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
this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2024
874 points (96.8% liked)
Memes
45887 readers
1603 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
It's fucked that the author appears to support such an arrangement...
It's satire. The author is pointing out how morally reprehensible it is, using irony.
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/
Ii is the real state of the world, but I don't see any disapproval in the text.
Stop it. Stop being so bad at understanding writing. This is literally just someone doing A Modest Proposal again but with an economic lens.
This is just a bad thing to say to someone. That's all.
"please demonstrate that you have any reading comprehension skills whatsoever"
"please stop being so mean to me"
I guess the irony is lost on me. Nothing here indicates that it's wrong or should change. Also, you're a huge asshole.
Edit: in fact I know people (conservatives) who are totally fine with this arrangement. They are huge assholes too, huh isn't that weird.
yes. the irony is lost on you. it is... called satire. the author is making fun of the ridiculous state of the world by describing it as though it were normal, thus provoking outrage in the reader upon realizing that it is not.
also i'm not the person you replied to. and even if that person was an asshole, being an asshole would not make them a conservative.
you are just on a roll today, aren't you?
I think "describing it as if it were normal" only helps the people who support this arrangement because it gets normalized. That's where the accusation of conservatism came from, that and the way they tried to shut me down with insults.
Edit: given that there are likely to be a lot of people that agree with this argument unironically, doesn't it seem irresponsible to play some game where you pretend like you support it? Without ever coming out against it at the end?
Really, it's just naked approval, with any disapproval left as an exercise to be performed by the reader.
Do you talk this way about The Onion too?
I find articles on the onion to be funny in some way. This was just naked approval of the status quo.
it is not approval of--
you know what, never mind. i don't wanna talk to you anymore.