- Infynis ( @Infynis@midwest.social ) English1•4 minutes ago
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
- celsiustimeline ( @celsiustimeline@lemmy.dbzer0.com ) English2•46 minutes ago
Kinda like how Kevin O’Leary thinks more poor people incentivizes more business startups. As if homeless people and poor families are just a few business courses away from millionaire status.
- Allero ( @Allero@lemmy.today ) 34•3 hours ago
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.
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 ( @Allero@lemmy.today ) 8•51 minutes ago
He does directly state the latter.
Here’s an archived version of the article, courtesy to TheDarkQuark@lemmy.world:
- unexposedhazard ( @unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de ) 2•32 minutes ago
What a self own with the title then. Should have changed it to “The beneficiaries of world hunger”
- x00za ( @x00za@lemmy.dbzer0.com ) English1•1 hour ago
Professional headline interpreters.
- Allero ( @Allero@lemmy.today ) 1•57 minutes ago
On duty
- Alsephina ( @Alsephina@lemmy.ml ) English21•5 hours 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.
- Generous1146 ( @Generous1146@beehaw.org ) 19•5 hours 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