Vandalism? I expressed views based on facts about the world. I mean, I don't think you can see your own overreaction.
First of all - do I really have to be the one to point out that "ideological" is not a pejorative term? Ideology is literally "a : a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture; b : a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture; c : the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program". Fodder literally means "food". You're complaining that I am posting food for a body of concepts about human life or culture.
Second, it's not my fault that my views are flamebait - feminism is flamebait for Men's Rights Activists. Do we not talk about feminism now? Is the rule basically "Don't make anyone on the internet unhappy" ??
Third (well, more part of the second) the fact that my comment pissed off so many people - even though there is nothing inaccurate about it - is probably actually constructive, because it might encourage people to think about the consequences of their actions on other people, rather than banally participate in what directly affects people around the world every single day.
Just to back up one of these things in my comment: coffee.
Coffee is the second most widely traded commodity in the world, next to oil. Most of the people on this forum have no clue where their coffee comes from. It's just sitting in their office break room, apparently for free. There is no indication which farm it came from, in which country, or how much the farmer was paid per kilo of that coffee.
It (usually) shows no indication of whether it was acquired through a fair trade agreement, or an agreement not to damage sensitive ecosystems, or whether a cooperative was involved to help the farmer obtain a fair rate, or whether a glut of coffee in one country and a drought in another will effectively cut the price paid to farmers in another country to near zero, and that they have no savings or other income, so they will literally starve for a year. It usually doesn't show these things because usually it's just about selling it for the lowest price, and all these other things are not even concerns.
Starbucks specifically has been nudged toward giving you some hint about these details, as well as trying to slowly improve conditions, but that would never happen unless someone (like myself, if I can be allowed some ego here) pointed it out repeatedly and loudly to the people who are benefitting.
Maybe I'm a vandalous flame-baiting ideologue, but I find it at least somewhat evil to take this apparently free coffee and not even once ask where this came from, or how, or whether it was acquired in a fair way. Much like sweat shop labor making cheaper t-shirts, we profit from the labor of people we will never see, and would never know about, lest someone shove it in our faces.
Perhaps this opinion I have, based on viewing the process of how people at the low end of the coffee spectrum are treated, makes me a wretched person. If so, fine, I am guilty. I am trashing the site with my horrible opinions. In which case you should definitely ban me for life, because I'm not changing my opinion just because you dislike it. I am willing to have my opinion changed by intellectual debate. But you're right, in that echo chambers for those who aspire to an elite socioeconomic class that never needs to think about the above-mentioned details, is probably the wrong forum for it.