Although I suspect we're blowing this out of proportion and certain parts are not direct quotes but interpretations I don't want identity politics with my coffee. I used to be left, but with the current identity-politics and left-wing extremism growing in Sweden I've becoming increasingly conservative, and I'm only 26. Didn't expect it so soon.
Winston Churchill once said, "If a man isn't a liberal in his twenties, has has no heart. And, if he isn't a conservative in his forties, he has no brain."
The culture swims continuously left, so a liberal in his 20s, who does not change a single viewpoint, finds himself a conservative in his 40s, and a reactionary in his 60s.
I can't imagine this working for the simple reason that an interaction with a Starbucks barista (or really any person providing service for a major food and drink chain) is entirely passive, mechanical and strictly limited to the transaction being made. I'm sure you could throw in a few seconds of smalltalk out of courtesy, but nothing remotely resembling a profound conversation in race relations.
Now, this definitely could work in small coffee shops, which often serve as informal gathering places for certain groups in a given municipality or social circle. But then you wouldn't need to set up any particular campaign to encourage racial conversations - you already discuss everything to your heart's desire to begin with.
The highly blunt way this is being presented and the inappropriate setting is bound for awkward situations galore.
I don't know if it will bring them more or less business, but it's certain to bring on change. I see the "national conversation about race" mentioned quite a bit. What that means is talking heads on TV preaching their message from either side of the issue (racism is prevalent vs racism is dead). Racism is a real issue that affects people every day, and the powerful do not have a monopoly on it. When a company or a government discriminates against a minority, that is racism that is much easier to spot than the subtle racism you see elsewhere. It is imperative to reach these people, to highlight it on a personal level. I guess discussing this issue over coffee is as good a way to do that as any.
No it's not. If I go to Chic Fila I don't need a church sermon. If I fill up my tank at Exxon, I don't need a lecture on why I'm not driving an electric vehicle. If I buy a book at Barnes and Noble, I don't need to be questioned on why my selection doesn't vibe with the cashiers political opinion.
It is not your job at any of these places to gauge whether I need a dose of your political nonsense. You don't know me, you don't know who I've hired, who my friends are, my roommates, my past relationships, my religion, my orientation. And it's none of your damn business either.
During the nonsense in NYC over Michael Brown there were a handful of rabble rousers whipped up into a frenzy by an irresponsible media and irresponsible political leaders. The vast majority of the city were on the subway, black and white together friends and coworkers, living their lives in harmony, talking, laughing, and being a community.
So when they ask if you'd like to discuss their new initiative, you can't say "No, thanks"? How is any of this different from the "Would you like to donate a dollar to the X foundation?" Here they aren't even asking for money.
I could see it going OK, but I'm not sure about what sort of follow-through is possible in the context of a coffee purchase. I do think Schulze is ultimately trying to move away from the notion of Starbucks as a place where people make simple transactions for coffee (that could be fulfilled just as well by an industrial robot) and more like small community centers, in line with the historical role of coffee shops. He's onto something, and he's iterating.
> and more like small community centers, in line with the historical role of coffee shops.
People have been talking about this recently, and I've even gone to a handful of local cafes that explicitly state this as their purpose, but I've never felt that this was achieved. I've never been to a cafe where I felt comfortable chatting up strangers. If this is what Starbucks is doing, and they do it successfully, I'll go out of my way just to go to their cafes.
>doesn't happen without this conversation, because he's just some minority outside your social circle.
What? Maybe I live in some bizarre social bubble or something, but in this imagined scenario, are the barista and the customer otherwise not going to talk to one another because they're different races?
I don't think that's the message. The message was, "You said you couldn't imagine a scenario where this goes well. Here's one simple example of it going well, and that was easy to think of."
Great. Now he is going to get flack from the left for not doing enough and from the right for doing too much. In addition he will be annoying customers and slowing down his service lines.
Amazing what you can do when your brand is synonymous with a chemical that so many people are addicted to (either chemically or mentally). That's not a knock on Starbucks or on the campaign... just an observation.
I don't get the impression that they didn't. The difference is that now they have a reason to discuss it. "Hey, did you know about the Starbucks initiative to discuss race relations? What do you think of blah blah blah?" This is much more approachable and understandable by the customer than a random barista asking the same question alone. The latter is much more like the crazy person that's talking to you on the bus: you don't get what their motives are, why they chose you specifically, etc. so you are not going to like it. I think the bit about "having the option" basically means they have the option to not do it, as in it's not a mandate that they have to.
It still seems a bit weird... I go to a barista to get coffee (well, tea in my case), I don't go there for extended political discussion. I'm fully behind equality on every front, race, religion, sex, whatever; but when I go to get a drink, I honestly don't care what the barista's political opinions or affiliations are. It's also not my concern to have them probing what my political opinions are... I have them, I'm happy to discuss them - endlessly, in an appropriate forum; but I came in to get a drink, not to get sucked into a political debate - no matter how much I may agree (or not in other cases... ahem, GMO labeling/Monsanto) with it.
A halfway decent barista will likely be able to tell without either of you saying a word. Some customers are all business, others are chatty or want a bit of banter.
I'm guessing this initiative won't change your particular daily interaction at all.
Making customers uncomfortable is always a bad plan. I don't want to contemplate the fact that I work in a mostly white office building above an entirely black starbucks, while getting a cop of coffee.
And I used to be a cashier. I'd rather die than start a talk about a touchy political issue with customers.
Talking about politics and/or controversial topics, which race relations is IMO, is impolite in public. If I owned a coffee shop, I sure as hell wouldn't want my employees making an effort to talk about stuff like that to customers.
So to get a cup of coffee you need to nod in stupefied agreement to whatever some jackass barista is spouting of whatever left wing indoctrination is the theme of the week, while making sure that you nods are sincere enough in case some social justice warrior isn't Youtubing you so you don't lose your job? Why not just ask people to put a picture of Lenin on their wall and in their cubicle?
A moderately detailed label, that says "This product is a GMO containing genes X, Y, and Z, from Q Lab at B Company, manufactured on Y/M/D". This is a good label.
A label that says "This is a GMO" is a bad label.
It's a bad label because it succumbs to one of two failure modes. It's an unstable equilibrium.
The first failure mode is (I suspect) the underlying motivation for pro-labelling folks. By putting a black box warning label on things, they want to nudge people away from them. The reason this is bad, is because "GMO" is a very large category, and different GMOs have different risk profiles. My personal favourite go-to example, since my girlfriend is diabetic, is insulin. Insulin is mass produced by genetically modified E.Coli. Not only is there no argument whatsoever that this is dangerous, it's necessary for her to live. On the other hand, take roundup-ready. Roundup-ready could be dangerous, because a pesticide-resistant plant will get more pesticides used on it. Creating one label, explicitly as a warning label, that encapsulates a category this broad is misleading.
The second failure mode is the exact opposite: Prop 65 warnings[1]. Lets say that we get warning labels, but the economic case for GMOs is so strong that people start routinely ignoring them. You end up with a situation where everything is labeled WARNING! CANCER^W GMOS! but nobody takes it seriously. This is a failure mode, both because it erodes confidence in public regulatory authorities and institutions (which generally exist to protect us), and it causes people to discount legitimate warnings. Like when I got a prop 65 warning about my apartment and assumed it was bullshit, only to find out (while mounting things to the wall) that it was a warning for lead paint and holy shit don't do anything to the walls without a face mask
----
As a compromise, I'm 100% for labels that seek an informational role instead of a cautionary one. Like how my coke zero has a warning label for PKU[2] consumers: "CONTAINS PHENYLALANINE!". If products were required to list any artificially inserted genes as ingredients in their ingredients list, that would also be great! But ultimately, I don't think this would ever happen. Maybe I'm overly cynical, but my belief is that the people advocating for labels, want the simple black box warning label. They think all GMOs are categorically bad, want to warn people away, and seek to create a moral panic as an effective way of doing this. I think this is dangerous, because not all GMOs are created equal. After all, GMO rice saves 2/3 of a million children in developing countries every year [3]. I would not want to throw that baby out with the modified bathwater
It's got nothing to do with the scare tactics and "actual science," the fact is, GMO crops are showered with pesticides that are finding its way into our food. Those pesticide laden crops are then classified as "generally considered safe," bypassing all further independent scientific testing, allowing us to consume them unabated. Food allergies and intolerance has increased exponentially since this started. This may or may not be related. I'm sorry, but I can't get behind "generally considered safe" until proven so - and it hasn't been, and in fact there's plenty of anecdotal evidence that draws healthy skepticism.
Beyond that, I've got my own internal debate about whether or not GMO crops are safe without the pesticides... I mean, they may be... I've read the science and I've read the skepticism regarding the science. They're both about as conclusive to me as the argument that says that science negates all possibility of divine intervention and I can't honestly say, all things considered, that either negates any possibility of the other.
Until someone can conclusively prove to me that GMO is 100% safe, I will continue to consider that they may be unsafe and will, where possible, avoid them.
Anyway, that has nothing to do with my argument. My argument is that people have a right to know what they are consuming so they can make informed decisions. Starbucks are standing with Monsanto and protesting against GMO labeling. I will stand against anyone that argues against my right to know what I am eating. It's your choice to eat GMO and I respect that, completely. It's my choice to avoid eating GMO. Either way, you have a right to know what you're eating.
> the fact is, GMO crops are showered with pesticides that are finding its way into our food.
You're confusing pesticide usage with intentional genetic modification. Non-GMO food is also commonly treated with pesticidal products. Heck, even some GMO food is pesticide-free.
One of the key selling points of many GMO products is that you don't need pesticides (or at least as many of them).
And you're confusing an argument about my right to know about what I'm eating with my understanding of genetic modification and pesticides.
My argument is about where Starbucks stands with their labeling policy, not with their policy regarding GMOs - I have a right to know what I'm consuming and make informed decisions. Their label policy is completely counter to that.
> And you're confusing an argument about my right to know about what I'm eating
Honestly, you don't necessarily know what you're eating with non-GMO crops, either. As a previous poster mentioned, we've been selecting for certain characteristics for hundreds of years, which is just a slower way to modify genetics. If the innovators in this sector would have avoided using the word "genetic", nobody would care. But just like "Nuclear" there are certain words that the uneducated Fox News-consuming public froths at.
Being someone with no shortage of empathy (despite my obvious abundance of sarcasm), I like to try to understand people that I disagree with. But what's all this about pesticides? That's a separate matter entirely, and isn't specific to GMO crops. You are wanting to specifically avoid GMOs, which is your right to do, but you shouldn't expect everyone to add a warning label for something that science has conclusively stated is fine. Hell, some GMOs are engineered such that less pesticides are necessary. That's a big win to me, personally.
It'd be like asking for warning labels on faucets because some people think the government puts mind controlling agents in the water supply. Some fringe nutjobs have 100% unfounded theories, therefore everyone else should have to humor them? Nah. You can avoid GMOs and stick to products that are clearly labeled, but that's not a realistic expectation for everyone else. Those non-GMO labels are just taking advantage of this poorly informed minority, kind of like the Gluten-free craze.
No confusion here. You stated as quoted, and I responded to it.
Here's a great list of GMO-free brands for you, so that you can continue your lifestyle choice while waiting to see if Starbucks finds that the market dictates going GMO-free. Just remember that it's likely these brands still use pesticide-treated products. Have a great day! http://gmo-awareness.com/shopping-list/gmo-free-brands/
Are the plants that have been forcefully and unnaturally hybridized over the last 1000 years 100% safe to you?
You walk by cars that emit gasses that are definitely not safe for you every day but probably don't go out of your way to live in a country-side free of combustion engines. 100% is an unattainable goal post and is effectively saying, "I don't care what anyone says, there's a chance!" Life is full of risk, most far and away more dangerous than the remote possibility that some GMOs, in certain circumstances, may be harmful.
