Nothing about their behavior, demeanor, nor form of dress suggests that they were a threat to steal something.
Kudos to them on their behavior when confronted.
However, your comment must be modified to say that nothing about their behavior or demeanor that you saw suggests they might steal something. Again, we only see part of the confrontation, and absolutely nothing that occurred before that. It is possible that they were acting suspiciously. We just don't know! You've admitted as much, yet you still attempt to draw conclusions based on ignorance.
As for their dress, they appear to be wearing school uniforms. The entire idea of such uniforms is to bury differences. The best person in a school and the worst person would both dress exactly the same. That's the point of them. The reputation of the school that uses those uniforms can play into analysis of security risks. If the school has a good reputation, those uniforms might be a plus in the students' favor. If it has a neutral reputation, then the uniforms don't imply character at all. If the school has a bad reputation, that could be all the reason a security person needs to see a group of students from there as an unacceptable risk.
Again, to my knowledge, we know nothing about that school or its reputation. So again, jumping to conclusions about the unknown only demonstrates your own bigotry.
So do you you believe that black lives don't matter?
I see that your ability to jump to conclusions about what others believe is just as good as your ability to look at evidence. (Yes, that is an intentional insult.)
The linked story and subsequent interviews with Australian media indicate that the students were not loud, boisterous and were not causing a scene. That's why their principal accompanied them to the Apple store the next day to obtain an apology directly from the store manager. She acknowledged that they weren't loud or causing a scene. The constant assumption that they somehow deserved it or caused suspicion is so revealing.
Nothing about their behavior, demeanor, nor form of dress suggests that they were a threat to steal something.
Kudos to them on their behavior when confronted.
However, your comment must be modified to say that nothing about their behavior or demeanor that you saw suggests they might steal something. Again, we only see part of the confrontation, and absolutely nothing that occurred before that. It is possible that they were acting suspiciously. We just don't know! You've admitted as much, yet you still attempt to draw conclusions based on ignorance.
As for their dress, they appear to be wearing school uniforms. The entire idea of such uniforms is to bury differences. The best person in a school and the worst person would both dress exactly the same. That's the point of them. The reputation of the school that uses those uniforms can play into analysis of security risks. If the school has a good reputation, those uniforms might be a plus in the students' favor. If it has a neutral reputation, then the uniforms don't imply character at all. If the school has a bad reputation, that could be all the reason a security person needs to see a group of students from there as an unacceptable risk.
Again, to my knowledge, we know nothing about that school or its reputation. So again, jumping to conclusions about the unknown only demonstrates your own bigotry.
I don't know about Australia, nor about the schools where you're from, but from my experience a school uniform like that is usually from a prestigious school that doesn't admit riff raff.
To me it seems like these young men are on a path to higher learning, and getting caught shoplifting could possibly derail them off that path.
We don't know how they were acting prior to the video. However we do hear the manager telling them "we're worried about your presence" and "we're worried you might steal something", and the young men calmly ask "what's the reason?" and "why would we steal something?", and they were not given a reason.
I haven't labeled the manager a racist, but it's perceived to be racism, and often times perception is reality.
I don't know about Australia, nor about the schools where you're from, but from my experience a school uniform like that is usually from a prestigious school that doesn't admit riff raff.
Here in the U.S., schools of all levels have implemented school uniforms. I don't know about Australia. Again, we just don't know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
I haven't labeled the manager a racist, but it's perceived to be racism, and often times perception is reality.
And when that perception is false or with no foundation except your own biases? Do you really think it's appropriate to do things like fire someone (as suggested by several people earlier in this thread) or worse based on such perceptions? Is that really the kind of world you want to live in? What if you're the one harmed by such a misperception?
I don't know about Australia, nor about the schools where you're from, but from my experience a school uniform like that is usually from a prestigious school that doesn't admit riff raff.
Here in the U.S., schools of all levels have implemented school uniforms. I don't know about Australia. Again, we just don't know.
I haven't labeled the manager a racist, but it's perceived to be racism, and often times perception is reality.
And when that perception is false or with no foundation except your own biases? Do you really think it's appropriate to do things like fire someone (as suggested by several people earlier in this thread) or worse based on such perceptions? Is that really the kind of world you want to live in? What if you're the one harmed by such a misperception?
My son wears a uniform but it's simply a light blue shirt with navy blue pants. They're not shirts with the school's sigil on them, and that is what caught my eye.
I do not agree with the people that suggested the manager get fired. He was still very diplomatic, and professional. That counts for something. I'm more inclined to believe he had a momentary lapse of judgment, and which one of us can say that's never happened to them?
The linked story and subsequent interviews with Australian media indicate that the students were not loud, boisterous and were not causing a scene. That's why their principal accompanied them to the Apple store the next day to obtain an apology directly from the store manager. She acknowledged that they weren't loud or causing a scene. The constant assumption that they somehow deserved it or caused suspicion is so revealing.
What makes you think "loud, boisterous" behavior is the measure? If I was planning to steal something, I would think drawing attention to myself would be the last thing I would want to do. Could it be that these guys were the exact opposite, being inconspicuous, which is out of character for most teenage boys, and that's what drew the security guy's attention? Again, we don't know.
What makes you think "loud, boisterous" behavior is the measure? If I was planning to steal something, I would think drawing attention to myself would be the last thing I would want to do. Could it be that these guys were the exact opposite, being inconspicuous, which is out of character for most teenage boys, and that's what drew the security guy's attention? Again, we don't know.
It appears no matter what, Apple defenders will never fault the company. The boys were probably loud and warranted being kicked out. Or they were atypically quiet and suspicious. They were behaving like everyone else in the store. The only difference was their skin color. So a reasonable, honest person would conclude that it was racial profiling. The principal believes the boys' account that there was nothing else to warrant the outrageous actions from Apple staff members, in particular, this boneheaded manager. The store manager apologized for it and the manager in the video did so as well -- of course he threw in the insipid "taken out of context" BS. Again, had there been no video...
So a reasonable, honest person would conclude that it was racial profiling.
Again, how many times must I write "We don't know" before you understand that "We don't know" means We. Do. NOT. Know?!?
Based on what passes for "reasonable" and "honest" to you, I would be fully justified in asserting that you are a 4 foot 9 inch woman with flaming red hair who likes baked beans with sauerkraut, and dalmatians, because I don't actually know otherwise.
Again, how many times must I write "We don't know" before you understand that "We don't know" means We. Do. NOT. Know?!?
Based on what passes for "reasonable" and "honest" to you, I would be fully justified in asserting that you are a 4 foot 9 inch woman with flaming red hair who likes baked beans with sauerkraut, and dalmatians, because I don't actually know otherwise.
Enough with the hissy fit. You choose not to know, or pretend not to know. Three of the six boys that were interviewed by news media in Australia, and the principal of their school who accompanied them the next day to speak directly with the store manager all say that it was racial profiling/biased action. The evidence is staring you right in the face. They were no different from others in the store at the time, except they were the only Black people there. The A-hole manager didn't say they were loud, acting suspicious or disruptive. When asked what made him and the staff think that they may steal, he simply kicked them out of the store. I'm basing my conclusion on the evidence: the video, the eyewitness accounts of the boys and the principal who listened to their account and spoke with the store manager and then spoke with media.
Three of the six boys that were interviewed by news media in Australia, and the principal of their school who accompanied them the next day to speak directly with the store manager all say that it was racial profiling/biased action.
So you're claiming they were able to read the mind of the security guy when it has been explicitly stated in various media reports that they were NOT told the reason they were identified as potential thieves? Think about that. They have no direct knowledge of the reason anymore than you or I do. Their claim that it was racism is their ownspeculation. Such speculation is no more valid than yours or mine.
Let me repeat something you yourself just stated.
Quote:
When asked what made him and the staff think that they may steal, he simply kicked them out of the store.
They Do. Not. Know. the reason. You just admitted it. What part of Do. Not. Know. are you having trouble understanding?
Let me be clear. A reasonable, honest person does not jump to conclusions based on "I don't know." That's a common failing of bigots, especially racist bigots.
I see that your ability to jump to conclusions about what others believe is just as good as your ability to look at evidence. (Yes, that is an intentional insult.)
I see that your ability to recognize others' mistakes is just as awful as your insults
So you're claiming they were able to read the mind of the security guy when it has been explicitly stated in various media reports that they were [SIZE=24px]NOT[/SIZE] told the reason they were identified as potential thieves? Think about that. They have no direct knowledge of the reason anymore than you or I do. Their claim that it was racism is their ownspeculation. Such speculation is no more valid than yours or mine.
Let me repeat something you yourself just stated.
They Do. Not. Know. the reason. You just admitted it. What part of [SIZE=24px]Do. Not. Know.[/SIZE] are you having trouble understanding?
Let me be clear. A reasonable, honest person does not jump to conclusions based on "I don't know." That's a common failing of bigots, especially racist bigots.
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, then by god it's a MFing duck. Hide your head in the sand all you want. The question wasn't answered because the manager knew the answer was racism. I'll end my participation by partially quoting him: end of discussion. At least for me.
Three of the six boys that were interviewed by news media in Australia, and the principal of their school who accompanied them the next day to speak directly with the store manager all say that it was racial profiling/biased action.
Okay, so that’s their side. That doesn’t mean it’s the truth.
Originally Posted by why-
What I don’t understand is why you feel the need to attack me...
Not attacking you. Attacking your claims.
...and consistently ignore my questions
Your question is irrelevant. Is corn grass? I demand you answer the question.
a prejudgment or assumption made about someone without the adequate knowledge to do so with guaranteed accuracy
So your prejudice—which exists only in your own head—gets to define reality for everyone? Are you god?
I hope you don't cross the street using the same standard you use to judge others. ("Is it safe to cross the street?" "I don't know." "Good. Let's go.")
Quote:
Originally Posted by ronn
The question wasn't answered because the manager knew the answer was racism.
So you're a mind reader? Amazing! Quick, tell me what I'm thinking right now!
Comments
Nothing about their behavior, demeanor, nor form of dress suggests that they were a threat to steal something.
Kudos to them on their behavior when confronted.
However, your comment must be modified to say that nothing about their behavior or demeanor that you saw suggests they might steal something. Again, we only see part of the confrontation, and absolutely nothing that occurred before that. It is possible that they were acting suspiciously. We just don't know! You've admitted as much, yet you still attempt to draw conclusions based on ignorance.
As for their dress, they appear to be wearing school uniforms. The entire idea of such uniforms is to bury differences. The best person in a school and the worst person would both dress exactly the same. That's the point of them. The reputation of the school that uses those uniforms can play into analysis of security risks. If the school has a good reputation, those uniforms might be a plus in the students' favor. If it has a neutral reputation, then the uniforms don't imply character at all. If the school has a bad reputation, that could be all the reason a security person needs to see a group of students from there as an unacceptable risk.
Again, to my knowledge, we know nothing about that school or its reputation. So again, jumping to conclusions about the unknown only demonstrates your own bigotry.
Thanks
So do you you believe that black lives don't matter?
I see that your ability to jump to conclusions about what others believe is just as good as your ability to look at evidence. (Yes, that is an intentional insult.)
The linked story and subsequent interviews with Australian media indicate that the students were not loud, boisterous and were not causing a scene. That's why their principal accompanied them to the Apple store the next day to obtain an apology directly from the store manager. She acknowledged that they weren't loud or causing a scene. The constant assumption that they somehow deserved it or caused suspicion is so revealing.
I don't know about Australia, nor about the schools where you're from, but from my experience a school uniform like that is usually from a prestigious school that doesn't admit riff raff.
To me it seems like these young men are on a path to higher learning, and getting caught shoplifting could possibly derail them off that path.
We don't know how they were acting prior to the video. However we do hear the manager telling them "we're worried about your presence" and "we're worried you might steal something", and the young men calmly ask "what's the reason?" and "why would we steal something?", and they were not given a reason.
I haven't labeled the manager a racist, but it's perceived to be racism, and often times perception is reality.
I don't know about Australia, nor about the schools where you're from, but from my experience a school uniform like that is usually from a prestigious school that doesn't admit riff raff.
Here in the U.S., schools of all levels have implemented school uniforms. I don't know about Australia. Again, we just don't know.
I haven't labeled the manager a racist, but it's perceived to be racism, and often times perception is reality.
And when that perception is false or with no foundation except your own biases? Do you really think it's appropriate to do things like fire someone (as suggested by several people earlier in this thread) or worse based on such perceptions? Is that really the kind of world you want to live in? What if you're the one harmed by such a misperception?
My son wears a uniform but it's simply a light blue shirt with navy blue pants. They're not shirts with the school's sigil on them, and that is what caught my eye.
I do not agree with the people that suggested the manager get fired. He was still very diplomatic, and professional. That counts for something. I'm more inclined to believe he had a momentary lapse of judgment, and which one of us can say that's never happened to them?
Oh, look! Classic deflection tactic. I don’t know of a quicker way to destroy any credibility you may have otherwise retained. Great job!
Black Lives Matter doesn’t matter.
The linked story and subsequent interviews with Australian media indicate that the students were not loud, boisterous and were not causing a scene. That's why their principal accompanied them to the Apple store the next day to obtain an apology directly from the store manager. She acknowledged that they weren't loud or causing a scene. The constant assumption that they somehow deserved it or caused suspicion is so revealing.
What makes you think "loud, boisterous" behavior is the measure? If I was planning to steal something, I would think drawing attention to myself would be the last thing I would want to do. Could it be that these guys were the exact opposite, being inconspicuous, which is out of character for most teenage boys, and that's what drew the security guy's attention? Again, we don't know.
What makes you think "loud, boisterous" behavior is the measure? If I was planning to steal something, I would think drawing attention to myself would be the last thing I would want to do. Could it be that these guys were the exact opposite, being inconspicuous, which is out of character for most teenage boys, and that's what drew the security guy's attention? Again, we don't know.
It appears no matter what, Apple defenders will never fault the company. The boys were probably loud and warranted being kicked out. Or they were atypically quiet and suspicious. They were behaving like everyone else in the store. The only difference was their skin color. So a reasonable, honest person would conclude that it was racial profiling. The principal believes the boys' account that there was nothing else to warrant the outrageous actions from Apple staff members, in particular, this boneheaded manager. The store manager apologized for it and the manager in the video did so as well -- of course he threw in the insipid "taken out of context" BS. Again, had there been no video...
So a reasonable, honest person would conclude that it was racial profiling.
Again, how many times must I write "We don't know" before you understand that "We don't know" means We. Do. NOT. Know?!?
Based on what passes for "reasonable" and "honest" to you, I would be fully justified in asserting that you are a 4 foot 9 inch woman with flaming red hair who likes baked beans with sauerkraut, and dalmatians, because I don't actually know otherwise.
Again, how many times must I write "We don't know" before you understand that "We don't know" means We. Do. NOT. Know?!?
Based on what passes for "reasonable" and "honest" to you, I would be fully justified in asserting that you are a 4 foot 9 inch woman with flaming red hair who likes baked beans with sauerkraut, and dalmatians, because I don't actually know otherwise.
Enough with the hissy fit. You choose not to know, or pretend not to know. Three of the six boys that were interviewed by news media in Australia, and the principal of their school who accompanied them the next day to speak directly with the store manager all say that it was racial profiling/biased action. The evidence is staring you right in the face. They were no different from others in the store at the time, except they were the only Black people there. The A-hole manager didn't say they were loud, acting suspicious or disruptive. When asked what made him and the staff think that they may steal, he simply kicked them out of the store. I'm basing my conclusion on the evidence: the video, the eyewitness accounts of the boys and the principal who listened to their account and spoke with the store manager and then spoke with media.
Three of the six boys that were interviewed by news media in Australia, and the principal of their school who accompanied them the next day to speak directly with the store manager all say that it was racial profiling/biased action.
So you're claiming they were able to read the mind of the security guy when it has been explicitly stated in various media reports that they were NOT told the reason they were identified as potential thieves? Think about that. They have no direct knowledge of the reason anymore than you or I do. Their claim that it was racism is their own speculation. Such speculation is no more valid than yours or mine.
Let me repeat something you yourself just stated.
They Do. Not. Know. the reason. You just admitted it. What part of Do. Not. Know. are you having trouble understanding?
Let me be clear. A reasonable, honest person does not jump to conclusions based on "I don't know." That's a common failing of bigots, especially racist bigots.
What I don't understand is why you feel the need to attack me and consistently ignore my questions
I see that your ability to recognize others' mistakes is just as awful as your insults
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, then by god it's a MFing duck. Hide your head in the sand all you want. The question wasn't answered because the manager knew the answer was racism. I'll end my participation by partially quoting him: end of discussion. At least for me.
Three of the six boys that were interviewed by news media in Australia, and the principal of their school who accompanied them the next day to speak directly with the store manager all say that it was racial profiling/biased action.
Okay, so that’s their side. That doesn’t mean it’s the truth.
Not attacking you. Attacking your claims.
Your question is irrelevant. Is corn grass? I demand you answer the question.
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, then by god it's a MFing duck.
Prejudice:
So your prejudice—which exists only in your own head—gets to define reality for everyone? Are you god?
I hope you don't cross the street using the same standard you use to judge others. ("Is it safe to cross the street?" "I don't know." "Good. Let's go.")
The question wasn't answered because the manager knew the answer was racism.
So you're a mind reader? Amazing! Quick, tell me what I'm thinking right now!
No, it's a grain. Now answer my question
Sorry. Corn is grass.