560

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/18629062

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Th4tGuyII@fedia.io 101 points 2 months ago

When even the most reviled dictatorships in the world are voting in favour of the UN recognising food as a right, it sure does make the US look uniquely scummy.

[-] jettrscga@lemmy.world 25 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Um. You know you can sell it, right?!

(/s just in case)

[-] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 82 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

when one hundred and eighty six nations say one thing, and two say another, you have to wonder about the two.

Especially when those two are consistently on the wrong side of such votes.


UN resolution A/RES/75/169: Combating glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance

  • US and Turkey are only votes against, Israel didn't vote. (You'd think Israel might care more about Nazis but I guess not)

UN resolution A/78/L.5: Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba

  • US and Israel are the only votes against ending the embargo.

I could go on, but this pattern holds across numerous issues. USA and Israel's governments are fucking monsters.

[-] masquenox@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

(You’d think Israel might care more about Nazis but I guess not)

Birds of a feather... and all that.

[-] ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago

(You’d think Israel might care more about Nazis but I guess not)

I think they care a lot about keeping the "other practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance"

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 46 points 2 months ago

Are we the baddies?

(I still can't post images to lemmy.blahaj.zone)

[-] Maeve@kbin.earth 14 points 2 months ago
[-] user224@lemmy.sdf.org 10 points 2 months ago

But you can to imgur, grab the direct image URL and then embed it as such:

![alt text - optional](URL)

And to make a button:

[![alt text - optional](image URL)](on-click destination URL)

Example:
FMHY

In this case the image is just 0.9kB, so to save an unnecessary request to Imgur, I used data URI with base64. You can't do this with larger images due to comment size limitations. Just imagine a normal URL in there.

[-] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 months ago

Thank you. I would like to avoid getting an imagur account.

That just may mean less engagement in Lemmy from this Lemming.

[-] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 2 months ago

You can upload to imgur without an account.

[-] Sir_Kevin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 months ago

Use a different instance?

[-] user224@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 2 months ago

I specifically mentioned Imgur as it doesn't need an account for that matter, but you can use any image host you'd like.

[-] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 2 months ago

The whole images database debacle with Lemmy is kind of a big deal, and I have never seen an announcement about it, but I'm on team turning it off on a small instance like blahaj.zone. It's too much data and this instance is too small to afford that kind of server space. Plus, unless things have changed, there is basically no real server panel for controlling the image database and admins basically have to manage it manually. Which is something that is pretty daunting for some admins.

So yeah, fuck the image support, use imgur, if you're a blahaj user.

[-] JacksonLamb@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

Or use pixelfed.

[-] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 months ago

Well it does mean I'm restricted to text even on c/196

Which might justify why I break the rule now.

[-] MindTraveller@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago

Yeah okay but consider: hosting images costs Ada money, and that's good.

[-] middlemanSI@lemmy.world 40 points 2 months ago

Let's vote right to exist next!

[-] Bosht@lemmy.world 28 points 2 months ago

Fucking hell this is the strongest argument I've seen thus far that I need to get out of the US. What the hell.

[-] Doorbook@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

The only issue is to where. I think better to stay but position yourself in a situation were you can make an impact even if a small one.

[-] Skua@kbin.earth 20 points 2 months ago

Edit: I had an earlier vote about a similar resolution, see tacticalsugar's reply to me for the correct one

Israel abstained, America was the only no vote. Which is still stupid, obviously, but... marginally less so

[-] tacticalsugar@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 2 months ago

That's the 2002 vote, this post is referencing the 2021 vote. Check out that meeting's agenda for more fucked up voting records.

[-] Skua@kbin.earth 1 points 2 months ago
[-] tacticalsugar@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 months ago

No problem! That UN site was a nightmare to navigate, it took me an hour just to find the 2021 voting record, and I only knew it existed because someone else mentioned it in another thread.

[-] Empricorn@feddit.nl 4 points 2 months ago

I guess. For Israel...

[-] FireTower@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

This Committee is meeting at a time when the international community is confronting one of the most serious food-security emergencies in modern history. Hunger is on the rise for the third year in a row, after a decade of progress. And now, for communities already experiencing poverty and hunger, the COVID-19 pandemic is disproportionately affecting lives by harming how people provide for themselves and feed their families – both today and long after the pandemic subsides. More than 35 million people in South Sudan, Somalia, the Lake Chad Basin, and Yemen are facing severe food insecurity exacerbated by the global pandemic, and in the case of Yemen, potential famine. The United States remains fully engaged and committed to addressing these complex crises.

This resolution rightfully acknowledges the hardships millions of people are facing, and importantly calls on States to support the emergency humanitarian appeals of the UN. However, the resolution also contains many unbalanced, inaccurate, and unwise provisions the United States cannot support. This resolution does not articulate meaningful solutions for preventing hunger and malnutrition or avoiding their devastating consequences.

The United States is concerned that the concept of “food sovereignty” could justify protectionism or other restrictive import or export policies that will have negative consequences for food security, sustainability, and income growth. Improved access to local, regional, and global markets helps ensure food is available to the people who need it most and smooths price volatility. Food security depends on appropriate domestic action by governments, including regulatory and market reforms, that is consistent with international commitments.

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,” which we do not recognize and has no definition in international law.

For these reasons, we request a vote and we will vote against this resolution.

https://usun.usmission.gov/explanation-of-vote-on-a-resolution-on-the-right-to-food/

[-] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 23 points 2 months ago

It all sounds like some very reasonable language, and yet no other countries raised the same objection, including not only countries we are not allied with and don't generally seem to respect, but also countries we are allied with and do generally seem to respect.

I read it as "hey guys let's all agree to do this thing, and then we can figure out the details" and US is the singular guy in the meeting who is like "nope, we can't agree to do it until we've split every hair about exactly how it will be done."

[-] JacksonLamb@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

It doesn't sound reasonable. Its argument is neoliberal economics at its worst:"we don't want countries to be able to control their own domestic food markets because we want them to be forced to take our exports", only counched in paternalistic We Know What's Best For You rhetoric.

[-] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago

Oh I completely agree with that. I was essentially saying "it's bad things presented with nice words" - I was just trying to be nice about how I said it. Sorry if that didn't come across. 🙂

[-] JacksonLamb@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

Sorry I misinterpreted you! :-)

[-] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago
[-] Boomkop3@reddthat.com 9 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

correction to what I wrote below: turns out there was a new vote, in a meeting with a bunch of things voted on. The 2021 vote is on page 15 of the English pdf. You can find it using a PDF search: "right to food".

The usa and Israel voted against, no members abstained.

the meeting with votes in the doc from 2021:

https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3984859

~~I just looked up the vote on the un website. This post is bs, only one country voted against.~~

https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/482533

[-] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 months ago

When North Korea votes for something like this, it's almost as if it's just meaningless bullshit.

[-] alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml 16 points 2 months ago

North Korea's famine during the 90s was due to western sanctions after everyone they used to buy food from left their economic bloc, not because they don't believe people should have food.

[-] FireTower@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago

Maybe they should start spending their missile program money on developing their nation's agriculture rather than relying on food imports.

load more comments (10 replies)
[-] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 months ago

And why was North Korea being sanctioned? The dictator didn't prefer to have his subjects starve (that's pretty rare for pragmatic reasons, although not unheard of) but he certainly didn't prioritize feeding them.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] thefartographer@lemm.ee 2 points 2 months ago

And now they eat poop fruit. Starvation sanctions are such monstrous means to an end; people should not have to resort to night soil because your government has beef with theirs.

[-] alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago

I'm not sure how credible that is since any story about NK needs to be taken with a massive grain of salt. They stabilized their food situation in the 2000s so it's unlikely they'd be eating poo.

[-] Rolder@reddthat.com 1 points 2 months ago

Never mind the fact that food isn’t part of the sanctions and they are able to freely import it as needed

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2024
560 points (95.5% liked)

A Boring Dystopia

9722 readers
2119 users here now

Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.

Rules (Subject to Change)

--Be a Decent Human Being

--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title

--Posts must have something to do with the topic

--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.

--No NSFW content

--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS