- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
According to the debate, they had their reasons. But still – when one hundred and eighty six nations say one thing, and two say another, you have to wonder about the two.
According to the debate, they had their reasons. But still – when one hundred and eighty six nations say one thing, and two say another, you have to wonder about the two.
Now see, that’s all more reasonable.
The US is evil and wrong here, don’t get me wrong, but it’s much more understandable than some cartoon villain esque reason people were speculating on.
Except if US really supported the right to food, domestically, then wellfare benefits and minimum wage would be higher, Price controls would be in place for staple foods, and there would be more regulation on food safety.
US just doesnt like being told what to do, and will adamantly do the exact opposite of any good if anyone but Muricuh suggests it.
because whats a bunch of malnourished babies and driving people to crime for basic necessities, compared to FrEeDuMb
Yeah, unfortunately this seems to be the take with many resolutions. The U.S. doesn’t even want the possibility of being compelled to do something.
Always, ALWAYS be skeptical of the reflexive “US is evil” posts you see on lemmy.
Ehhh it’s really just thinly vieled excuses. Hopefully having a VP who enacted universal free school meals changes things a bit (and current polling shows a really strong chance he’ll be the VP in 5 months)
How is it reasonable at all? The US throws out enough food per year to feed the entire world. They could easily do this, they just don’t want to because they’re evil and would rather make money than feed people.
That is only “more reasonable” when you ignore the reality that “disliking some parts” of a resolution usually is followed by not voting, but they explicitly voted against thus made any argument why they did not vote ‘for’ that right a clearly undenieable lie.
maybe the world should follow their vote to the point, those countries voting against should be prevented from receiving food from other countries for free, especially fishing industry that rips off resources on the open seas or near other countries should be physically stopped with force if they come from or go to the countries that voted against a right for food for everyone. That would only be reasonable as they explicitly wanted such a right to not exist, thus it should be explicitly removed in practice from them too. The countries who voted for a right for food then just put a freely increaseable tax on every gram(!) of food exported to those countries that don’t want food to be a right for everyone. And then the against voters can have what their wish they explicitly voted for. i like that idea: those who don’t want food as a right, shouldn’t have that right then. period.
+1
Honestly Lemmy mainstream, biggest comms are pretty damn stupid already. It’s all infinite outrage fest or exhausting doomerism.
In much more advanced stage than any area of internet I have seen.
Yeah it’s kinda sad, but older Reddit replacements were like that too.
It’s actively detrimental, I gotta change my usage pattern
It will hopefully get better as it gets larger?
“Mainstream” Reddit was always awful too, the niches are where its at. And those are just babies on Lemmy now.
I usually put it in less diplomatic terms: lemmy’s community is the dumbest bunch of idiots I’ve seen outside of religious communities.
Eh I mean there’s a lot of communists here and tankies. So that’s bound to be a bit detached from real world or fully detached.
There’s this peculiar subreddit r/collapse and I seen lots of similarities and overlap with lemmy
My theory is that collapse and communism are religions of modern times because it is easier to blame something and hope for rapture/revolution than to act