Quote of the day—Rachel Sillcocks

It’s not about the fact that we are anti-police. It is about the fact that we do not allow weapons in our restaurant. We were uncomfortable, and we asked them to leave. It has nothing to do that they were officers. It has everything to do that they were carrying guns.

Rachel Sillcocks
December 4, 2021
San Francisco restaurant owner explains why police officers denied service
[This is what happens when people have messed up wiring in their brain and think inanimate objects are more indicative of behavior than the people in control of the objects. This is what they think of gun ownership. You magically become good or evil based on the existence or absence of certain types of inanimate objects in your possession. This is undeniable prejudice.

I can understand the impulse for non-discrimination legislation to protect gun owners access to public accommodations. I can also understand the impulse for police officers to be slow to respond.

They have since said they made a mistake and apologized. I’m sure the 1.0 average Yelp score had nothing to do with it.—Joe]


7 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Rachel Sillcocks

  1. As idiotic as it is, and as in as much moral and ethically in error it is… At least their original position was intellectually and ethically honest and consistent.

    If they’d actually stood their ground, I would at least respect that they were acting in accordance with their deeply held beliefs…… and hopefully deeply held principles from which those beliefs derived.

    … But it took them less than a day to backpedal so hard they ruptured an ACL and tore a hamstring… Which, disappointingly but unsurprisingly, means they don’t actually have any deeply held or firm ethical or moral beliefs, or principles… It was all just social signalling from the beginning.

    … As it almost always turns out to be, when the “woke” are faced with actual harmful consequences, of “speaking truth to power”, or whatever tissue of self delusion they may be using at any given moment, to convince themselves of their own righteousness and superiority.

  2. The most telling is that they couldn’t think their actions thru to the logical consequences. And the fact that these patterns seem systemic with much of the American communism.
    One need no longer ponder why they destroy the useful idiots first. Or why the useful idiots just line up in front of the ditch when their told to.
    Or these days it’s lining up for the fourth clot shot booster. With their kids.
    Strange indeed.

  3. ”You magically become good or evil based on the existence or absence of certain types of inanimate objects in your posession.”(sic)

    You hit the nail on the head in bringing up magic. But I don’t think they believe that so much as they pretend to believe it. Like Peter Pan and the Lost Boys, they reside in a land of make-believe, and if you don’t play along with them they’ll hate you for challenging their fantasy. It’s hard enough to maintain character in a land of make-believe without people trying to ruin your entire imaginary world by rudely inserting images of reality. You’re a bully, even a destroyer of worlds (of Neverland), in their minds.

    They know perfectly well that their world is imaginary but, like normal children playing, they enjoy living in that imaginary world. It’s a beautiful and wonderful place in which they are the heroes. Therefore they consider it cruel of anyone to ruin their game.

    The signal, the proof, that they know their world is imaginary is that they get very emotional when you challenge the game. Because they’re putting creative effort into playing make-believe it hurts them to be reminded of reality. The emotion comes from your breaking down that which they’ve carefully and delicately built up in their imaginations. It’s as though they’ve painted a nice picture and they’re standing there enjoying it, and then you come along and mess it all up and kick over the easel. That makes you an ogre. They have to get rid of you or else the game, all of wonderful Neverland, and their place in it, is ruined altogether.

    Of course when children play all on their own with no adult supervision or influence, it will become a Lord of the Flies situation pretty quickly.

    Now the next and most difficult problem is in understanding how much of our world is make-believe. Is reality competing with make-believe, or is it all a matter of different make-believe scenarios competing with one another? Are there any adults in the room at all, or are there only various pretend adults? For as the world more and more resembles a Lord of the Flies scenario then surely it is for lack of adult influence (i.e. hard and fast rules and moral absolutes).

  4. My immediate reaction is that she’s lying. The original announcement very clearly made it about being police (for one thing it said they would be allowed in the door only if not merely disarmed but in civilian clothes).
    While I admit there’s a slight chance this new excuse is true, I for one will not believe it.

  5. In truth, this “mistake” is relatively easily fixed, if they have the wit to see it.

    They can simply announce: “we apologize for our short-sightedness. For the foreseeable future, all uniformed police officers, armed or not, will get free coffee and 10% off everything else.”

    This would work, because police officers are used to needing to be the grown-up in the room, whether it rankles them or not. They’d go with it. And perhaps, in time, the establishment owners will realize that, in a San Francisco with frequent break-ins and armed robberies, having a regular police presence is a GOOD thing.

    Perhaps some wait-staff, continuing to believe that xer politics outrank everything else, will get upset and spit into some police officer’s coffee. Then we would see if the establishment understands the underlying principle — that you WANT police officers there, and that it pays off, big time, to induce police to want to be there.

  6. Read the quoted statement again, people. The crux is right there in the first line.

    “It’s not about THE FACT THAT WE ARE ANTI-POLICE …”

    Clearly stated position, yet everybody seems to gloss right over it, and leap straight to the apparent hoplophobia.

    By their own admission it WAS about the police officers being police officers.

  7. Pingback: Quote of the day—Lyle | The View From North Central Idaho

Comments are closed.