Forum Post: ++ StarBucks Goes V for Vendetta ++
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 24, 2011, 8:16 p.m. EST by Glaucon
(296)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
A member of the 1% and an Occupy prime target, Starbucks played bold this Christmas season by launching Guy Fawkes Holiday Cups. Disguised in a gorgeous little NutCracker suit, our friend Fawkes gives us, the 99%, a bold little wink.
Does this mean Occupy's Guy Fawkes symbol has been re-appropriated by the 1% in an effort to strip it from its intended meaning and message? Do we need a new mascot? Who? The Pepper Spray Cop?
Next time you buy a coffee don't forget your marker!
If you only saw what StarBucks is doing in Bali. All the way across the world, this American company is shutting down local coffee houses one after the other. It's so sad. On top of that, Balinese and Javanese coffee are so much better than StarBucks coffee. Back in Canada, when I saw them messing up the local café scene, I almost cried.
The problem is this big corporation is making it impossible for family coffee houses to stay competitive. This sucks. I miss the quaint café's owned by families who serve you with all their heart. It's just not the same when you're in a plastic store where the people serving you are getting paid minimum wage and couldn't care less about their jobs.
I miss the quaint café's owned by families who serve you with all their heart. It's just not the same when you're in a plastic store where the people serving you are getting paid minimum wage and couldn't care less about their jobs.
And people wonder why our economy is in the crapper. Among other things, it's this. The same reason the Soviet economy went in the crapper: the system provided little or no motivation to the workers, they just weren't invested in it.
Exactly! I can see it happening on the street where I live in Bali. There are currently three levels.
The first is the tiny house store. It's a small store placed in front of someone's house. I love them. You go there and you get the best possible service because it's the owner that serves you. Usually, they are operated by women. I go there in the morning to get a coffee and a pack of cigarettes. I always hang out and get to know the owners. I learn Indonesian with them and we talk about everything from politics to mundane affairs. Sometimes we play chess.
The second level is a proper store on a commercial space. It's still small and the owners are around, but they don't always work there. They might have a few cashiers; half of them their relatives. The service is still pretty good, but it's not top notch like the house stores. There's usually a bench outside and we can hang out, but the owner doesn't come around to talk as much. He's too busy. He'll say a few words here and there.
Finally, the third level is the big store. The owner is no where to be seen, and all the workers get paid minimum wage and don't really care about their jobs. The service is horrible and you don't feel like hanging out there at all.
The problem is the third level is the cheapest, the second level in the middle, and the first level the most expensive. The first level stores are closing fast in Bali at the moment. The problem is people don't have much money so they want to save a few cents by buying their smokes at the big store who buys in bulk. Often the little stores will buy from the big store and sell for a tiny margin. It's really, really, really sad.
All these beautiful family businesses are getting killed and everyone loses out. Instead of working for the big store, the cashiers could have started little stores of their own and gained better wages. Now, the small stores go bankrupt, and their owners end up working for a lower pay as cashiers in the big store. The only person who gains is the boss of the big store, the 1%
You think that STARBUCKS is cheap?? $5.00 for a coffee is NOT CHEAP. If 'mom and pop' shops can't make money on $5.00 drinks and home made goodies then I really don't know what the world is coming to.
Did you read my comment and the one I am replying to? We are not talking about Starbucks, but convenience stores. Did you ever buy cigarettes at Starbucks?
Starbucks destroys the competition because it can afford prime location and loud advertising, and sells a product that's predictable because they are a chain. Their prices are definitely not competitive.
Read a comment before responding to it.
lol true.
Yep, the thing about the first level you talk about is they're really invested in it. There really isn't much distinction between the owner and the people who work there in terms of how invested they are: their lifestyle and the owner's are one and the same when they're still living at home, and when they grow up, they'll inheirit the business. So they're totally invested in it, their motivation and interests are not distinct at all from that of the business, they are one and the same thing.
I find it so ironic that these right-wing nuts who are always railing against "collectivism" aren't really taking a good look at the type of economic model they're supporting. They used to take shots at the Soviets for collective farms, now they're all mum on agribusiness (which is collective farming by any other name). Likewise they cannot seem to see the disconnect when they're defending Wal-Mart and the kind of economy that makes it possible, and it is a giant faceless bureaucracy, consisting of miserably bleak stores staffed by pallid drones who take their marching orders from a head office half a continent away.
http://www.adbusters.org/campaigns/actions/action-1-nostarbucks.html
http://www.starbucks.com/responsibility/sourcing/farmer-support
blind protesting sends mixed signals.
If you saw what StarBucks is doing in Bali, you wouldn't be so please. All the way across the world, this American company is shutting down local coffee houses one after the other. It's so sad. On top of that, Balinese and Javanese coffee are so much better than StarBucks coffee. Back in Canada, when I saw them messing up the coffee scene in Montréal's little Italy, I almost cried.
The problem is these big corporations are making it impossible for family coffee houses to stay competitive. This sucks. I miss the quaint café's owned by families who serve you with all their heart. It's just not the same when you're in a plastic store where the people serving you are getting paid minimum wage and couldn't care less about their jobs.
make sure the signs being carried say exactly that. the movement needs to start making a point, even if it chooses no demands.
Glaucon,
This fits under the shopping guidelines we developed under a forum post here and then hosted at http://bit.ly/DoYourBit where they are widely accessible and can be shared via social networks. Please read the guidelines and, if you agree, spread the http://bit.ly/DoYourBit link as far and wide as possivle using e-mail, twitter, facebook, etc. We need a LOT of people on board if we are to have an impact.
'Rico
Great. I will.
And their damn "espresso" tastes like burnt beans!
[Removed]
They also raised/gave money to the Israeli Army/IDF....so funding the terrorist/welfare state and destroying the local coffee house scene is top priority on howard schultz's zionist agenda...
Protesting blind... You mean like demanding "Fairness in Governance" from a brick wall?
OWS supporters should read a bit about Howard Schultz. A great American who came from nothing and does wonderful charity work not to mention made a great deal of money and offers jobs to thousands. You guys are so misguided it is pathetic. If you do not want to buy their coffee don't; if you do great. You guys speak of being free?? Make your own choices and stop blaming everyone with more than you for your misfortunes. I love their coffee and am looking forward to my morning cup before I go to work.
We are just as free to criticize him & his company as we are to "not buy his coffee" as you suggest.
If you can't BEAR to have us criticize a patriotic American capitalist like Schultz then don't come here & read the criticism, moron-s.
yeah, he has good intentions. but i can also see the complaint about killing ma & pa stores. we lost 2 local coffee shops in my town. starbucks by nature uses more disposable product then a privately owned coffee shop would.
maybe he has a better product that people are willing to pay for no? does anyone force people to go? aren't we allowed to get a drink where we want? maybe the local ma and pa stores should get creative and do something to draw people to their stores. do you suggest that Starbucks should just send these stores a check?
Fast food & chain stores don't necessarily have a "better" product but they have consumer confidence because the consumer knows what to expect when they go there.
Rather than taking a chance with the unknown, consumers tend to stick with the familiar.
Once the big chain saturates our awareness with their marketing, we tend to place our confidence in them.
No, the problem is the bigger store can buy in bulk and sell at cheaper prices. It's near impossible for small stores to compete. The other problem is the bigger store is much more visible, and, since it's a chain, someone passing by will recognize it right away. The local coffee house in the back doesn't get noticed. It's hard for it to build new clientele. Before big stores existed, people asked around and found the smaller stores this way. It's a huge problem that hurts everyone except the very rich. People get paid less and the service is not as good. It's one of the factors which increases wealth inequality. Bigger stores also waste a lot more.
is it a sin for a company who can afford rent for the "better" location to do so? i do not understand what you are upset about. I live in NYC. every busy corner has a bank, for example. the rent is extremely high. same applies to apartments on higher floors. same applies for the price of anything on the eye-level shelf at your supermarket. do you want the same rent for the same locations? where do you draw the line?
Red herring.
Who's talking about the same rent? I'm talking about huge stores coming in and killing all the smaller local stores. This is absolutely sad. Everyone gets poorer except the boss and the service is not as good. Plus, it creates a situation where people need to use their cars and go in big parking lots. It ruins the ecology by taking more space and there is more waste. It also ruins the social aspect. Before, people use to go to their local smaller stores and meet other members of their community. They walked there. Now, you drive your car and go to these big store where it's unlikely you'll meet anyone you know.
The problem is it creates a lame living experience for everyone, and it ruins the economy and ecology at the same time.
blame the industrial age and then move out of this country if things are so horrible for you. I remember the small town USA where you knew your pharmacist etc.. things change the world has changed things will continue to change. get a grip. their are wonderful opportunities. become part of them make a difference use your mind do something productive....if this is just to heavy for you like I said then move. find a place that services your needs because you and OWS sounds like cry babies.
Oh, I never lived in US and never will. I do use my mind to do something productive. I use it to pick small family owned businesses instead of big American chain stores.
How does name calling, otherwise known as ad hominem, help your case? Logical fallacies just make you drown in, well, fallacies. There's no reason to insult each other here. We are just discussing issues. Why not act like adults? Isn't that more fun? Calling people cry babies isn't even creative. If you're going to insult others, at least come up with something fresh that makes one think.
just the truth. america was and is built on hard work. OWS wants to blame people with more for their misfortunes. It is tiresome and un-American. you can attend the party or not. the choice is ours; but stop bitching about it.
We are making arguments. That is not bitching. Calling people names like you are is bitching. If you're not interested in discussing issues seriously why are you wasting your time on this forum?
this forum is talking about Starbucks being a problem. A wonderful American company. OWS is beyond lost and I am tired of hearing from all of these fucking losers about not getting their fair share. work hard put your mind toward something and make a difference. yes, there will always be people with more and people with less...accept it and move on...as am I. good luck...
If you're tired of "hearing from all these losers", why are you reading their comments on this forum? Are you masochistic? Go walk your dog or something else that feels pleasant. There's no reason to hurt yourself like that. People are allowed to have different opinions, and you certainly are allowed to shut your ears. If you're interested in participating in the discussion, you should do it in a mature way. You're an adult right? Wait... Am I talking to a teenager?
you are right. i am going to sleep in my comfortable bed in my expensive apartment in NY so I can get up early grab a starbucks and go to my high paying job on wall street. thank you America for the opportunity. I am grateful. Have a nice evening.
lol but 2 hours later you're still commenting
Non Starbucks do better when a starbucks moves in close by. They only close down when starbucks offers them a nice buy out $$$$. (Sell outs)
Those cups aren't real, are they?
Strangely, they are real.
Well, now there's a company that knows advertizing. They know everyone of the Occupiers is going to get their collector item as a symbol of the resistance to materialism and big business corporatism.
The King is dead; long live the King.
[Removed]
[Removed]
I like Starbucks just fine, but I'll take a cheaper McDonalds blended coffee instead these days to save money. The best cappuccino I've ever had, though was in Rome, Italy on a rainy, cold day.
I always thought the visage of a right wing terrorist was a bad idea for a mask or symbol of any kind. Let alone for a movement of American's seeking justice for massive economic inequality and politics polluted by big money.
In the search for a fairer, end to monopoly and oligarchy control of politics, people are celebrating some violent Monarchist because of a stupid Hollywood movie's disinformation (fwiw, I actually liked the graphic novel quite well.)?
Bad idea, bad idea, and Starbucks trying to cash in on it ought to be every last person's wake up call about what a bad move it was from the start.
I agree. Guy Fawkes makes no sense as a mascot for Occupy. I guess people think he's cool because of the movie. Those people probably never opened a history book. He's like the complete opposite of what Occupy claims to stand for. He's a terrorist.
glaucon, you must be almost as buzzed as me tonite! You are 2 funny
No. I seldom drink and never do drugs. Only bread and water like Jesus.
Starbucks Liberal:
"Typically drinks frappachinos, reads the New York Times, drives a Prius, and listens to NPR. Votes for any Democrat, regardless of actual position on policy, for an endless list of reasons, most of which are unexamined and fallacious. Considers him or herself a radical, a progressive, and believes in grassroots causes without actually supporting any."
Any thoughts?
"The Revolution", as seen in V for Vendetta (starring Natalie Portman), and now sponsored by Starbucks.
"Society Explained", as seen in The Matrix (starring Keanu Reeves), made by the same brothers who brought you V for Vendetta.
I use the word "libtard" in reference to people willing to pay $5 for a cup of coffee and I get voted down? lol
It seems that the people I thought Starbucks was trying to subliminally recruit are already here.
Lol! You got voted down because that word isn't original and refers to retard which is very insulting to the mentally disabled. It has nothing to do with whether people agree or not with Starbucks.
I think people have been brainwashed by the PC police.
Brought to you by the people who made Glee!: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T549VoLca_Q
And more: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1TbFUs7zZQ&feature=relmfu
And more: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdMNKRyXskA&feature=relmfu
I wasn't trying to be original, I was trying to be succinct. If you are willing to pay $5 for a latte frappuccino, you are probably a sucker and probably a liberal. I simply put the two words together into "libtard".
I'm down for calling people who watch FOX news "conservatards" as well.
To be completely clear, mentally handicapped people are not "retards", they can't help that they are mentally disabled. But the people who are described above fully deserve the term being applied to them, at least until they stop wasting their money at Starbucks or stop watching FOX news.
A lot of folks are willing to socialize over a 5.00 hard liquor drink at a bar. I would love to see a vid of you walking into a neighborhood bar and calling everyone retards!
Are you disagreeing with me, or just trying to get me beat up? :)
Heh, I don't think I agree with anyone on this thread! Paying a few extra bucks for a food or beverage and socializing with friends is not something only Liberals do.
I agree that Starbucks has a right to run a business in a profitable way. I believe if people want to save the Ma and Pa, stores, then they should support them. In this instance cheaper prices are really not a good excuse either. I also don't see what the hell this has to do with OWS other than perhaps OWS can someday help people learn to stop fkng themselves, and their neighbors!
Hasnt degraded to racial arguements yet, and I don't think I will stick around for that. Happy Thanksgiving and for God sake stay away from the bar! ;)
Eh, it's all semantics.
The problem is the word retard is already codified as being extremely insulting to people with mental disabilities. You can't get away from this problem. If you want to be taken seriously and be polite, you should use terms that don't have a historical burden attached to them. However, I assume you're too young to care and you probably think it's somehow "cool" to use those terms. It's just lame. Really.
Mental retardation is a legitimate medical term. Retard, by itself, can be a verb or a noun and doesn't have to apply to the mentally disabled. Someone can be retarded in their mental faculties without being mentally disabled.
re·tard 1 (r-tärd) v. re·tard·ed, re·tard·ing, re·tards v.tr. To cause to move or proceed slowly; delay or impede. v.intr. To be delayed. n.
re·tard 2 (rtärd) n. Offensive Slang
Avoiding uncertain connotations is ridiculous. It's harmful to the language and dumbs down to the culture.
You're using the second definition which is for people. The first definition you provided does not apply to people. Read what it says at the beginning of the second definition: Offensive Slang. When you use that term to talk about people, you are using a slang word which is offensive. Not using slang offensive words doesn't dumb down the culture, but not being able to understand dictionary definitions does. I don't care if you purposefully want to be rude towards people with mental disabilities, I'm just explaining to you why your comments are being voted down.
OK.
I'll try to retard my speech to keep the mentally disabled from getting offended. :D
thanks for understanding but what has not been said is calling anyone libtard is your judgement. ...the judgements, in my experience, will not lead to solutions or open dialogue. Underneath "name calling" (for lack of a better word) is a judgement.
Dont get me wrong, having an oposing opinion is great, in fact what I think freedom is all about; find YOUR preference about everything. However i found the most productive conversations about issues to happen when we keep our judgements to our selves. ...for the time being. There are endless ways to express ourselves including our judgements, that's where getting creative is king.
So do I then have to creatively heap my scorn on people who go to Starbucks regularly? I'm just very disappointed in OWS's inability to point the finger at stupid behavior in our society, outside of the typical leftist critiques.
The worst case I saw at OWS was the rape that they decided to handle on their own. Rather than turning over the accused rapist to the police they had him "watched". He was still allowed to visit the park!
Your second graph here talks about an event and hints at your feelings towards it: perfect. I'd love to talk more with you about this and share my feelings, and have dialogue (as an example)
...speaking of "stupid" behavior is void of information and hurtful. Makes me want to yell and fight back.
making any sense?
Is it that I am generalizing stupidity? I don't understand why you would want to yell and fight back if I am not addressing anything particularly as stupid. Do you have something against the use of the word in general?
I think people who aren't serious about truth are afraid of scornful words. People who do things which they can only justify through sophistry and bizarre rationalizations. Take the rape incident, for instance:
A woman at Occupy Wall Street accused a man of raping her. The man was singled out for the rape. There were several meetings about this. They decided not to turn the accused rapist over to the police. Why?
The obvious desire is that many OWSers didn't want the bad press for a sexual assault charge coming out of Zuccotti park, no matter of the danger or injustice involved. The immorality of that decision should be apparent. Yet, how was this rationalized in the minds of these people who were preaching "[fill-in-the blank]-justice"?
I met with someone who attended one of these meetings. He argued that the accused rapist should be turned over to the police based on the fact that he should be removed from OWS and dealt with by the law. By the end of the meeting he was labeled a "male hetero fascist".
The accused rapist returned to the park on several occasions and was simply "watched".
Would you agree that was a stupid decision?
No. I'd call this self governance. The obvious desire that many did not want bad press is your projection on a situation that you were not involved in.
I think we the people, when we work together, can protect each other far more effectively than our current police force, who don't seem very interested in protecting people. In fact they are perpetrating most of the violence.
How is allowing an accused rapist to go and possibly rape again an effective way of protecting people?
many there now know what he did, what he looks like, etc... and since many people participated in and heard the decision to watch him and not lock him up, they are all watching him. In real time. i am guessing 100 pair of eyes or more. This guy is now free to think about his actions on his own, talk more to real people about why.
We can only change ourselves.any changes made by the direction of another, unless whole heartedly agreed upon, will not stick.
I don't think that punishment works. Rapists (as one example) have serious issues and need help to resolve them. currently we just lock you up, fuck up your life some more making it even harder to cope with current issues.
Not turning someone in, giving a second chance, forgiving, are all powerful displays of compassion. A sign that someone cares.
And I say compassion heals 100 fold over punishment.
What about when he leaves the park?
Self-governance? Trichet, is that you?
See. What kind of comment is that? sounds to me like you just want to argue and judge and not really dialogue. ...like your not serious about truth.
Jean-Claude Trichet talked about the end of sovereign governments and the beginning of governance. I was checking to see how on the ball you were with politics.
Are we not surrounded by stupidity on a daily basis? Has not stupidity been rationalized into the current system we live in? Has not the hegemony of stupidity come to dominate our entertainment, politics and even our "education"?
I would not necessarily put it that way. I think our current way is pretty twisted around and backwards. geed over need kind of thing and we the people have been duped into it. I would say our system is filled with corruption, misinformation and greed that has been perpetuated for 100's of years to maintain a global inequality.
I think truth and transparency are coming and that global equality is the idea who's time has come. ....very exciting. : )
I'm glad to hear you are optimistic but there are many fallacies in just your last post.
The reading level of the average person has gone down tremendously. I personally have a great deal of trouble with Shakespeare, Shelly and pretty much any pre-twentieth century writer. Granted, they came from different times at a different stages of the English language, but the truth is we use a more simplified sentence structure then people of preceding centuries and have demolished parts of speech which evoked more meaning. (ex. "In sooth, I know not why I am so sad...") And that's just the literature side of our intellectual small mindedness.
As far as equality goes, if everyone is lowered, than yes, we can all be equal.
Can you give me an example of "truth and transparency"?
" if everyone is lowered, than yes, we can all be equal"
that's the old programming. my sense is that not many people realize what a billion is. it's a thousand millions! how could one person or family possible need or spend that much in resources. and some have hundreds of Billions!!
I think when we get rid of all the imaginary limitations that money creates we will all thrive effortlessly.
as for transparency it's hard to do anything now without being recorded in some way. ...and yes I think we will still have privacy, because it's human to want that.
and truth, like who was responsible for demolishing (with explosives), the twin towers and murdering 3000+ people. ... certainly not Bin or Al.please don't go there.
or the truth about other intelligent life in our Universe and the Gov's knowledge there of... Only to name a few.
Did I answer your Q?
I'm not talking about billionaires, I'm talking about the Western nations becoming Third World countries.
Money is unfortunately seen as an end rather than a mean. There's good reason to keep money, but what needs to end is the cult surrounding money.
Stop down voting a reasonable discussion on political correctness, PC police!
why?
Because it collapses the thread if it gets down-voted.
I don't think the thread is getting down-voted, just your comments. do the individual comments reflect the score of the whole thread? just curious.
Perhaps they are hedging their bets.
It seems to me that they want OWS to recruit caffeine-addicted libtard types, who are willing to pay $5 for a cup of coffee.
lol libtard. Awesome!!!
I'm glad you like the word.