What fun! Based on "baggy pants and sweaters with hoods" we've gone the full thug.
This is just pure, unadulterated racism. Ya'll should be banned for it.
How does Old Navy stay business when that is what they sell? They must have to turn away pretty much every customer since they?re all criminals.
PS: I bet I could guess which posters think rap music is 1) should NOT be defined as art or music, 2) is only for ?blacks,? and 3) is only for criminals.
PPS: This thread is absurd. It?s like phrenological racism but with fashion: Fashionology?
Except that's not what we're talking about, is it? And it's not the picture you chose to post, is it? And people like you always claim that they'd treat white people who somehow triggered the same fear and loathing "just the same", but it never seems to happen, does it?
I posted that particular picture, because this story is about 2 black men alleging racial discrimination. Had it been about 2 white men, then I would've posted a different picture.
I can only speak for myself, but I am an equal opportunity discriminator.
While I don't find this style attractive -- I am not threatened by it.
That's easy enough to say on a forum. But if it were 2 am and you were getting on to a subway car and you had the choice of getting into an almost empty car with a few people who dressed like gang members or to get into a car with a few people who looked liked they were returning home from work, it is fairly obvious that virtually all people would enter the second car.
Why would you take these people's word for it? What happened to innocent until proven otherwise? Or does this only apply to minorities? You are just as bad as people who really are racist.
First the presumption of innocence only applies in criminal cases not civil cases. Second, people can choose to take the word of whomever they desire, in fact that is what often happens when evaluating evidence. Third, give the first two things, the allegation that this only applies to minorities is kind of off base too.
In essence there is an allegation. Some of here have decided based on the snippet of information that they either believe the ones making the allegation or believe Apple (which from what I can understand hasn't even answered the complaint yet). In my mind it's too early to draw a conclusion about this one way or the other.
Finally clothes don't make a thug, no more than a leather vest makes one a member of a motorcycle gang. I think some of the arguments being advanced are kind of silly.
That's easy enough to say on a forum. But if it were 2 am and you were getting on to a subway car and you had the choice of getting into an almost empty car with a few people who dressed like gang members or to get into a car with a few people who looked liked they were returning home from work, it is fairly obvious that virtually all people would enter the second car.
I think it?s fairly obvious that it's virtually incorrect.
Oddly enough, few have done as much for racial integration of Las Vegas than Dino and Frankie: they got tired of casino owners telling them Sammy couldn't stay there, so they put out the word, "Sammy's welcome, or we don't play your club". No club could afford to have the two biggest names in town boycott them, so they began to repeal their "whites only" policies.
Actually, I think Howard Hughes' involvement in Las Vegas hotels had more to do with the breakdown of racial barriers than any "boycott" by the rat-pack.
Hughes' involvement brought legitimacy and international corporate perspective to the Las Vegas Hotel and Gaming industries -- it changed everything!
I read that to say: I am not racially discriminating against you, I am discriminating against you for other reasons - appearance and dress. Thats "your kind"
Should be easy enough to defend. Were there black americans in there at the time, without hoods, and were they discriminated against ( clearly not: this is a two person class action suit) . Were whites kicked out at other occasions if sporting certain attire at any time in the operation of this store. If so, forget it.
Actually, you can't defend that! You can't go kicking people out of places just because they are not dressed like Dominique Strauss-Kahn.
Give it a rest, clownboy. The employees saw a couple of guys dressed in BULKY CLOTHING. Clothes you can easily slip shoplifted items into. That's all they need to see. And you know what else? It's APPLE's store. That means they get to decide who to allow inside. Period.
What a self-righteous fool you are.
And you'd be 100% wrong. Retail stores are always, and I mean ALWAYS on the lookout for items of clothing that could be used to conceal lifted merch. That's why most stores make you check your bags at the door. Security checks ANYONE - male, female, black, white - wearing such clothing, and they are especially suspicious of people traveling in pairs or groups (where one serves as the lookout).
Another big fat fail, playing the tired 'racist' card.
Quote:
Originally Posted by spliff monkey
I have to disagree. White kids who try to be "thugs" are even more offensive than kids who grew up in a community and are following the norms of that community. Neither really has an excuse to behave or dress like a thug if they want to elevate themselves, but it sure is allot harder to bring yourself up and stand apart than it is do step down because you are insecure about being a privileged white kid in a urban environment.
If neither could speak well or impress me with their demeanor, I wouldn't hire either. Your assumptions are erroneous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NomadMac
And how do you know that?
A dress code? An over the top comment. If you want to imitate the fashion of criminals, then don't be surprised at the reception you get at a bank or a retail store. Baggy clothes help conceal firearms and stolen goods which is why prisoners and thugs wear them.
And you're making an assumption that I'm white.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister Snitch
"Black" is making all kinds of assumptions. Don't expect facts to slow him (her?) down much.
Whole lotta fail going on in this thread. Whole lotta fail. So baggy clothing is the "fashion of criminals"?
According to the article "The lawsuit alleges that the Apple employee approached the customers in an 'intimidating fashion,' invading their 'personal space,' and said to them, 'You know the deal. You know the deal.' The employee allegedly told the plaintiffs that they must leave the store unless they planned to purchase something or see a Mac Specialist."
Again, like I said in my first post: we don't know all the facts. Maybe they were acting suspiciously around ipods or ipads or something small that they could slip into their pockets. If thats the case, then I can understand the employees wanting them to leave.
But if they weren't, that behavior by the Apple employees is complete bullshit.
That's easy enough to say on a forum. But if it were 2 am and you were getting on to a subway car and you had the choice of getting into an almost empty car with a few people who dressed like gang members or to get into a car with a few people who looked liked they were returning home from work, it is fairly obvious that virtually all people would enter the second car.
But, a subway car at 2 AM and gang members are not the issue. That was the picture you posted -- and you said you would give these two the boot for their dress (even if they wore shirts).
You are being very unfair and biased here yourself. You pick my comments out for chastisement, when even a casual perusal of the thread makes it obvious that my remarks are some of the most temperate.
Your also missing the fact that I almost completely agree with you and you with me. Your first paragraph for instance is almost a 1 to 1 paraphrasing of my first comment on the thread.
Maybe you are just making a bad joke but you are putting words in my mouth with your over the top interpretation of the clothing issue and I don't appreciate it.
What I said was that people judge each other and outward appearances like clothing and the way in which a person carries themselves is a big part of that. These are just obvious facts, I'm not trying to make some arcane weird argument here. I was in fact making a distinction between merely wearing baggy clothes and "looking/acting Gangsta"and there is a big difference, and it's pretty obvious to any impartial observer who hasn't been hiding under a rock for the last 20 years.
What I said was that *IF* in fact, these guys were dressed/acting "Gangsta" then they must expect to be treated as if they were in fact dangerous criminals, which is basically the whole point of dressing/acting that way.
To argue against this by posting a humorous picture of a guy in stripes misses the entire point at best. The fact that not all criminals dress/act like criminals, doesn't in any way alter the fact that dressing/acting like a criminal may sometimes get you treated like one. That doesn't even make sense.
I take your point and apologize. Some of the less intelligent comments just don't warrant a reply. Yours did. I replied to Apple ][ and shouldn't have. He sinks himself.
BUT... I REALLY object to the notion that if you dress a certain way you are asking for it. In this day and age people dress in all sorts of ways for all sorts of reasons. I don't like a lot of it but it doesn't, or certainly shouldn't make a blind bit of difference. I have heard this about girls wearing provocative clothing, boys with long hair, girls with short hair, etc etc. For me - the only thing this shows is that people have a lot of stored prejudice and that the fact that when people sometimes dress provocatively this somehow legitimizes the opening of the prejudicial flood gates. The ugliness of the prejudice always takes me by surprise.
You didn't say anything of the sort but you did say that
"*IF* in fact, these guys were dressed/acting "Gangsta" then they must expect to be treated as if they were in fact dangerous criminals, which is basically the whole point of dressing/acting that way. "
The whole point? There are too many degrees of 'gangsta', to make such a claim. I mean how are you supposed to treat a dangerous criminal? Shouldn't you run away and call the law? There are too many variables. What if I am a regular black guy and the guy next to me in the Apple store is hulky redneck. What should my legitimate thoughts be? Should I call the police? Move away?
I accept that some 'looks' will set off alarm bells for some people but what the hell does a dangerous criminal look like. That was the point of the silly cartoon and later the picture of Madoff and his boys. There is no such thing as a 'criminal look'.
The whole point? There are too many degrees of 'gangsta', to make such a claim. I mean how are you supposed to treat a dangerous criminal? Shouldn't you run away and call the law? There are too many variables. What if I am a regular black guy and the guy next to me in the Apple store is hulky redneck. What should my legitimate thoughts be? Should I call the police? Move away?
I’m imagining someone calling 911 in terror because teenagers are walking around in baggy jeans and hoodies. Oh the humanity!
PS: Whats worse: baggy jeans or those low-cut, skin tight hipster jeans that guys were these days. I’ll go for the baggy jeans and go find myself a belt instead of the sperm-count lowering hipster look. Hipster jeans: where fashion meets birth control.
But, a subway car at 2 AM and gang members are not the issue. That was the picture you posted -- and you said you would give these two the boot for their dress (even if they wore shirts).
Why? What's wrong with it?
Because of the simple fact that they're walking around in their underwear. Almost all stores do have dress codes. You can't enter most places without a shirt or shoes. Dogs and animals aren't allowed in many places. If a store seeks to eject people because they're running around in their underwear, then that's their right.
Hopefully there's a video or some proof or evidence behind these allegations, otherwise it's all speculation of course. I'd love to see exactly what happened in that Apple store.
Can you not see and understand exactly what was being said? Clearly he is referring to the folks who wear baggy tops, hoodies to cover their heads, and baggy pants hanging below their asses. I have dealt with folks like this and I am always on "red alert" because this image reminds me of an urban street thug.
Easy to understand since the whole gangsta genre can be a little unsettling to typical white collar types. The whole notion that there are good gangsters is a complete oxymoron.
If you suddenly happen upon a snake while walking down a path, your natural reaction is one of caution. Clearly you understand that only a few kinds of snakes are actually dangerous but the ones that are, can be fatal so it is not unexpected to be extremely concerned or even fearful when you run across one. Likewise when I run across a hoodlum looking character my first evaluation isn't that he is probably a social worker with a masters degree just dressing to fit in with the ghetto where he does his benevolent work.
How does Old Navy stay business when that is what they sell? They must have to turn away pretty much every customer since they?re all criminals.
PS: I bet I could guess which posters think rap music is 1) should NOT be defined as art or music, 2) is only for ?blacks,? and 3) is only for criminals.
PPS: This thread is absurd. It?s like phrenological racism but with fashion: Fashionology?
And, interestingly, phrenology was used to establish the "scientific" basis of racism-- i.e. that treating blacks as subhuman wasn't racist at all-- it was merely the right and appropriate response to their unfortunate condition.
I'm sure some folks here would protest that they would treat a white person with a compromised cranial topography "just the same."
i've come into the applestore thugged out and they treated me with the utmost. I really really doubt it. Money be green. Its a business. If they were looking suspect, this is america and people know that lawsuits happen over nothing so i really doubt it
Good. They better treat you well otherwise they are discriminating based on appearance. It's one thing for a Rolls Royce dealer to look at a client and size them up. The Apple Store should treat all well behaved customers with respect no matter if they are thugged out or not.
The people here disagreeing with that have a screw loose. They are seriously out of date IMO.
the Apple employee told them they were not welcome there because of their race.
That sounds like such BS, lol.
I find it kind of hard to believe that the Apple employee went up to those 2 people and basically said, hey, you're not welcome here, because of your race.
But hey, if they think they have any merits to their case, then go for it! If it turns out that the whole thing is a lie or hoax, then the two people who dressed like thugs should get a chance to feel what it's like to be a real criminal, behind bars.
Before you continue with your diatribe Ted, do you live in NYC? Racism (at least in my circles) is in fact simply unacceptable and impractical. How could one be a racist, or a homophobe etc and still live in NY? it's impossible. The first sign of racism and the source will be ostracized. Period. You will never get hired for a job as a bigot, you will never make any contacts. At least half of the Apple store employees are "minorities" in NY. No one cares, unless they want to use the race card to explain away some self deficiency.
I will say however that NY is certainly a place that judges you by appearance and your ability to speak. If you want a "corporate" job (the Apple store is one of them) don't go dressed like doofus and do speak like a professional, whatever your race is and no matter what is said to you.
Further, there is a dress code at the Apple stores. Why do you think they all wear those silly shirts? It happens to be a pretty informal dress code, but I doubt overly baggy jeans and a bad attitude would fly any better than "assless" riding chaps.
Standards do not imply racism or discrimination.
I should also add that Buddhists can be racists too. I have friends from Tibet who's words are not kind to the Chinese. Understandably; so I'm not criticizing them, but the fact of the matter is we are all racist on some level. Even those in the "minority" who call out "racism" every time they can't explain why they can't get what they want.
Whole lotta fail going on in this thread. Whole lotta fail.
Yup. Mostly yours. This little morsel was especially choice:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Black107
I'm never someone to say this, but god damn this thread has a lot of racist comments.
Yeah... you NEVER say it. Never. And then you can't STOP with it. Riiiiiight. I believe every word you say. Everyone else is racist though. Just not... you, 'cause you never make that kind of accusation. Never! Yup. You got nothin' but credibility.
Comments
What fun! Based on "baggy pants and sweaters with hoods" we've gone the full thug.
This is just pure, unadulterated racism. Ya'll should be banned for it.
How does Old Navy stay business when that is what they sell? They must have to turn away pretty much every customer since they?re all criminals.
PS: I bet I could guess which posters think rap music is 1) should NOT be defined as art or music, 2) is only for ?blacks,? and 3) is only for criminals.
PPS: This thread is absurd. It?s like phrenological racism but with fashion: Fashionology?
Except that's not what we're talking about, is it? And it's not the picture you chose to post, is it? And people like you always claim that they'd treat white people who somehow triggered the same fear and loathing "just the same", but it never seems to happen, does it?
I posted that particular picture, because this story is about 2 black men alleging racial discrimination. Had it been about 2 white men, then I would've posted a different picture.
I can only speak for myself, but I am an equal opportunity discriminator.
Bad example, IMO.
While I don't find this style attractive -- I am not threatened by it.
That's easy enough to say on a forum. But if it were 2 am and you were getting on to a subway car and you had the choice of getting into an almost empty car with a few people who dressed like gang members or to get into a car with a few people who looked liked they were returning home from work, it is fairly obvious that virtually all people would enter the second car.
Walk like a thug, talk like a thug and dress like a thug, you can't complain about the reception you get.
Do you think they would have been tossed if they were wearing an Armani suit?
Doninique Strauss-Kahn was wearing an Armani suit.
Why would you take these people's word for it? What happened to innocent until proven otherwise? Or does this only apply to minorities? You are just as bad as people who really are racist.
First the presumption of innocence only applies in criminal cases not civil cases. Second, people can choose to take the word of whomever they desire, in fact that is what often happens when evaluating evidence. Third, give the first two things, the allegation that this only applies to minorities is kind of off base too.
In essence there is an allegation. Some of here have decided based on the snippet of information that they either believe the ones making the allegation or believe Apple (which from what I can understand hasn't even answered the complaint yet). In my mind it's too early to draw a conclusion about this one way or the other.
Finally clothes don't make a thug, no more than a leather vest makes one a member of a motorcycle gang. I think some of the arguments being advanced are kind of silly.
That's easy enough to say on a forum. But if it were 2 am and you were getting on to a subway car and you had the choice of getting into an almost empty car with a few people who dressed like gang members or to get into a car with a few people who looked liked they were returning home from work, it is fairly obvious that virtually all people would enter the second car.
I think it?s fairly obvious that it's virtually incorrect.
How does Old Navy stay business when that is what they sell? They must have to turn away pretty much every customer since they?re all criminals.
PS: I bet I could guess which posters think rap music is 1) should defined as art or music, 2) only for ?blacks,? and 3) only for criminals.
PPS: This thread is absurd. It?s like phrenological racism but with fashion: Fashionology?
Excellent analysis. I agree 100%. Particularly the way in which it is stated.
Oddly enough, few have done as much for racial integration of Las Vegas than Dino and Frankie: they got tired of casino owners telling them Sammy couldn't stay there, so they put out the word, "Sammy's welcome, or we don't play your club". No club could afford to have the two biggest names in town boycott them, so they began to repeal their "whites only" policies.
Actually, I think Howard Hughes' involvement in Las Vegas hotels had more to do with the breakdown of racial barriers than any "boycott" by the rat-pack.
Hughes' involvement brought legitimacy and international corporate perspective to the Las Vegas Hotel and Gaming industries -- it changed everything!
I read that to say: I am not racially discriminating against you, I am discriminating against you for other reasons - appearance and dress. Thats "your kind"
Should be easy enough to defend. Were there black americans in there at the time, without hoods, and were they discriminated against ( clearly not: this is a two person class action suit) . Were whites kicked out at other occasions if sporting certain attire at any time in the operation of this store. If so, forget it.
Actually, you can't defend that! You can't go kicking people out of places just because they are not dressed like Dominique Strauss-Kahn.
Give it a rest, clownboy. The employees saw a couple of guys dressed in BULKY CLOTHING. Clothes you can easily slip shoplifted items into. That's all they need to see. And you know what else? It's APPLE's store. That means they get to decide who to allow inside. Period.
What a self-righteous fool you are.
And you'd be 100% wrong. Retail stores are always, and I mean ALWAYS on the lookout for items of clothing that could be used to conceal lifted merch. That's why most stores make you check your bags at the door. Security checks ANYONE - male, female, black, white - wearing such clothing, and they are especially suspicious of people traveling in pairs or groups (where one serves as the lookout).
Another big fat fail, playing the tired 'racist' card.
I have to disagree. White kids who try to be "thugs" are even more offensive than kids who grew up in a community and are following the norms of that community. Neither really has an excuse to behave or dress like a thug if they want to elevate themselves, but it sure is allot harder to bring yourself up and stand apart than it is do step down because you are insecure about being a privileged white kid in a urban environment.
If neither could speak well or impress me with their demeanor, I wouldn't hire either. Your assumptions are erroneous.
And how do you know that?
A dress code? An over the top comment. If you want to imitate the fashion of criminals, then don't be surprised at the reception you get at a bank or a retail store. Baggy clothes help conceal firearms and stolen goods which is why prisoners and thugs wear them.
And you're making an assumption that I'm white.
"Black" is making all kinds of assumptions. Don't expect facts to slow him (her?) down much.
Whole lotta fail going on in this thread. Whole lotta fail. So baggy clothing is the "fashion of criminals"?
According to the article "The lawsuit alleges that the Apple employee approached the customers in an 'intimidating fashion,' invading their 'personal space,' and said to them, 'You know the deal. You know the deal.' The employee allegedly told the plaintiffs that they must leave the store unless they planned to purchase something or see a Mac Specialist."
Again, like I said in my first post: we don't know all the facts. Maybe they were acting suspiciously around ipods or ipads or something small that they could slip into their pockets. If thats the case, then I can understand the employees wanting them to leave.
But if they weren't, that behavior by the Apple employees is complete bullshit.
That's easy enough to say on a forum. But if it were 2 am and you were getting on to a subway car and you had the choice of getting into an almost empty car with a few people who dressed like gang members or to get into a car with a few people who looked liked they were returning home from work, it is fairly obvious that virtually all people would enter the second car.
But, a subway car at 2 AM and gang members are not the issue. That was the picture you posted -- and you said you would give these two the boot for their dress (even if they wore shirts).
Why? What's wrong with it?
You are being very unfair and biased here yourself. You pick my comments out for chastisement, when even a casual perusal of the thread makes it obvious that my remarks are some of the most temperate.
Your also missing the fact that I almost completely agree with you and you with me. Your first paragraph for instance is almost a 1 to 1 paraphrasing of my first comment on the thread.
Maybe you are just making a bad joke but you are putting words in my mouth with your over the top interpretation of the clothing issue and I don't appreciate it.
What I said was that people judge each other and outward appearances like clothing and the way in which a person carries themselves is a big part of that. These are just obvious facts, I'm not trying to make some arcane weird argument here. I was in fact making a distinction between merely wearing baggy clothes and "looking/acting Gangsta"and there is a big difference, and it's pretty obvious to any impartial observer who hasn't been hiding under a rock for the last 20 years.
What I said was that *IF* in fact, these guys were dressed/acting "Gangsta" then they must expect to be treated as if they were in fact dangerous criminals, which is basically the whole point of dressing/acting that way.
To argue against this by posting a humorous picture of a guy in stripes misses the entire point at best. The fact that not all criminals dress/act like criminals, doesn't in any way alter the fact that dressing/acting like a criminal may sometimes get you treated like one. That doesn't even make sense.
I take your point and apologize. Some of the less intelligent comments just don't warrant a reply. Yours did. I replied to Apple ][ and shouldn't have. He sinks himself.
BUT... I REALLY object to the notion that if you dress a certain way you are asking for it. In this day and age people dress in all sorts of ways for all sorts of reasons. I don't like a lot of it but it doesn't, or certainly shouldn't make a blind bit of difference. I have heard this about girls wearing provocative clothing, boys with long hair, girls with short hair, etc etc. For me - the only thing this shows is that people have a lot of stored prejudice and that the fact that when people sometimes dress provocatively this somehow legitimizes the opening of the prejudicial flood gates. The ugliness of the prejudice always takes me by surprise.
You didn't say anything of the sort but you did say that
"*IF* in fact, these guys were dressed/acting "Gangsta" then they must expect to be treated as if they were in fact dangerous criminals, which is basically the whole point of dressing/acting that way. "
The whole point? There are too many degrees of 'gangsta', to make such a claim. I mean how are you supposed to treat a dangerous criminal? Shouldn't you run away and call the law? There are too many variables. What if I am a regular black guy and the guy next to me in the Apple store is hulky redneck. What should my legitimate thoughts be? Should I call the police? Move away?
I accept that some 'looks' will set off alarm bells for some people but what the hell does a dangerous criminal look like. That was the point of the silly cartoon and later the picture of Madoff and his boys. There is no such thing as a 'criminal look'.
The whole point? There are too many degrees of 'gangsta', to make such a claim. I mean how are you supposed to treat a dangerous criminal? Shouldn't you run away and call the law? There are too many variables. What if I am a regular black guy and the guy next to me in the Apple store is hulky redneck. What should my legitimate thoughts be? Should I call the police? Move away?
PS: Whats worse: baggy jeans or those low-cut, skin tight hipster jeans that guys were these days. I’ll go for the baggy jeans and go find myself a belt instead of the sperm-count lowering hipster look. Hipster jeans: where fashion meets birth control.
But, a subway car at 2 AM and gang members are not the issue. That was the picture you posted -- and you said you would give these two the boot for their dress (even if they wore shirts).
Why? What's wrong with it?
Because of the simple fact that they're walking around in their underwear. Almost all stores do have dress codes. You can't enter most places without a shirt or shoes. Dogs and animals aren't allowed in many places. If a store seeks to eject people because they're running around in their underwear, then that's their right.
Hopefully there's a video or some proof or evidence behind these allegations, otherwise it's all speculation of course. I'd love to see exactly what happened in that Apple store.
Can you not see and understand exactly what was being said? Clearly he is referring to the folks who wear baggy tops, hoodies to cover their heads, and baggy pants hanging below their asses. I have dealt with folks like this and I am always on "red alert" because this image reminds me of an urban street thug.
Easy to understand since the whole gangsta genre can be a little unsettling to typical white collar types. The whole notion that there are good gangsters is a complete oxymoron.
If you suddenly happen upon a snake while walking down a path, your natural reaction is one of caution. Clearly you understand that only a few kinds of snakes are actually dangerous but the ones that are, can be fatal so it is not unexpected to be extremely concerned or even fearful when you run across one. Likewise when I run across a hoodlum looking character my first evaluation isn't that he is probably a social worker with a masters degree just dressing to fit in with the ghetto where he does his benevolent work.
How does Old Navy stay business when that is what they sell? They must have to turn away pretty much every customer since they?re all criminals.
PS: I bet I could guess which posters think rap music is 1) should NOT be defined as art or music, 2) is only for ?blacks,? and 3) is only for criminals.
PPS: This thread is absurd. It?s like phrenological racism but with fashion: Fashionology?
And, interestingly, phrenology was used to establish the "scientific" basis of racism-- i.e. that treating blacks as subhuman wasn't racist at all-- it was merely the right and appropriate response to their unfortunate condition.
I'm sure some folks here would protest that they would treat a white person with a compromised cranial topography "just the same."
i've come into the applestore thugged out and they treated me with the utmost. I really really doubt it. Money be green. Its a business. If they were looking suspect, this is america and people know that lawsuits happen over nothing so i really doubt it
Good. They better treat you well otherwise they are discriminating based on appearance. It's one thing for a Rolls Royce dealer to look at a client and size them up. The Apple Store should treat all well behaved customers with respect no matter if they are thugged out or not.
The people here disagreeing with that have a screw loose. They are seriously out of date IMO.
That sounds like such BS, lol.
I find it kind of hard to believe that the Apple employee went up to those 2 people and basically said, hey, you're not welcome here, because of your race.
But hey, if they think they have any merits to their case, then go for it! If it turns out that the whole thing is a lie or hoax, then the two people who dressed like thugs should get a chance to feel what it's like to be a real criminal, behind bars.
Before you continue with your diatribe Ted, do you live in NYC? Racism (at least in my circles) is in fact simply unacceptable and impractical. How could one be a racist, or a homophobe etc and still live in NY? it's impossible. The first sign of racism and the source will be ostracized. Period. You will never get hired for a job as a bigot, you will never make any contacts. At least half of the Apple store employees are "minorities" in NY. No one cares, unless they want to use the race card to explain away some self deficiency.
I will say however that NY is certainly a place that judges you by appearance and your ability to speak. If you want a "corporate" job (the Apple store is one of them) don't go dressed like doofus and do speak like a professional, whatever your race is and no matter what is said to you.
Further, there is a dress code at the Apple stores. Why do you think they all wear those silly shirts? It happens to be a pretty informal dress code, but I doubt overly baggy jeans and a bad attitude would fly any better than "assless" riding chaps.
Standards do not imply racism or discrimination.
I should also add that Buddhists can be racists too. I have friends from Tibet who's words are not kind to the Chinese. Understandably; so I'm not criticizing them, but the fact of the matter is we are all racist on some level. Even those in the "minority" who call out "racism" every time they can't explain why they can't get what they want.
Great post spliff monkey.
Whole lotta fail going on in this thread. Whole lotta fail.
Yup. Mostly yours. This little morsel was especially choice:
I'm never someone to say this, but god damn this thread has a lot of racist comments.
Yeah... you NEVER say it. Never. And then you can't STOP with it. Riiiiiight. I believe every word you say. Everyone else is racist though. Just not... you, 'cause you never make that kind of accusation. Never! Yup. You got nothin' but credibility.