this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2024
835 points (96.4% liked)

Memes

45727 readers
684 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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 126 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 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.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 month ago (2 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.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

He does directly state the latter.

Here's an archived version of the article, courtesy to [email protected]:

https://archive.is/MObDZ

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month 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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

Decided not to stir it, probably

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)
[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Yeah I'm pretty sure the title was a bit of a tragic, click-baity, foot-gun. Lol

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

I'm not reading any argument against it.

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