Cute. I thought you were uninformed but its your decision to stay that way to continue arguments here. Have fun with that.


But that was the actual plan. The mother was subsidizing the daughter's passion project knowing full well it was not a money making endeavor. She would have continued to fund the project until the workers went online to smear them and demand the business.

I read the linked articles, as well as several others. Oddly enough everything I've read says the owners chose to close the business down. I can't say I've seen any article that backs up your claim that the owners wanted or were willing to give the business to the workers. In fact, even you disagree, admitting that when workers "demanded" the business, the owner chose to shut it down instead:


eta: or is this one of those "I was totally going to give this business to you but then you asked for it so NO!" things where afterwards everybody who was there clapped?

The on-line campaign against the owners led directly to the sale of the building by EJ, who seemed fairly exasperated with the workers' demands to turn over ownership of shop and with "people taking cyber space to spit on me and my kids based on lies and ignorance."

Precisely. The smear campaign forced EJ to ask herself whether this was a passion project worth her continued support.

We're being told that the owners wanted to turn over ownership to the workers. Why would they be exasperated with people asking them to do what they wanted to do?

It is possible that Sonam Parikh and Kate Egghart wanted to do so—though I don't recall seeing or hearing that from them—but that doesn't matter if the third owner (EJ) is the one keeping the business from going under while operating at a loss.

If the workers are demanding ownership of a failing business, giving them that business would have actually let EJ off the hook for keeping it from going under.

Now it's getting hard to keep track of...what exactly was cancelled here? A failing business? Seems it was cancelling itself due to the whole nonviable business concept/poorly run restaurant thing.

You seem to be assuming the newly formed workers' co-op would've found some way to pay adequate rent to the owner of the building, that is, EJ.

Mina's World, described by eater.com as "a vibrant queer community space" and by Bon Appetit as "a community-oriented, QTPOC-owned and -operated coffee shop."

Not at all. If EJ, as the owner, is the sole way bills are paid, then EJ giving up that ownership removes the onus of the money black hole that this failing coffee shop apparently was. So she's not paying any of the other bills/wages (whatever wages were actually being paid, that is) and thus is loosing less money than she did by keeping them afloat. If they can't pay the bills for staff, water, equipment, supplies, etc, then they shut themselves down and EJ still loses less money on the unpaid rent given that she's no longer owner and paying the rent herself.

Mina's World, described by every non-puff piece as a failing coffee shop that was going to be out of business soon anyway?

Look, I get that working for a business that is going under sucks, but when the business isn't paying the wages owed and still can't make money to pay the bills then it isn't a viable business. Businesses that aren't viable fail all the time. That's capitalism, not cancel culture.

It puts EJ in a landlord position to a failing business run by the sort of people who would inevitably drive it into the ground, which is a big step down from being a landlord to someone willing to put in the sweat equity to remodel the building and build up the business in the first place. In that latter scenario, there is at least some hope that they would eventually make it into the black.

I have seen no reason for us to assume monthly business losses were in excess of monthly rents in that market. If the co-op didn't pay the rent (which strikes me as highly probable, given their views of how capital ought to work) that could be a much greater loss than was already being incurred.

I don't believe this assertion has been shown to be true, and I'm not particularly inclined to trust the individuals who made it, given that they feel entitled to demand the entire business.

ETA: Where did you find the non-puff pieces?

EJ was already the landlord to a failing business run by someone who was driving it into the ground. Giving the business to someone else gets her off the hook for running it into the ground plus she isn't paying wages and/or bills for the day to day operation of said failing business.

EJ was the landlord for that failing business and the only owner paying the bills. She was already eating the rent payments that her business couldn't afford to pay her.

Do you accept that the business was already handling money badly (the reason EJ had to pay out of pocket just to keep it running as long as it did)? Is there some reason to doubt that a business that was failing may have also not paid the full wages owed to staff? It's not like that's unheard of in any business, nor like it's rare at all in the restaurant business.

Try any source that doesn't use glowing terms to describe a business that can't pay the workers or the bills.

Where did you find this information? Was it in one of the non-puff pieces which you won't link to for some reason?

No. It's not remotely unusual for start-up small businesses to operate in the red for awhile as they build up their reputation.

Yes. The individual making the claim about wages also felt entitled to be handsomely compensated for work they did not do.

I read today about a gay mayor in Oklahoma who quit and left town after receiving death threats.

But, you know, Jordan Peterson got criticized for fat shaming a model on Twitter, and that's an outrage.

Wait, you think she was paying all the other bills, but forcing the business that she owned to pay her rent was a step too far? And that wasn't her eating the rent? If you take money from one pocket and put it into another, have you made any money?

We aren't exactly talking about "start-up small businesses" here, we're talking about a restaurant. You know, the thing that 80% of fail within the first few years, but somehow this one failing is nefarious if you squint and tilt your head just right?

I see. A business that can't pay its bills is obviously trustworthy and worth believing, while the worker who wasn't getting paid is just greedy. Well, if that's your standard for evidence, I hope you never work for a restaurant, or run one!

You have not answered my question. I'll ask again: Where exactly did you get the impression that Mina's World wasn't covering rent by the summer of 2022?

One has to decide who is being more reasonable and truthful in this situation, the owner or the people who demanded to be given years worth of compensation (in the form of the business itself) for restoration and remodeling work which they didn't do.

I'm sorry, I thought I made it simple enough for you. Who was paying Mina's World's bills? EJ. Who owned the building ostensibly charging rent for MW? EJ. So...either EJ is paying the bills which include rent to herself, or the rent wasn't being paid. Either way, she was eating the rent.

As I said, if you take money out of one pocket and put it into another, how much money did you make?

Yes, we've established that you do not find a worker: 1)in an industry rife with underpaying workers, who 2)works for a business that failed because it couldn't make enough money to pay the bills (which include wages), who claims to have not been paid all they were owed to be credible. We've also established that your criteria may just be tilted given your 56 page crusade to come up with some evidence of your boogieman and hope that this, finally, may be that evidence. You'll forgive me if I find that a business which can't pay the bills also not paying its workers to be rather a standard practice.

EJ never claimed to be paying all of MW's bills, she said that she was making up for certain operating losses, to include rent for two years following the initial opening in Feb 2020.

You forgot 3) who claims to be owed an ownership stake in the business despite not having done any of the work to refurbish the building and set up the business in the first place. People who demand to be compensated for work they didn't do aren't the most reliable when it comes to claims of wage theft.

Really? After acting clueless that EJ was paying herself the rent (i.e. eating that bill) now you realize that she was, in fact, eating the rent for 2 years?

Yes, we know that you have decided that your take is correct. What I'm pointing out is that everyone else isn't desperatly trying to pound a square peg of a typical failed restaurant into the as yet to be demonstrated square hole of OMG cancel culture that you are, and so isn't operating with the same biases you are.

Your claim above was that EJ was still covering rent, making it a smart move to have the co-op do that instead.

Kate and Sonam were publicly shamed as gentifiers and subsequently put out of their jobs. Call it what you will, I suppose.

No, my claim was that in a hypothetical alternate universe where this restaurant didn't fail, EJ would have still been covering rent.

I'm curious, do you actually think this stuff is public, public? Like, you're trawling for the most obscure examples that might, maybe, kinda be similar to your boogieman so you find it. But...do you really think the average person in that neighborhood has any idea about it? I don't. Online drama isn't as public as you seem to believe.

I'll call it a typical restaurant, then, as I'm not trying to force it to be an example of something I'm pretending is new and world shattering despite not being able to find a good example after 56 pages of attempts.

EJ claimed that she covered the rent for two years, but the restaurant opened more than two years ago and was in the process of renovation for years prior to opening. EJ never claimed that she was still covering rent as of summer 2022. Hypothetical alternate universes are fun and all, but at least get your facts straight about what EJ actually said.

Yes. The two confessional videos were posted to Mina's main social media feed.

ETA: More public discussion here.

Can you show where EJ said that she was no longer covering the rent between Feb of 2022 and May or June when it closed down due to not having the money to pay rent and other bills? Or better yet, show that EJ was actually being paid by the business and not out of her own pocket during those few months?

Ok, we've established that obscure hardly followed social media feeds are public to you. Have we established that more than a handful of people in that area were aware? Again, your standards aren't exactly consistent or typical here.

But where the death threats organized on social media or not, that is the real issue of course.

It is the most straightforward reading of what she wrote, since the business operated for over two years and since she was clear on the fact that she supported the community fridge for over two years (i.e. since the initial opening).

Can you show how you came by your earlier claim that EJ was still subsidizing the rent as of June?

EJ made it perfectly clear in her final paragraph that this was not why it would close down.

She wasn't worried about the money, she was worried about online bullying of Kate and Sonam.

At least a few hundred people were interested enough to upvote this reddit post explaining the situation, so yeah, more than a handful.

We'll never know how many people saw the initial public shaming campaign, though, since that Instagram account has since been taken offline.

I cannot find anything to indicate that there was an online shaming campaign against Adam Graham, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was given the popularity of "back the blue" memes around here.

This is getting out of hand. Now Alan Dershowitz is not getting to speak at Martha's Vineyard. He is totally getting silenced. I heard him complaining about it the other day on some national TV news show.

A most straightforward reading would have noted that MW and the fridge were 2 separate entities that had been operating on 2 different timeframes, so your artificial limiting of one because of the other doesn't fly.

As that was not in fact my claim, why should I? I have maintained throughout this discussion that MW was a failing restaurant that couldn't pay the bills. Whether EJ was paying herself the rent (as she claimed she had for 2 years without specifying the beginning or the end of those 2 years, contrary to your "straightforward reading") or EJ was not being paid the rent at all (because as EJ herself pointed out the business was doomed to fail before it ever got started/bad business plan and operations) doesn't change things into your claim that during some 3 magical months MW was a profitable business despite the owners being clear that it never, at no time, was such.

In your "straightforward reading", how did you miss the fact that EJ had been subsidising the business for its entire existence, and without her doing so it couldn't continue to exist?


Her money was the only thing keeping the place afloat. Somehow you don't seem able to grasp that.

A few hundred people on reddit =/= any people at all in the area/customers/potential customers. Do you really have no concept that a small coffee shop depends on local patronage to make money, not people halfway around the world on the internet? That's why I specified "a handful of people in that area.

Well, that's the problem with your obscure examples, isn't it? You're trying to prove bigfoot with a grainy photo that you found on the internet and don't even know who originally posted it or where.

We do not disagree on this point; the question is why EJ chose to stop. She made it clear enough that it was the cyberbullying campaign which made her rethink continuing to float Mina's until it reached self-sufficiency.

You're never going to guess who tends to read and post on the Philly subreddit. :rolleyes:

You literally just quoted my link to who posted it and where.

No doubt inspired by the action at Mina's World the workers at Portland'd newest lesbian bar have taken to the mighty Instagram to shame the owners into handing over the business to them.

Not inclusive enough for trans and POC,culturally appropriative art, racist behavior in an unsafe space, a vision that ran contrary to that of the workers, and watering down the drinks. OK, I made that last one up but you gotta admit, it wouldn't be out of character.

I'm thinking this is going to be a trans vs TERF thing but given the black/white, employee/employer dynamic and how it played out at MW, anything is possible.

Lesbian bar shuts down one week after opening because they weren't woke enough

Dave Chappelle Show Canceled by Minneapolis Venue After Social Media Backlash

Are they saying it would be unsafe for a comedian to tell jokes? What a bunch of snowflakes. :rolleyes:

EJ seemed pretty clear that the business would never have reached self-sufficiency when she talked about the bad business plan and all. But you seem to disagree with the owner and major financer of the business, for some reason.

People on the internet. People who are (like you) nowhere near Philly but are trawling for internet drama. You're going to have to do better than an open subreddit full of anonymous users if you want to show even one customer/potential customer.

I quoted your link to the deleted post? Are you sure about that?

That’s just awful. . . ly funny.

Took me a little while to find the original sources and it looks like the worker's collective has gone private. No neutral reporting on what's happening, all activist commentary so far as I can see.

ETA: Here's one source trying to be somewhat journalistic about sharing what's happening.

That happens a lot. A group goes public with their complaints, the "wrong" people get ahold of it and it's either go private or delete.

I wonder what happened here?

A bunch of Proud Boys wearing "Nobody Knows I'm a Lesbian" tshirts threatening to sue if denied entry based on gender presentation and sexual preference, maybe?

Too many AGP trans showing up in French maid's outfits?

Too many straight/bi women showing up "out of curiosity"?

Aside: Hey what do you know, you learn something every day. I had no idea there was a lipstick lesbian pride flag. More research needed.

They’re saying they calculated the profit/loss and it wasn’t in their favor.
Jesus, why do rightists hate Capitalism so much these days?
I’m a Socialist and I’m much more comfortable with free market economics than anyone in the republican mob

EJ had to seek out this tiny amount of internet nonsense as an excuse to close.
She was too much of a snowflake to admit that her business was crap, but still wanted to give her daughter free money.
Cry me a ******* river.
The business failed.
The.
*******.
End.

That's a falsehood. The show was sold out, it says so right in the article.

No doubt the venue was concerned about possible activist disruptions like rushing the stage or pulling the fire alarm so they decided to kowtow to the online mob.

Surprised they even booked him in the first place.

If they were saying that, they'd be dicks, but they're not saying that (at least judging by what's quoted above). If it's their real motive, which is entirely plausible, then people still shouldn't support the venue.

That's not a good thing. It's an indicator of bad faith all around.

The headline says "canceled", but it's really just a change of venue, right?

:rolleyes:
Meanwhile, back in the Real World......

Have you a real source for your assertions?

OMG...Is that last sentence a link?

:rolleyes:
Perhaps I should have dumbed down my reply: Do you have a reliable, unbiased or non-wingnut source for your assertions?

Oh, I see. You want to whinge about the source. Well then if it's so unreliable it should be a simple matter to come up with an alternative explanation as to why this newly shut down bar closed abruptly and remains closed. :)

With good reliable vetted sources of course.

Going by their web presence, I’m shocked that it sounds like these guys were ill prepared to actually run their business.

https://docmaries.com/about-us

Their homepage now references their instagram account for updates so that's where they're probably going to focus their online presence.

Still no thermonuclear takedown of the Libs of TikTok presentation of events. Pity really, I was expecting that story to get totally destroyed but I guess we'll just have to go with that good 'ole standby, whining about the source and call that an attempt.

So...is this employees revolting and demanding their employers hand over their business to the offended employees as a form of reparations or compensation going to become a thing? Stay tuned to Libs of TikTok and I guess we'll find out.

Probaly not outside the world of artisanal coffee shops.

Just curious why you think that a non-story like this would have anyone who wasn't pushing an angle writing about it? That nobody else is trying to gin up a story doesn't mean the source known for choosing style over facts is correct.

Story,...non-story...it's just a news item that popped onto my screen and was related to a previous story posted on this recreational message board. This attempted seizure of businesses takes the idea of cancel culture to a whole new level.

This one is interesting due to the speed at which it happened, almost like it was planned.