Rep. Dan Goldman addresses Brooklyn coffee shop banning him over his views on Israel

stevevw · Friday at 11:40 PM

iluvatar5150 said:
Ok, to make it more clear; mankind has always done these things, and they used to do it a lot more and a lot worse.

Attacking people for their religious and political beliefs has been a thing since the developments of religion and politics.

There was a time when nations were pretty well united despite the political differences under God. Yes there were times when there was oppression and abuse. But primarily the west ushered in a new era of democracy and freedoms. That worked for the most part.

But now those principles are being eroded and we are seeing a return to the abuses in new ways. We all acknowledge that things have become worse. There has been many assassintation attempts and the murder of people for their political or religious beliefs. This has not happened for a long time.

iluvatar5150 said:
That’s the sort of stuff that fueled wars, not just spats on twitter.

Then the current social, cultural and political climate is once again fueling wars. because the spats on social media are leading to real consequences in the streets and between people in reality. Its progressed well beyond the keyboard. But the keyboard warriors is what fueled what is said online into reality on the streets.

iluvatar5150 said:
I’m sorry, but your knowledge of history is just woefully lacking.

In Colonial America, Patriots Flocked to Coffeehouses to Debate Politics and Sow the Seeds of Revolution

These storied establishments served up more than just hot drinks. They acted as intellectual hubs and meeting places for dissenters

www.smithsonianmag.com

Ok and this is a different era and a time when the culture became revolutionary. So it was everywhere. Are you saying we have come to that point again ? Your just supporting my point that the culture war is well and truely on its way and being cultivated.

This does not make the current situation right. Especially when its based on lies. Its more or less manufacturing and engineering a revolution based on lies. When no revolution is needed or justified.

iluvatar5150 said:
Sports have long had political implications, too - sometimes overt, sometimes less so. Jesse Owens’ victories in Berlin, the runners’ raised fists in 1968, or the American hockey win over the USSR in 1980 all were about more than just athletics. The US military has used professional sports leagues as recruiting tools for years.

Yes these all fall within the same ideology that began with the 60s revolutions. What we see today is the end result of radicals taking this to the extremes. In same ways a reigniting of the subversive tactics used by radicals back them. History repeating itself.

iluvatar5150 said:
Of course the person on the uncomfortable end of an action is going to say that there are better ways.

Would not anyone ? You would hope that when you walk into a coffee shop to get a coffee you could have a coffee. It would upset anyone. In fact it is the very same complaint that those calling out others say people should not do. Which is denying or attacking them based on belief or association.

iluvatar5150 said:
What are you going on about? They complained about him on social media and refunded his money.

This is a misrepresentation of what went down. They called him a genocide denier and the like. It was right out of the radical political ideology that is causing wars on the street. Give me a break. But this is what they do. They lie and deny the reality of the situation to make their actions justified.

iluvatar5150 said:
How do I annoy people to the point that they give me free stuff? Because once I figure that out, there’s gonna be an Audi dealer who’ll wish he’d never been born.

They refunded Goldman as part of a political stand. This is misrepresenting the reality and minmising what actually happened. This same radical ideology is what is cultivating and fueling further divisions and the culture war on the streets.

iluvatar5150 said:
Then why did you ask “how many”?

If you going to jump into my posts then please properly read my full posts and not cut bits out. I explained why I said it doesn't matter how many times ie just after that quote I said

"Its the fact that such ideology destroys their business and creates divisions. That people get turned off because they are not just marketing their products but trying to inject some ideological and moral idea that has nothing to do with the product. A way of injecting one idea and belief over another. Thats divisive".

Its the baseless ideology behind it and not just how many times it happens. It can hapen once and its still a baseless ideological attack that is trying to force one belief over another. Is doing exactly what the attackers are objecting to. So its also hypocritical. Has no basis and unjustified.

iluvatar5150 said:
Because it’s disingenuous. Neither you, nor anybody else who makes this same argument, gives two hoots about the viability of these businesses.

How is pointing out poor business practies then turned into wanting to push some ideology onto a business. You are actually making it about politics by conflating a simple and well acknowledged principle with something ideological.

The facts are people have businesses to sell products and make a profit to stay in business. They seel products customers want like coffee. Thats it. sell coffee. Thats their product. Any coffee lover is their customer. The more the better.

But to then inject political ideology as a qualifier then risks turning off certain customers who just like coffee. In fact they have more or less turned off near on 50% of theuir potential customers. Thats crazy business logic.

I had Skin heads come into my shop. I did not care so long as they kept that stuff out of the shop and just want the product. They were buying the product for what the product was and not what people believed. This is basic business 101. That businesses are now becoming moral and political arms is a problem. It shows how far politics and belief have crept into all society.

iluvatar5150 said:
You want them to stop doing something,

Yes stop attacking customers for they beliefs who just want a coffee. It has nothing to do with coffee. Coffee is a common beverage that most people like.

iluvatar5150 said:
so feign concern about their profit margins, because apparently you want more success to come to the people who disagree with you the most?

What. I think you are injecting such ideas into the situation and that is what I am pointing out is the problem all along. You have literally turned what has been known as good business practice for a long time into some sort of culture war over peoples beliefs and intentions. Your now dictating the truth of th matter.

All I was doing was pointing out the common and good practice in business. I have had business so I know what I am talking about. The last thing I want to do is inject any politics and belief regardless of which side into simply selling coffee. Thats a sure reciept for disaster.

iluvatar5150 said:
No, you don’t see that. What you see are some ragebait media outlets making that claim without any real evidence.

Now your a mind reader. Your actually doing exactly what the ideologues are doing. What you are saying is actually the rage baiting because it is from your own words that you are cultivating such ideas. Such ideas cultivat ethe very thing you are objecting to.

stevevw · Saturday at 12:21 AM

Stopped_lurking said:
They can decide who they want to serve.

Of course. But that does not make it right. Are you saying because people can do what they like that this itself is a good policy in business or society ?

Stopped_lurking said:
He is free to hold whatever position he wants. He wasn't denied holding any position.

Yes he was. The shop made a political statement and took a position that attacked another position based on a lie. They made it an issue which has consequences as to the reputation and even livlihood of others.

In this case I would say it was around undermining political support for such beliefs the customer held as some sort of activism to push their own ideology and agenda over his. Thats why they escalated this and made the post on social media.

They used this as a political statement that is feeding into the larger political conflict around this that has been escalating and causing divisions and attacks on people holding such views. Really this is promoting anti semeticism like all the other examples.

Stopped_lurking said:
What lie?

The shop publicly banned him, claiming they did not serve "racists, fascists, homophobes, genocide enablers"

These are lies. Unsupported lies. Lies based on their own ideology to attack anyone who supports Isreal. They are the ones who brought religion and politics into the situation and not Goldman for simply being Jewish and supporting Isreal. They are the ideological baiters.

Stopped_lurking said:
To whom? Obviously not to everybody, because then everybody would recognize them.

They are recognised by everyone. ts just some want to deny this with their new ideological beliefs. Certainly the declarations, constitutions and human rights charteers acknowledge such truths. It even states that these truths are self evident and that no one, not even the State can take them away.

Stopped_lurking said:
No one has been denied that in this case. He was denied service.

yes they have. They stated that the banned him for being a Jew that supported Isreal. They called him a racist, fascist, homophobe, and genocide enablers" based on a lie. So anyone who supports Isreal is now deemed a genocide denier and are also banned under the same logic.

Stopped_lurking said:
I was only saying that it is ok to deny customers service as long as it is not explicitly illegal due to anti-discrimination laws.

Is this not a subjective determination. Sure anti descrimination is a truth principle and value. But we have to determine exactly when that is. Apaprt from the clear destinction under laws anything else is subjective beliefs.

Stopped_lurking said:
What position of his did they lie about?

That he was a "racist, fascist, homophobe, and genocide enabler". when he was not. That simply supporting Isreal equals all of these things. Thats a lie and trouble making. Stiring up division and hate and the very same idea that is cultivating anti semeticism.

Stopped_lurking said:
It is ok to deny customers service due to political disagreement in general, if it is not covered by anti-discrimination laws.

I know and business have a right to position themselves however they want. But not to then lie and make out people are something they are not and then use that to deny them.

Stopped_lurking said:
Discrimination because of religion is often covered by anti-discrimination laws. However, there is no stated link to religion in this case.

What, he was jewish and supported Isreal. They banned and attacked him for simply supporting Isreal. They called him a genocide denier and racist. How is this not linked to descrimination ?

Stopped_lurking said:
I wouldn't serve a nazi (even if they hadn't killed anybody) or a pedophile at all. They can take their business elsewhere.

yes thats right. because they are linked to clear and well established wrongs. But simply supporting Isreal or being a Jew is not justified or in the same category.

Stopped_lurking said:
It's not your business, they can conduct their business as they see fit as long as it is not illegal.

Is it moral. they are the ones who brought up the morality and ideological beliefs. No one else did. They should expect backlash as a result. This relates back to the idea that it does not make good business sense and we would expect people are in business to succeed.

Its more about basic logical and coherent principles that we should support. rather than just allowing anything goes for the sake of freedoms to express themselves.

This has been an ongoing issue with Campuses and other situations where people are being cancelled and deplatformed. It is now become a social issue that we cannot just dismiss as "oh well it happens and people have a right to say anything". because its a free society. It misses the reality that its an incoherent and self destructful idea.

Stopped_lurking said:
No, they didn't. They stated that their coffee wasn't genocide juice and asked if he could taste the difference.

What difference ? The difference between what is classed as genocide or not.

They were declaring their coffee did not represent genocide. That Goldmans position was supporting genocide and that he should be able to decern the difference. As well as the rest by throwing in racist, and homophobia and the like. It was a political statement based on their ideology and was attacking those who disagreed.

The word genocide should have raised the red flag for anyone. This is political and divisive lkanguage that stems from ideology. Its the classic tactic that ideologues like on Campuses use that stokes the flames of antisemeticism.

Stopped_lurking said:
He had to get his coffee elsewhere, nothing more. You are the one that is fuelling the culture war with your rhetoric.

No just trying to understand how getting a coffee has turned into a political war. Pointing out what is happening in the culture war is not supporting the culture war. I have not sided with anyone but simply am pointing out how this is what is now happening all over the place.

The rise of cancel culture based on lies and now its spilling into the streets with violence in physically attacking those with different beliefs. Simply pointing out the facts and truth of the matter is not feeding the war but actually exposing it.

Stopped_lurking · Saturday at 1:09 AM

stevevw said:
Of course. But that does not make it right. Are you saying because people can do what they like that this itself is a good policy in business or society ?

If it isn't illegal, they are free to do it.

stevevw said:
Yes he was. The shop made a political statement and took a position that attacked another position based on a lie. They made it an issue which has consequences as to the reputation and even livlihood of others.

In this case I would say it was around undermining political support for such beliefs the customer held as some sort of activism to push their own ideology and agenda over his. Thats why they escalated this and made the post on social media.

They used this as a political statement that is feeding into the larger political conflict around this that has been escalating and causing divisions and attacks on people holding such views. Really this is promoting anti semeticism like all the other examples.

There was no antisemitism in that post. To hold the view that Israel is perpetrating a genocide, is actually not antisemitism by itself. South Africa have been arguing it for some time, not based on any antisemitism. The case is in the ICJ as we speak.

stevevw said:
The shop publicly banned him, claiming they did not serve "racists, fascists, homophobes, genocide enablers"

Or anything in between. To hold that an individual is a genocide enabler isn't a lie, people can hold different views what they view as genocide and thus also what they see as genocide enabler.

stevevw said:
These are lies. Unsupported lies. Lies based on their own ideology to attack anyone who supports Isreal. They are the ones who brought religion and politics into the situation and not Goldman for simply being Jewish

The post says nothing about him being Jewish. Never did they bring religion into it, of you are referring to the same post that I show below.

stevevw said:
and supporting Isreal. They are the ideological baiters.

They are recognised by everyone.

No position is recognized by everyone.

stevevw said:
ts just some want to deny this with their new ideological beliefs. Certainly the declarations, constitutions and human rights charteers acknowledge such truths. It even states that these truths are self evident and that no one, not even the State can take them away.

yes they have. They stated that the banned him for being a Jew that supported Isreal.

Where did they make the statement about banning him for being a jew?

stevevw said:
They called him a racist, fascist, homophobe, and genocide enablers" based on a lie.

Read it again, it is enough that you are part of any of them to be denied service. Nowhere, do they say that he is all of them. They imply that he, at most, is at least one of them. I would guess it is genocide enabler that they think apply.

stevevw said:
So anyone who supports Isreal is now deemed a genocide denier aand are also banned under the same logic.

That doesn't follow. They never said that in the post. Are you reading some other post?

stevevw said:
Is this not a subjective determination.

It's law.

stevevw said:
Sure anti descrimination is a truth principle and value. But we have to determine exactly when that is. Apaprt from the clear destinction under laws anything else is subjective beliefs.

That he was a "racist, fascist, homophobe, and genocide enabler". when he was not.

They didn't say he was anything of those, at most they implied that he was one of those.

stevevw said:
That simply supporting Isreal equals all of these things.

We're did they say that, that is not what I have read in the post below.

stevevw said:
Thats a lie and trouble making. Stiring up division and hate and the very same idea that is cultivating anti semeticism.

I know and business have a right to position themselves however they want. But not to then lie and make out people are something they are not and then use that to deny them.

What, he was jewish and supported Isreal.

Yes, but they never said it was because he is Jewish.

stevevw said:
They banned and attacked him for simply supporting Isreal.

He wasn't attacked.

stevevw said:
They called him a genocide denier and racist.

No, they didn't at most they implied that one of them was the reason they didn't take his money.

stevevw said:
How is this not linked to descrimination ?

yes thats right. because they are linked to clear and well established wrongs. But simply supporting Isreal or being a Jew is not justified or in the same category.

Why are you repeatedly trying to connect this to him being jewish.

There is nothing of that in the post, that I can find. What are you alluding to?

That is not the reason given for refusing his money. Who are you not the one spreading falsehoods right now?

stevevw said:
Is it moral. they are the ones who brought up the morality and ideological beliefs. No one else did. They should expect backlash as a result. This relates back to the idea that it does not make good business sense and we would expect people are in business to succeed.

Its more about basic logical and coherent principles that we should support. rather than just allowing anything goes for the sake of freedoms to express themselves.

This has been an ongoing issue with Campuses and other situations where people are being cancelled and deplatformed. It is now become a social issue that we cannot just dismiss as "oh well it happens and people have a right to say anything". because its a free society. It misses the reality that its an incoherent and self destructful idea.

What difference ? The difference between what is classed as genocide or not.

They were declaring their coffee did not represent genocide. That Goldmans position was supporting genocide and that he should be able to decern the difference.

No, they stated that their coffee wasn't genocide juice and then they asked if he could taste the difference.

stevevw said:
As well as the rest by throwing in racist, and homophobia and the like. It was a political statement based on their ideology and was attacking those who disagreed.

The word genocide should have raised the red flag for anyone. This is political and divisive lkanguage that stems from ideology. Its the classic tactic that ideologues like on Campuses use that stokes the flames of antisemeticism.

No just trying to understand how getting a coffee has turned into a political war. Pointing out what is happening in the culture war is not supporting the culture war.

You try to paint it as having to do with him being jewish (inflammatory, they never do), you say that he was attacked (he wasn't, inflammatory), you say that he is all of the things they say are reasons to not serve a customer (they never say that he is all of them, they never even say he is any one of them, at most they imply that he is one of them).

How are you not being inflammatory in your choice of words?

stevevw said:
I have not sided with anyone but simply am pointing out how this is what is now happening all over the place.

You are using inflammatory language yourself. I gave some examples above.

stevevw said:
The rise of cancel culture based on lies and now its spilling into the streets with violence in physically attacking those with different beliefs. Simply pointing out the facts and truth of the matter is not feeding the war but actually exposing it.

Pommer · Saturday at 3:06 AM

stevevw said:
There was a time when nations were pretty well united despite the political differences under God.

Citation required.

stevevw · Saturday at 3:44 AM

Stopped_lurking said:
If it isn't illegal, they are free to do it.

You byassed the question. The law does not always align with what is right. I am asking is this a good business policy. Is it good fro society that people can lie and cancel people whenever they want ? I cannot see any positives.

Stopped_lurking said:
There was no antisemitism in that post. To hold the view that Israel is perpetrating a genocide, is actually not antisemitism by itself. South Africa have been arguing it for some time, not based on any antisemitism. The case is in the ICJ as we speak.

It is antisemeticism when its based on a lie. Its designed to attack Isreal and make out they are bad. Give me a break have you not seen this lie being pushed by people holding the same ideology that the cafe expressed.

Owned by Parviz Mukhamadkulov, the cafe has a prior history of anti-Israel activism, having previously posted accusations of genocide and statements like "F*** Israel" ect.

Why did they delete the post. The shop’s social media accounts were deactivated following heavy online backlash. If it was just a simple and rightful innocent expression then why hide their claims. It was bad for their business.

They are now being investigated for possible breach of Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon—stated that refusing service to a patron based on race, religion, or national origin is potentially illegal under federal public accommodations laws. [1, 2, 3]. So it may well prove bad legally as well.

Stopped_lurking said:
Or anything in between. To hold that an individual is a genocide enabler isn't a lie, people can hold different views what they view as genocide.

Yes it is when they are not a genocide denier or supporting genocide. Its like calling everyone who disagrees Nazis. Calling Kirk and Trump Nazis. It comes from the same ideology. Its lies and designed to make out opposing beliefs are evil.

Stopped_lurking said:
The post says nothing about him being Jewish.

They knew. Stop trying to hide the truth to support such evil intentions. They knew him enough to know his views and that he was a Jew. He was well known.

Stopped_lurking said:
No position is recognized by everyone.

Yet everyone immediately knw this was about political ideology. Where have you been. let me remind you

A Brooklyn-based business, Poetica Coffee, publicly attacked and banned U.S. Congressman Dan Goldman because of his support for Israel. The shop refunded his purchase and posted online that they do not serve "genocide enablers," drawing widespread condemnation and a federal civil rights probe. [1, 2, 3]

Poetica Coffee alluded to Goldman’s stance in support of Israel, “Do you see how it doesn’t taste like genocide juice?”

NYC coffee shop tells Rep. Dan Goldman he’s not welcome over his pro-Israel views

Goldman told NBC News he was shocked by the coffee shop’s post on social media “because the interaction in the shop could not have been nicer.”

www.nbcnews.com

The position is clearly spelt out in the coffee shops own words. They don't serve or support genocide deniers who support Isreal.

Stopped_lurking said:
Where did they make the statement about banning him for being a jew?

Do you really want to die on this hill. Do they have to spell it out. The ideology behind the coffee shops position is anti Isreal and Jew. Why have they not objected and banned the 100s of other examples where real genocide is happening. Only the Jews. Its always only the Jews. That is why antisemeticism is rising.

But even if they did not know they are singling out one people out of all people and fixating on attacking them above all others. Its ideological descrimination.

Stopped_lurking said:
Read it again, it is enough that you are part of any of them to be denied service. Nowhere, do they say that he is all of them. They imply that he is at least one of them at most. I would guess it is genocide enabler that they think apply.

Yes a "part of them". a part of the genocide, racist and homophobes. That is what they are saying. Its even worse as they are tarring an entire people group. Anyone who supports Isreal.

Stopped_lurking said:
That doesn't follow.

Why. If they hold the same views then it would be logical that they are also not welcome. That would mean they are welcoming supporters of genocide who support Isreals actions.

Stopped_lurking said:
It's law.

I am talking about what consstitues descrimination. Simply supporting a political position is not descrimination. But the coffee descriminated on simply supporting Isreal. Which is a legal political position. In fact they had to lie to make a case which is doubly wrong. Liars should not be trusted with anything they say.

Stopped_lurking said:
They didn't say he was anything of those, at most they implied that he was one of those.

Same thing. This is making excuses for outright hate and bad behaviour. Their media post said

“See, here at Poetica, we don’t serve racists, fascists, homophobes, genocide enablers, or anyone in between,”

Just after banning Goldman and refunding his money so as to make clear they don't serve such people. Join the dots.

Stopped_lurking said:
We're did they say that, that is not what I have read.

Refer to the above quote.

Stopped_lurking said:
Yes, but they never said it was because he is Jewish.

Like I said, join the dots. But it does not matter. They have already done enough damage. They have denied his political views which is the same thing. They have lied and made out his position is bad. That he is racist and a homophobe. They are the ones injecting all this descrimination based on identity markers. Its the same ideology that has divided people.

Stopped_lurking said:
He wasn't attacked.

Attacked on social media. had his reputation damaged and maligned him with being a bad person based on lies.

Its ironic as the same ideologies will object to others saying bad stuff about them. They cite wrong speak on social as the same as physical threats and then go about cancelling and deplatforming people and destroying their reputations and livlihood. Thats the aim. Its the new political activism.

Stopped_lurking said:
No, they didn't at most they implied that one of them was the reason they didn't take his money.

No they named all them all in the same basket as genocide denier. Otherwise why even bring up homophobia when it was about Isreals actions against Gaza. This is a clear example of injecting identity politics in when its completely irrelevant. A sure sign of ideological over reach.

Stopped_lurking said:
Why are you repeatedly trying to connect this to him being jewish.

Because the whol eissue is about Isreal and Jews and this same language is what has escalated antisemetiism. It brings it all in because the activists ideologues never clarify the difference. They just tar everything under the same banner.

But its easily remedied. Just take Jew out and replace it with Isreal. Its still descriminating based on race. Lying an dthen calling someone a genocide denier, racist and homophobe is doing the same thing. Theres no way to escape this reality.

Stopped_lurking said:
There is nothing of that in the post, that I can find. What are you alluding to?

View attachment 380764
That is not the reason given for refusing his money. Who are you not the one spreading falsehoods right now?

Does making the image bigger make it more valid. Like I said it does not matter as its still attacking one nation and an opposing belief. Its saying those who support Isreal are genocide deniers as well as racist and homophobes. Its all bad whichever way you look at it.

But I bet I am also right that this was fundementally about attacking Jews because we can already see the rise in antisemeticism with this exact same language.

Stopped_lurking said:
No, they stated that their coffee wasn't genocide juice and then they asked if he could taste the difference.

They banned him and refunded his money saying they don't serve genocide deniers, racist and homophobes.

Stopped_lurking said:
You try to paint it as having to do with him being jewish (inflammatory, they never do), you say that he was attacked (he wasn't, inflammatory), you say that he is all of the things they say are reasons to not serve a customer (they never say that he is all of them, they never even say he is any one of them, at most they imply that he is one of them).

Yes they do. You just don't want to see that. If this is the case then why has it caused so much division and is now being investigated. Its obviously that others also see this the same.

If you look at the same language we can find many examples of how this led to further divisions and antisemeticism.

Stopped_lurking said:
How are you not being inflammatory in your choice of words?

What choice of words. I used the coffee shops own words. I used the reality and fact that attacking Isreal leads to antisemeticism. This has been the case of centuries if not millenia. Isreal and the Jews are conflated together when it comes to anti Isreal activism. Thats because the real issue is antisemeticism.

Whether it is Isreal or the Jews its always Isreal and the Jews and no one else. That in itself should tell you that this is fundementally antisemetic. The whole Isreal and gaza thing is linked by activists to the Jews right to the land. It goes back centuries.

What is the charter of Hama. To wipe out the Jews. It is Hamas who are making it about Jews. Thus those who side with Hamas and Palestine are siding with an ideology that hates the Jews and wants them eradicated.

Stopped_lurking said:
You are using inflammatory language yourself. I gave some examples above.

I only used the word Jews as this is factual language associated with this issue. It seems everyone can make this obvious connection except you.

Jewish community leaders immediately condemned the post, which was deleted when Poetica Coffee deactivated its account Monday. “Assigning collective blame to Jews or perceived supporters of Israel over disagreements with Middle East policies is the very definition of antisemitism,”

NY cafe deactivates account after backlash over treatment of Rep. Goldman

Brooklyn’s Poetica Coffee had posted that Goldman’s money was refunded because the store doesn’t serve “genocide enablers.”

forward.com

Brooklyn Coffee Shop Tells Jewish US Congressman Not to Return, Calling Him a ‘Genocide Enabler’

Brooklyn Coffee Shop Tells Jewish US Congressman Not to Return, Calling Him a 'Genocide Enabler' | Combat Antisemitism Movement

Over the weekend, a Brooklyn cafe refunded a coffee purchase by U.S. Congressman Dan Goldman, posting on social media that it did not serve "genocide Poetica Coffee publicly refunded Rep. Dan Goldman's purchase and told the pro-Israel congressman not to return, drawing accusations of...

combatantisemitism.org

So he was a jew and they knew it. Whatever this language promotes anti semeticism and they should have known better.

Stopped_lurking · Saturday at 3:58 AM

stevevw said:
You byassed the question. The law does not always align with what is right. I am asking is this a good business policy. Is it good fro society that people can lie and cancel people whenever they want ? I cannot see any positives.

It is antisemeticism when its based on a lie. Its designed to attack Isreal and make out they are bad. Give me a break have you not seen this lie being pushed by people holding the same ideology that the cafe expressed.

Owned by Parviz Mukhamadkulov, the cafe has a prior history of anti-Israel activism, having previously posted accusations of genocide and statements like "F*** Israel" ect.

Why did they delete the post. The shop’s social media accounts were deactivated following heavy online backlash. If it was just a simple and rightful innocent expression then why hide their claims. It was bad for their business.

They are now being investigated for possible breach of Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon—stated that refusing service to a patron based on race, religion, or national origin is potentially illegal under federal public accommodations laws. [1, 2, 3]. So it may well prove bad legally as well.

Yes it is when they are not a genocide denier or supporting genocide. Its like calling everyone who disagrees Nazis. Calling Kirk and Trump Nazis. It comes from the same ideology. Its lies and designed to make out opposing beliefs are evil.

They knew. Stop trying to hide the truth to support such evil intentions. They knew him enough to know his views and that he was a Jew. He was well known.

Yet everyone immediately knw this was about political ideology. Where have you been. let me remind you

A Brooklyn-based business, Poetica Coffee, publicly attacked and banned U.S. Congressman Dan Goldman because of his support for Israel. The shop refunded his purchase and posted online that they do not serve "genocide enablers," drawing widespread condemnation and a federal civil rights probe. [1, 2, 3]

Poetica Coffee alluded to Goldman’s stance in support of Israel, “Do you see how it doesn’t taste like genocide juice?”

NYC coffee shop tells Rep. Dan Goldman he’s not welcome over his pro-Israel views

Goldman told NBC News he was shocked by the coffee shop’s post on social media “because the interaction in the shop could not have been nicer.”

www.nbcnews.com

The position is clearly spelt out in the coffee shops own words. They don't serve or support genocide deniers who support Isreal.

Do you really want to die on this hill. Do they have to spell it out. The ideology behind the coffee shops position is anti Isreal and Jew. Why have they not objected and banned the 100s of other examples where real genocide is happening. Only the Jews. Its always only the Jews. That is why antisemeticism is rising.

But even if they did not know they are singling out one people out of all people and fixating on attacking them above all others. Its ideological descrimination.

Yes a "part of them". a part of the genocide, racist and homophobes. That is what they are saying. Its even worse as they are tarring an entire people group. Anyone who supports Isreal.

Why. If they hold the same views then it would be logical that they are also not welcome. That would mean they are welcoming supporters of genocide who support Isreals actions.

I am talking about what consstitues descrimination. Simply supporting a political position is not descrimination. But the coffee descriminated on simply supporting Isreal. Which is a legal political position. In fact they had to lie to make a case which is doubly wrong. Liars should not be trusted with anything they say.

Same thing. This is making excuses for outright hate and bad behaviour. Their media post said

“See, here at Poetica, we don’t serve racists, fascists, homophobes, genocide enablers, or anyone in between,”

Just after banning Goldman and refunding his money so as to make clear they don't serve such people. Join the dots.

Refer to the above quote.

Like I said, join the dots. But it does not matter. They have already done enough damage. They have denied his political views which is the same thing. They have lied and made out his position is bad. That he is racist and a homophobe. They are the ones injecting all this descrimination based on identity markers. Its the same ideology that has divided people.

Attacked on social media. had his reputation damaged and maligned him with being a bad person based on lies.

Its ironic as the same ideologies will object to others saying bad stuff about them. They cite wrong speak on social as the same as physical threats and then go about cancelling and deplatforming people and destroying their reputations and livlihood. Thats the aim. Its the new political activism.

No they named all them all in the same basket as genocide denier. Otherwise why even bring up homophobia when it was about Isreals actions against Gaza. This is a clear example of injecting identity politics in when its completely irrelevant. A sure sign of ideological over reach.

Because the whol eissue is about Isreal and Jews and this same language is what has escalated antisemetiism. It brings it all in because the activists ideologues never clarify the difference. They just tar everything under the same banner.

But its easily remedied. Just take Jew out and replace it with Isreal. Its still descriminating based on race. Lying an dthen calling someone a genocide denier, racist and homophobe is doing the same thing. Theres no way to escape this reality.

Does making the image bigger make it more valid. Like I said it does not matter as its still attacking one nation and an opposing belief. Its saying those who support Isreal are genocide deniers as well as racist and homophobes. Its all bad whichever way you look at it.

But I bet I am also right that this was fundementally about attacking Jews because we can already see the rise in antisemeticism with this exact same language.

They banned him and refunded his money saying they don't serve genocide deniers, racist and homophobes.

Yes they do. You just don't want to see that. If this is the case then why has it caused so much division and is now being investigated. Its obviously that others also see this the same.

If you look at the same language we can find many examples of how this led to further divisions and antisemeticism.

What choice of words. I used the coffee shops own words.

Neither the word Israel, or jew or jewish is in the post. Please cite them.

stevevw said:
I used the reality and fact that attacking Isreal leads to antisemeticism. This has been the case of centuries if not millenia. Isreal and the Jews are conflated together when it comes to anti Isreal activism. Thats because the real issue is antisemeticism.

Whether it is Isreal or the Jews its always Isreal and the Jews and no one else. That in itself should tell you that this is fundementally antisemetic. The whole Isreal and gaza thing is linked by activists to the Jews right to the land. It goes back centuries.

What is the charter of Hama. To wipe out the Jews. It is Hamas who are making it about Jews. Thus those who side with Hamas and Palestine are siding with an ideology that hates the Jews and wants them eradicated.

I only used the word Jews as this is factual language associated with this issue. It seems everyone can make this obvious connection except you.

Jewish community leaders immediately condemned the post, which was deleted when Poetica Coffee deactivated its account Monday. “Assigning collective blame to Jews or perceived supporters of Israel over disagreements with Middle East policies is the very definition of antisemitism,”

NY cafe deactivates account after backlash over treatment of Rep. Goldman

Brooklyn’s Poetica Coffee had posted that Goldman’s money was refunded because the store doesn’t serve “genocide enablers.”

forward.com

Brooklyn Coffee Shop Tells Jewish US Congressman Not to Return, Calling Him a ‘Genocide Enabler’

Brooklyn Coffee Shop Tells Jewish US Congressman Not to Return, Calling Him a 'Genocide Enabler' | Combat Antisemitism Movement

Over the weekend, a Brooklyn cafe refunded a coffee purchase by U.S. Congressman Dan Goldman, posting on social media that it did not serve "genocide Poetica Coffee publicly refunded Rep. Dan Goldman's purchase and told the pro-Israel congressman not to return, drawing accusations of...

combatantisemitism.org

So he was a jew and they knew it. Whatever this language promotes anti semeticism and they should have known better.

The never said that it was because he was jewish, you are saying that. That is an obvious falsehood. They never said that all that support Israel are genocide enablers, you said that. Look at the post. It is there, read it for yourself. Being critical of Israel is not antisemitism.

stevevw · Saturday at 4:06 AM

Pommer said:
Citation required.

You don't know. Its easy to show. For example during the past and up until recently the US and most western nations had up to 90% agreement in belief of God.

Certainly the vast majority if not near 100% agreement on western worldview that supports feedoms and democracy. The rights of humans to hold belief and different political views without descrimination or being attacked physically or to destroy them.

The historical statistics. In the 1950s and early 1960s, a record-high (98%) of Americans believed in God, and most Western nations maintained similarly unified levels of traditional religious consensus. However, the decades since have seen a steady, measurable decline in these figures. [1, 2]

Its no coincident that this changed began with the revolutions of the 60s which has developed into the culture wars we are now seeing.

The 1960s counterculture movement represented a major historical turning point in the Western world. During this time, declining adherence to traditional Christianity created a spiritual and moral void. This phenomenon, often referred to as the Secularization process, caused a shift in Western society from shared religious faith to individualism and secular morality. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]

https://www.britannica.com/topic/1960s-counterculture

The replacement of absolute religious truths with secular political and social ideologies is often cited as a catalyst for societal polarization. Without the unifying moral umbrella of the church, society became increasingly defined by ideological movements that compete over definitions of social justice, leading to modern cultural and political friction.

7thKeeper · Saturday at 4:21 AM

stevevw said:
You don't know. Its easy to show. For example during the past and up until recently the US and most western nations had up to 90% agreement in belief of God.

Certainly the vast majority if not near 100% agreement on western worldview that supports feedoms and democracy. The rights of humans to hold belief and different political views without descrimination or being attacked physically or to destroy them.

The historical statistics. In the 1950s and early 1960s, a record-high (98%) of Americans believed in God, and most Western nations maintained similarly unified levels of traditional religious consensus. However, the decades since have seen a steady, measurable decline in these figures. [1, 2]

Its no coincident that this changed began with the revolutions of the 60s which has developed into the culture wars we are now seeing.

The 1960s counterculture movement represented a major historical turning point in the Western world. During this time, declining adherence to traditional Christianity created a spiritual and moral void. This phenomenon, often referred to as the Secularization process, caused a shift in Western society from shared religious faith to individualism and secular morality. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]

https://www.britannica.com/topic/1960s-counterculture

The replacement of absolute religious truths with secular political and social ideologies is often cited as a catalyst for societal polarization. Without the unifying moral umbrella of the church, society became increasingly defined by ideological movements that compete over definitions of social justice, leading to modern cultural and political friction.

How does any of that support the claim that the nation was united despite political differences? You've merely said that more people shared a single faith and even that has many denominations with differing beliefs in certain details. How does that correspond to being united despite political differences? Those can be quite divisive.

stevevw · Saturday at 5:24 AM

Stopped_lurking said:
Neither the word Israel,

Yet in your last comment you claim protesting Isreal is not wrong. You just admitted it was about Isreal depite the word not being mentioned.

This is a tactic to reduce things down to words themselves (unless it says the specific words then its false). While ignoring all other words which do mean its about Isreal and the message behind the words.

Stopped_lurking said:
or jew or jewish is in the post. Please cite them.

View attachment 380766

Then why is everyone mentioning the Jews and Isreal. I think your the only one who cannot join the dots. You don't have to say the exact words to mean something.

The fact that of all things they bring up (AIPAC) American Israel Public Affairs Committee as the bad actor and then tar Goldman is one example of how they brought in Isreal without mentioning Isreal. Though you chose not to spell out the words of what AIPAC represents.

Are you seriously saying that none of this is associated with all the war in society about Isreals position in the Gazan war. The idea that they are commiting genocide as many activists have said. When a coffee shop or business buys into such issues its all about activism against isreal.

As Goldman said himself "to take out frustration or opposition to what another country’s government is doing on American citizens who are only affiliated to that country based on religion is outright discrimination and prejudice,” Goldman said.

So have most social commentators. It seems your the only one not seeing this.

Stopped_lurking said:
The never said that it was because he was jewish, you are saying that. That is an obvious falsehood. They never said that all that support Israel are genocide enablers, you said that. Look at the post. It is there, read it for yourself.

Its common knowledge that attacks on Isreal is linked to antisemeticism. Everyone is saying the same thing. You are the only one blind to this.

Stopped_lurking said:
Being critical of Israel is not antisemitism.

Thats how everyone else is seeing it except you. Its qute obvious. When we have 100s of examples of this very same language being shown to cultivate antisemeticism. At the very least this language should not be used as its proven to cultivate antisemeticism.

But its also besides the point as even attacking Isreal is the same thing. In targeting one nation and people with lies and then politicising over it in public to damage Isreal and those supporting them.

They removed their horrible post and rightly so as they are getting backlash and so they should.

Jewish organizations, including groups like #EndJewHatred, staged large demonstrations outside Poetica Coffee in Brooklyn, condemning the targeted ban as blatant antisemitism and discriminatory. [1, 2]

Roya News English on Instagram: " ❌ A Brooklyn coffee shop has ignited debate after publicly refusing future service to US Representative Dan Goldman, a Jewish Democrat from New York, citing his support for ‘Israel’. Poetica Coffee, a small chain wi

4,272 likes, 372 comments - royanewsenglish on June 23, 2026: " ❌ A Brooklyn coffee shop has ignited debate after publicly refusing future service to US Representative Dan Goldman, a Jewish Democrat from New York, citing his support for ‘Israel’. Poetica Coffee, a small chain with locations in...

www.instagram.com

"Assigning collective blame to Jews or perceived supporters of Israel over disagreements with Middle East policies is the very definition of antisemitism. It is shameful and hateful, and businesses open to the public do not get to discriminate based on religion, ancestry, ethnicity, or stereotypes.

At a time of record antisemitism in New York City, publicly declaring that a Jewish member of Congress should have been turned away and suggesting his money is tainted is not activism. The nature of the post leaves questions about the business's practices that warrant a thorough review under City and State human rights law.

Turning a cup of coffee into a Jewish identity litmus test is an affront to the law, our values, and every New Yorker who rejects discrimination."

Jewish Community Relations Council of New York

Earlier today, Poetica Coffee posted a photo of Congressmember Dan Goldman on social media with a hateful caption declaring they should have denied him business because of his views on Israel,...

www.facebook.com

Civil rights groups have condemned this and its caught the attention of the DOJ as to anti descrimination and civil-rights investigation. So this is not making stuff up and is exactly how most people see it.

In fact there have been a spate of employees being fired from their jobs by their employers for the exact same thing. For attacking people for their political association. If their own employers are sacking them then this shows its not good.

stevevw · Saturday at 5:26 AM

7thKeeper said:
How does any of that support the claim that the nation was united despite political differences? You've merely said that more people shared a single faith and even that has many denominations with differing beliefs in certain details. How does that correspond to being united despite political differences? Those can be quite divisive.

No they united under the same God. The differences were minor compared to a completely different ideology that rejects God altgether or supports gods that conflict with the Christian ethos.

The article even explains how the culture moved away from this unity and introduced secular ideology which has led to divisions and conflict. This is a well acknowledged and accepted fact.

Stopped_lurking · Saturday at 5:50 AM

stevevw said:
Yet in your last comment you claim protesting Isreal is not wrong. You just admitted it was about Isreal depite the word not being mentioned.

You have mentioned it.

stevevw said:
This is a tactic to reduce things down to words themselves and ignoring the message behind the words.

Then why is everyone mentioning the Jews and Isreal. I think your the only one who cannot join the dots. You don't have to say the exact words to mean something.

The fact that of all things they bring up (AIPAC) American Israel Public Affairs Committee as the bad actor and then tar Goldman is one example of how they brought in Isreal without mentioning Isreal. Though you chose not to spell out the words of what AIPAC represents.

Neither did the post.

stevevw said:
Are you seriously saying that none of this is associated with all the war in society about Isreals position in the Gazan war.

I think it is highly likely that it was about Israel. That is not what the post said though.

stevevw said:
The idea that they are commiting genocide as many activists have said. When a coffee shop or business buys into such issues its all about activism against isreal.

As Goldman said himself "to take out frustration or opposition to what another country’s government is doing on American citizens who are only affiliated to that country based on religion is outright discrimination and prejudice,” Goldman said.

So have most social commentators. It seems your the only one not seeing this.

Its common knowledge that attacks on Isreal is linked to antisemeticism. Everyone is saying the same thing. You are the only one blind to this.

Thats how everyone else is seeing it except you. Its qute obvious. When we have 100s of examples of this very same language being shown to cultivate antisemeticism. At the very least this language should not be used as its proven to cultivate antisemeticism.

But its also besides the point as even attacking Isreal is the same thing. In targeting one nation and people with lies and then politicising over it in public to damage Isreal and those supporting them.

They removed their horrible post and rightly so as they are getting backlash and so they should.

Jewish organizations, including groups like #EndJewHatred, staged large demonstrations outside Poetica Coffee in Brooklyn, condemning the targeted ban as blatant antisemitism and discriminatory. [1, 2]

Roya News English on Instagram: " ❌ A Brooklyn coffee shop has ignited debate after publicly refusing future service to US Representative Dan Goldman, a Jewish Democrat from New York, citing his support for ‘Israel’. Poetica Coffee, a small chain wi

4,272 likes, 372 comments - royanewsenglish on June 23, 2026: " ❌ A Brooklyn coffee shop has ignited debate after publicly refusing future service to US Representative Dan Goldman, a Jewish Democrat from New York, citing his support for ‘Israel’. Poetica Coffee, a small chain with locations in...

www.instagram.com

"Assigning collective blame to Jews or perceived supporters of Israel over disagreements with Middle East policies is the very definition of antisemitism. It is shameful and hateful, and businesses open to the public do not get to discriminate based on religion, ancestry, ethnicity, or stereotypes.

At a time of record antisemitism in New York City, publicly declaring that a Jewish member of Congress should have been turned away and suggesting his money is tainted is not activism. The nature of the post leaves questions about the business's practices that warrant a thorough review under City and State human rights law.

Turning a cup of coffee into a Jewish identity litmus test is an affront to the law, our values, and every New Yorker who rejects discrimination."

Jewish Community Relations Council of New York

Earlier today, Poetica Coffee posted a photo of Congressmember Dan Goldman on social media with a hateful caption declaring they should have denied him business because of his views on Israel,...

www.facebook.com

Civil rights groups have condemned this and its caught the attention of the DOJ as to anti descrimination and civil-rights investigation. So this is not making stuff up and is exactly how most people see it.

I just think that people should be judged by what they actually said, rather than what others think they said. Nowhere, in the post was there any mention of jews or jewish. AIPAC is not the Israeli state, criticism of them is not criticism of jews or Israel. It is not antisemitism to be critical of Israel or AIPAC.

7thKeeper · Saturday at 6:16 AM

stevevw said:
No they united under the same God. The differences were minor compared to a completely different ideology that rejects God altgether or supports gods that conflict with the Christian ethos.

The article even explains how the culture moved away from this unity and introduced secular ideology which has led to divisions and conflict. This is a well acknowledged and accepted fact.

How are those minor? You guys fought a civil war over political differences. Claiming that religion somehow kept the society unified vastly understates the differences that exist even within that religion. It's essentially just trying to whitewash tribalism that exists with or without differing religous beliefs and existed even as you were "unified under God".

Stopped_lurking · Saturday at 6:56 AM

stevevw said:
You don't know. Its easy to show. For example during the past and up until recently the US and most western nations had up to 90% agreement in belief of God.

Certainly the vast majority if not near 100% agreement on western worldview that supports feedoms and democracy. The rights of humans to hold belief and different political views without descrimination or being attacked physically or to destroy them.

The historical statistics. In the 1950s and early 1960s, a record-high (98%) of Americans believed in God, and most Western nations maintained similarly unified levels of traditional religious consensus. However, the decades since have seen a steady, measurable decline in these figures. [1, 2]

Its no coincident that this changed began with the revolutions of the 60s which has developed into the culture wars we are now seeing.

The 1960s counterculture movement represented a major historical turning point in the Western world. During this time, declining adherence to traditional Christianity created a spiritual and moral void. This phenomenon, often referred to as the Secularization process, caused a shift in Western society from shared religious faith to individualism and secular morality. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]

https://www.britannica.com/topic/1960s-counterculture

Is this text found at the Britannica link? It is almost impossible to read the site on my phone, so I might have missed it. I tried to search for "moral void", but got no hits.

stevevw said:
The replacement of absolute religious truths with secular political and social ideologies is often cited as a catalyst for societal polarization. Without the unifying moral umbrella of the church, society became increasingly defined by ideological movements that compete over definitions of social justice, leading to modern cultural and political friction.

stevevw · Saturday at 7:40 PM

Stopped_lurking said:
You have mentioned it.

Neither did the post.

But the post is not denying that its about Isreal and you are.

Stopped_lurking said:
I think it is highly likely that it was about Israel. That is not what the post said though.

So what was all the controversy over Goldman being banned. What was he banned for ?

Stopped_lurking said:
I just think that people should be judged by what they actually said, rather than what others think they said. Nowhere, in the post was there any mention of jews or jewish. AIPAC is not the Israeli state, criticism of them is not criticism of jews or Israel. It is not antisemitism to be critical of Israel or AIPAC.

Then why are they attacking AIPAC and why did they say Goldman can have his money back because it probably came from AIPAC ?

I think this is playing dumb.

Immediately after the incident the Jewish organisations came out and condemned it. They are protesting out front of the coffee shop. It took them 3 seconds to know the truth of what the coffee shop was doing. They knew Goldman was a Jew and they knew the Jews are deeply connected to this issue.

Then the DOJ launches an investigation over the same thing. It seems many people understood exactly what their words represented.

stevevw · Saturday at 7:53 PM

Stopped_lurking said:
Is this text found at the Britannica link? It is almost impossible to read the site on my phone, so I might have missed it. I tried to search for "moral void", but got no hits.

What do you mean by "moral void". The link was about facts and facts are not moral themselves. The poster disagreed that there was a time when the nation was united. I gave a fact that they were united under the Christian God. Which means they also had similar beliefs and worldview.

Then it actually says that due to rejecting God and accepting secularism in its place this caused the divisions. These are facts because once there was a united belief and then it became many beliefs which divided people. Even God and no God is a division and will conflict. But add say Christian as opposed to Islam and then we have big conflicts.

stevevw · Saturday at 8:04 PM

7thKeeper said:
How are those minor? You guys fought a civil war over political differences. Claiming that religion somehow kept the society unified vastly understates the differences that exist even within that religion. It's essentially just trying to whitewash tribalism that exists with or without differing religous beliefs and existed even as you were "unified under God".

You just said it was a political issue. That is not Christianity. That is injecting politics into religion. Did Christ support such things. Having a unified belief actually reduces tribalism.

I am talking about the unity of Christian belief and not Christian belief mixed with politics. The basic principle that when people have the same belief they usually have the same worldview religiously and there is less to be divided over.

Its simple logic and a truth principle. If 98% of people have the same belief or worldview then they are going to be more united. But if there are divisions of belief and worldviews that conflict with each other there is going to be divisions.

Your example does not change this truth principle. In fact it supports what I am saying because its an example of a conflict over a division. So the more a society and nation are united under the same belief the more chance they have of being united and avoiding conflicts.

I mean we can take religion out of the equation and apply it to anything. When a group is united under the same ideas then there will be less conflict and division. As opposed to a group with conflicting ideas. Its really simple logic.

Stopped_lurking · Saturday at 8:42 PM

stevevw said:
What do you mean by "moral void". The link was about facts and facts are not moral themselves. The poster disagreed that there was a time when the nation was united. I gave a fact that they were united under the Christian God. Which means they also had similar beliefs and worldview.

Then it actually says that due to rejecting God and accepting secularism in its place this caused the divisions. These are facts because once there was a united belief and then it became many beliefs which divided people. Even God and no God is a division and will conflict. But add say Christian as opposed to Islam and then we have big conflicts.

You quoted a text with the words "moral void". I wondered where you read the text you quoted.

stevevw said:
The 1960s counterculture movement represented a major historical turning point in the Western world. During this time, declining adherence to traditional Christianity created a spiritual and moral void[my emphasis]. This phenomenon, often referred to as the Secularization process, caused a shift in Western society from shared religious faith to individualism and secular morality. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]

Where is this text from? The Britannica article doesn't use numbered references, so where did you quote it from?

Stopped_lurking · Saturday at 8:50 PM

stevevw said:
But the post is not denying that its about Isreal and you are.

I'm only pointing out that the post doesn't identify jews or even Israel in general as the reason for not wanting the money.

stevevw said:
So what was all the controversy over Goldman being banned. What was he banned for ?

Read the post, that is all we now.

stevevw said:
Then why are they attacking AIPAC and why did they say Goldman can have his money back because it probably came from AIPAC ?

They don't like AIPAC, perhaps? It is not antisemitism to not like AIPAC.

stevevw said:
I think this is playing dumb.

Immediately after the incident the Jewish organisations came out and condemned it. They are protesting out front of the coffee shop. It took them 3 seconds to know the truth of what the coffee shop was doing. They knew Goldman was a Jew and they knew the Jews are deeply connected to this issue.

Then the DOJ launches an investigation over the same thing. It seems many people understood exactly what their words represented.

Let's see if they get convicted of anything. Allegations are not evidence of wrongdoing.

stevevw · 2026-06-28T01:38:02-0500

Stopped_lurking said:
You quoted a text with the words "moral void". I wondered where you read the text you quoted.

So we have the facts about how unity works. When people have a common belief and worldview they tend to be united. As opposed to many beliefs and ideologies existing together ie there is more chance of there being division and conflict when there are opposing beliefs and worldviews.

The moral void is what the beliefs and ideologies represent as beliefs and worldviews include morality ie (how humans and society should be ordered) under those beliefs and worldviews.

So when there is no united belief then the void is open to whatever belief and worldview can dominate. Sometimes the minority belief overrides if there are people in positions of power who support such ideas. Which then conflicts with the majority.

No society or nation can be neutral and its either going to be one belief and worldview over another. If you notice the culture war is basically about two different ideas and beliefs and this is what is causing all the divisions and conflicts. Because we n longer have a clear and united belief.

Stopped_lurking said:
Where is this text from? The Britannica article doesn't use numbered references, so where did you quote it from?

It doesn't matter where it comes from as its all the same. What Britannica says is what the vast majority of articles will say. I just picked one at the top of the list that said what was needed. You can look this up yourself if you want and you will find it says the same thing.

This is from an Ai search which summarises the most common results. They have links so please don't dismiss this as just Ai.

The shift toward secularism in the West presents a major challenge to the traditional theistic worldview. The rise of the "nones"—those with no religious affiliation—and moral relativism has fractured the shared moral and cultural language that once united many Western societies. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Without a singular religious worldview serving as the baseline for cultural ethics, society can struggle to agree on objective moral truths. This has resulted in a pluralism where communities adopt highly varied, and often competing, interpretations of what constitutes a "good society." [1, 2, 3]

Just in case

This has led to the precipitous decline of Judeo-Christian culture and the rejection of a morality strongly influenced by the Bible—a morality that formed a vital part of Western civilization’s very foundation. As a result, that civilization’s very survival is in question, as cultural changes work to tear it apart from within.

In God We (No Longer) Trust

Has God abandoned us, or have our societies turned against Him? What tragic consequences will come of the West’s disbelief?

www.tomorrowsworld.org

Stopped_lurking · 2026-06-28T01:46:53-0500

stevevw said:
So we have the facts about how unity works. When people have a common belief and worldview they tend to be united. As opposed to many beliefs and ideologies existing together ie there is more chance of there being division and conflict when there are opposing beliefs and worldviews.

The moral void is what the beliefs and ideologies represent as beliefs and worldviews include morality ie (how humans and society should be ordered) under those beliefs and worldviews.

So when there is no united belief then the void is open to whatever belief and worldview can dominate. Sometimes the minority belief overrides if there are people in positions of power who support such ideas. Which then conflicts with the majority.

No society or nation can be neutral and its either going to be one belief and worldview over another. If you notice the culture war is basically about two different ideas and beliefs and this is what is causing all the divisions and conflicts. Because we n longer have a clear and united belief.

It doesn't matter where it comes from as its all the same. What Britannica says is what the vast majority of articles will say. I just picked one at the top of the list that said what was needed. You can look this up yourself if you want and you will find it says the same thing.

This is from an Ai search which summarises the most common results. They have links so please don't dismiss this as just Ai.

The shift toward secularism in the West presents a major challenge to the traditional theistic worldview. The rise of the "nones"—those with no religious affiliation—and moral relativism has fractured the shared moral and cultural language that once united many Western societies. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Without a singular religious worldview serving as the baseline for cultural ethics, society can struggle to agree on objective moral truths. This has resulted in a pluralism where communities adopt highly varied, and often competing, interpretations of what constitutes a "good society." [1, 2, 3]

Just in case

This has led to the precipitous decline of Judeo-Christian culture and the rejection of a morality strongly influenced by the Bible—a morality that formed a vital part of Western civilization’s very foundation. As a result, that civilization’s very survival is in question, as cultural changes work to tear it apart from within.

In God We (No Longer) Trust

Has God abandoned us, or have our societies turned against Him? What tragic consequences will come of the West’s disbelief?

www.tomorrowsworld.org

From where did you quote it then?

Rep. Dan Goldman addresses Brooklyn coffee shop banning him over his views on Israel

inquisitive

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

Future History Slab Carver

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

inquisitive

Venture life, Burn your Dread

inquisitive

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

Venture life, Burn your Dread

Well-Known Member

inquisitive

inquisitive

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

inquisitive

Well-Known Member