- cross-posted to:
- aboringdystopia@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- aboringdystopia@lemmy.world
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.
You must log in or register to comment.
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.
we destroy excess food. hire armed thugs to keep people moving into empty shelter.
that’s what your taxes are for.
They also hire armed thugs to keep people from eating edible food that was thrown out
true! but only when its on its way to be burned.
we destroy excess food.
FDR is to blame for that
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.
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.
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.
For anyone who actually wants to know, here is the U.S. Explanation of Vote on the Right to Food
For the following reasons, we will call a vote and vote “no” on this resolution. First, drawing on the Special Rapporteur’s recent report, this resolution inappropriately introduces a new focus on pesticides. Pesticide-related matters fall within the mandates of several multilateral bodies and fora, including the Food and Agricultural Organization, World Health Organization, and United Nations Environment Program, and are addressed thoroughly in these other contexts. Existing international health and food safety standards provide states with guidance on protecting consumers from pesticide residues in food. Moreover, pesticides are often a critical component of agricultural production, which in turn is crucial to preventing food insecurity.
Second, this resolution inappropriately discusses trade-related issues, which fall outside the subject-matter and the expertise of this Council. The language in paragraph 28 in no way supersedes or otherwise undermines the World Trade Organization (WTO) Nairobi Ministerial Declaration, which all WTO Members adopted by consensus and accurately reflects the current status of the issues in those negotiations. At the WTO Ministerial Conference in Nairobi in 2015, WTO Members could not agree to reaffirm the Doha Development Agenda (DDA). As a result, WTO Members are no longer negotiating under the DDA framework. The United States also does not support the resolution’s numerous references to technology transfer.
We also underscore our disagreement with other inaccurate or imbalanced language in this text. We regret that this resolution contains no reference to the importance of agricultural innovations, which bring wide-ranging benefits to farmers, consumers, and innovators. Strong protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights, including through the international rules-based intellectual property system, provide critical incentives needed to generate the innovation that is crucial to addressing the development challenges of today and tomorrow. In our view, this resolution also draws inaccurate linkages between climate change and human rights related to food.
Furthermore, we reiterate that states are responsible for implementing their human rights obligations. This is true of all obligations that a state has assumed, regardless of external factors, including, for example, the availability of technical and other assistance.
We also do not accept any reading of this resolution or related documents that would suggest that States have particular extraterritorial obligations arising from any concept of a right to food.
Lastly, we wish to clarify our understandings with respect to certain language in this resolution. The United States supports the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living, including food, as recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Domestically, the United States pursues policies that promote access to food, and it is our objective to achieve a world where everyone has adequate access to food, but we do not treat the right to food as an enforceable obligation. The United States does not recognize any change in the current state of conventional or customary international law regarding rights related to food. The United States is not a party to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Accordingly, we interpret this resolution’s references to the right to food, with respect to States Parties to that covenant, in light of its Article 2(1). We also construe this resolution’s references to member states’ obligations regarding the right to food as applicable to the extent they have assumed such obligations.
Finally, we interpret this resolution’s reaffirmation of previous documents, resolutions, and related human rights mechanisms as applicable to the extent countries affirmed them in the first place.
We also underscore our disagreement with other inaccurate or imbalanced language in this text. We regret that this resolution contains no reference to the importance of agricultural innovations, which bring wide-ranging benefits to farmers, consumers, and innovators. Strong protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights, including through the international rules-based intellectual property system, provide critical incentives needed to generate the innovation that is crucial to addressing the development challenges of today and tomorrow
“We’re fighting to protect John Deere profits…”
My first thought was Monsanto
Some of these seem quite valid, but I really hope “intellectual property” isn’t the real reason. Poorly written regulations are too easily invalidated or ignored, so the feedback to “stay in your lane” seems important. However our corporate masters should not be able to dictate the basic right to food
So yeah. A bunch of bullshit procedural arguments.
Well yeah that’s the thing, a treaty isn’t (or at least shouldn’t) be a vague “helping people is good and being mean is bad”
I started looking into this further and the tweet is misleading. To start with, the graphic is totally inaccurate. This was a vote by the UN Human Rights Council, not the full general assembly. The US was the only country that voted against, with one abstaining. Israel wasn’t involved. It’s also worth emphasizing that the right to food has been established in other international agreements, which the text cites extensively and the US justification refers to near the end.
Edit: I was somewhat incorrect on the vote, there was a later general assembly vote, which the Instagram account that created this links to. However, their effort to imply that the US somehow hates people being fed is still misleading.
deleted by creator
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.
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.
In this country
We believe
Guns are a right
Food is not
Let them eat guns?
Let them eat guns!
-Marie AR15ntoinette
Huhum! Excuse me but my recent podcast on Marie-Antoinette informed me that she actually never said that but it was attributed to her anyway!
I’m lowering my little finger now.
Podcast where I heard that: The Rest Is History (Spotify)
Can’t afford food? Eat a bullet pleb!
I got banned from face book for sugesting this.
There’s 470 joules of energy in a 9mm. That’s 0.1 kcal, i.e. you need approx. 666 mp5 mag dumps for your daily energy expenditure.
deleted by creator
Another way to approximate this: there’s about 0.3g of gunpowder in a 9mm cartridge. There’s about 3 kJ/g of energy in gunpowder, i.e. one 9mm has about 1 kJ worth of gunpowder. So with the gunpowder alone you’d need almost 10,000 rounds for your daily energy needs.
The bullet energy is from several sources and it’s below 500 joules. 2,000 kcal is 8,400,000 joules.
might have to eat the gun the way the world is going
The United States
We believe guns are a right
Food is luxuryWell, you do use the luxury bones to eat it
Plutocracy, Oligarchy, Bootlickers, all the same: America.
Land of the fee home of the billionaire.
while in this country
a gun is your right to have
so it is to starve
IWGF
imagine voting against food.
some people really miss the guillotines
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?
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.
Imagine being the only 2 places on earth that go out of your way to be afraid of a toothless organization.
I’m sure they’ll be offering everyone in their respective countries free food as is their newly given right! Right?
Nestle in every country is getting right on that…
Russia: sure
China: okay
North Korea: all right
USA: NNNOOOOOOOOOO!!!
Sir, That is the cost of Freedom 🦅 /s
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.
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.
Shithole countries
This is an “are we the baddies?” Moment for the USA.
USA! USA! USA!
We ARE the bad guys
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.
All true, but begs the question: why did every other country vote yes? The oligarchy knows they only need to control the US vote to stop something like this?
look at the map again
Try not to cut yourself on that edge…
triggered
What’s the rationale from the US? Where’s the ruling?
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.)
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.
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
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.
How is it reasonable at all? The US throws out enough food per year to feed the entire world. They could easily do this, they just don’t want to because they’re evil and would rather make money than feed people.
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
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)
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.
Always, ALWAYS be skeptical of the reflexive “US is evil” posts you see on lemmy.
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.
Yeah it’s kinda sad, but older Reddit replacements were like that too.
It’s actively detrimental, I gotta change my usage pattern
It will hopefully get better as it gets larger?
“Mainstream” Reddit was always awful too, the niches are where its at. And those are just babies on Lemmy now.
I usually put it in less diplomatic terms: lemmy’s community is the dumbest bunch of idiots I’ve seen outside of religious communities.
Eh I mean there’s a lot of communists here and tankies. So that’s bound to be a bit detached from real world or fully detached.
There’s this peculiar subreddit r/collapse and I seen lots of similarities and overlap with lemmyMy theory is that collapse and communism are religions of modern times because it is easier to blame something and hope for rapture/revolution than to act
Another Trump victory would be karma at this point.
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.
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.
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.
Stop exporting to red lands and see how long it takes to reverse course
The US can survive without exports, they have a shit ton of natural resources and industry… but Israel, oh they’re definitely gone. Israel will be Isfaek in no time
The wordplay took waay too long for me to pick up on.
I was about to ask for help… But it’s isfuck… Goddamnit
Unless I’ve gone another level of not getting it. In that case, I’m drunk, leave me alone
is real - Israel
is fake - Isfaek
…“is fake”.
Israel is the US’s puppet
Oh honey
You know these ventriloquism-routines where the puppet makes the puppeteer talk with it’s voice?
I’ve watched enough Twilight Zone to know how this works.
In most of The Twilight Zones I watch the puppet ends up killing the parents, taking over the kid and staring at the camera going “Who’s a good boy?”
Which, okay, does kind of sound like the relationship between Israel and the USA but that’s beside the point
Okay, we can hate on Israel all day long for their many crimes, but let’s not entertain “Jews run the United states” jokes. They are the US puppet. A very beloved puppet but still.
let’s not entertain “Jews run the United states”
Large financial institutions run the United States. And those institutions have a vested interest in controlling trade through the Mediterranean Sea, specifically by way of the Suez Canal. This creates a socio-economic incentive to back a heavily armed ethno-state with strong ties to the US/UK financial system. And - after the holocaust - the Jewish diaspora just happens to be the group that fit the bill. (The large Arab community in Saudi Arabia does, too, but its okay to be racist towards Arabs so we don’t complain quite so much about that).
So we run into a problem. Saying “AIPAC is manipulating our elections with enormous sums of cash laundered through the MIC into mass media social manipulation” is true, but quickly gets you labeled antisemitic by people who want to conflate billionaire shipping magnets with your elderly aunt from Queens. Trying to draw a line between plutocrats entangled with the MIC and random synagogues in Chattanooga or Cleveland becomes difficult when you’ve got real actual nazi fucks screaming slurs on one side of you and cynical mass-murdering shits insisting anyone anti-war is anti-Jew on the other.
Yeah, it’s a complicated tight line to walk. Hence why it should be avoided implying that Israel puppets the United states and thus falling into actual Nazi conspiracy theories.
Hence why it should be avoided implying that Israel puppets the United states
The influence of Israeli lobbyists and their affiliates is undeniable. As is the influence of Saudi, UK, Japan, fucking Bermuda…
Fixating on Israelis as uniquely influential is a problem. But then we have no problem with ranting about Trump being a “Russia controlled puppet”, so we clearly aren’t above a little Cold War style hysteria.
It might behove us to ask why Benny from Philly has such disproportionate influence, rather than just writing every observation of influence off as Jew Hate.
But that gets us into a whole conversation about domestic police lobbying, the Pentagon’s revolving door with industry, the role of the O&G lobbyists, etc. And that’s even worse than antisemitism. It’s anti-Americanism.
No one but you mentioned the Jewish religion. Meanwhile, pro-Zionist candidates (right and left) with the backing of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee have had an almost unexplainable 100% rate of election. The US election system has been hijacked by Israeli interests.
Hijacked by Israeli interests? Comrade, they are the US interests before they are Israeli. Flipping it around and pretending the Israel state owns US politics is one key word away from Nazi conspiracy when you know the actual line of motivations begins and ends with the US.
You completely disregard the largest zionist organisation in the US, CUFI, of which most members are American Christians.
The US support for Israel is the perfect storm composed of financial, military and religious interests of various groups in power in the US. The interest of the Israeli government and center to right wing happen to align with those. Thinking Israel is in control in any of this and doesn’t have to pander to those American interest groups is delusional and a common, sometimes antisemitically motivated, misunderstanding.
Thank you!
Neither one is a puppet. Each one uses the other. Israel has an outsize influence on US foreign policy, but the US also has an outsize influence on Israeli foreign policy. Israel tries to sway US elections, and US interests try to sway Israeli elections. They share many of the same enemies, which keeps them tied together even when things aren’t necessarily in their shared interests.
In this particular case, the two probably voted “no” for different reasons.
The US voted “no” because they wanted John Deere to be able to remotely shut down a combine harvester, or so that Monsanto can sue people for misusing seeds, things that probably be illegal if food were seen as a human right. Israel voted no because they wanted to be able to keep denying food to Palestinians.
Associating Judaism with the genocidal state is anti-semitic, we don’t do that here.
The actual 2002-12-18 vote: Yes: 176 | No: 1 | Abstentions: 7 | Non-Voting: 7 | Total voting membership: 191
UNITED STATES was the only No
The map is for the 2021 vote, not the 2002 vote.
The map is for 2021
Right, the vote for 2021-12-16 were: Yes: 186 | No: 2 | Abstentions: | Non-Voting: 5 | Total voting membership: 193
ISRAEL, UNITED STATES were the only No
That’s what the post says
Ok ok, this vote was over 20 years ago. Not that I think the result would be different if it was held now.
This map is from 2021. The commenter is confused.
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.
I’m guessing OP didn’t know it was 20+ years ago? It happens.
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.
Nice job, the OP.
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.
“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)
Chat, what’s with these two?
A SHADY RAVEN CONCURS
