this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2024
476 points (100.0% liked)

Memes

1360 readers
35 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The article is actually decently well written good-faith satire meant to address how poverty and hunger are inherent to capitalism as a system. The title was just too bold lol

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Allero@lemmy.today 72 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (4 children)

This is such a clickbait, and it backfired.

The actual point conveyed in the article is that world hunger is beneficial for the rich as it allows to operate sweatshops and employ people under tyrannical conditions over low pay, which is not far from modern slavery. Which is super bad for everyone else, hence world hunger must be stopped and rich should get the taste of their own medicine.

But people did react to the headline, and possibly rightfully so.

[–] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 11 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Well i didnt read the article but it depends on the framing. Is he defending the capitalist status quo? If yes then he can go die of hunger imo. If the article points out that rich people benefit from hunger and that this is in fact bad, then thats cool.

[–] Allero@lemmy.today 19 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (3 children)

He does directly state the latter.

Here's an archived version of the article, courtesy to TheDarkQuark@lemmy.world:

https://archive.is/MObDZ

[–] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 17 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

What a self own with the title then. Should have changed it to "The beneficiaries of world hunger"

[–] MonkeMischief@lemmy.today 5 points 5 months ago

That'd be a banger title actually. Nice job! The concept of "benefitting from world hunger" is still bizarre enough for a doubletake, but doesn't instantly piss off 99% of potential readers by headline alone lol.

[–] Allero@lemmy.today 2 points 5 months ago

Decided not to stir it, probably

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] INHALE_VEGETABLES@aussie.zone 1 points 5 months ago

I'm not reading any argument against it.

(Because you aren't hungry enough to debate it)

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] kattfisk@lemmy.dbzer0.com 48 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Before you have an opinion on it, just read the article, it's just one page. https://www2.hawaii.edu/~kent/BenefitsofWorldHunger.pdf

The UN really shot themselves in the foot by deleting it, because the title only looks bad if you don't actually read the rest of the text, which they now made more difficult.

[–] match@pawb.social 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

they probably would've just added [SATIRE] to the title

[–] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml 6 points 5 months ago

A modest proposal for the global south

[–] DrDeadCrash@programming.dev 3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

No, the text is pretty fucked, too

[–] blindsight 14 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The text is only fucked the the way that The Onion sticks are fucked: this is only labeled satire because of the tone of the article. The content is as true as "real" news.

The actual "fucked" content is that the author was correct, and that the wealthy benefit from hunger and the threat of starvation to maintain access to abundant cheap labour.

[–] DrDeadCrash@programming.dev 2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

It's fucked that the author appears to support such an arrangement...

[–] blindsight 8 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It's satire. The author is pointing out how morally reprehensible it is, using irony.

[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

that's not satire. He unironically, disapprovingly, argues that this is the real state of the world.

https://fee.org/articles/un-deletes-article-titled-the-benefits-of-world-hunger-was-it-real-or-satire/

[–] DrDeadCrash@programming.dev 1 points 5 months ago

Ii is the real state of the world, but I don't see any disapproval in the text.

[–] NaevaTheRat@vegantheoryclub.org 4 points 5 months ago (8 children)

Stop it. Stop being so bad at understanding writing. This is literally just someone doing A Modest Proposal again but with an economic lens.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago

I edited my post 👍

[–] Infynis@midwest.social 42 points 5 months ago (2 children)

hunger is "fundamental to the working of the world's economy"

I mean, he's probably right, but that means we should work to change the system, not throw more orphans into the crushing machine

[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 8 points 5 months ago

there's no "but" -- this is exactly the point the author is making.

[–] Allero@lemmy.today 5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Which is actually said in the original article

[–] Generous1146 24 points 5 months ago

Read that fee article as well and it seems like the author just stated, that certain institutions benefit from world hunger.

In the interview, Kent explains he was not advocating global hunger but was intending to be “provocative” by saying certain individuals and institutions benefit from global hunger.

“No, it is not satire,” Kent told Marc Morano, founder and editor of Climate Depot. “I don’t see anything funny about it. It is not about advocacy of hunger.”

It doesn't look like he's advocating for global hunger, but criticizing those who do benefit from it

[–] Alsephina@lemmy.ml 23 points 5 months ago

Well, he's not wrong about hunger being an intended part of capitalism so workers are coerced into working for even less pay.

Calling it a "benefit" is very clickbaity though.

[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 20 points 5 months ago

The article is NOT satire -- it's provocative. The author argues that world hunger benefits the rich. Capiche?

I hope the UN restores the article.

Interview with author: https://fee.org/articles/un-deletes-article-titled-the-benefits-of-world-hunger-was-it-real-or-satire/

[–] Rooskie91@discuss.online 14 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

Yo I see this shit posted all the time. The article was written in 2008 for the UNs magazine and meant to be satire. It has since been removed by the UN for being ambiguous.

https://communist.red/the-benefits-of-world-hunger-un-blurs-the-line-between-satire-and-reality/

[–] match@pawb.social 8 points 5 months ago (1 children)

things that were obvious satire in 2008 are ambiguous now i love 2020s capitalism

[–] Arcturus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

There are absolutely politicians who would say this shit unironically

[–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago

Yeah I posted this and went to bed without ever looking for the article. Made an edit that should federate soon enough acknowledging this

[–] chamomile@furry.engineer 7 points 5 months ago (1 children)

@sharkfucker420 It's a good thing "A Modest Proposal"[1] wasn't titled "The Benefits of Cannibalism" because I guess people would have taken that at face value as well.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] orca@orcas.enjoying.yachts 5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (3 children)

Even if this article was some sort of thought experiment, what the fuck value does it have? Even if the outcome was very much “I’m against this,” I’m not sure what the point is, unless it does a good job of explaining what kind of fucked up things this has lead to in society (like sweat shops and modern day slavery). Even then, this kind of nonsense serves wealthy scum.

Edit: the article is very much satire. Thanks for the added context and commentary!

[–] underwire212@lemm.ee 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It’s satire. And it’s apparently doing its job swimmingly because people are on here talking about it.

[–] orca@orcas.enjoying.yachts 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Yeah, started reading the original article and I totally get the tone now. Definitely worked well on me!

[–] ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net 4 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I think about this all the time.

All the "just a prank" folks.

All the "I'm just asking questions" folks.

The "It's just a thought experiment" folks.

[–] orca@orcas.enjoying.yachts 4 points 5 months ago

I’ve seen it firsthand from people before and I’m just like… why? Why do you think this way? It’s just cowardice at the end of the day. They’ll say those things because it’s an easy escape from being called out for having fucked views that allow fascism and corporate interests to flourish.

“I’m just asking questions” is so fucking annoying. You and I both know you’re not and you’re trying to frame this like you’re not the sociopath in this situation. It’s so disingenuous.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] kattfisk@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It does explain those things! I quote:

"While it is true that hunger is caused by low-paying jobs, we need to understand that hunger at the same time causes low-paying jobs to be created."

The title is clearly thinly veiled satire and a pointed reminder that our current wealth is founded on the suffering of the poor.

Just read the article, it's one page. https://www2.hawaii.edu/~kent/BenefitsofWorldHunger.pdf

But I'm sure George Kent, author of "Freedom from Want: The Human Right to Adequate Food" is actually a shill for wealthy scum.

[–] orca@orcas.enjoying.yachts 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I appreciate the added context as I hadn’t had a chance to read the actual article yet. It could use a better title though. In the context of being on a a UN website, the satire gets lost completely.

[–] kattfisk@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I honestly kind of like the title and the angle of being brutally honest about the fact that the author (like most who are well off) actually benefit a lot from world hunger. That's an important point, not because we should support world hunger, but because if we are to tackle it we must be willing to lower our standard of living.

[–] orca@orcas.enjoying.yachts 2 points 5 months ago

Started reading the article and I totally get the tone now.

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

argued that hunger is "funamental for the working of the world's economy"

Maybe he's right and we need to change that.

[–] Didros 1 points 5 months ago

Capitalism is not litterally effecting us, but socialism could figuratively effect us any second.

load more comments
view more: next ›