The Insane "Social Justice" Thread II

[BugI02]

In the video says "in America." You should note that historical precedent may be set in some place, but does not prevent it from evolving elsewhere, either at the same time, or at some other point in the future... for example, the invention of the wheel. While one may give credit to where it first was invented, that does not mean that every instance henceforth originated from the initial discovery.

In the case of tipping, in the United States, it actually predates just after the Civil War; except in the context of the video, which applied to all free men following the conflict. Tipping, in the United States started as a bonus payment to slaves and indentured servants. Both groups were not entitled to "extra" payment, as they were hired out by their those who owned them, or their contracts. Tips allowed a number of those persons to buy essentials, and in some cases, even their freedom. There was no obligation, by the employer, to compensate the worker, anymore that the worker's owner required. Slaves also, with their owners approval, could hire themselves out to make money in their free time... but again, there was no legal obligation to pay them a wage.

Following the Civil War, there was an influx of former slaves looking for employment. Given that the vast majority did not have skilled positions, or would not be allowed (if skilled) to complete for those positions, they were relegated to jobs in the service industry. Employers balked at the idea of having to pay, what they considered, an inferior a standard wage, so those former slaves given employment without a wage, relying on the generosity of patrons.

You may wish to believe that a practice that originated in Europe in the 1600s, slow rolled it's way, as a natural transition, across the Atlantic to be seamlessly applied in the United States, following the emancipation of a enormous slave work force, which was still regarded as inferiors, 200 years after the fact, but I do not.

I would hope, that rather that making a it a personal matter, which I have tried avoid, you would rather attack the facts, or (if you believe differently) non-facts, presented.

An alternate view, predates the current (embryonic) civil war

A history of tipping - Business Insider
Danny Meyer's anti-tipping policy is nothing new — 6 states once banned the practice

The custom originated in Europe, and while its history is not entirely clear, it is commonly traced back to 17th century England. The word "tip" is speculated to be an acronym for "To Insure Promptitude," which was printed on bowls in British coffeehouses.


What is today considered a given started as a purely aristocratic practice — a mere "allowance" that the upper class would offer to the socially inferior.

It made its way to America after the Civil War (which ended in 1865), when wealthy Americans started traveling to and from Europe. They brought the custom back home to show off their worldliness, but it was immediately met with disdain.


Americans considered it anti-democratic, as it encouraged classism and further distinguished the wealthy from the masses.

Service 101: A Brief History of Tipping ? Food Woolf
Service 101: A Brief History of Tipping

According to an article that appeared in The New York Times in 1897, there was a movement brewing against tipping in America. The anti-tipping group believed that tipping was the “vilest of imported vices” because it created an aristocratic class in a country that fought hard to eliminate a class-driven society. In 1915 six state legislators from Wisconsin, Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee and South Carolina attempted and failed to pass an anti-tipping bill that would make leaving gratuities unlawful.


In 1916, William Scott wrote a stinging diatribe against tipping in his book, “The Itching Palm,” in which he stood up against the policy of paying for a service twice (once for the employer and once for the employee). He decried tips to be “democracy’s mortal foe” and creates “a servile attitude for a fee.”


In the American democracy to be servile is incompatible with citizenship. Every tip given in the United States is a blow at our experiment in democracy. The custom announces to the world…that we do not believe practically that “all men are created equal.” Unless a waiter can be a gentleman, democracy is a failure. If any form of service is menial, democracy is a failure. Those Americans who dislike self-respect in servants are undesirable citizens; they belong in an aristocracy.

 

[Kutnupe14]

WOW, interesting claim / suggestion. Practice and intent ALWAYS the same? People "wanted" to keep slaves? I am sure "some" did. I am also sure that MANY freed slaves stayed without being forced. Many many times, slaves actually became part of the family.

I believe in todays world, people will believe what they wish, in in spite of the facts. Many times people choose to call themselves victims, when in fact they are victims of their own set of chains and NOT due to the practice of others.

Believe what you want, but don't drag me into your fantasy world.

I have no idea what the above history comes from, but no they weren't "many many times, slaves became part of the family." To be honest, I'm not sure what you even mean, because there's it is beyond incredulousness to actually think you're saying what your worlds appear to be saying.

My contention, if not apparent, was not that people wanted slaves because they believed that black people were inherently inferior, but for benefits of free labor. The belief in inferiority was simply a byproduct of bondage, justifying putting slaves in such a sorry state.

Now, as far slaves staying without being forced, you almost seem to imply that they would stay because they enjoyed being slaves (correct me if I'm wrong). In truth, after many generations in bondage, slaves in some cases probably identified with their captors and accepted their fate. This identification is more in line with Stockholm syndrome, than an honest belief that slaves remained with their captors, wishing to remain in the same state.

Also, I will admit, I made an error of misspelling with "are" concerning practice and intent, the word should have been "aren't."

 

[Kutnupe14]

^^^^
I may add, that regardless where you came from and what you believe one's past was / is........the only one who holds the key to your future is YOU. NO one else, regardless of color, you bank balance, your traditions.......YOU are responsible to your decisions and path you take. NO ONE ELSE.

People need to stop blaming others and take responsibility. It is too easy to blame everyone else for your laziness.

I am not sure what is the purpose of this post or the second paragraph in your previous post. You are, it appears, speaking in a modern context. We have been speaking concerning the historical accuracy of the tradition of tipping. No one is making any claims, regarding current victimhood, laziness, or responsibility. It would be nice if that separation can be maintained, unless one wants this to devolve into a unrelated discussion.

 

[BugI02]

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour

Widely believed to have been directly written by the finger of God. Disobeying is likely a low percentage move. No sympathy from me

Wait... wait what.

This is some straight-up bull****

https://www.buzzfeed.com/katiejmbak...led-false-rape?utm_term=.adO2P1QAV#.esRlz8YRm

Trying to focus on how sad it is that rape-liars are being punished. Oh no, poor women. Who gives a **** about the men they're lying about though.

Feminism is cancer.

 

[jamil]

Here is an excerpt for the book "The Negro in the New World," (1910) by Sir Harry Hamilton Johnston:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Johnston

The claim being made by the article presented as insane social justice is that tips have a racist origin in the US. Showing an excerpt of people giving blacks tips does not support this claim. In fact it says “tips and presents”. This implies that “tips” were already understood by the reader, maybe as much as “presents”, and that the use of such isn’t any more exclusive to blacks as presents. Should we think that presents are racist too?

That people gave blacks tips isn’t evidence that the foundation of tipping in the US is racist. And I’ll take you at yiur word that you don’t think tips are racist. But the. I don’t know why we’re still talking about it. I kinda suspect the reason why SJW progressives are so bent out of shape about tips is that it is merit based, and offends their egalitarian sensibilities.

And yeah, some of that is true enough. It does tend to reward some people more than others. And not always fairly. The hot blonde with the flirty, bubbly personality, who makes smiley faces on the receipt, and does a reasonably good job, might make a lot more in tips than the shy homely waitress, who has no personality, but busts her ass to make sure everything is great.

Maybe there are some tweaks society could do with some of our social norms. But to condemn everything out of hand is absurd. And throwing “racism” at everything and everyone they don’t like cheapens it. Calling something or someone “Racist” should be reserved exclusively for the real thing.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

So when I get a bonus at work, is that racist? I thought a bonus was a bonus, incentive to do better. I understand how a tip is in the same category, but a tip comes from somebody you don’t work for tipping you for good service. There is a difference. One is my boss giving me extra money for doing a good job, the other is a customer who is happy with my work and gives me extra on top of what they give my company for the goods they received.

Ill be sure to let the bartender know I’m not tipping him/her because I’m not a racist.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Widely believed to have been directly written by the finger of God. Disobeying is likely a low percentage move. No sympathy from me

I think God had it right. Punishment ought to fit the crimes. (That's what the eye for eye stuff is all about). And if you maliciously falsely accuse, you get the penalty the person you falsely accused of would have gotten.

15 “A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. bOnly on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established. 16 If ca malicious witness arises to accuse a person of wrongdoing, 17 then both parties to the dispute shall appear before the LORD, dbefore the priests and the judges who are in office in those days. 18 The judges shall einquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, 19 fthen you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother. So you shall purge the evil3 from your midst. 20 And the rest gshall hear and fear, and shall never again commit any such evil among you. 21 yYour eye shall not pity. hIt shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

 

[actaeon277]

Wait... wait what.

This is some straight-up bull****

https://www.buzzfeed.com/katiejmbak...led-false-rape?utm_term=.adO2P1QAV#.esRlz8YRm

Trying to focus on how sad it is that rape-liars are being punished. Oh no, poor women. Who gives a **** about the men they're lying about though.

Feminism is cancer.

So what's the problem Buzzfeed?
These women DID "betray the sisterhood".
They made it harder to believe other women, other women that are NOT LYING.

 

[mmpsteve]

Now, as far slaves staying without being forced, you almost seem to imply that they would stay because they enjoyed being slaves (correct me if I'm wrong). In truth, after many generations in bondage, slaves in some cases probably identified with their captors and accepted their fate. This identification is more in line with Stockholm syndrome, than an honest belief that slaves remained with their captors, wishing to remain in the same state.

I would assume that some slaves stayed with their former owners because they felt the need to EAT every day, (as all of us do), and had no viable options elsewhere. Not just everyone could pack up and leave at will.

Not argueing with you Mr. K., just saying many people had few choices, if they wanted to survive.

 

[Kutnupe14]

The claim being made by the article presented as insane social justice is that tips have a racist origin in the US. Showing an excerpt of people giving blacks tips does not support this claim. In fact it says “tips and presents”. This implies that “tips” were already understood by the reader, maybe as much as “presents”, and that the use of such isn’t any more exclusive to blacks as presents. Should we think that presents are racist too?

That people gave blacks tips isn’t evidence that the foundation of tipping in the US is racist. And I’ll take you at yiur word that you don’t think tips are racist. But the. I don’t know why we’re still talking about it. I kinda suspect the reason why SJW progressives are so bent out of shape about tips is that it is merit based, and offends their egalitarian sensibilities.

And yeah, some of that is true enough. It does tend to reward some people more than others. And not always fairly. The hot blonde with the flirty, bubbly personality, who makes smiley faces on the receipt, and does a reasonably good job, might make a lot more in tips than the shy homely waitress, who has no personality, but busts her ass to make sure everything is great.

Maybe there are some tweaks society could do with some of our social norms. But to condemn everything out of hand is absurd. And throwing “racism” at everything and everyone they don’t like cheapens it. Calling something or someone “Racist” should be reserved exclusively for the real thing.

The writer of that article, was a well known intellectual. The article was written in 1910. The article makes mention of the "antebellum South," slaves, tipping, and offers a comparison to other socially inferior workers concerning wages and profit (avoiding the notion of tips and presents). The writer also cites Fredrick law Olmsted a well-know social critic and intellectual. It's not exactly a linear line to what was being said, but if one understands the terms mentioned, relates them to time presented, as well as the application of common sense, rather than a need to simply say "that's not true," because they dislike the notion mentioned, then perhaps they could arrive at a similar conclusion at what was originally presented. Attacking the notion, outside of presenting historical information to the contrary, but relying on modern beliefs does not make the original argument presented any less factual. Given that, I'm fairly confident that no one has the inclination to dig further, than myself, for historic references concerning this subject, I am satisfied to let the argument stand on what has already been presented in the historical context, while dismissing anything not similarly presented.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I would assume that some slaves stayed with their former owners because they felt the need to EAT every day, (as all of us do), and had no viable options elsewhere. Not just everyone could pack up and leave at will.

Not argueing with you Mr. K., just saying many people had few choices, if they wanted to survive.

That of course, makes sense.

 

[BugI02]

From the NYT May 9, 1897 page 22. Not seeing mention of race at all, it better fits the narrative of offending American sensibilities on class and aristocracy

View attachment 68076

 

[Timjoebillybob]

The person who uttered the word, stated that he was "insensitive" in using the word. That's an self-admission of doing something he should not have.

I don't see it as and admission of guilt. It was a public apology, there are a variety of reasons he could have said that not just admitting he did something wrong. Also being insensitive doesn't mean something that should not have been done/said.

Again, you're making assumptions you don't know.

You post this, but then shortly after post this.

The have a mixed race child,

Do you know them? The article didn't state that any of their children were mixed. It said they had white children and black children. I know mixed families where the parents are mixed but the children are not, and vice versa. And families where parents and children are mixed.

I think there has been a sizable uptick in actual stormfront-type people willing to show their true colors.

You say this, but then say

It's not like that people who held such opinions would make them known publicly. And again, I'm NOT saying they this is the case.

While not mutually exclusive, the comments at least to me seem to contradict each other.

Well, after seeing the video... and noting tat it is history, it seems fairly accurate.

Seems it the key word, I'm pretty sure that it's incorrect.

My contention, if not apparent, was not that people wanted slaves because they believed that black people were inherently inferior, but for benefits of free labor. The belief in inferiority was simply a byproduct of bondage, justifying putting slaves in such a sorry state.

They didn't want them as slaves because they believed they were inferior I'll give you that. But not that the belief of inferiority was based in wanting free labor. Yes the belief that they were inferior justified slavery, but that belief wasn't a byproduct. If anything it was the reverse. Slavery was a byproduct of the belief that they were inferior. Look at Abraham Lincoln's words in the Lincoln Douglas debates.

Showing an excerpt of people giving blacks tips does not support this claim. In fact it says “tips and presents”. This implies that “tips” were already understood by the reader, maybe as much as “presents”, and that the use of such isn’t any more exclusive to blacks as presents. Should we think that presents are racist too?

That can't be, according to the video tipping in the US didn't really happen until after slavery was ended, and it was because of it ending that it happened.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I don't see it as and admission of guilt. It was a public apology, there are a variety of reasons he could have said that not just admitting he did something wrong. Also being insensitive doesn't mean something that should not have been done/said.



You post this, but then shortly after post this.



Do you know them? The article didn't state that any of their children were mixed. It said they had white children and black children. I know mixed families where the parents are mixed but the children are not, and vice versa. And families where parents and children are mixed.



You say this, but then say



While not mutually exclusive, the comments at least to me seem to contradict each other.



Seems it the key word, I'm pretty sure that it's incorrect.



They didn't want them as slaves because they believed they were inferior I'll give you that. But not that the belief of inferiority was based in wanting free labor. Yes the belief that they were inferior justified slavery, but that belief wasn't a byproduct. If anything it was the reverse. Slavery was a byproduct of the belief that they were inferior. Look at Abraham Lincoln's words in the Lincoln Douglas debates.



That can't be, according to the video tipping in the US didn't really happen until after slavery was ended, and it was because of it ending that it happened.

You're addressing way too many different topics and jumbling them all into one post. If you wish to keep it as it stands, to make some point, I have no objection. If you wish me to address, whatever you are attempting to state, I would appreciate there being one cohesive thought presented.

 

[jamil]

The writer of that article, was a well known intellectual. The article was written in 1910. The article makes mention of the "antebellum South," slaves, tipping, and offers a comparison to other socially inferior workers concerning wages and profit (avoiding the notion of tips and presents). The writer also cites Fredrick law Olmsted a well-know social critic and intellectual. It's not exactly a linear line to what was being said, but if one [STRIKE]understands the terms mentioned, relates them to time presented, as well as the application of common sense[/STRIKE] reads between the right lines, rather than a need to simply say "that's not true," because they dislike the notion mentioned, then perhaps they could arrive at a similar conclusion at what was originally presented. Attacking the notion, outside of presenting historical information to the contrary, but relying on modern beliefs does not make the original argument presented any less factual. Given that, I'm fairly confident that no one has the inclination to dig further, than myself, for historic references concerning this subject, I am satisfied to let the argument stand on what has already been presented in the historical context, while dismissing anything not similarly presented.

FIFY. So really, you're going to say that I don't agree with you because I'm too ignorant and not as [STRIKE]woke[/STRIKE] informed as you?

I'm not saying that what you're saying is simply not true. I'm saying that you need to connect more dots. You just can't claim that everyone who doesn't read between lines as well as you do, must just conclude differently because they don't want to believe it. Well, I can turn that around then. To get to this belief, you must really want to believe it. And I think I have a better reason to think what I think than you do. Nothing you've cited reveals any factual evidence that shows the progression of how the things cited on that one page became the custom we know as tipping. You're just assuming it.

Now, as far as people making no effort to dig deeper, THAT's an assumption too. Before my first post on this subject I read probably half dozen articles from people making the claim that tipping had its origins in racism. They all pretty much had the same outline. They all seemed to follow the typical SJW deconstruction pattern. None of them connect the dots to how it was born in racism. They just made the claim, saying this means that, without showing the clear links between this and that.

Also, I found a link to the book you cited online. You can read the whole book. It's 499 pages of dry British manuscript, so obviously I haven't read it all. It is definitely worth trudging through the dryness to see what was cutting edge "knowledge" of the time. Here's the link if you're interested. https://archive.org/details/negroinnewworld00johnuoft

So it's not that I don't care to dig for facts. I have. It's not that I'm trying to find a way to make this not true. I don't care if it's true or not. I care about believing what's true. So my disagreement is in that I'm unable to substantiate the claim. So it's safer at this point to suspect that this claim from the left is just the typical facile SJW deconstruction that they're so fond of using to dismantle traditions they don't like. It's possible that there's some truth to it, that components of it may have been racist. But I haven't found anything yet that shows an origin in racism.

I've found lots of references to the practice of tipping having its origins in business owners encouraging consumers to tip their servers so that they could get away with paying them less. So if you must have it be about oppression, that's probably the tack I'd take. It's just that you'll mostly have to leave racism out of it unless you can connect those dots.

 

[jamil]

One other thing that we should make clear. Even if tipping had its origins in racism, it's not racist now. Tipping has nothing to do with race today. If there's a reason to abolish it, it should be employees and businesses and customers deciding to stop. I'm dubious to the claim that it's even oppressive now. It's merit based. That's not oppressive. That's just value based. And that's probably why the SJWs want to end it. That's just not a good reason to end it.

A lot of people who have jobs that pay tips make way more than they could otherwise. Critics say, they should just all get raises so they don't have to make their money from tips. Well, that'd be swell. Then I don't have to pay tips. But then the business has to pay it. And they'll raise their prices some. Probably not as much as I pay in tips though. But mostly they'd probably lay off workers for the same reasons that some businesses trying to pay "living wages" to lower value jobs are cutting workers. Someone has to pay.

Point is, it's not as simple as proclaiming it's racist because SJWs don't like merit based pay and want it gone. It should be a decision between employers, employees, and even the customers, business by business. But I'll bet the employees who make a lot in tips won't want to change.

 

[jamil]

You're addressing way too many different topics and jumbling them all into one post. If you wish to keep it as it stands, to make some point, I have no objection. If you wish me to address, whatever you are attempting to state, I would appreciate there being one cohesive thought presented.

Yeah, I don't really like the piecemeal post-quoting. I kinda stopped doing it for that reason. Makes conversations easier. Just make one post, and try to tie things together as much as possible. Easier for everyone to follow.

 

[Kutnupe14]

One other thing that we should make clear. Even if tipping had its origins in racism, it's not racist now. Tipping has nothing to do with race today. If there's a reason to abolish it, it should be employees and businesses and customers deciding to stop. I'm dubious to the claim that it's even oppressive now. It's merit based. That's not oppressive. That's just value based. And that's probably why the SJWs want to end it. That's just not a good reason to end it.

A lot of people who have jobs that pay tips make way more than they could otherwise. Critics say, they should just all get raises so they don't have to make their money from tips. Well, that'd be swell. Then I don't have to pay tips. But then the business has to pay it. And they'll raise their prices some. Probably not as much as I pay in tips though. But mostly they'd probably lay off workers for the same reasons that some businesses trying to pay "living wages" to lower value jobs are cutting workers. Someone has to pay.

Point is, it's not as simple as proclaiming it's racist because SJWs don't like merit based pay and want it gone. It should be a decision between employers, employees, and even the customers, business by business. But I'll bet the employees who make a lot in tips won't want to change.

Nothing? As in there's nothing related from either side of the issue i.e. patron v server?

 

[Kutnupe14]

FIFY. So really, you're going to say that I don't agree with you because I'm too ignorant and not as [STRIKE]woke[/STRIKE] informed as you?

I'm not saying that what you're saying is simply not true. I'm saying that you need to connect more dots. You just can't claim that everyone who doesn't read between lines as well as you do, must just conclude differently because they don't want to believe it. Well, I can turn that around then. To get to this belief, you must really want to believe it. And I think I have a better reason to think what I think than you do. Nothing you've cited reveals any factual evidence that shows the progression of how the things cited on that one page became the custom we know as tipping. You're just assuming it.

Now, as far as people making no effort to dig deeper, THAT's an assumption too. Before my first post on this subject I read probably half dozen articles from people making the claim that tipping had its origins in racism. They all pretty much had the same outline. They all seemed to follow the typical SJW deconstruction pattern. None of them connect the dots to how it was born in racism. They just made the claim, saying this means that, without showing the clear links between this and that.

Also, I found a link to the book you cited online. You can read the whole book. It's 499 pages of dry British manuscript, so obviously I haven't read it all. It is definitely worth trudging through the dryness to see what was cutting edge "knowledge" of the time. Here's the link if you're interested. https://archive.org/details/negroinnewworld00johnuoft

So it's not that I don't care to dig for facts. I have. It's not that I'm trying to find a way to make this not true. I don't care if it's true or not. I care about believing what's true. So my disagreement is in that I'm unable to substantiate the claim. So it's safer at this point to suspect that this claim from the left is just the typical facile SJW deconstruction that they're so fond of using to dismantle traditions they don't like. It's possible that there's some truth to it, that components of it may have been racist. But I haven't found anything yet that shows an origin in racism.

I've found lots of references to the practice of tipping having its origins in business owners encouraging consumers to tip their servers so that they could get away with paying them less. So if you must have it be about oppression, that's probably the tack I'd take. It's just that you'll mostly have to leave racism out of it unless you can connect those dots.

I'd rep you for research, because it's not too often it is done 'round here. The socialist will not allow it though.

 

[jamil]

Nothing? As in there's nothing related from either side of the issue i.e. patron v server?

Why should it?