Yeah my bad, my math was off and wasn’t looking at it across the multiple years. Makes sense. Cheers mate.

That slight raise is arguably relatively normal-ish variation. It probably represents the problems with capitalist lack of social care and resources to some degree. But 99.99% of people are still eating.

It’s still bad, it’s still unacceptable, it’s still ridiculous for a wealthy nation and shouldn’t happen, but it’s also not huge, it’s a tiny fraction.

To parse the math, if it keeps rising that would be concerning. But look at the scale… that “3” That the USA reaches isn’t percent. It represents circa 1 in 33,000 people which equates to about 10,000 people in the entire USA.

Whereas according to the same source, North Korea’s famine produced at least 450 sufferers every 100,000. That, represented 1 in 222 people.

Weirdly this actually doesn’t tally with a lot of other sources. So I’m left scratching my head about it somewhat. The above reference suggests only 100,000 people suffered from the famine in North Korea yet, the minimum other sources put as having died in said famine is 360,000 and the maximum of 2,000,000.

Am I missing something? This does not compute.

Edit: Ah the context I was missing was the famine occurred over multiple years. Each year was 420 per 100,000 or below out of 20 million.

Not so much.

To generalise, and to exclude those sitting at the extremes and talk more about the majority, I think we often all share a lot more in what is considered virtuous than either side is often willing to admit. That’s the core objective morality we share.

If one has a decent awareness, they can apply their compassion broadly, rather than just locally, thereby make moral decisions not just in their local reality, but for strangers as well.

When that awareness is lacking or has been intentionally or unintentionally dismissed, that’s when basic gut emotions can be stirred up, manipulated and used to other groups contravening objective morality.

I find this is often the difference between right and left thinking. Both are usually moral in basic terms and at the core, but it’s the breadth of the application of that morality that decides the quality of their morality. There’s much to agree on, and little that is truly up for subjective debate if that awareness is present.

Hence the idiocy of the term “woke” which is just another word for awareness.

It’s through this viewpoint I’ve found the most success in deprogramming radicalised right wing friends. But it takes time, patience and a lot of energy in gently expanding that awareness over large amounts of time.

How can any system of government be defined as democratic when that system concentrated power into a single party system? All the while suppressing dissent and suppressing civil liberties.

Democracy is defined as power ultimately residing with the people, either directly or through freely elected representatives. None of which the USSR had. It was a totalitarian dictatorship with power concentrated centrally through the politburo and a dictator sitting at the top of it all.

Did I also spot an apologist for the acts of the great purge elsewhere in this thread?

Also, your “meme” is based on the logical fallacy of false equivalency. Comparing a single aspect of two different systems of government, doesn’t equate that either of them are better than the other. You’ve selectively chosen a single frame of reference that doesn’t prove your argument in your “meme”. It is a misleading and fallacious method of debate.