convenience and speed have value. it's not monetary value, but it's still valuable.
Evidently more value to socialists than their moral view of exploitation. That's my whole point - they value convenience and speed over their moral theory. This is hypocrisy.
sure, and my point is: where do you draw the line? what is acceptable participation, and what distinguishes that from acceptable participation? everybody's lives are different.
My point is that wherever individual socialists draw the line should tell you something about their morality. For an environmentalist, how much littering is okay? There might be a line, but I will bet the answer is not much. I would say an honest socialist would draw a similar line for material goods. Most don't seem to do this - the consume just like anyone else.
my guess is that if socialists focused on berating individual people for little shit like this, people like you would call them authoritarian and dismiss them anyway. we're authoritarians if we do, and hypocrites if we don't.
Are you reading anything? I'm talking about individual socialists making choices in their own lives that involve exploiting others for their own convenience. They aren't even abiding by their own moral views when they support the exploitation workers for something as trivial as a cup of coffee.
side note: I've never seen anybody be enthusiastic about their daily cup of coffee, and, again, even the coffee you buy to make at home was overwhelmingly likely grown by what amounts to slaves, and just because it isn't marked up at a coffee shop doesn't change that fact. the farm your home coffee came from night have treated its workers even worse than the starbucks farm, despite their product being cheaper to the end consumer. you really never know. idk why I felt like I had to mention this.
Okay if you believe that too then you probably shouldn't drink coffee at all. Unless you think your caffeine in the morning is important enough that it warrants you supporting what amounts to slavery (in your view).