• pjhenry1216
      link
      fedilink
      61 year ago

      You clearly know nothing of the coffee industry. Don’t speak on a topic if you literally know nothing. Third wave coffee exists because of the inherent abuse of the workers who actually harvest coffee. That you’re so naive to even think that the person behind the counter is the end of who is part of Starbucks is shockingly sad considering how much you’re trying to fight for something that is dependent on you needing a much better understanding of what you’re talking about.

        • pjhenry1216
          link
          fedilink
          11 year ago

          I never said Starbucks owns the slave labor. But to ignore the influence they have is outstandingly naive. Like, do you think at all before replying? Are you in middle school and have any idea how the real world operates?

            • pjhenry1216
              link
              fedilink
              11 year ago

              What did I ignore? You only had one or two sentences there. I replied to it and pointed out how it’s faulty. You’ll need to help me out because I think you’re using some other form of the English language or dialogue model than the rest of those who speak the language use.

    • @dannoffs@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      41 year ago

      What do you think coffee is? Do you think people with colored hair just magically conjure coffee out of the ether?

    • Hot Saucerman
      link
      fedilink
      English
      4
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You do realize that coffee beans grow in the tropics… right?

      They aren’t growin em in fuckin Seattle.

        • Hot Saucerman
          link
          fedilink
          English
          5
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I think the point the other user was trying to make is that Starbucks already has connections, and they are able to source their coffee from more shady sources if they really want to. Someone starting out new has no such connections and will pay a higher price for their beans than Starbucks, ergo, they have to find something else to compete on other than price (which I think is possible, I live near many local coffee shops, including some worker co-ops). However, you’re still dealing with Starbucks having a larger presence than you, economically, and them being able to source cheaper goods due to economies of scale. I would think you’re already familiar with this. You’re correct in asserting that you’re stuck just having to “believe” your sources don’t use slave labor, because you’re sourcing it from another country. Starbucks at least has the money to check on such things, if they so choose.

          The point that I was trying to make was that Starbucks works with more than just the people at the counter, which is how you characterized it. Moving goalposts now isn’t very helpful.

            • Hot Saucerman
              link
              fedilink
              English
              2
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I don’t disagree, but you characterized it differently in a previous comment. If you don’t want people jumping to conclusions, maybe leave out the hyperbole and try to focus on what you actually want to get across. Obviously “What third word slaves make your coffee at Starbucks? It’s normally some teeny something green haired person making your coffee.” is majorly hyperbolic if you’re aware of bad working conditions in other countries. You could have said as much and made the argument you’re making now.

              Seriously, to others it just feels like moving goalposts.

                • Hot Saucerman
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  2
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  That doesn’t make it ethical? “Everybody’s doing it” usually isn’t a great way to explain away anything. However, you can choose how to spend your money, and if you don’t like where they source it, it’s easy enough to… just not buy coffee. (Caffeine is an addictive, shitty drug anyway)

                  I think plenty of people agree that if the chain of production includes slavery, it doesn’t matter if they’re not directly employing them, they’re still using slave labor in service of getting the product to market. Once again, “everybody does it” isn’t really a good reason to keep doing it. Also, acting like it “doesn’t count” and that you didn’t move goalposts just means you’re not arguing in good faith here.

                  I mean, that’s the rub. If you pay someone who uses slave labor to produce a product, you are inherently financially supporting slavery, even if you don’t personally own the slaves.

                  Sorry, it counts, you knew about it, but tried to minimize it or act like “since everyone does it” it’s okay. I call bullshit.

            • pjhenry1216
              link
              fedilink
              11 year ago

              That is what happened when starbucks started as well. Other people were larger.

              No. It wasn’t. Starbucks was a ‘first’ in many ways. It was prior to third wave. First will always have advantages.

        • pjhenry1216
          link
          fedilink
          11 year ago

          Starbucks doesn’t own the farms. They buy the beans from the people growing them. The exact same thing you would do if you started a coffee chain or you would buy from a wholesaler…

          It’s so insanely more complicated than that. Not all farms are equal.