I personally don’t like coffee… I grew up in Pocatello, Idaho where a starbucks didn’t take root until 2006, and even now we only have 3 ( which is a lot for such a small area.) But this is all beside the point.

The point I am wanting to make is that its people who actually think about things like this that make a difference. Yeah, you aren’t going to change these peoples minds about the selfish pointless protest they are heading but you are making your friends and acquaintances think about the human condition and how fucked up the world can be sometimes. I think a great slogan for the 21st century would be ” ignoring the bigger issues and supporting asinine causes”

But that’s really here-nor-there.

I doubt the folks rallying behind their Starbucks closing are ONLY rallying behind that. I’d imagine that if you have the extra time and energy to protest a Starbucks closing, then you’re probably rallying behind anything and everything that upsets you or strikes you as unjust.

(sidenote: Tristan, you know my feelings on the futility “rallying” against anything. It’s - granted, in my opinion - just the loudest form of inaction. When is the last time a poster and a rhyming chant not only changed a mind, but even engaged it?)

But even if a person only got worked up enough about their precious Starbucks shutting down, what justification does anybody have to tell them they are wasting their efforts when they could be screaming against “better” things?

Where is the Official Cause Ranking?

What makes one cause “more important” than another?

Is it based on loss of life or level of suffering?

Is “suffering” defined as physical or emotional?

Does one sort of suffering outrank another?

If the Starbucks closing is too trivial for someone to protest because they COULD be protesting other things, then where does it stop?

Is a man protesting the ban on gay marriage wasting his efforts because he COULD be protesting genocide? I mean, nobody is going to die of not being married.

Is somebody protesting genocide wasting time that they COULD be spending rallying behind environmental causes? It certainly is awful that millions of people are being murdered, but if the environment goes to hell we ALL die.

Should all the money and time spent on finding a cure for AIDS be diverted to developing treatments for cancer? Cancer certainly kills a lot more people. Is every dollar sent to AIDS research or MS research an “uninformed,” “willfully ignorant,” or “selfish” dollar because it didn’t go to the bigger killer?

So what cause is most important?

Do all “causes” need to be addressed on a top-down basis?

Obviously, most would agree (even cranky little argumentative me) that you are right the above mentioned “causes” are certainly more serious than a coffee shop closing. But if we call people selfish or ignorant or silly because they devote their outrage to that coffee shop closing instead of something deemed more “worthy”, where does it stop? How far can we take it?

I don’t think choosing one cause over another (regardless of what it is, coffee or otherwise, honestly) necessarily makes one ignorant or selfish or anything else.

Maybe a man gives his money to MS instead of cancer because someone close to him has the disease and he’s personally effected. Is that selfish because he’s just interested in HIS cause? Or is he just more AWARE of the specific traumas that MS can cause and doesn’t think others should have to experience what he has first hand?

Maybe a gay woman has seen is tired of seeing her and her counterparts’ rights eroded and sick of seeing other gay people being mistreated. Is she selfish for rallying against the cause that more affects HER instead of rallying against racism? Racism certainly applies to more of the population.

And, yes, maybe somebody is most upset about the negative effects a business closing will have on them and their community. That’s willful ignorance? It’s important to them. And, being realistic, I doubt it’s just about not getting their morning latte.

The article says:

“The closures will mean Starbucks will eliminate some 12,000 jobs, which comes out to 20 for every location it plans to shut. In addition to creating jobs and generating revenue, Starbucks stores serve as key draws for other retailers, making the loss of one a blow to the surrounding area.”

Think of 20 people close to you. They all lose their jobs in one day. Think of the fifteen or twenty businesses on your town’s main street that - yes - WILL lose lots of revenue from the loss of the Starbucks traffic. Maybe other people close to you own or work in those businesses. Maybe more of them will, in turn, lose their jobs or take paycuts. Maybe another business closes because the area has become “inhospitable for retail.” The city loses revenue. Taxes go up. Public services go down. And on top of that, yes, you don’t get to have your favorite fruity little drink anymore. Is that the highest priority in life? Of course not. Are you still allowed to be as upset as you want about it without become a silly or bad person? I say yes.

Think I’m blowing it out of proportion? Take a look at Rockford, IL now versus 15 years ago and then say just one or two business closing down doesn’t start a chain reaction.

Are these people still ignorant and selfishly bitching about losing their cup of coffee?

I agree, people ARE more important than coffee. But the coffee doesn’t get into the hands of the annoying hipster or posturing yuppie by Starbucks magic. It is made and served by PEOPLE. Real people that depend on the money and benefits they get for serving that coffee. And that’s just the first round of people affected.

Someone I love very much serves coffee as her only source of income. If her place closed down, she would be financially devastated. Bills aren’t paid, food isn’t purchased, and things get real, real rough for her. If it were to happen, I’m not ashamed or guilty to say that the one coffee and bookstore shutting down would become more important to me than the entire Chrysler plant shutting down or the mess in Iraq going on and on.

Now maybe someone reading this has a loved-one about to lose their Chrysler job or a loved-one fighting or lost in Iraq. Then what I just said is probably completely offensive to them and IT SHOULD BE. They are at no fault for not giving a shit if a Barnes & Noble closes down over the things affecting them and theirs.

And if your child is currently dying in a hospital bed because your insurance provider won’t pay for “experimental” treatments, I’ll bet you could give a fuck about anything going on outside of that room. Not the legions of people dying in Darfur or the AIDS victims swept under the rug in Africa or the trees being cut down in Brazil or any other injustice on the planet is worth fighting harder that the one you currently are experiencing. Are you ignorant? How about selfish?

In all those example one would be, by definition, selfish. Is “selfishness” always automatically wrong or misguided?

The fact of the matter is, a lot of people DO give a shit about people outside their immediate experience and DO offer that helping hand now and again - if only in small ways. But, I think, even that is usually a by-product of helping them and theirs. The good done for others is bred from personal, “selfish,” experience and motives. And that is a good thing.

Think of the person you love the most. If you were somehow given the choice to choose their life or a even a hundred strangers, which would you save?

Say the Joker has your number one person at gunpoint and he’s either killing him/her on the spot or blowing up a bus full of 100 strangers 1500 miles away. People you’ve never met and that mean, essentially, nothing to you, but there’s 100 of them.

Really, honestly think about it. Make the situation real in your head. Which would you choose?

Whichever one you’d say, can you tell me why someone who chose the other is wrong?

Secondly, I’m not saying there was ever a golden age where human beings were this wonderful, utopian and euphoric society; I’m simply saying that we have the capacity to be better. Grass can’t CHOOSE to be green or purple, but people can CHOOSE to educate themselves, give a damn, and sometimes lend a helping hand for someone other than themselves.

while I do agree that using the term “worthy” in context of *anything* can become extremely arbitrary, I would hope that most people (when asked) would say that something like helping others in a life-threatening crisis is way more fucking important than coffee in the morning. I mean… is that even really an argument that needs to be had?

as for *who* we need to prove to that we’re worth a damn, am I really that naive for having an answer such as “ourselves and each other”?
I mean, some people really only care about themselves and those immediately close to them - they would do anything to protect themselves and those they love. some people don’t even realize it and would only act at a time when that closest to them is threatened; a type of domain protection. however, is it really too much to ask for human beings to make the choice to have a bit broader a scope in life; to ask that people make some sort of effort to help others should the opportunity present itself? don’t get me wrong, I agree that we can’t spend our whole lives worrying about others and paying no mind to ourselves or loved ones, but there’s a massive difference between being obsessed with the rest of the world and extending a helping hand on occasion. you don’t need to spend your life in a fetal position crying about the woes of the earth to prove that you give a shit about someone other than yourself and the immediate bubble you live in.

PS - you’re still my favourite person to debate with. mainly because, although we only see eye-to-eye about 50% of the time, what fun would debates be if we just agreed on everything? ;p

i’m with you.

i like people more than coffee too.