nobel prize
ok go on.
economist
bye
this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)
the_dunk_tank
15915 readers
13 users here now
It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to !shitreactionariessay@lemmygrad.ml
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
It always makes me laugh because it's not even a real Nobel prize
Not that the Nobel Peace Prize or the Nobel Prize in Literature isn't political horse shit half the time...
Literally a Babylon Bee article... 
: "Please, I just want a house. I'm willing to pay for it and everything, but why are your asking for a million dollars for each?"
: "Awww, look at the dumb naive kid who doesn't understand that it's just a sign the economy is going well, you wouldn't want to hurt ThE eCoNoMy, would you?"
I recently saw the phrase 'food insecurity' and while I've heard it before, I never realized how weird of a phrase it was. It's poverty, food insecurity is the definition of poverty. But because people have phones or something it doesn't count as poverty?
I never realized how weird of a phrase it was.
I never googled "food insecurity" because I could imagine what the definition was. But check out the third sentence on the health.gov page. Emphasis mine.
Food Insecurity - Healthy People 2030
Food insecurity is defined as a household-level economic and social condition of limited or uncertain access to adequate food. In 2020, 13.8 million households were food insecure at some time during the year. Food insecurity does not necessarily cause hunger, but hunger is a possible outcome of food insecurity.
And look at the phrasing - "13.8 million households". How many people is that?
---
Libs love terms that they can use to make something they don't want to think about more abstract. In this case - they can avoid having to use sentences like this...
- They don't get enough to eat.
- They don't have enough to eat.
- Sometimes they don't have enough to eat.
And libs don't want to seem cruel and dismissive so they would like to avoid...
- Sometimes they are forced to skip meals because they don't have enough money.
- Sometimes they go hungry because they don't have enough money.
Enter "food insecurity". Voilà!
- They suffer from food insecurity.
No mention of troublesome words like eat, meals, money, hungry or god forbid hunger.
WHAT ELSE IS THERE
legitimately this makes me feel so much despair
Yachts, exotic animals, Fabergé eggs, precious metals, artisanal cocaine... Normal stuff that you'll need in any household.
islands, art, human slaves, etc
Wow, great news for off-grid homesteaders living in the middle of fucking nowhere and literally no one else
Laughs in price of agricultural inputs