As millions of Americans are about to go hungry due to the US government refusing to fund SNAP, just remember that only two countries voted against making food a basic human right. The US and the terrorist colony of Israel

      • Atomic@sh.itjust.works
        10·
        3 days ago

        1 month difference, 1 year difference, 6 missed votes, 60 missed votes, Either the information is correct, or it isn’t. There’s no excuse to have incorrect dates and votes when the information is available to everyone.

        The reason for the difference is because OP didn’t bother to look into any of it. He probably just heard from someone that USA and Israel voted No on this topic, and that was enough, the rest didn’t matter to him.

        So, this is why you should be cautions

        • Smoogs@lemmy.worldEnglish
          9·
          2 days ago

          I’d usually be with you on batting away the misinformation but all that was brought here to make your point was negligible and completely missing the overall point.

          So I’m also cautious of derailing underlying topics just to be nit picky. It’s rude on it’s face and self serving at it’s root.

        • IndustryStandard@lemmy.world
          8·
          2 days ago

          You are technically right but the essence of only America and Israel voting against it is still correct. If anything Israel is getting away with it a bit too easily by being so small

          • Atomic@sh.itjust.works
            5·
            2 days ago

            Yes, but how would you know that’s the 1 out of 4 pieces of information that is correct? Especially when they don’t even provide the source of the information.

            The point is not about the 1 out of 4 pieces of information that was correct, the point is to not take info-graphics at face value without verifying the source. To be vigilant and critical of that which doesn’t provide a source.

            And honestly,if the lack of sources didn’t catch your eye, the fact that the date in the image has a mismatched font and font size to the rest of the text, should. It stuck out like a sore thumb, and that was my first clue that I need to find the actual source.

        • foggianism@lemmy.world
          6·
          2 days ago

          The point is that the USA and Israel are against the notion, pal. Stop pretending like you are all about straightening out facts.

          • Atomic@sh.itjust.works
            6·
            2 days ago

            This is so not about straightening out facts, buddy. Without a source, how are you supposed to know ANY of this is actually true? It’s downright scary how many people just accepted this as facts and not once, questioned the validity of what is unverified information.

            If you can’t see why this is a problem, you’re part of that problem. Part of that gullible population that believes everything they see just because it’s a coloured map

        • GodlessCommie@lemmy.worldOPMEnglish
          11·
          3 days ago

          The yea, missing, or missed votes dont matter. Both times the resolution has come up at the UN the only ones to vote no have been the US and Israel

          • Soup@lemmy.world
            2·
            2 days ago

            A huge point of the image is to show that those two countries are the odd ones out. It super does matter and it’s wild you don’t see that.

          • Atomic@sh.itjust.works
            3·
            2 days ago

            Instead of owning it, telling us you’ll double check your facts for next time, you’re just excusing it with “at least the ones to vote no was correct”. Which is quite disappointing

            • Smoogs@lemmy.worldEnglish
              4·
              2 days ago

              I’m actually more concerned with the lack of common sense on your part to keep missing the overall point and still insist your’s still stands now that it’s been pointed out to be too negligible to derail the overall point.

              This has been like observing as AI doubling down about a pebble on the ground trying to convince all humans with spatial awareness and instinct that it matters more than a meteor colliding with earth.

              If in the case you really are an AI bot that somehow fell into the fediverse:

              educating privileged, wealth hoarding capitalist masses about basic right to just simply not starve to death is probably more fucking important here.

              And If in the case you are not an AI bot: This is low. Even for a troll.

              • Atomic@sh.itjust.works
                1·
                2 days ago

                What are you even talking about?

                The truly concerning part here is that you are somehow arguing against verifying the source of information.

  • 🍉 Albert 🍉@lemmy.world
    60·
    3 days ago

    to people saying the resolution is useless theatrics and just symbolic. then if there were no consequences, why the fuck would the US and Israel vote against it?

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
      14·
      3 days ago

      Because they’re assholes on principle.

      These resolutions are toothless without the materials and logistics to implement them. Food should be a right and it’s an easy thing to vocally support (unless you’re manufacturing a famine in Gaza).

      But how do you relieve the famine in Sudan if you’re unwilling to export agricultural surplus at below market rates from Southern Europe? How do you meet global human demand for fresh produce if you’re dedicating enormous qualities of arable land to high profit, low yield livestock? These generic statements of principle don’t actually change how and why food is distributed.

      And those are just the “capitalism bad” dumb lefty critiques.

      What about in a war zone? Should we be feeding Russians occupying Ukraine? What about Israel settlers in the West Bank or Han Chinese in Xinjiang and Tibet or illegal Hamas ISIS Haitian Cartel MS-13 terrorists attacking people’s dogs in Cleveland, Ohio?

      Shouldn’t we be killing these people instead?

      • 🍉 Albert 🍉@lemmy.world
        12·
        3 days ago

        Should we be feeding Russians occupying Ukraine?

        they should have their own logistics, and if surrendered/captured then yes, 100% we should feed them

        What about Israel settlers in the West Bank

        Illegal settlers likely already get plenty of assistance and welfare. But if there was justice, they would be captured as invaders and deported back to Israel borders, and fed during custody

        Han Chinese in Xinjiang and Tibet or illegal Hamas ISIS Haitian Cartel MS-13 terrorists attacking people’s dogs in Cleveland, Ohio?

        I lost track, but if captured, then yes, otherwise as long as you aren’t actively blocking food from entering (a literal war crime) then it is acceptable.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
          3·
          3 days ago

          they should have their own logistics

          “Everyone has a right to eat, but not everyone should have the right to the logistical supply chain that they need to receive the food” is UN doublespeak in a nutshell.

          • 🍉 Albert 🍉@lemmy.world
            10·
            3 days ago

            I am pretty sure if you have a military invading another country, it should be your responsibility to feed them.

            And if they get hungry and surrender just to eat, because the “enemy” is following international law, the that is good.

            Also, there are programs to feed starving people, but it is often blocked by malicious states (like Israel). There is no demand for Israel to feed Gaza, but there is demand for them to not block existing aid from coming in.

            • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
              2·
              3 days ago

              And if they get hungry and surrender just to eat, because the “enemy” is following international law

              If its international law to guarantee everyone gets fed and you are able to defeat an military by starving out the host population (a technique the Israelis are claiming is being used to defeat Hamas) then how are you following international law?

              Also, there are programs to feed starving people

              How’s that working out?

              • 🍉 Albert 🍉@lemmy.world
                6·
                3 days ago

                Well, Israel is breaching international law, and way too many western nations are complicit in that genocide.

                There’s a difference between attacking enemy supply lines and blocking food from entering a civilian urban area.

                • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  3·
                  3 days ago

                  Sure. And you can know the difference. And I can know the difference.

                  And the UN Security Council can pretend not to know the difference.

              • AeonFelis@lemmy.world
                2·
                3 days ago

                And if they get hungry and surrender just to eat, because the “enemy” is following international law

                If its international law to guarantee everyone gets fed and you are able to defeat an military by starving out the host population (a technique the Israelis are claiming is being used to defeat Hamas) then how are you following international law?

                I think it’s about the enemy soldiers starving into surrender, not the civilian populace. Surely this doesn’t mean you are not allowed to attack the supply lines of an invading army inside your own borders?

                Or… does it?

                A quick google yields the resolution: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3954949?ln=en&v=pdf#files

                Starting to read it…

                It… starts with six pages of “recalling this”, “acknowledging that”? Are UN resolutions like patents, where only a small fraction of the text is actually meaningful? Maybe I should find a guide for reading them first…

                • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  2·
                  3 days ago

                  I think it’s about the enemy soldiers starving into surrender, not the civilian populace.

                  Shy of magic, that’s not a policy you can implement. Either people in a region have access to food or they don’t. You can’t just put a stamp on a loaf of bread that makes it inedible to anyone carrying a gun.

                  Are UN resolutions like patents, where only a small fraction of the text is actually meaningful?

                  :-/

                  A lot of it is legalese that matters much more to an actual court system than a random layman picking through the fine print. But yes, broadly speaking a central critique of the UN has been its habit of going out and announcing “Bad Thing Is Bad” and then failing to do much to back that statement up.

                  At the same time, when the UN has intervened… well… look at the horror show that was the Korean War. Nevermind the intervention and occupation of Yugoslavia or Somalia. Or the Oil for Food Scandal with regard to Iraq.

                  I mean, the fundamental problem with the UN is that its still composed of many of the countries that are actively participating or tangentially benefiting in whatever horrible thing they’re supposed to be preventing. Much like any republican institution, you’re stuck with people who were put there by the corrupt institutions they’re supposed to police. How do you untangle that web? Ask Alexander the Great, maybe.

                • AeonFelis@lemmy.world
                  1·
                  3 days ago

                  Found one: https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/31493

                  What’s actually important about these italicized words is the division between the preambulary and operative clauses as a whole. Whereas the preamble uses gerunds such as “Reaffirming” and “Recalling” and similar terms, the operative clauses, which are binding, use terms such as “Decides” “Appeals” and “Approves”.

                  So… I need to look at the first word of each paragraph, determine whether or not it’s operative, and if it is it’s worth reading the rest of the paragraph?

  • skisnow@lemmy.caEnglish
    142·
    3 days ago

    At the risk of getting banned, when I only saw one country in red and “2” in the summary l knew exactly where on the map I needed to zoom to find the second

    • PolydoreSmith@lemmy.world
      73·
      3 days ago

      I had the exact same thought. If you could really be banned for saying that ISRAEL is a scourge on the planet earth for starving an entire population of innocent people, I’d rather not be on .world anyway.

      • IronBird@lemmy.world
        18·
        3 days ago

        it really is impressive (and terrifying, if i’m being honest) just how…extensive and all encompassing this Israeli/AIPAC propaganda is.

        like…it’s so bad that I don’t even feel comfortable thinking on it too much, because what if I’m falling into some antisemitic rabbithole that blames the jews for everything? the start of some alt-right pipeline?

        but then it’s undeniable, that there is a concerted effort to suppress any and all information about israel’s atrocities across the western world, with plenty of jews in positions of power essentially sanctioning it.

        • GodlessCommie@lemmy.worldOPMEnglish
          7·
          3 days ago

          When you make the distinction that there are more christian zionists than Jewish ones calling out their bullshit cant be considered antisemitic

        • Yeather@lemmy.ca
          1·
          3 days ago

          So you’re denying your own obvious observations because you disagree with some of the other people that hold those thoughts?

          • IronBird@lemmy.world
            1·
            2 days ago

            consider me recently (re)awakened, also i don’t entirely trust my own memories/experience if I’m being entirely honest.

            i’v done some psychedelics in the past and know how fragile (fluid?) the human mind/pysche can be

            also I’m kind of like a dog that was never socialized properly, so just in general things are new to me

      • AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.netEnglish
        2·
        3 days ago

        Some communities have weird stances on where they draw the line. To some extent, I have sympathy, because it can be quite easy for a discussion to devolve into shit slinging that involves surprise Zionists popping up, and often legitimate antisemitism ends up appearing if mods aren’t able to stay on top of things (by “legitimate antisemitism”, I mostly mean stuff that indirectly conflates Israel with Jewish people by using antisemitic rhetoric to attack Israel). Some communities may have fewer mods, or a culture that leads to discussions becoming toxic sooner.

        This community is a good counter example to the culture problem. There’s been a lot of harshly worded comments against Israel in this thread (reasonably so), but I haven’t seen anything that falls into the trap I describe above, but that’s no doubt a credit both to the culture of this place, and the efforts of the mods here

      • Blaster M@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        3 days ago

        Considering the biblical law laid out charity as a rule (don’t harvest the edges of your field, allow the poor etc. to eat from it)

    • ☂️-@lemmy.ml
      7·
      3 days ago

      we are thankfully not on reddit. you can hate zionism in peace without getting banned.

        • ☂️-@lemmy.ml
          7·
          3 days ago

          i didn’t know that.

          .world was always more reddit-y and conservative, but i wasn’t really expecting fascism/zionism from them so soon.

          • Eugene V. Debs' Ghost@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
            5·
            3 days ago

            JordanLund and Seriunus are two prime examples. Power mods who remove you if you prove them wrong. Serinus even said that “from the river to the sea, palestine will be free” is actually antisemetic, and the admins didn’t do anything about it, nor JL’s constant power abuse when he was wrong. Even after the admins took over a month to do something, they just dumped entire load onto JonsJava, which made him leave in protest of the Admin doing that without talking to him.

    • zergtoshi@lemmy.worldEnglish
      13·
      3 days ago

      Afaiu having a brain and stating facts are only bannable offenses over at that Reddit shithole.
      Nevertheless I wish you luck 😅

      • skisnow@lemmy.caEnglish
        11·
        3 days ago

        Huge miss. I wasn’t saying it as a form of defence, I was saying it as a sideswipe at people like you who wilfully interpret criticism of a country’s actions as bigotry.

      • tocopherol@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        32·
        3 days ago

        Nazi Germany was directly inspired by the US’s manifest destiny, racist laws and racial theorists from the US, we blocked Jewish refugees from coming to the US in 30s and after the war gave several prominent Nazis positions in US organizations, the US is called ‘The Great Satan’ for a reason.

          • Oppopity@lemmy.ml
            10·
            3 days ago

            If Germany stuck to genociding Jews in their own country there would be no war. Even the US didn’t get involved until they got sttacked directly.

              • Oppopity@lemmy.ml
                6·
                3 days ago

                Right but you said it was ironic that the US is now like Nazi Germany. Implying they fought the Nazis out of anti-Nazism only to end up like Nazis themselves. That would indeed be ironic but that’s not what happened. The US were always like Nazis, the Nazis were literally inspired by America. They only fought the Nazis because they were attacked not because they had some moral integrity.

                • samus12345@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
                  2·
                  3 days ago

                  No, the irony in the US’s case is that they were instrumental in their downfall, regardless of any hypocrisy. Germany were portrayed as the bad guys, the ultimate evil. And they were attacked by Japan, not Germany - they could have just gone after them, but chose to enter the whole war.

  • SeahorseTreble@lemmy.world
    3·
    2 days ago

    Always about the humans. What about the nonhuman animals? Animal rights? And why are we breeding so many of them to farm and feeding them all the food we can eat when we dont even have enough to feed everyone? Whenever someone promotes “lets fix food insecurity” or “lets avoid climate change”, I support it because inevitably if people actually cared enough about it and took those values to their logical conclusion and werent just virtue signaling hypocrites, theyd go vegan and promote plant based living.

    • Bennyboybumberchums@lemmy.world
      6·
      2 days ago

      we dont even have enough to feed everyone

      Not true. We currently produce around 1.5x the amount of food necessary to feed every person on the planet a 2500 calorie a day diet. The issue is, and always has been, logistics.

      • Soup@lemmy.world
        3·
        2 days ago

        Logistics and desire. Food gets thrown away into locked dumpsters and crops rot in warehouses because someone couldn’t make a buck on it. The cruelty is the point.

      • SeahorseTreble@lemmy.world
        1·
        1 day ago

        You’re technically correct, and that is what I meant, which should be pretty clearly inferred by me saying that we are growing so much food to feed to other animals when we “don’t have enough to feed everyone”. I meant we don’t have enough food AVAILABLE to feed everyone BECAUSE (among other factors such as overconsumption) we are feeding so much to other animals. I didn’t say we aren’t producing enough to begin with, we are, obviously since we are feeding 80 billion land animals a year.

        So I agree the issue is somewhat related to logistics/distribution, but you have to look at the logistics and distribution that happens WITHIN the means of production as well, or rather resource allocation, since we are allocating/distributing so much of the food we make to feed other animals (who don’t even need to be mass bred/exploited/killed) rather than feeding the world’s hungry humans, and the other animals that exist if they need our help to eat.

        With a plant-based system we can feed many more humans, I am reflecting actual scientific consensus, whereas you are reflecting societal knee jerk reactions to the suggestion that there’s a critical change we can make as individuals to help animals and the planet and ourselves. As usual, the majority are on the wrong side of history to begin, until they aren’t. And yes, it is an insane moral atrocity we are doing to animals as well, but I am deliberately not talking about that because I am talking about completely objective science and just showing how people who claim to care about the environment or food security but still support animal agriculture are complete hypocrites.

        https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets

    • SeahorseTreble@lemmy.world
      1·
      1 day ago

      When you buy an animal burger, you are effectively taking away the possibility of healthy nutritious plant based food from starving children. So many calories wasted.

      Mahatma Gandhi:

      “The earth provides enough to satisfy every man’s needs, but not every man’s greed.” “To my mind, the life of a lamb is no less precious than that of a human being.”

      In Frances Moore Lappé’s 1971 book Diet for a Small Planet, she wrote that eating animals is “like driving a Cadillac” in terms of waste — a metaphor later rephrased by activists as “eating a hamburger is like stealing bread from the world’s hungry.”

    • SeahorseTreble@lemmy.world
      1·
      1 day ago

      The downvotes should show you just how lost humanity is right now. “I care about food security and climate change and animal cruelty waa waa but i dont want to take any personal responsibility for it or change anything about myself because i like meat/dairy/eggs waa waa”