whodatmiami
4d ago
A lot of people don’t think it’s true though is the problem. Or at least pretend not to know.
whodatmiami
4d ago
I actually thought he was pretty representative of a black nerd from when I was in high school a decade and a half later. It really wasn’t that uncommon for white nerds to have a non white person in their nerd crew. Nerds were always pretty accepting in my experience, regardless of what libs say about communities like Magic or DnD.
whodatmiami
5d ago
I know people here talk about serious issues, and this really isn't one of them. But there is one thing I've noticed recently in the DEI craze is the erasure of the real black nerd. I went to a (formerly lol) almost all white high school, and there were black nerds there. They were in band, ran cross country, loved anime, played Magic, and took AP classes.
Here are some examples:
https://www.npr.org/2021/09/17/1037911107/jerry-lawson-video-game-fairchild-channel-f-black-engineer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Pondsmith
You can see it in shows like Stranger Things which represent them in their natural state in the 1980s. I work with a few now. There's one I work with now who is a network engineer who absolutely loves solving networking issues. He used to work at Cisco and absolutely is obsessed with networking.
However, these are usually Gen X and Millennials. I haven't seen a true black nerd Gen Z at any company I have interacted with recently. I'm serious when I say this: what happened to the black nerd?
whodatmiami
5d ago
I’ll be honest. I don’t have a lot of faith in the opinions of unionizing Starbucks workers because I know the politics of those kinds of people. I’ve also literally seen local coffee shops on the same street have completely different demographics based on the rules they enforce.
whodatmiami
5d ago
I don’t think this term will catch on because it’s too anti-white. I’ve seen it around a bit but it’s pretty rare. It’s also incredibly stupid and meaningless because Indians, sub Saharan Africans, and Native Americans have nothing in common other than not being white. Plus all groups are technically a global minority. This is also why I’m not convinced woke was defeated. If it was, this kind of thing wouldn’t exist.
whodatmiami
6d ago
I've traveled a lot for the last year, and it's been like that at most Starbucks I've been to that aren't in really nice areas. And in the nice areas, they are usually empty and the people go to a local coffee shop. I've been to around 15 states in the past year too. Obviously, n=1, but that is my experience and the experience I have heard from other people.
whodatmiami
6d ago
The vibe shift continues.
Starbucks ends its ‘open-door’ policies
Starbucks doesn’t want to be America’s public bathroom anymore.
Starbucks is scrapping a policy that had let anyone hang out at its cafes or use the restrooms without making a purchase. The new rules are part of a larger effort to improve Starbucks’ cafe experience and deter homeless people and non-paying customers who have come to use Starbucks solely for shelter and bathroom access – but they reverse a policy that was put in place after one of the company’s biggest-ever PR disasters.
The new code of conduct, announced to stores Monday, is part of CEO Brian Niccol’s strategy to lure back customers, boost sagging sales and improve worker relations. It applies to all locations in North America and will be displayed on store doors.
The changes are a “practical step that helps us prioritize our paying customers who want to sit and enjoy our cafes or need to use the restroom during their visit,” said a Starbucks spokesperson in a statement. “By setting clear expectations for behavior and use of our spaces, we can create a better environment for everyone.”
Other changes include a ban on panhandling, discrimination, consuming outside alcohol and vaping, according to the policy posted online. Employees will receive training on the new policy.
Starbucks is also trying to incentivize customers to stay in its cafes instead of ordering to-go by giving perks for in-store orders. Beginning January 27, all customers can get one free hot or iced coffee refill served in its ceramic mugs or reusable glasses. Previously, the perk only applied to members of Starbucks’ loyalty program.
Opening restrooms and cafes to the general public has helped Starbucks brand itself as a “third place” between work and home and bring potential customers through the door. However, the policy has created challenges for employees and customers alike.
The open-door policy began in 2018 after two Black men were arrested at a Philadelphia location while waiting for a friend. One of the men said he asked to use the restroom shortly after walking in and was told it was only for paying customers. The incident was caught on camera and morphed into a PR disaster for Starbucks.
In 2022, Starbucks’ former CEO Howard Schultz said it might not be able to keep its bathrooms open, blaming a growing mental health problem that poses a threat to its staff and customers. That same year, Starbucks closed more than a dozen locations, primarily located in downtown spots, citing safety concerns.
“This is another example of the complications caused by the lack of public bathrooms in the US, and of Starbucks shifting its tune — benefitting at times from the lack of public infrastructure and being hurt by the same things,” said Bryant Simon, a historian at Temple University who has written a book on Starbucks and is currently working on one about public bathrooms in the United States.
I just had a conversation about this with someone a few days ago. I was saying that this event is what killed Starbucks as a brand. People used to actually go into Starbucks, and that rule was completely reasonable. Now, it's gross and full of homeless people. The bathrooms are disgusting. Their drinks are too expensive and not good enough to justify the cost. People used to like to go into Starbucks and hang out and read or study. A bunch of places around me that do enforce these rules opened up, including no dogs except service dogs, and they are always packed. At this point, I think it's too little and too late. I don't think they can get back to what they were before.
What's amazing to me though is that this was completely predictable as an outcome. How could it have turned out any other way? Why was nobody in charge able to see this and take the short term PR hit for long term benefits? Now their brand is permanently tarnished as a place full of homeless people. Companies can recover, but I'm not bullish on their prospects.
whodatmiami
7d ago
Wokeness isn't productive. Unless you are counting the favor it gets you with certain powerful people, it is at best a waste of money. More likely, it is actively harmful because it's divisive, causes discord in the organization, and it has goals outside of what's best for whatever organization it takes over. So it wastes valuable resources that could be spent elsewhere.
I also think executives and leaders thought it was way more popular than it was. With social media censorship and the bubbles we all live in, they overestimated how much popular support it had. Once they realized it wasn't actually very popular with most people, they felt free to push back against it.
That being said, I wouldn't count out wokeness just yet. I suspect they will just rebrand DEI and we'll be having these exact same discussions in 10 years.
whodatmiami
8d ago
Have these LA fires ended any hope of Gavin Newsom becoming president? I honestly don't see how he can survive this one, even if it isn't his fault.
Also, what do you think the rebuilding process will be like in LA? Will they try to build more multi-family dwellings or just rebuild the mansions? Since this is West LA, a lot of rich people have a lot on the line, but this is also a one time opportunity to build LA in a more efficient manner.
whodatmiami
9d ago
Not me. I haven’t posted here in a long time. I lurked for like a year because my Mac crashed and I forgot my username/password. I actually have been accumulating scholarly articles and peer reviewed articles about this though because I wanted to make a substack to deboonk this once and for all but I haven’t had time. I also bought two of the most cited books about this and have been reading them, but I don’t know if I’ll ever get to finish this. It’s a huge undertaking. My only motivation is my absolute hatred that people are allowed to lie about this with impunity.
whodatmiami
9d ago
There’s three types of people here. It’s like my hobby horse of black people in Medieval England. There’s the people who knowingly lie or obfuscate the truth. Then there’s the people who believe those people because they are “experts “. The vast majority are the latter. There’s also some who know it’s not true but pretend to because it’s fashionable or expedient. This is Zuck. There’s no way he didn’t know it was nonsense but he went along with it when he had to but now that he can get rid of it he will.
No he doesn’t. He does a massive motte and bailey, but that is essentially what he believes. That quote is literally DR3. I was around on TRS forums when DR3 became a meme. Anything that isn’t what I described or that quote is not the original DR3. He believes that if those racist Dems who opposed the Civil Rights Act and integration were reanimated today, they would vote for Kamala instead of Trump. They would wake up and be super excited to discriminate against whites like the Democrats do today. They would be allies with blue haired anti-white Antifa people because they would be united by racism, even if the racism is now in the complete opposite direction. If you believe that too, then you also believe in the meme DR3.
You can’t say he doesn’t actually believe that because that is the thesis he is trying to prove and the quote he chose out of everything in the book to summarize it. He has also been doing DR3 for 30 years now. There’s too many interviews, articles, and books by him doing DR3 to say he doesn’t believe that. He is the OG of DR3. If he believed something different, he should have said the thesis was something different.
whodatmiami
10d ago
As we will discover in this book, progressive Democrats are in fact the inventors of racism and white supremacy, and the Republican Party fought them all the way. Progressives and Democrats were also the groups that were in bed with fascism and Nazism in the 1920s and 1930s, while Republicans opposed this cozy alliance. All the villains of the civil rights movement—Birmingham sheriff Bull Connor, Selma sheriff Jim Clark, Arkansas governor Orval Faubus, Georgia governor Lester Maddox, Mississippi governor Ross Barnett, Alabama governor and presidential candidate George Wallace—were Democrats.
So we have the remarkable spectacle today of the party of racism, fascism and white supremacy blaming the party of antiracism and resistance to fascism and white supremacy for being racist, fascist and white supremacist.
https://read.macmillan.com/smp/death-of-a-nation-by-dinesh-dsouza-excerpt/
whodatmiami
10d ago
No that’s not DR3. That’s a rationalists’ steel man of DR3. DR3 by standard conservatives is literally Democrats are the real racists and there’s essentially zero Republican racist and there have essentially never been any either.
whodatmiami
10d ago
Well I’ve heard some pretty hot DR3 takes where they act like the Ku Klux Klan are woke SJWs. I got into an argument recently with a irl standard conservative that said if 1920s KKK came back they’d be Dems. I was like you think they would support the party of a half black, half Indian woman who supports laws discriminating against whites and he said yes. This is something you’ll see in main stream conservative discourse. They think there’s essentially zero white Republican racists and any that exist are Democrats. Just look on boomer conservative FB pages for anyone who doesn’t believe me.
whodatmiami
10d ago
I was just in Louisiana for work and the black neighborhoods were absolutely terrible.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=hGkOcuCvqeA&pp=ygUXTW9ucm9lIExvdWlzaWFuYSBnaGV0dG8%3D
whodatmiami
10d ago
DR3 is absolutely not true. A legit white racist, especially in the South or Midwest, will almost always vote Republican. Democrats discriminate against white people, so no racially conscious white outside of weird online people will be convinced by the racism of the Democrats because this racism is directed against them.
whodatmiami
10d ago
California was a very white state in 1950. The south had segregation. And they used red lining and other ways to keep them out of white cities across the US until that became illegal with the Civil Rights Act. You could absolutely avoid them. Especially outside the South and places like NYC. In 1950 the US was 90% white and 10% black. So outside a few areas, non white people were extremely rare.
You asked for data that couldn’t immediately be provided because I would have to calculate it myself and the map you provided showed clear clusters of areas of white people which you hand waved away (and then accuse me of doing the same). There was nothing I could say that would convince you. And what you are saying can obviously just be dismissed regardless because it is so obviously not true. What you are saying is basically that if there are 2 cities in the Bay Area where everything is equal except demographics where one city is 100% Asian and the other is 50% white, white people won’t show any preference for the latter. That is an insanely hot take and not something anyone would agree with.
I also provided you a WSJ article saying the same thing and you didn’t even acknowledge it.
whodatmiami
11d ago
I'm from the Bay Area. I literally saw it happen. People moved to other suburbs but eventually it became a thing where people couldn't escape it like it is today. Here's an article that was making the rounds when I lived there: https://web.archive.org/web/20150309054437/https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB113236377590902105
I saw people flee Indians moving into Fremont and from Asians moving into Cupertino. They tried to move to places like Livermore, San Ramon, and Pleasanton, but eventually those places got changed too. Now there's nowhere to go but other states. White people definitely tried to move to whiter cities, so unless things have changed in the past 10 years with human nature, I think it's still obviously true.
From the way you write, I'm getting the feeling you are an Indian immigrant, so I don't think I can get you to understand.
I could perform statistical analysis, but I don't think you'd accept that either. I could show you that almost all growth in Dublin was Indian and Asian like you asked (although it shouldn't even need proof if you have lived in the Bay Area the past 25 years and seen the change), but I think you'd just move the goal posts.
I truly don't understand why you are objecting to something that shouldn't even be debatable.
whodatmiami
11d ago
You are purposely being obtuse. You’re focusing on Palo Alto because it’s your gotcha because it’s a random city in the Bay Area I threw out as the profile of a city white people prefer to live in if they can. Why are you so fixated on this one city?
So just so we are clear: yes or no? White people show zero preference in the Bay Area for living around other white people. That seems to be what you are claiming. Can you say yes that’s what you’re claiming or are you not going to explicitly state what you are clearly insinuating? Otherwise I don’t feel the need to continue a conversation with someone who won’t state yes or no when asked a simple question.
whodatmiami
11d ago
Are you seriously claiming that white people don’t try to move to whiter towns when possible? Just so I know what you are claiming here. Are you saying white people have zero racial preferences when choosing a place to live? Please state exactly what you are claiming here and what you disagree with.
There are a lot of confounding variables. And again, I said when possible, as in all other things being equal. So please state exactly about what I said you disagree with. It seems to me you are saying whites have zero racial preferences when choosing where to live, so can you please explicitly say that if that’s what you are claiming?
I’m not going to debate your random gish gallops.
whodatmiami
11d ago
Exactly. They are pretending not to know what I am talking about. The cities in the Bay Area with lots of white people will also have lots of Asians so pointing it out is irrelevant. Whites with means clearly have a preference for a certain kind of city.
whodatmiami
11d ago
I haven’t lived in the Bay Are in over 10 years, so I thought of random cities known for being white when I was there. And it’s not even debatable that I am right. You can look at maps of cities in the Bay Area and the percentage of white people and they clearly try to congregate and cluster in certain areas. They have a preference to live in the whitest possible cities if they can. This is a clear revealed preference based off demographic data. Otherwise, you would see white people randomly distributed amongst all the cities, which you obviously don’t. Even within cities, there are certain percentages of SF or Oakland that have higher percentages of white people than others. How else would you explain this?
A lot of people think it’s the valid scientific opinion though. It has been spammed since the 1960s.
More options
Context Copy link