Do You Want Your Hypocrisy Served Tall, Grande, or Venti?

Stilton Jarlsberg wrote:

As Attorney General Eric Holder once famously observed, "America is a nation of cowards when it comes to talking about race while buying wildly overpriced hipster coffee."

To rectify this problem, Starbucks recently instituted a campaign called "Race Together," which encourages their employees to strike up meaningful conversations about race relations with poor bleary-eyed bastards who just came in for their morning caffeine fix.

And who better to give straight talk on one of the most sensitive issues in our country than a company which can't even use clear language like "small" "medium" and "large" when obfuscating the sizes of their own products?

Still, Hope n' Change is always in favor of open and honest dialogue, which is why we can imagine ourselves dropping in to a Starbucks to order a double-grande half-caff soy milk cocoa-dusted cinnamon-sprinkled whipped foam frappuccino and then asking our barista "what the hell happened with the OJ verdict, am I right?!"

Then again, the young servers at Starbucks may not be conversant on a subject so dated, and would perhaps rather discuss contemporaneous stories. "Do you believe that Kanye West accurately reflects the black man's perspective and societal aspirations," we might ask, "when he tweets pictures of Kim Kardashian's gigantic ass?"

And of course, "If Martin Luther King had been unable to sleep because he was jacked up on preposterously expensive caffeine-fortified coffee, could he even have had a dream?"

* other relevant comments include *

Of course Starbucks' "Race Together" campaign isn't being as well-received as they hoped.

"An executive on Starbucks' communications team, Corey duBrowa, even blocked people on Twitter before temporarily taking down his account. DuBrowa later said in a post on Medium that he felt he was being "personally attacked in a cascade of negativity" and that he had gotten overwhelmed."

Isn't it interesting that someone who's idea it was to "spark a conversation" wasn't so interested in engaging in one when the conversation didn't go the way it was supposed to? That reaction would lead a thinking person to believe that this endeavor was less about "conversing" and more about enforcing the Progressive narrative.

*

Here's an interesting thought: What if a minority Starbucks employee follows the lead of their CEO and opens a "conversation" with a customer who is not intimidated or points out a conservative point of view?  What if the conversation shifts to the failures of affirmative action or no child left behind?  Would the traumatized employee be able to sue Starbucks, or would the customer be prosecuted for the "hate crime" of pushing back against liberal orthodoxy?

Full article HERE