Two women who visited Kerbey Lane's Guadalupe Street location visited the popular eatery near UT-Austin's campus on Sunday morning and were harassed by a patron at the restaurant while the staff and customers watched silently. Both of the women shared the racist interaction they experienced on Facebook.
Did this happen as reported? Statement Analysis gets to the truth. I. The Statement II. The Statement With Analysis and emphasis added III. The Conclusion of the Matter
I have never felt more dehumanized and humiliated than I did this morning. Leilah and I went to go grab breakfast at Kerbey Lane Cafe today. She went to park her car and I went to grab us a table. As I'm waiting, this older man begins watching her park through the window, he begins to insult her parking skills and I stay quiet. Then he says, "She should just go back to Saudi Arabia where she came from." and nobody said anything. I literally couldn't believe he said that and I asked him to repeat what he had just said. Maybe I should have let it go, maybe I set myself up for this, but I couldn't believe what he said and I guess I hoped someone would have the humanity to acknowledge it because their silence hurt just as much as his words. But nobody cared when he repeated it and they didn't care when he added, "And the same goes for you. What? You have a gun in there? Just go ahead and shoot me." At this point the management got up and came over and proceeded to seat him in a pathetic attempt to deescalate the situation. They chose to seat the racist guy who just made a girl cry right in from them, rather than us. When we spoke to management, they basically said they were sorry it happened, but they can't do anything. They couldn't not seat him. The man is across from and watching this whole thing unfold and Leilah goes to talk to him and he says the same things in front of the entire restaurant and nobody says a single thing. As we turn to leave, Leilah, in tears, says, "Just go everyone knows we were told very racist things and this restaurant doesn't feel the need to address it because who cares about us?" And somebody called out, "Nobody." and we left. Because it was true.
The media's response has been to condemn Islamophobia, the restaurant and even the CEO, but did not question the statements. II. The Statement With Analysis and Emphasis Added This is a broad-stroked analysis and is for the purpose of discerning if the event is truthful or not. Therefore, the analysis is limited to this, rather than seeking content or profile. I have never felt more dehumanized and humiliated than I did this morning. The subject begins with the pronoun "I" which is a good beginning, but we first note that she begins with her emotions. This is not expected. The first sentence is always important and often the reason for writing. Here the subject began with the emotions of "dehumanization" and "humiliation." "Dehumanization" is to be made to feel like one is not even a "human", while "humiliation" is closer to an embarrassment, shame, lack of dignity, etc. It is the location of the emotions that we look at. In reliable accounts that are chronologically close to the event, especially one that actually "dehumanizes" someone, we expect to find the emotions after theevent. By placing them first, not only does this speak to priority, but it suggests that the analyst should consider artificial placement of the emotions in the editing process. In something humiliating, the event is reported and then the emotional impact. This is because it takes time to process emotions. When 'editorializing' is done, rather than truthful reporting, they are often in the logical part of the statement. This is to be now in front, or a priority. We now look to see if the subject is going to report from memory that which caused her to feel less than human and humiliated. This should follow the formula for reliability: The pronoun "I" with past tense verbs, without qualification, of what happened to cause these severe emotions. The only exception to this is when a significant amount of time has passed and the subject has had lots of time to process the event.
With something this severe, months, or even years, are often the time noted to find the emotions located early on, or during the event. We now look for the subject to tell us when this happened. If it was months or years ago, the emotions should be seen as appropriate. If it was recent, the emotions should be questioned as "artificially placed" there for the purpose of persuasion, rather than truthful reporting.
Leilah and I went to go grab breakfast at Kerbey Lane Cafe today. The subject answers our question: "today", which indicates that the "dehumanization" and "humiliation' are now in question. Please note that the subject feels the need to write "why" she had gone to the Cafe, though no one has asked her. This is an indication of anticipating being asked why she went there, and is a strong signal of sensitivity that indicates that information has been withheld.
She went to park her car and I went to grab us a table. Here we have two more explanations as to "why" something was. This is to show that the subject and her friend are separated and that she anticipated being asked why they were not together. Since this is an open statement, there is no one asking, "Why did you...?", making the need to explain another indication that she is withholding critical information here. This is colored in "blue", which is the most sensitive in the color sensitivity scale. As we now have a "cluster of blues" here, it is indicative that something else took place here, involving her and her friend, that she is now suppressing. Please note: the missing information here is directly related to the account, but it comes before the account. As I'm waiting, this older man begins watching her park through the window, he begins to insult her parking skills and I stay quiet. Reliable accounts follow the formula for reliability: the pronoun "I" and the past tense verbs. Here, she tells us what the older man "begins" doing, and through "the" window, but now who's window. The cafe? His car? Note she does not say, "he said you're a bad driver" but he "begins" to insult her parking skills. She does not tell us reliably in the past tense, nor does she tell us what the insults were. Remember, the subject wants us to know she has been "Dehumanized" which is language most associated with rape and violent crime in which a perpetrator's own hands were upon the victim. It is a very strong word.
Then he says, "She should just go back to Saudi Arabia where she came from." and nobody said anything. She does not report this in the past tense, nor does she tell us how the man knew she was from Saudi Arabia. Note "nobody said anything" does not identify who "nobody" was. Please note that "says" is present tense language. We sometimes hear victims suffering from PTSD use present tense language from critical trauma, as the effect is ongoing. That he "insulted her parking skills" is noted in context and then "Saudi Arabia" is specifically noted.
I literally couldn't believe he said that and I asked him to repeat what he had just said. Note that she does not say "I did not believe" nor "couldn't believe" but "literally" which seeks emphasis. If she heard this, she heard this, but here she has the need to persuade (NTP) which weakens her assertion. Note communicative language. In telling someone to repeat what they just said, there is a form of challenge. The subject allows for this:
Maybe I should have let it go, maybe I set myself up for this, but I couldn't believe what he said and I guess I hoped someone would have the humanity to acknowledge it because their silence hurt just as much as his words. Here we have the belief from "literal" to just belief, and she now moves to past tense, with "I hoped someone would have the humanity..." and equates "silence" with the same hurt as being told to go back to Saudi Arabia.
But nobody cared when he repeated it Here she assigns motive (lack of caring) to silence. She does not allow for anyone to have not heard it, or to avoid confrontation; she asserts to know their motive. Please note the word "silence" above, with "care" here: the connection is very important to the subject. and they didn't care when he added, "And the same goes for you. What? You have a gun in there? Just go ahead and shoot me." Here, "care" is repeated, but then a quote is directly given, except that this is now directed towards her. "when he added" is not to say, "He told me..." This is a move towards passivity in language and the analyst should consider that this may not be accurate.
At this point the management got up and came over and proceeded to seat him in a pathetic attempt to deescalate the situation. Here she identifies "the management" and not "a manager" or "managers", but "the management" who may have realized that something is being said by her and the man.
They chose to seat the racist guy who just made a girl cry right in from them, rather than us.
She decries the racism while labeling him "the racist guy" but then tells us "who just made a girl cry" without telling us what happened to make anyone cry. Note the editorializing with "pathetic attempt to deescalate the situation." She does not say "they tried to deescalate the man" but "the situation" of which she, herself, is part of. This is recognized by her as she sees herself, via questioning, as possibly unwise in asking him to repeat himself. When we spoke to management, they basically said they were sorry it happened, but they can't do anything. "Basically" tells us that there are other things they said to her, that she does not want to communicate. They couldn't not seat him. The man is across from and watching this whole thing unfold and Leilah goes to talk to him and he says the same things in front of the entire restaurant and nobody says a single thing. As we turn to leave, Leilah, in tears, says, "Just go everyone knows we were told very racist things and this restaurant doesn't feel the need to address it because who cares about us?" And somebody called out, "Nobody." and we left. Because it was true. Please note the same extreme sensitivity in blue is again noted, with the need to explain why "Leilah" went to him. She withholds what she and Leilah both said. This need to withhold information was found before entering the cafe. The word "left" means that there is more missing information that is being "suppressed" rather than simply withheld, here, in context. This is because it is highly emotional and the brain remains at the cafe, even though chronologically, the story should be moving forward.
III. Conclusion Deception Indicated The subject tells us that she has a need to explain why she and Leilah were separated before hand and gives us enough signals to know that she has deliberately withheld some information but has suppressed information as well. The difference between the two is emotion. It is likely that something happened to cause her to get out of the car which needs to be withheld from us. When she describes the altercation, she does not tell us much about what she and her friend said, and moves into the unreliable present tense language. She and her friend may have had an extreme disagreement entering in and someone likely made a comment about her parking, but it there where the language changes and she is deceptive. She likely said many things she does not want repeated and this is likely associated with racism on her part. That she gave the exact country of origin is not reliable. Not only is she deceptive about what happened but she is also telling us something else: The language of "dehumanization" and "humiliation" did not come from her exchange with a man over parking or over anything else. This is the language of early childhood sexual abuse and trauma, which is why "silence" enrages her as it did. She is an opportunist using this as a false report of "Islamophobia" which is both done and encouraged by CAIR, but in doing so, she is revealing to us some form of PTSD like symptoms from early trauma, of her own. Something with her friend triggered her, and in the cafe, she was likely the aggressor, making a wisecrack remark from a man about parking into something far more serious and traumatizing. The dehumanization does not fit the story, and the emotions show artificial placement. Yet even in this, there is something amiss within her own life, and by seeking publicity, she is seeking empowerment. It is a case of "fake hate" and one who is desperate to be "un-silenced", which should be explored in her own life. She reveals one who deliberately stirred up trouble, and her need to persuade reveals her motive. That media went ahead and condemned the cafe, management, the CEO and so on, is to show no discernment for truth, as 'narrative trumps truth' in this case. She would not want us to hear from the customer who said something about parking, but she reveals that she walked into that cafe ready to blow, and eager to find a way to vent. Those with agenda will find a way to have an event to 'prove' their agenda. Fake Hate harms the victims who may fear coming forward. This reminds me of the "fake hate" from last summer in which a black woman in Maine who "campaigns" against racism and who had connected with a white female journalist who also campaigns against racism in Maine. The black woman sought traffic for her blog, and the journalist sought a news story about racism in a place where few incidents of racism against blacks exist. They both just happened to be shopping in the very same outdoor street in the very same town at the very same time when someone yelled "N*****", and both heard it. They, too, showed deception. Those with the agenda will go out and seek agenda situations, and if they fail to find them, they will invent, create, or cause one.