Just another voice yelling into the void.
I’ve probably protested for your rights. I’m definitely on at least one list.
I believe firmly that everyone should have a fair shake and as much freedom as they can be afforded - so long as it does not encroach on the freedoms of others.
Feed me trolls.
Hateful people will find each other regardless of my or anyone else’s views on free speech. Very ominous statement though.
With that said:
Forcing the discussion into the open is not where any hate group wants to be. It forces them to find proof and facts where there are none. It makes them look bad.
Very well put.
Hate speech is a favorite topic of people looking to derail a topic or trip someone up. It is a complex issue that is difficult if not impossible to prevent. Someone who wants to express hate will undoubtedly find a way to do so. That is why, in my opinion, the reaction to it matters so much. Discussion allows for a community to rally and support when needed - and teach or correct if the opportunity is presented.
@Ajen@sh.itjust.works correctly identifies this. Any ideals can be interpreted in bad faith to infer something that was not intended. If I said I prefer tea - someone would be more than happy to infer that I hate coffee.
My statement was a profession of what I believe to be correct. It is a brief summary of what I was taught and what I determined to be correct based on my experiences… and I stand by them. Admittedly I did bait a hook for a particular kind of person and am not displeased with the result. It appears to have yielded several great examples of what I was talking about.
Addressing your post despite the rather “loaded” opening which I imagine you know shouldn’t warrant a response:
Hate speech doesn’t exist until it is uttered. The damage is immediately done. It isn’t - then it is. How do you propose stopping that? I’m genuinely curious. You appear to be holding my beliefs accountable for not employing precrime or espers… which admittedly, I don’t factor in. They do, however, propose the solution: support the victim and admonish the person who was out of line. There are demonstrations of this, in action, in this thread.
People are social creatures: standing with someone is more powerful than simply removing an undesirable statement after the fact. It removes the isolation from the victim and provides support. It says: we, this group, will not stand for your actions. It isolates the perpetrator and makes them, consciously or not, aware that something is wrong. As I stated before: this may not change everyone but the net result is positive.
I’m happy to continue this discussion but it only seems fair that you expand on how you / your views would solve hate speech as it seems to be something you are passionate about… right?
First and foremost - Yes: Thank you. I noticed your comment initially when skimming before my big response… and thought “this person gets it.”
I have nothing meaningful to add to what you said: you understood the importance of discussion - you had opinions and expressed them. You spoke up against something you perceived as incorrect.
Cheers. While it’s self serving for me to say it: responses like yours give me hope.
It would appear we have a lot to unpack in the replies - but your post checks most of the boxes so here we go:
A-are you actually comparing Elvis conspiracies with racial supremacy? Sounds like your logic doesn’t go further than “freedom of speech = good”
First and foremost the stammer was a nice touch. It really gives that extra oomph to the feigned offense. I chuckled.
When I composed that list I was very specific about which items were being added to it. Are you familiar with a dog whistle? It does have several “topical” meanings but in this case lets use the one talking about “frequency of sound.” Now most people cannot hear a dog whistle - but are able to discern that dogs do hear it when they start flicking their ears about and behaving oddly in the presence of it. A post is text so I cannot use sound… however (and I love this example for… reasons):
If I showed 3 dots that were green, red, red to a group who were colorblind - all they would see three similar dots. However someone who saw color would be confused as to why a dot was standing out and might react to it. This is, in effect, the dog whistle behavior I spoke about.
On to my point: for most people I listed three obviously ridiculous concepts that are meritless / easily disproven. For these people they might acknowledge my jab as amusing - but overall would not see anything but 3 of the same example. It wouldn’t warrant a specific response… However - to someone who was looking to troll, disrupt, or perhaps even finds one of those topics to “not belong” in the silly notion category… they would jump all over it. Fight me Elvis fans. I’m ready.
Side note: What is so fantastic about this - is it got multiple hits and other people immediately identified the response to those hits. Its a demonstration of both the whistle and people seeing the result of the “unheard” whistle.
I have read your post completely and its pretty textbook; which I am certain you are aware of. I will do my best to cover your best shots though.
You argue it’s important to demonstrate opposition to harmful views… (moderation.)
It is important that people see both the views and the response to those views. If they are allowed to speak and are admonished, publicly - they are defeated and have no recourse. If they are silenced - they are allowed a “martyrs death” through repression. This is a tool used by many groups (not just hate groups) to deepen the rift between “us and them.” It reinforces loyalty - because out there “they” don’t understand you. This is the additional benefit of airing the dirty laundry - so to speak: when people talk things out they may find something they both agree on… and learning can happen. In the case of say our much reviled “Elvis fans” they may realize that even if the king faked his death … he probably did die of old age… So seeing him now is obviously silly. Yes that goes both ways - but the result is far more favorable to the party with their head screwed on right.
You claim repression breeds hate and echo chambers.
It does. I spoke to this above - but to expand using another example: using capital punishment during the witch trials made a very binary situation. You are or aren’t a witch or witch supporter. And while there were no definite ways to test for a witch… …people were incentivized to report friends and family out of fear that they might be associated with them. This is why absolute moderation is a bad thing. Many mods will simply delete a post leaving some to wonder wtf even happened. Banning someone while posting a response is better - but the best way yet for reasons I outlined above - is to give them an opportunity to respond to the charges before a decision is made. This shows that discussion can occur and allows outsiders to grasp both sides and form their opinions on the matter.
How does that pertain to echo chambers? Simple. We are social creatures - we learn largely through negative reinforcement (that awkward moment in highschool with free rent in your mind was actually a survival mechanism at one point.) This is apparent in nearly every online community in some form or another but anywhere there are “point based systems” the results are self evident. Downvotes both discourage posts against the grain and because they are visible to all - are a stark reminder to not fall out of line. If you cannot beat them - join them. Its simple human behavior. Now what is the end result of beating down other schools of thought and the championing of bandwagoning? Self evident.
…you’re actually trivializing historical persecution
You’ve already played the righteous indignation / offense card already. I’ll answer you earnestly though: My statements, as a whole, were put together in a way that clearly says - “these are my viewpoints, and I welcome discussion on it.” I believe the statement you cherry picked for outrage here was followed by “It is important to debate and not silence people.” People can be surprisingly rational when presented with facts and left to form their own opinions? How do you think history would have been different had it been acceptable to have a difference of opinion and matters of science were discussed openly rather than obliterated by those in power at the time? I imagine we’d be better off than we are now, personally. That is my perspective and you are absolutely welcome to disagree with me on it.
we must protect Alice’s right to a safe home by platforming Bob’s right to debate burning it down
I will quote @radix@lemmy.world because it is simple and to the point: You can fight for the legal right to be stupid and anti-social and still call someone out for being stupid and anti-social.
It sums it up nicely. If bob feels comfortable platforming his desire to burn down alice’s home … I imagine that would provide multiple people an opportunity to … stop him. Wild concept - I’m aware.
it takes 0 effort to say “yggstyle hates people of color and that’s why they argue for people to have the freedom to say anything”
And yet I didn’t get to lemmy today until not to long ago because of life stuff and wouldn’t you know it: “But people who know better are also free to debate them - and prove them wrong.” I think those users covered it better than I could: simply by acting like rational people - and the result, in my opinion, is better than if I snubbed you myself.
I hope you can see why this rhetoric is bullshit and why people should not support anybody’s “freedom of speech” to debate people’s rights to exist.
And I hope that our exchange has taught you something.
My views are largely shaped by a psych professor whom I respect quite a bit: in his spare time he would find public rallies by hate groups and go to debate them. I was fortunate enough to be brought along a couple times… and I have to say some of the most satisfying things I have ever witnessed is watching hate groups get the platform they wanted and hang themselves with the rope he provided during the exchanges. He instilled in me the value of both hearing what your opponent says and presenting your views. In the end - you may agree to disagree… but frequently saner heads prevail.
Answering your post has been a blast - I welcome continuing it, should you be inclined… but hopefully I have cleared up any misconceptions you had.
edit: fixed a formatting faux pas
Within reason.
The line is very clear: You have those rights … so long as they do not encroach on the freedoms of others.
If someone wants to say there is a master race, the earth is the center of the universe, Elvis is still alive, etc… Sure: they’re free to say it. But people who know better are also free to debate them - and prove them wrong. Like it or not we are better for it having the discussion. Recall that at some point people were put to death for expressing beliefs that opposed the norm in science and religion. It is important to debate and not silence people - repression breeds hate and promotes an us vs them mentality. It results in echo chambers.
Are there people that simply cannot be reasoned with? Yes. But it’s important to engage with them and be a dissenting voice. It’s important to demonstrate clearly that someone opposes their viewpoint. Important to the unreasonable person? Probably not. Important to those who are listening? Yes. If you do not engage- all those who are listening hear is the viewpoint of the ignorant and the apparent silence of the indifferent.
Moderates fuck this up frequently… and I’m saying this as someone who, in many cases, considers myself a moderate.
Edit:
It’s been a busy day but I finally have time to sit and read through the rest of the comments in this thread. What an interesting result… genuinely. Lots of people expressing their own beliefs and their interpretation of things I said. Not everything lined up and not everyone agreed… but this right here is what we need more of. Good stuff 🍻
… if you’re making the coffee + milk, then adding ice, you have to make the coffee part “strong” in one way or another, because that ice is going to melt …
… Afaik, dunkin doesn’t have a chilled container of the latte shipped in, or made in bulk. They could have changed from the last time I talked to anyone that worked there, but at the time it was in smaller batches and stored at the temp it came out in. So if they changed the amount of ice, it would change the finished drink…
First: thank you for providing context actually based in facts and industry knowledge opposed to a lot of what is being thrown around.
Stores tend to go for consistency between products as a priority, so they don’t have as much freedom.
While yes, absolute consistency is a big part of any brand… most of these brands also focus and typically even build into their training (almost annoyingly so) a focus on making sure the customer leaves happy. These are two very common core values that most chains build their business on.
With that in mind: I’d be hard pressed to assign anything outside either laziness or indifference to the employee OP ran into. If it indeed was a training issue or something they weren’t sure of - that’s what management is for. Letting a customer go with a half full cup and dissatisfied was only going to end poorly.
I did some research. I’ve even provided industry perspectives on the situation.
Your turn to provide something more than what amounted to negging followed by at best an opinion constructed out of pure fantasy.
LOL do you think Dunkin Donuts give a flying f about … extra coffee?
See what I did there? Neat.
The cashier is doing what they’ve been told to do by their minimum wage, shitty job and f them for not breaking the rules and maybe even getting fired for not giving a stranger free coffee?
This argument you are pushing here is purely based in fantasy… or some pretty weak attempt to troll. Unless you have some first hand experience in that chain (you don’t) you are just engaging in a straw man argument.
The costs of the coffee both hot and cold have been posted. Your assessment falls completely flat factoring in that cost or just exercising some basic common sense.
Soda fountains keep being brought up here … The coffee machine in this post evidently measures based on coffee dispensed… If soda were dispensed the same way, it’s likely soda with no ice would also give you a less than full cup.
I’ve worked with those machines before. Most are simply time based triggers. They use knowledge of volume per second to determine pour size. It’s functionally identical to a bartender executing a free pour. The difference however is in why they are doing it. A bartender is doing that to ensure proper ingredient amount - the machine at a franchise is most notibly focused on time saving: a server pushing the button until it is full cannot do multiple things and ‘at best’ can fill two cups at once - (yes, yes, I know you can do more but… let me have this) With the machine a rep can fill multiple glasses unattended and contine working in the background. This is chiefly about efficiency (time is money.) Labor is expensive - coffee is not.
Also, don’t go insulting or blaming the worker in this instance. They likely have to follow the guidelines of the job or risk losing it. “Pre-programmed to not be able to problem solve”? Fuck right off with that.
No. The insult stands. I’ve worked over 10 years in that industry from food service to high dining. I’ve hosted, served, bartended, managed and assisted in opening two start up coffee shops. I have never, in the history of my work, seen a chain or management that would accept that behavior from an employee. Give me the chain number. I’ll call it and speak with the manager - Hell- I’ll speak with a district head. That’s how confident I am in this. I’ve seen similar behavior out of employees and coworkers before- and on days when I was being unquestionably a POS I’ve done it too… it’s wrong. Plain and simple. The marginal cost of the additional beverage is non-existent in the face of future business with the patron whom you kept coming back.
It fails the cost vs profit test, it fails the social test, and it fails the service test.
This is simply beyond reproach. If you feel otherwise please, by all means, explain to us all how a baseline employee was empowered to make a judgement call - that left a customer with such a foul taste in their mouth … that they turned the experience into a social media discussion. That action has now been seen by hundreds of eyes and will effect future purchases. All over arguably pennies in product that likely is thrown out regularly to cycle in fresh coffee.
If the machine is set to dispense a certain amount of coffee, the worker would either need to press the button twice…
(gasp.) Twice? And the problem is solved? See my lack of problem solving statement above. The kid was making excuses and at best was wrong and at worst was being a shit. I covered the machine and the rest of your comments following that above.
I’ve done my time in those trenches: as someone who’s been there: kid was a shit. As a customer, objectively, from the outside: kid was wrong - and likely being a shit. I wouldn’t give them my business following that.
edit:
Punctuation and stuff.
I more or less agree. In your juice bar example we’re talking about lower margin perishables. Totally makes sense there. The beverage in question was a coffee drink which is, frankly, pretty high margin. Especially with the ice. The problem with this thread is people moving to hypotheticals when a fact check was literally a click or so away.
Facts aside - Anyone who’s worked in hospitality or the service industry generally understands doing a solid for a customer will typically pay dividends as they will return to spend more money later. This was clearly an opportunity lost, objectively speaking.
You might be saying it ironically but honestly: yup. This thread is littered with examples why.
Factoring in the actual cost of manufacturing that cup vs the cost of the soda? God yes.
You were in the right and have a valid complaint. The people stating otherwise are making a bad faith argument not even based in fact.
Sorry you had that experience - the cashier was a twat; a number of these posters apparently aspire to be like him.
Turns out OP actually has a valid complaint. Social media warriors CBA to check prices before rushing to defend the poor defenseless corporation. 😅
To be fair Dunkin’ is probably a recognizable chain and OPs experience was undoubtedly bullshit.
I’ll just get my popcorn for this. Must be some really expensive ice.
Alright so expand on this:
We’re half way there. Why couldn’t they do what they were doing before?