to a black person, it happened because the person was black. It is held as a literal impossibility that it could have happened any other way."
JOSH, stop absolutising. You can't get an answer that way. People, Black and White, will simply ignore you. The fact in life, is lots of things happen to Blacks that have nothing to do with the color of their skin. Ben Carson was recognized as a great surgeon not because he is Black but because he was a great surgeon.
However, even Ben Carson has admitted that he has been the victim of racism. In fact, very few, if any bm have not been the victim of racism. Yet, I don't know of 'one' who claims everything in life is against them because they are Black. I include Field. And he is known as the great R chaser!
I can't tell you what you want to hear because I don't agree with the question. Maybe you are asking the wrong question?
You know, if you ask square question and you are looking for a round answer, then you need to be specific and ask a round question.
Thus far, your question is generalizing across the board about Blacks. It's not really a question but an 'accusation' that is not based in reality.
JOSH, "It can never be just something that happened to a human being whose skin happened to be black. 100% of the time, it happened because the person was black.
Why does the universe change here?"
'100% of the time?'..............There you go again. But I understand. Racism is not an easy subject to talk about. And I doubt if humans can solve the problem. It's too big and it's spiritual in nature. Hence, all the laws and psychological help won't even begin to dent the problem. This country started with Blacks and Whites against each other.
After 400 years a bm still can't walk into a restaurant like Elmer's without some weird shit happening to him. Again, I relate to Eason, because it has happened to me on several occasions, probably more than Eason because I eat out all the time.
But I bet you can't find a bm or bw who hasn't had a similar experience that Eason had. Still, I don't expect YOU to understand because you are looking at it from a different position.
-----------
"But I bet you can't find a bm or bw who hasn't had a similar experience that Eason had. Still, I don't expect YOU to understand because you are looking at it from a different position."
I expect were blacks asked to prepay in any number larger than Eason, it would be a central theme here, a series of Field postings.
"After 400 years a bm still can't walk into a restaurant like Elmer's without some weird shit happening to him."
Evidence! As I said, were this widespread, or even larger than Eason, it would be a theme at Field's. Where is the evidence that a black man cannot even walk into a restaurant without this happening? There are, what -- 20 million black males in America? Of those who are of age to walk into a restaurant and pay their own ticket, let's just call it 10 million. How many of them eat at restaurants? Let's say 5 to be safe, cutting it in half again. What you are literally saying is that 5m black men are experiencing racial discrimination on the reg, which would mean most every non-black person they encounter in their lives is a racist, which would mean America is still inherently a racist nation. All of this flies directly in the face of reality.
Paraphrased, "Every black person has experienced racism..." Okay, so again, how do we know that it was racism vs. just some everyday, fucked-up shit that happened? As a white man, I've been pulled over by police. I've been followed around stores. I've been hit in the ribs by a female police officer and pepper sprayed. I've been denied employment. I've been asked to leave restaurants. I've had to prepay for my food and drink. Though since I'm white, it's by and large accepted that, hey, these things happen. But when they happen to black people, it's by and large accepted that, hey, these things happen because the person is black. By how do we delineate here? How do we, for example, tell if a black man had the police called on him because he was in the same sort of Tahoe that was stolen vs. ONLY BECAUSE he's a black man? You are advocating we assume racism if the person is black, and that is the entire point of my question. Why? Because you're jaded? Okay, then.
What you are saying, anon, is not an accurate model of reality. Your anecdotal experiences do not model reality, the same way I cannot say every white person has experienced the same life as me. You are falling into the airborne osmosis of experience trap. And so long as people are willing to call it racism, obviously a black person who experiences some weird shit will have an accepting platform to say, "Man, I just experienced racism!"
Why wouldn't every single black person on planet earth believe every negative thing is racism when they're told that's exactly what it is? They're told whites are against them. They're told society is against them. They're told nobody cares about them. They're told they're hated, they're oppressed, they're slaves, they're not welcome. I in no way actually blame any black person for crying wolf on racism; I expect it. I will, however, ask for evidence. That makes me a bad person with a bad heart? KMA, in that case.
The effects are damaging:
A) It dilutes what "racism" is
B) Fewer fair-minded, well-meaning people care because of crying wolf
C) It steals attention away from real victims of racism
D) It's indiscernible from first-world problems (minor inconveniences) in modern feminism which are called "oppression"
To put a point on it: 1) Just because something bad happens to a black person doesn't mean it was because the person was black. 2) A person's feelings do not equate to racism! Just because one perceives something as racist is not evidence of racism. You want to make the case for racism? Show evidence!
This isn't an unreasonable request.
If he didn't like prepaying, he should have either gone to another restaurant or gone home. To alleviate those kinds of problems, cook at home, eat at home. Foods paid for and has seasoning in it and is tasty and your hands were washed.
Ohmigosh, you are right. Why hang around for more humiliation because you are Black. Just don't go to restaurants that are going to discriminate against you.
Any restaurant that discriminates against Blacks should be able to do so with impunity. And that is exactly what happened at Elmer's.
He didn't know he was being discriminated against until he found out he was the only one to which this policy applied.
Damn white people, forcing that innocent black man to be the only person in the restaurant at that time actually drinking alcohol and thus, per the findings of an independent investigation and a court of law, being the only one subject to the policy. Damn you, whitey! Why did you force the innocent Mr. Eason to drink alcohol!?
I think we all know...
It was color arousal syndrome. It was 'cause he's black!
We see that whitey didn't force alcohol down their fellow cave-beasts' throats. Only the black man.
Obvious racism is obvious.
His name is spelled Reince.
Post a Comment