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.

  • 9point6@lemmy.world
    195·
    5 months ago

    Their reasons will not be valid, I’m not going to even entertain reading them.

    We make more food than we consume on this planet—in the absence of scarcity, food security is obviously a human right, it’s aggressively malignant to be against this.

    Whilst we’re at it, shelter is a human right too, we have several times more empty houses than homeless people in most developed nations—that’s fucked.

      • Angry_Autist (he/him)@lemmy.world
        21·
        5 months ago

        Grapes of Wrath was required reading for me in both middle and high school. I don’t understand how more Americans aren’t aware of the inhuman actions taken by corporate interests to secure profit.

          • Angry_Autist (he/him)@lemmy.world
            4·
            5 months ago

            I don’t think its that simple, some of them will have it sink in later in life.

            Instead I think its more that we have been so conditioned by visual media that books no longer have the impact that they used to. Now it’s movies and music that fill that role of cultural transmission. Just unfortunately the bandwidth on those mediums is terrible compared to the written word.

            • primrosepathspeedrun@lemmy.world
              2·
              5 months ago

              okay but I watched “the matrix” before high school, and that film is literally just an essay on situationism (an anarchist philosophy of the hyperobject of capitalism) with some kung fu and crypto-trans-positivity mixed in.

              so clearly the medium is not the problem here.

              • Angry_Autist (he/him)@lemmy.world
                2·
                5 months ago

                Sure The Matrix profoundly affected some people but not for long and it didn’t create any shifts in society other than now some people had the delusion they were actually in the matrix.

                On the other hand there have been several books that many claim to be pivotal in great world events.

                It’s not that the medium is the problem, it’s that 1) Movies are made for profit, not to transform culture, and 2) Our culture is far to diverse for any one symbol set to be universal the way old Greek plays were.

                Also, the trans positivity wouldn’t have been crypto of the fucking studio didn’t shit themselves over Switch. They were the coolest aesthetic in the show and it is a fucking tragedy how they killed them off. I’m pretty sure leaving Switch’s full story in would have got me thinking about what it means to be an ally a decade earlier.

                But the shitcase studio was worried that such an (at the time) outrageous thing would kill their profit (it wouldn’t have).

                Which is why we can’t trust Hollywood to make our myths and gods.

                • primrosepathspeedrun@lemmy.world
                  2·
                  5 months ago

                  I mean, there are movies that were, for better and worse (mostly worse) pretty important too. birth of a nation, the great dictator, the exorcist (and its involvement with the satanic panic),

                  I watched ‘the matrix’ as a kid, and I ended up as an anarchist. maybe coincidence. who knows.

                  the control of one relatively concentrated entirely capitalist industry is a problem. I agree on that. one could say the same about the publishing industry. and it turns out indie films exist! and are cool sometimes! just like indie publishing! it’s just way harder to distribute them.

                  I agree. fuck hollywood (the industry) and hollywood (the place, which is tacky as hell and filled with tourists and always smells like piss except when it smells like shit, and they lock up all the parks at like 5 PM, and also all the good pizza places are closed or dont open until dinner. it’s super fucked up, especially when they used to sell by the slice and that’s, like, perfect for lunch).

        • primrosepathspeedrun@lemmy.world
          3·
          5 months ago

          it’s (mostly) not about government subsidies anymore; it’s about supply and demand being entirely uncoupled. I would put the blame far more firmly at the hands of edward bernaise and lee atwater.

          remember; we do this with clothes and toys and literally every product.

          • tektite@slrpnk.net
            3·
            5 months ago

            Worked at a job that aggressively destroyed unsold product to the point that we had a form to fill out and needed a witness to sign it.

            Coworker and I “witnessed” each other “pulverizing” stuffed toys by passing them along to needy children orgs and “dumpstering” other products in thrift store donation bins.

            Fuck their “brand integrity” when they’re throwing out perfectly good products to make room for more crap people don’t need.

            • primrosepathspeedrun@lemmy.world
              1·
              5 months ago

              absolutely. this shit is unforgivable. the only cure is the guillotine. not just killing them, but doing it publically, showing anyone who would ever do this shit again that we ALL want them dead, and nobody will save them, nobody will come to their defense, because they do good for nobody.

    • Angry_Autist (he/him)@lemmy.world
      47·
      5 months ago

      This is something that’s starting to get to me.

      For the last 30 years EVERY excuse that has been made about America’s inhumane corporate toadying has been utter empty and meaningless bullshit but everyone just pretends it’s real words.

      I mean the justifications for things like denying children free breakfast aren’t even rational on the surface, even without going into it.

      But FUCKING PEOPLE just nod their head like ‘It’ll prevent them from being independent’ is even close to being a rational statement when we are talking about seven year olds that get all of their food given to them ANYWAY?!

      I don’t understand how as a country we have gotten to the point that words literally have no meaning anymore but it is going to take us to a dark place very quickly.

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        7·
        5 months ago

        I don’t understand how as a country we have gotten to the point

        I hate to inject politics, but this is very much state by state and locale by locale. NOT “as a country”.

        Take the recent issue with summer lunch program for school kids. As far as I know, it was no strings attached free money from the federal government, yet some states used it and some didn’t, and pretty much on party lines. This is not a singular example, but repeated over and over: how are basic rights turned into political posturing at the expense of citizens?

        • Angry_Autist (he/him)@lemmy.world
          2·
          5 months ago

          Repugnicans have been obstructionists so long, they don’t really know how to do anything other than get frothingly angry at non-issues. Probably some of them were angry that it benefited the poor.

      • Zink@programming.dev
        4·
        5 months ago

        But FUCKING PEOPLE just nod their head like ‘It’ll prevent them from being independent’ is even close to being a rational statement

        I suspect that whole line of reasoning is in service of, and/or a consequence of, this country’s aversion to giving people help they didn’t “earn” or don’t “deserve.” I can hear the conservative relatives now… “yeah it’s just $1.50 to feed a kid each day, but that’s another couple hundred dollars in their welfare mom’s crack budget for the year, and WE shouldn’t pay for that!”

      • ShinkanTrain@lemmy.mlEnglish
        7·
        5 months ago

        Clearing land for soy and cattle exports is also the main reason the Amazon and the Pantanal are burning. Two of the most unique and biodiverse biomes on Earth are being reduced to ash and still people go hungry.

        The world we made is too inefficient.

          • miss phant
            5·
            5 months ago

            Veganism is not even about absolutism, it’s about reducing animal cruelty to the extent possible and practical. Throwing out a leather belt you already own would not lead to any reduction in animal harm, I’d even call it an action that would go against veganism.

            • Spot@startrek.websiteEnglish
              5·
              5 months ago

              I once met a caravan of “Roadkill” vegans. They would not eat anything animal related unless it was for sure going to go to waste. They had pamphlets on how to make sure if the meat was spoiled or not, processing guides on how to get the most use of animals, all kinds of info I found very surprising from what I had known of veganism.

              • grysbok@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
                2·
                5 months ago

                Makes sense. I don’t order pork but if something comes with surprise bacon I’ll eat it–the pig is already dead. And I’ll be angry at Applebee’s for adding unlisted bacon to their macaroni and cheese. (Seriously, you have no vegetation options and when I try the “make a meal out of sides” trick you add betrayal bacon? I’m glad millennials are killing Applebee’s.)

            • Angry_Autist (he/him)@lemmy.world
              1·
              5 months ago

              What if I told you the cessation of animal husbandry will result in greater misery and possible extinction of our current domesticated animals?

              Basically all domesticated animals except pigs cannot thrive in the wild any longer. Releasing them would be a cruelty greater than a quick death in a slaughterhouse.

              When we first domesticated animals we made a sacred pact with them: If they provide for ours, we will care for theirs, and it’s an ancient pact older than any living culture.

              • friendlymessage@feddit.org
                4·
                5 months ago

                You’re working under the hypothetical that mankind would just one day stop consuming animal products and every animal would be released into the wild. That’s not what would happen.

                There are two possibilities: policy-driven or consumer-driven, both essentially work the same way. We would at some point stop breeding new farm animals, be it because it’s outlawed or because demand for animal products would go down. Either way, this would be a gradual process over decades. Every animal that is already bred would of course still be slaughtered, just like they are now. This would lead to the extinction of the domesticated branches of some animal families, true. However, as they add absolutely nothing to biodiversity, there is no loss to nature. Their free cousins still exist roaming the planet anyway such as the red junglefowl and the wild boar.

                Also, feral chickens, feral dogs, feral pigeons, and feral cats among many more feel hurt by your statement they couldn’t survive in the wild. For many domesticated animals it’s simply not feasible to release them to the wild not because they couldn’t survive on an individual level but because of their sheer number no potential habitate could survive it.

                When we first domesticated animals we made a sacred pact with them

                You’re very much romanticizing what happened here. A pact requires consent. Animals can’t consent, so there is no pact. Especially not a sacred one, I mean, what the fuck?

                I wouldn’t go as far as calling what we’re doing slavery either for the same reason, human concepts of free will and consent don’t really work with animals. But if you think, we’re actually caring for these animals, I have a bridge to sell you.

              • htrayl@lemmy.world
                2·
                5 months ago

                I would say your simply wrong.

                It is not more moral to keep billions of animals alive, and in miserable conditions, solely for the purpose of consuming them, despite any romanticized idea of keeping a completely artificially selected species around.

                And also, that there isn’t a world where we completely give up meat eating anyways, and even less of a world where we let them go extinct.

          • Angry_Autist (he/him)@lemmy.world
            2·
            5 months ago

            You eat tofu because you think eating animals is mean.

            I eat tofu because I’m broke and its 2 bucks a lb and a good source of protein that can be added to nearly any meal. We are not the same.

            And I likely eat a fucktonne more tofu than you do. Like probably 2 or 3 times unless you eat it basically every day.

            Haven’t bought red meat in over 2 months, not for lack of wanting mind you. I have a frozen pack of bone in chicken thighs that I use to flavor my tofu, and if I stretch it it will last all month.

            I don’t know who the fuck you think you’re talking to, it’s amazingly extra to imagine my eating habits and then berate them for your imaginings. It’s like when your girlfriend is angry at you for cheating on her in a dream.

            • Tenniswaffles
              5·
              5 months ago

              Wow, you may not be a vegan, but you’re as obnoxious as the worst examples of vegans.

              • Angry_Autist (he/him)@lemmy.world
                1·
                5 months ago

                No I will NOT fucking let you end it on this. The whole ‘meat leads to food scarcity’ is absolute twenty year old rancid bullshit filled with the insidious corn kernels of deceit.

                We throw enough food away untouched to feed every single hungry person in America twice over, our food scarcity is entirely artificial.

                Are you aware that the U.S. government forces farmers to let food rot to keep prices sable?

                Do you magically think that if we stopped animal agriculture tomorrow that food will magically become cheap for the needy?

                No it won’t, because the government will AGAIN AS IT HAS EVERY YEAR just order more farmers to not sell their crops.

                This is why we hate vegans, it isn’t just about your empty moral self-superiority, it isn’t just your poorly thought out but loudly shouted schemes, it’s all that added to the fact that you actively go out of your way to find disinformation that appeals to your values, and then choose to believe it regardless of any outside facts.

                I cannot even begin to relate the contempt I feel for people who actively forward disproven ‘knowledge’ with zero regard to its accuracy.

          • AA5B@lemmy.world
            1·
            5 months ago

            Forget tofu - I can never seem to cook it right. I like the approach just one less red meat meal per week (for example, chicken is better for you and better for the environment), or one less meat meal per week (there are many common meals that happen to not have meat, like a salad, or eggs, or depending on how you count fish). I can have a black bean patty without being vegetarian

            Look at what a small change over the whole population cannot do! Looks like a long term trend in the right direction, but heading back up over the last decade

            https://aei.ag/overview/article/meat-consumption-trends-2023

              • Angry_Autist (he/him)@lemmy.world
                2·
                5 months ago

                I like to saute tons of onions at once and use them throughout the week, after doing a bunch I’ll deglaze, add salt and seasoning and simmer a bunch of tofu in that. Gives good color and great flavor, and can be added to basically any meal.

    • Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works
      3·
      5 months ago

      As a US citizen, it is a point of great shame that we have so many struggling to eat enough (and/or healthily enough), as well as pay their medical bills.

      We are a nation with great influence and military might, but the richest Americans are often a direct reflection for what this nation as a whole truly is… It’s a wealthy place that doesn’t take care of its own citizens.

  • cybersandwich@lemmy.world
    81·
    5 months ago

    Can we talk about what defining things like this as a “right” means?

    Otherwise voting to call it a “right” seems super performative. What’s the consequence of making this a right?

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
      120·
      5 months ago

      What’s the consequence of making this a right?

      Just for starters, it implies certain acts intended to deliberately deprive people of access to food constitute a crime. So embargos of regions like Cuba, Ukraine, Sudan, Gaza, and North Korea would be de facto illegal under international law.

      Of course, then you have to start asking questions like “What does it mean to be in violation of international law when the ICJ is so toothless?” But that’s the UN for you. Issuing generally progressive proclamations through a general assembly while a handful of economic heavyweights get to decide how it all gets enforced.

      • trolololol@lemmy.world
        5·
        5 months ago

        Imagine being the only 2 places on earth that go out of your way to be afraid of a toothless organization.

    • Fades@lemmy.worldEnglish
      13·
      5 months ago

      I’m sure they’ll be offering everyone in their respective countries free food as is their newly given right! Right?

  • AnarchoSnowPlow@midwest.social
    62·
    5 months ago

    Capitalism invents scarcity where it doesn’t already exist in the name of wealth.

    If the authority declares food a right, it complicates the artificial scarcity required to profiteer.

    Next up, air and water.

  • Professorozone@lemmy.world
    58·
    5 months ago

    I was struggling to believe this. I mean Turkey, China, North Korea, really? But yeah, I read a little about the reasoning on a .gov website, but there was a lot of, let’s just say language there. Someone on stack exchange broke it down and regrettably the reasons aren’t good. Mostly it was along the lines of, if people just decided to stop working, we don’t want to have to provide them with food or it would infringe upon our intellectual property if we were forced to help others with their right to food. It would also did into our food profits. So yeah… Shit.

    • jonne@infosec.pub
      13·
      5 months ago

      Ok ok, this vote was over 20 years ago. Not that I think the result would be different if it was held now.

        • jonne@infosec.pub
          5·
          5 months ago

          Great, I can see why Israel wanted to keep the ‘starving children’ option open given that that’s what they were already doing in Gaza before Oct 7.

      • Gabe Bell@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
        30·
        5 months ago

        The OP checked. The OP knows it was from 2021.

        The OP also likes talking about himself in the third person. Because The OP thinks its fun.

        • SoleInvictus
          3·
          5 months ago

          SoleInvictus appreciated OP’s attention to detail and use of third person.

          He decided to write a response in second person to hopefully add to the fun, and hopes someone will follow up with a comment in fourth person while recognizing he left them the most difficult task. He doesn’t feel too bad.

          • Gabe Bell@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
            3·
            5 months ago

            “Can you believe this SoleInvictus guy? I just write a simple comment and now he’s got me talking directly to the internet in some sort of fourth wall break thing? I mean is that even a thing with the internet, given that it doesn’t even have a wall?” (Gabe shrugs) “Or is it an infinite wall break, what with all the monitors, phones, tablets, smart tvs and the like I must be staring out at this point?” (looks around with a paranoid expression) “Well, thanks for listening, but I’m going somewhere I can sit down and have a nice cup of Bovril” (slowly backs away into the shadows until nothing remains but the after image)

    • Fades@lemmy.worldEnglish
      11·
      5 months ago

      reductive and meaningless statement, every goddamn country on the planet are fucking bAd GuYs. Newsflash, the majority of humans with power are horrible selfish trash, every country is guilty of disgusting shit. Every country is controlled by their richest assholes.

    • 2pt_perversion@lemmy.world
      70·
      5 months ago

      The resolution said some stuff about pesticides the US didn’t like.

      The resolution encroached on other trade agreements the US would rather pursue.

      The US doesn’t want to transfer technology and wants to keep its own IP rights.

      The US doesn’t want extraterritorial obligations that the language of the resolution suggests. It thinks all countries should manage their own shit internally.

      The US claimed that it domestically supports the right to food and promotes policies to further that goal but doesn’t want it to be an enforceable obligation. (Pretty language that basically says the US doesn’t think food should actually be an international right.)

      • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
        28·
        5 months ago

        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.

        • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.worldEnglish
          19·
          5 months ago

          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

          • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
            10·
            5 months ago

            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.

        • smb@lemmy.mlEnglish
          8·
          5 months ago

          Now see, that’s all more reasonable.

          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.

          The US is evil and wrong

          +1

        • Trainguyrom@reddthat.comEnglish
          5·
          5 months ago

          Now see, that’s all more reasonable.

          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)

        • 𝓔𝓶𝓶𝓲𝓮@lemm.ee
          3·
          5 months ago

          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.

        • NecroParagon@lemm.ee
          2·
          5 months ago

          The torture that is us is karma enough I would say. At least for our citizens. Those in other countries don’t deserve this shit.

          At least we have giga military. It’s useful for Ukraine when the wind blows a certain direction.

          • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
            3·
            5 months ago

            What’s happening in Ukraine is infinitely worse than if we didn’t send them weapons. Every bomb we send is a bad day for someone in Ukraine. Statistically, mostly civilians.

            If you think we are sending weapons to Ukraine because the politicians think it will improve the conditions of the Ukrainian people instead of to fight Russia to the last drop of Ukrainian blood, I have bridges to sell you in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yugoslavia, and Afghanistan.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      6·
      5 months ago

      There won’t be one publicly. But considering the pairing and the president in December 2021 I’m going to go with Israel asked for it.

  • radicalautonomy@lemmy.world
    25·
    5 months ago

    The United States is such a monstrous entity. Fuck this entire country. Someone hurry up and start the Second American Revolution, I’m fucking tired of this shithole.

    • pop@lemmy.ml
      34·
      5 months ago

      Colonists donating money made from stolen property be like:

      Look at me. look how generous I am. 💪

          • wander1236@sh.itjust.works
            11·
            5 months ago

            Technically it can be. Propaganda isn’t propaganda because it’s false, but because it’s one-sided and selective.

            • Gabe Bell@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
              3·
              5 months ago

              In my defence (and okay, it’s a very limited and crappy defence) my post said “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.”

              So I sort of presented a balanced argument. Not a very balanced one, but I did present an attempt at putting America and Israel’s side, even if it was a half-arsed one.

        • joe_archer@lemmy.world
          10·
          5 months ago

          You do know that people can dislike the decisions America makes and be vocal about that, without it being propaganda right?

        • StupidBrotherInLaw@lemmy.world
          4·
          5 months ago

          Wow, a critical comment that adds nothing of value to the conversation, attacking the commenter instead of the comment. Even more shocking!

    • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
      12·
      5 months ago

      If an abusive husband refuses to let his wife have a bank account, should we celebrate his generosity for all the spending money he “gives” her?