The National Customer Rage Study is a cross-sectional study. The organization (Customer Measurement & Consulting) picks a new sample each time. Has the proportion of older people in the US population grown so much as to explain the increase in customer complaints?
A lot of what we're seeing is yet again due to the largest generation in US history (the "boomers", so called because they were a population boom) progressing through their lives. Everything from the summer of love (when they discovered hormones) to the OMG we're old! vibecession.
Here with the benefit of hindsight. A few days after TFA (and Scott Pelley's corresponding original statements on social media) were written, Scott Pelley gave two examples in his interview with Lulu Garcia-Navarro for the New York Times [1]. Interview excerpt below, the second paragraph of which has the examples:
> I felt it was very important to identify that the protesters themselves were being very aggressive and that they were half of these confrontations, and so I instructed my producers to find images in which we see the protesters acting aggressively. We found a picture of a protester chest-bumping an officer. We found a picture of an officer being hit in the head with a snowball. We culled together a lot of video of protesters screaming in the faces of officers because we were going to talk about the killing of Pretti and the killing of Good, and it seemed to me important to tell the audience about the entire context. I thought we’d done a really good job with this. We also included a picture of Alex Pretti before he was killed kicking out a taillight on a police car and made a point of saying, this is Alex Pretti and this is what he did.
> So, the story goes through screenings. It’s very well received. There are notes as always and we do rewrites as always. But this is on a very tight deadline. It’s Sunday; we’re going on the air that night. And in the case of stories that are, as we say, crashing, our deadline on Sunday is noon. So, we work on all of these things. We get the piece approved by everyone. And about four hours after our deadline, Bari Weiss sends an email to my boss, Tanya Simon. Two of the things in the email include, can we make the protesters look more violent? Now, I’m paraphrasing. I don’t have the quote, but that’s what was communicated to me. And the other thing, Renee Good’s car. You need to describe her as driving toward the officer.
> This is not what you see on the video. On the video, you see the officer standing slightly off the front of the car. And you clearly see Ms. Good’s wheels turned completely as far as they will go, away from the officer. But he shoots her in the head, kills her, and says something about her that I can’t repeat in polite company.
> We have gone out of our way in our plan from the very beginning to show the protesters for the responsibility that they had. We had already scrubbed the video archives, looking for those scenes. Somehow that wasn’t enough for Ms. Weiss. The video showed that the officer wasn’t standing in front of the car and she wasn’t driving toward him, but that’s what the president said about that, and that’s the way she wanted it described.
Gift link at [1], which I found from [2][3]. NYT has blocked archive sites for a while now. I recommend against posting NYT articles unless someone has a gift link.
The American Diabetes Association is not a state actor here. If the conference runners could be sued, the lawsuit would be over a contract violation (if there is one) by the ADA regarding the conditions for attending the conference, not about freedom of speech. If the ADA did violate its contract in removing the researchers, then the police would have violated the researchers' 1st Amendment rights, but qualified immunity likely applies.
> “While unintentional, this should never have happened.
It was unintentional on the part of Starbucks at large. The CEO of Starbucks Korea intentionally chose to integrate anti-democratic references into the marketing [1]:
> Did a dumb American exec misunderstand what Tank meant? Nope! Starbucks Korea is owned by a Korean billionaire who supports the old regime.
> Every new tumbler is 503 ml. Random size, eh?
> A right wing talking point is that "activists" are exaggerating and "only 503 people" were killed on 5/18.
> The slogan for the Starbucks campaign is "Slam it on your desk!" Random, eh?
> On 5/18 a young man was tortured to death in police custody. The cop said "I just slammed my hand on the desk and he died."
[...]
> Every Western article about this is like "is it too unwoke to make a pun on a day of remembrance?" but that's not what this is, this is a billionaire announcing to the entire country "We should not be a democracy, and I'm glad for every person who died trying to make it one. Suck it."
I might've misread the article, but wasn't it not the CEO who caused this, it was some marketers who chose the slogan and the branding, who then shipped it off to managers, who approved it without even looking at what they were approving?
You did not misread. I was wrong, and you are correct that the CEO has no confirmed involvement. I "reasoned" backward from "CEO was punished because of the marketing campaign" to "CEO approved the campaign".
Tangentially, I find it hard to believe that
> Shinsegae’s investigation found no evidence the Starbucks campaign was deliberate
(referring even to the marketers, who were placed on probation [1]) considering that a marketer who is capable of making an AI come up with slogans for a specific day of the year is also capable of asking why the AI chose that particular day.
> Michigan Lawmakers Want To Ban Chinese-Tagged Vehicles From Even Visiting The State. You Know, For Privacy.
reply