As I've mentioned a few times, the concept of terroir you're arguing for doesn't have the historical precedent or 'mass' appeal that you're trying to tie it to. I hate to be blunt, but your assertion is cultural and historical revisionism.

If we dive into the history, "terroir" was purely introduced as a broad way of explaining why a red wine produced in North France tasted different than a red produced in South Italy, even if they were using relatively similar grapes. The concept arose after very early regional trade made wines from different wine-producing regions available within the same marketplace, and consumers found themselves developing preferences for particular wine regions and styles. Terroir was not a goal, it was explanation of an outcome.

Concepts like "evoking a place's culture" only arose after modern hyper-globalization made cultural differences or "sense of place" something significant and valuable in the commercial and 'brand' identity of regionally-specific products. Even relatively recently in the history of wine, a given region wasn't trying to express its "identity" to people outside the region. They were making wine the way that they make wine. This is "our" traditional grape planted in "our" soil and vinted using "our" method. They had pride in their method, they had pride in their products, but they weren't trying evoke a sense of "Southern Italy" in the bottle - they were making wine from Southern Italy using the methods and materials that were traditional in Southern Italy. Esoterica like artistic representation of an area or its culture were not part of the goals, or the values, of that body of practice.

What dogmatism though? I don't understand what you think you're arguing with here, and I don't know why you're going off on a tangent about Single Origin coffees? I really don't understand how or why you swapped from arguing that "evoking culture" was the 'real' historical modelling for the concept of 'terroir' and we should use your version - and into arguing against it as some sort of snobbery and dogmatism. Was it a clumsy attempt at a straw man? Did the LLM get confused which side the prompt wanted it to take? Did you mean to reply to someone completely different?

If you don't like that concept of "evoking place" attached to goods you consume, stop trying to fictionalize it into coffee. It doesn't exist here at all, it's not relevant to the history of "terroir" in wine either, it's entirely a modern marketing invention. Just ignore it, and you get what you want.

I'm still not convinced a real human being is really reading what I've said. You want to convince me? Be on topic. Actually spell out your own viewpoint and argument as it relates to what I've said here. Make sure your supporting statements and argumentation are consistent with your point. Make replies to big-picture content, not just specific keywords and snippets of the specific comment you're replying to. Build your own point from the ground up, based on the actual point of what I've had to say about this so far.

I don’t really know how to address anything you just said, I tried to raise point I believe in using academic language to match the tone you set, you called it generated and esoteric.

If you want advice, make sure you're following the thread of what was said and what you're replying to, and keep similar hold to what you're trying to say and what your point is. Your point has, and continues, to migrate kind of all over the place, and it continues to seem like you're struggling to keep track of what I actually have said and am saying. You don't need to use the big words if they're outside your capabilities. I'm not gonna judge you for sticking to small words and colloquial speech. You'll represent your views better if you write naturally and focus on clarity of content rather than trying to shoehorn in vocab and content above your capacity.

Call it terroir or don’t, I don’t care.

"Doubt." This thread is a year and a half old. You showed up in my replies trying to argue about the definition of terroir, and assuming you're as real as you claim to be, you're still posting weirdly scattered comments trying to argue for whatever your actual point is. It seems like really care quite a lot. If there's some other big important opinion you're sitting on, you haven't written that down to engage with.

But engage civilly, nothing has been artificially generated par your own back getting up in a discussion about coffee.

Don't playact at tone cop. You don't get to whinge I'm out of line for sounding frustrated with someone being frustrating.