Biggest Threat To Internet Cafes? Baseball Caps
from the out,-out,-damn-baseball-cap dept
Over the years, we've seen lots of people have odd fears about internet cafes, which often seem misplaced, blaming the cafes for the activities of their patrons. Plenty of governments have tried to crack down on internet cafes in attempts to reduce bad behavior coming out of those cafes -- but it appears that the famed easyInternet set of cafes is taking matters into its own hands by doing the most logical thing to stop bad behavior in the cafes: they're banning baseball caps. Apparently, management has decided that the caps have a "hooligan image," "are associated with anti-social deviant behavior," and, thus, are scaring off the more sophisticated clientele that easyGroup would prefer to cater to. Who knew that you could sap a young deviant of his hooligan behavior simply by removing his baseball cap?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anti-social deviant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hats off...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hats off...
However, the net is FULL of suburban, middle to upper class, usually white (but not necessarily) wannabes who DO use computers and annoy everyone by "keepin tah shit reel homes!" (or whatever).
I can see the cafe wanting to keep those "homeboys" out of there...they're just stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hats off...
On the more serious side I do find the little copy-cat or wanna-be homeboys to be terribly annoying with their bad music thumping so loud outside their car I can hear it over my own...with the windows up. Someone needs to pistol whip them and tell them to:
1) Knock it off
2) Buy pants that fit and wear a belt with it
3) go get your teeth fixed, it's not attractive - just stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hats off...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ballcaps in cafes
learned which direction the BILL is supposed to face?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
makes sense
Someone will argue that an internet cafe is not a nightclub, I submit to you that business is business. People are ancillary to the money they bring in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
- Jerks...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
It's not racial profiling of whom is to be a 'thug' or 'criminal'. Last time I checked baseball caps were considered a popular head ornament among all races and cultures. It's the same as most restaurant’s no shirt, no shoes, no service policy. The policy applies to everyone, not just one race. A white guy will be sent out of a restaurant or department store just as quickly as someone of any other race will if he isn't wearing a pair of pants. The coffee shop is merely asking for a dress code that is exceptionally easy to comply with, as said in a prior post of just sticking it in your back pocket for an hour and putting it back on when you go out the door. Simple solution and you still get to enjoy your mocha.
Of course we are entitled to free speech and are allowed to complain (most of which choose to indulge in this rather loudly and obscenely) if we feel that we don't agree with something. Regardless of such complaining you have two choices, comply with the requested dress code or find somewhere else to drink your coffee. Some people will choose to ignore either reasonable option and continue to protest to the point of having to removed forcibly. And here's the catcher...if it's a white guy no one cares, it's just a noisy white guy who probably needs to chill in the tank for an hour or so. But if it's someone of a different race, they pull the racism card...and people let them get away with it. There was no behavior in the action different from the white guy's, but because this man is causing a disturbance to the peace because he wishes to not comply with the standards of an establishment and has been warned to leave or the cops will be called and he gets arrested because he decided to keep acting rather foolishly - it's racism.
This is what I find to be the most irritating thing in the world, is people whining because they were stupid and got in trouble for it, claiming it was racism. Yes there are times that it is indeed racism, but a large percentage of the time it isn't. It's just some guy whining about why he should get special treatment. And people let this happen, thus they continue to whine about it. I say quite letting people whine about it or let everyone whine about it....personally I'd prefer if they'd knock it off. In all honesty it's likely that racism has stayed around as much and as strong as it has due to people's reactions like this, if people quite pulling the racism card to quick and so often we might find that the idea it self dissipates to something very much outdated and 'actually' occurring in fewer instances. Yes there will always be racism and prejudice, but if people quite yelling "That's racist!" so much then maybe it won't be as bad. So in due turn please take your racism card and eat it. Thank you have a nice day please, cause I know I will even if you don't. ^_^
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
Either way, its pathetic ain't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
Done. I have been denied employment based on age, tattoos, and body piercings. And it's not just an excuse for being an unattractive applicant - I was boldly told the reasons. When I was 19, I was told "You'd be perfect if you were ten years older." At 23, it was "You're the most qualified person we've interviewed, but we can't have someone with visible tattoos or piercings working here." Both reasons were repeated several times, and for several years. It was tough to swallow; I'm a clean, well groomed young man, I'm intelligent, I'm well educated, I work hard, and I'm highly motivated. But since I like to occasionally peer into counter culture...
Disgusting displays of discrimination? You betcha. Legal? Sadly enough, yes. Employers are well within their legal rights to deny employment based on appearance (think "Hooters") or age (age discrimination laws only apply to people over 45).
Private businesses have even more "freedom" to choose what people can use their services. Any business person can refuse to do business with any person, at any time, for any reason. Sure, it's morally reprehensible, but it's legal. That's my 2 cents (before taxes).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
While many Hooters locations don't discriminate, they can and have. I seem to remember some local-level court cases about women being fired for gaining weight/getting a bad haircut/ os in some way becoming "less attractive" and therefore "affecting their ability to do the job they were hired to do." There was also a memorable case involving a man that wanted to wait tables at Hooters, or at least have the RIGHT to wait tables there, but that's another case entirely, as it actually involves the legally forbidden practice of gender discrimination...
Another related example of appearance discrimination is employers forcing employees (particularly female employees) to wear makeup while on the job. It's been an issue with many of the bartenders and dealers in Las Vegas casinos.
[Side Note: I've been to the Hooters in both Burbank and Hollywood, and I agree that it is NOT always, or even often, pretty. I can only imagine what it's like in LB. *shudder*]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We already do this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hats
Anyway, the cowboy hats cover more of your face from the built in cameras.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hats
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]