I think they are just saying Starbucks is dumb. I don't know, maybe I am not enough of an intellectual to get any hidden meaning to it.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Starbucks is in favor of gay marriage, so it has made political statements toward that effect. They likely have political leanings that are on the liberal side of the spectrum. When people have complained about this, the CEO said that people should not own stock in the company if they don't like it. So they have definitely take a hard stance in politics where they have also implied they don't care about the other side.
Where else can Americans order a Giant Grande Skinny Frappe with a Triple Shot of Pumpkin Cappuccino Latte inside Cinnamon Liqueur a la mode? The point of "Dumb Starbucks" is to make us realize how stupid we fall for marketing ploys. I'm surprised the "real" Starbucks hasn't sued yet for trademark infringement. I think it's hilarious and can't wait for the litigation to begin to bring the case even notoreity. Perhaps in court documents we'll see what the owners of Dumb Starbucks were thinking!
Dumb Starbucks is claiming to be a parody, and essentially something like performance art. Whoever is behind DS is using the parody label to attempt to get legal protection. No one really knows who's behind the store or what its goals are. It seems to be some kind of statement, so it might be political.
Almost everyone is confused and/or a bit amused by 'Dumb Starbucks'. Many assume there must be some sort of statement behind the stunt, but at this point it is not clear whether that is true, or what that statement would be. It is difficult to see it being any kind of overt political statement.
If Dumb Starbucks is a political statement, it certainly doesn't seem to be clear what the statement is. No, rather, it seems to be some sort of viral marketing stunt, as most things are these days. The stunt was promoted on Twitter by actor Rainn Wilson and writer Dan Harmon, which is telling.