• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Making Staff up While Black

Cavemonster said:
She may be lying, but the witness testimony doesn't contradict her account. Her description seems to imply that his "go back where you came from" comment was close to the start of the altercation. The witness is clear that she only heard the altercation later.
Click to expand...

She is also crystal clear that she did not hear those words spoken by Sparkes.

Sparkes was seen leaving and being followed by Thomas who was venting "go back where you come from". I'd bet my house she's lying, but that's simply my take.

One of our lamented ex-contributors would have termed her a "grifter".

And I still object to the notion that her initial action of using the 10 items or less lane is something she needed to account for in any way. Its a practical policy, not a law. It matters only to the extent that it causes inconvenience to others. At the point that there are plenty of empty lanes and no one has to wait, the rule has no meaning or power.
Click to expand...

By virtue of the fact that a "rule" (policy) is posted up then one can be expected to adhere to it, however mundane, for the greater good of all. It's called acting for the benefit of many and not the benefit of one.

The fact that there were other empty lanes muddies things somewhat. Why did she chose this one lane (controversially) when other lanes would have presented her with a blame free solution?

If one decides to ignore the "rule" (policy) then one can expect to be called on to account for ones actions.
 
Puppycow said:
Maybe they should change the sign at the checkout lane to clarify that it is a "suggested limit" and not a hard limit, since store policy is to not actually enforce the limit.
Click to expand...

Something needs to be changed as their outright refusal to deal with this issue at source is the main cause of the blame.

I'll bet if a store employee had spoken to Thomas and come back and told Sparkes that she was heavily pregnant and dealing with kids he'd have let it slide, but ohhhhhhh noooooo they made him sheriff for a day.
 
There are a few issues that this confrontation has brought to light that may be worthy of debate here.

1. Sparkes declares, "I am not white. I am Cuban". Really? A quick search of demographics of Cuba shows at least four "racially" defined groups: white, mulatto, black, and asian. But maybe Cubans see their nationality as a race of some sort. I would like to hear your opinion on this, especially any posters of Cuban descent.

2. Apparently a lot of social mediaites around the world have not learned from the Jussie Smolette fracas to refrain from jumping on whatever train tickles their fancy before all the facts are in. Personally, I haven't dropped off the fence in the Smolette affair yet but I do lean to the side that depicts him as a hoaxter. It disturbs me how quickly people rush to judgment. In the USA, I blame it on the sheep factor. Too many folks here are so easily willing to be followers of someone or something that they might incur the fate of lemmings.

3. If it were not for Trump's "go back" statement, this confrontation would never be in the news, however, Thomas did go out of her way to try to get news coverage. Since there appears to be no audio of the event, we may never know if Sparkes ever uttered the phrase. I find it amusing that both are of the same political party.
 
isissxn said:
I would have been more upset at being called a bitch, honestly. I'm not sure why this woman felt the need to add more to the insult (if indeed that's what happened). "Bitch" is a terrible enough word on its own.

"But men can be bitches too!" Okay, well, if you say so - any man who wanted to flip out at being called that isn't going to get any argument from me.

"But women call each other bitches affectionately!" Ah, the n-word defense. Can't speak for what anyone else does, but I sure don't call my friends bitches. Also, even if I did, strangers have a different threshold. Strangers calling me "sweetie" aren't going to get a very positive response either.

Let's see, what else. "But bitch can be a neutral verb! Like someone is bitching about something." Okay, well, that's irrelevant because you weren't calling the woman a neutral verb.

"But bitch is a female dog!" Ah, that makes it a lot better!
Click to expand...
Don't go travelling in the north of England. You'll be constantly outraged at being addressed as sweetie, love, dear, duck, chuck, hen and many more!
 
bluesjnr said:
She is also crystal clear that she did not hear those words spoken by Sparkes.



Sparkes was seen leaving and being followed by Thomas who was venting "go back where you come from". I'd bet my house she's lying, but that's simply my take.



One of our lamented ex-contributors would have termed her a "grifter".







By virtue of the fact that a "rule" (policy) is posted up then one can be expected to adhere to it, however mundane, for the greater good of all. It's called acting for the benefit of many and not the benefit of one.



The fact that there were other empty lanes muddies things somewhat. Why did she chose this one lane (controversially) when other lanes would have presented her with a blame free solution?



If one decides to ignore the "rule" (policy) then one can expect to be called on to account for ones actions.
Click to expand...
True, as you'll know in the UK this would have had the shop in uproar, one or two people might have even tutted (not loud enough for her to hear of course, we are not barbarians)
 
Thanks for that important report on this developing story, Susan.

We now return you to season twenty-five of The Bachelor.
 
Darat said:
True, as you'll know in the UK this would have had the shop in uproar, one or two people might have even tutted (not loud enough for her to hear of course, we are not barbarians)
Click to expand...

Don't forget the knowing glance at each other.
 
Cavemonster said:
Did you read the Snopes article by any chance?
Click to expand...
I did. The Snopes people come across as humorless pricks who are more invested in white-knighting for racist douchebags with a (D) after their name, than they are invested in actually fact-checking and debunking stuff.

But that's just the one article. Maybe they come across as reputable researchers in their other articles.

---

ETA: Though, the Bee's satire in this case depends on in part on knowing that Chick-Fil-A employees are trained to be very cheerfully polite, and that "my pleasure" is kind of a catchphrase with them. That satirical "tell" may have been lost on Snopes's audience.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
I did. The Snopes people come across as humorless pricks who are more invested in white-knighting for racist douchebags with a (D) after their name, than they are invested in actually fact-checking and debunking stuff.

But that's just the one article. Maybe they come across as reputable researchers in their other articles.

---

ETA: Though, the Bee's satire in this case depends on in part on knowing that Chick-Fil-A employees are trained to be very cheerfully polite, and that "my pleasure" is kind of a catchphrase with them. That satirical "tell" may have been lost on Snopes's audience.
Click to expand...

Did you read the many links within the Snopes article of conservatives taking the Bee article as factual?
 
Cavemonster said:
Did you read the many links within the Snopes article of conservatives taking the Bee article as factual?
Click to expand...

The "dozens of instances" on social media they linked to at the bottom of the piece?

I'm sure you can find dozens of people on social media who think any given bit of satire is true. But I bet Snopes doesn't run around white-knighting every Onion headline that somebody on Facebook thought was real.
 
theprestige said:
The "dozens of instances" on social media they linked to at the bottom of the piece?

I'm sure you can find dozens of people on social media who think any given bit of satire is true. But I bet Snopes doesn't run around white-knighting every Onion headline that somebody on Facebook thought was real.
Click to expand...

It's a fact checking site. Checking a claim that is spread online and believed as true is their job.

I've always been a bit bewildered by the phrase "White knighting". It seems to be used when one can't find anything legitimate to criticize and so find a need to make a vague smear with no substance about motives.

"Sure they're correct in their facts, and sure people are apparently confused so a correction is needed, but but but THEY'RE WHITE KNIGHTS"

It's sort of a meaningless growl when you have nothing else.
 
Cavemonster said:
It's a fact checking site. Checking a claim that is spread online and believed as true is their job.
Click to expand...

Not all claims spread online are worth fact checking, especially explicit satire.

And their attempts to blame the Babylon Bee as if it did anything wrong reveal them to be partisan and humorless hacks.
 
Cavemonster said:
Satire that people mistake to be true is worth addressing, no?
Click to expand...

How many people?

But suppose we decide we should. The way Snopes chose to was itself a complete farce. All you have to do is say it's a satire. No more comments are necessary. Instead, Snopes chose to beclown themselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom