Excellent read overall, but I have to disagree with an important conclusion of this article. I believe this fact check offered by one Shea Serrano relies on a number of fallacy and I will prove that coffee is in fact for closers. First, the author equates availability with purpose and desired audience. Coffee is widely availability that doesn’t make it for non-closers. Degree antiperspirant is widely available is “strong enough for a men, but made for a woman.” I as a man could buy said deodorant, but that would not make it for me. A further explanation makes this clearer. Why would closers need coffee vs non-closers? What is the purpose of drinking coffee. Coffee servers to keep people awake and provide extra energy. Closers have presumably been up late at night, ergo received less sleep, and therefore in need of an energy supplement. Non-closers have no excuse for not obtaining optimal rest. Additionally, coffee contains caffeine, a drug with pleasant side effects for those who consume it. Economist teach us that “we get what we reward.” Coffee is thus a smaller reward, below Cadillacs and steak knives (although that’s debatable) but the reward principle is still play. Coffee is a positive reward to be given to those who have earned it through the process of closing. The overall purpose of Baldwin’s monologue is to introduce a new schema of rewards and punishment (Cadillacs, knives, firing etc…) thus his designation of coffee falls within the larger context of what his mission. The logical conclusion is that coffee therefore for closers, even if incorrectly appropriated by non-closers on occasion. Bladwin is attempt to stop the misappropriation of coffee and is therefore justified.