I don't hate the idea in general (a lot of cafes near me are laptop-free!), but the framing in this post is so judge-y and negative. There was a few sentences in the beginning were positive, but it quickly devolved into ranting about things that have changed and improved the lives for millions.
Are iPhones overbearing? Sure. But they enable people to stay connected with family, meet new people, work remotely, and more. I'm not against a place that prefers phones stay in your pocket, but why frame it via moral outrage rather than being welcoming? Can you imagine the conversations you'd find yourself in at this place, given this is how the "owner" sees the world?
And maybe what bothers me the most is that it's a blog post. Written on a screen and read via a screen. Blog posts are cheap to write; building a true Third Place is really really hard.
I'd rather do it here from home because if we're being sanctimonious I'd be opposed to giving them any funds that further their goals, no matter to what degree.
Open dialogue is the only way to change what you perceive to be the issue here - either by correcting misconceptions about the original intent or providing perspective to the originator of what otherwise sounds like a pretty good idea.
Ironically, this kind of refusal to engage because of perceived imperfections that somehow nullify all else is really the kind of unhealthy thinking that is most amplified in modern online discourse and arguably leads to posts like this one.
Growth is a collective process, and doesn’t happen in a vacuum.
Can you please point out where the post judges people for using screens? I see "don't use screens here", which isn't a judgment of people who use screens, it's just a rule.
Your statement, however, is very judgemental. Especially of a place you have never been and appear to have decided to never visit. For clarity, here's what I consider the harshest judgemental part you posted: "Can you imagine the conversations you'd find yourself in at this place, given this is how the "owner" sees the world?"
Finally, I'm pretty sure the original article is some sort of creative prose or story, given the rest of the cmart site. If so, then its appears to have illicited strong reactions, which may be a sort of success in itself.
>Can you please point out where the post judges people for using screens?
yes, right here:
> . . You can listen to your inner voice, your fellow patrons, and the birds outside. Maybe you’ll have some new ideas.
and don't tell me that's not judging, this is a no judgement space, just remain silent and reflect on what I'm pointing out, and maybe you'll have some new ideas.
(just wanted to make sure you can hear the air of superiority that the cafe has)
Right there with you. I simultaneously love my smartphone and everything it has enabled for me and billions of fellow humans, _and_ frequently advocate for taking breaks from it to interact with real people for a change.
A (clearly hypothetical in this case) cafe where screens are banned seems like a perfect place to do that. But I would hate for it to be at a place that is this aggressive.
It's light-hearted/snarky/humorous/satirical. You're reading it completely straight-laced which is not the authorial intent. Surely the joke about buses and "we killed God" was a hint?
Are iPhones overbearing? Sure. But they enable people to stay connected with family, meet new people, work remotely, and more. I'm not against a place that prefers phones stay in your pocket, but why frame it via moral outrage rather than being welcoming? Can you imagine the conversations you'd find yourself in at this place, given this is how the "owner" sees the world?
And maybe what bothers me the most is that it's a blog post. Written on a screen and read via a screen. Blog posts are cheap to write; building a true Third Place is really really hard.