“Starbucks drops Jewish group from anti-bias training session” (The Hill):
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) will no longer work on Starbucks’s anti-bias training sessions next month after the company faced backlash from activists, the company told Politico on Monday.
Activists criticized Starbucks for involving the ADL, citing the organization’s support for Israel and failure to endorse the Black Lives Matter movement. The group announced in 2016 that it would not fully endorse the movement over some leaders’ “anti-Israel — and at times anti-Semitic — positions.”
Tamika Mallory, an organizer of the Women’s March, posted on Twitter that the ADL is “constantly attacking black and brown people,” and criticized Starbucks as “tone deaf” for involving the group.Mallory came under fire earlier this year for attending an event where Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan made anti-Semitic remarks. Those remarks drew widespread criticism, including from the ADL.
It seems that not every group within the U.S. claiming victim status can be accommodated in any particular training event. Does Starbucks need to develop an official hierarchy of victimhood for the May 29 training and going forward? If so, what would it look like? And would it change with the year or the season?
(Is this a more general illustration of the problem that arises when there are many groups, some as large as 51 percent of the population, claiming victim status? If people have a limited sympathy budget, devoting sympathy to Group A will necessarily reduce sympathy for the victimization of Group B?)
Readers: Have you been going to Starbucks more or less since hearing the news of their passion for racism?
Related:
- Starbucks: “Black Lives Matter, but not enough to train this month.”
- While Starbucks runs a re-education camp for employees, can we run a re-education camp for customers?
- Virtuous Trump hatred from the ADL back in February 2018: “As anti-Semitic incidents in US soar, ADL says Trump is part of the problem” (sometimes even good Trump-hating people do bad things?)
According to these SJWs, Jews are not only not victims but they’re the apex oppressor. Jews are the top of straight, white males.
I don’t go to Starbucks all that often, but the fact that they so cravenly caved to an obviously trumped-up (excuse the phrasing) situation makes me think twice about purchasing from them.
Maybe, eventually, with enough of these issues coming to light, especially via social media, we will all learn to live together in peace and with respect for one another’s beliefs/color, etc.
And their astronomically priced coffee is pretty disappointing so I have mostly eschewed them but since their blatant racism event I plan to never give them my business.
Regarding that last link, haven’t essentially all of the “anti-semitic incidents” been the work of members of “oppressed groups”? Here’s an example from a few days ago:
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/man-was-drunk-mad-at-friend-when-he-toppled-headstones/article_dd4cd8ae-8088-516c-9c70-7aa7435fe082.html
Phil, since you asked: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/03/nation-of-islam/555332/
Those darn Jews upsetting the narrative that unsuccessful groups are unsuccessful because they are the victims of discrimination.
Federico: My favorite part is “many will feel he was disproportionately attacked”. Interesting wording. The attacks were disproportionate, disproportionately restrained. If a public figure other than a “black leader” (who elects such people??) said something like that, it would be on the front page of the New York Times.
On the other hand, in her defense, it’s not anti-Semitic to say Jews are good with money. It is anti-Semitic to say Jews cause the Holocaust. Of course Jews should treat her as she treats everyone else, completely without charity.
It’s a national scandal that those communities have been left to the likes of the Nation of Islam. The state must maintain a monopoly on the legitimate use of offensive force regardless of how people feel about it.
True story:
A few days after the fiasco in a Philadelphia Starbucks, and just after Starbucks laid down like sick kittens and agreed to host “anti-bias training” even though there wasn’t a shred of bias in the actual incident, an F-2 category tornado tore a local Starbucks to pieces while one hundred feet away, a small, local coffee shop that is located in a mobile trailer home (yes, a mobile trailer coffee shop) was virtually unscathed.
This occurred in southern Virginia, near Lynchburg.
**Apparently someone or thing had a pretty dim view of Starbucks’ capitulation to the screaming liberal crowds.**