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

    • blindsight@beehaw.org
      0·
      2 months ago

      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.

            • AVincentInSpace@pawb.socialEnglish
              0·
              2 months ago

              “please demonstrate that you have any reading comprehension skills whatsoever”

              “please stop being so mean to me”

              • DrDeadCrash@programming.dev
                0·
                2 months ago

                Who would build any sort of factory if they did not know that many people would be available to take the jobs at low-pay rates

                Much of the hunger lirerarure talks about how it is important to assure that people are well fed so that they can be more productive. That is nonsense

                No one works harder than hungry people.

                […]well-nourished people are far less willing to do that work

                For those of us at rhe high end of the social ladder, ending hunger globally would be a disaster.

                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.

                • AVincentInSpace@pawb.socialEnglish
                  0·
                  2 months ago

                  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?

                  • DrDeadCrash@programming.dev
                    0·
                    2 months ago

                    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.