• JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes, your point is that “hunger” should be interpreted very loosely, meaning in a sort of addiction-psychology way.

      I think that’s a sophisticated re-rendering, and that most ordinary folks do associate the word “hunger” with famine, with starving, with terrible deprivation. Which is a real situation in a handful of desperate places in the world. I don’t think we should be conflating these two problems. One of them is far more urgent than the other.

      I see this as just another instance of disingenuously sensationalist language and I would prefer people used the correct terms for what they are in fact talking about.

      For the underlying substance, I agree with you and all the other censorious downvoters. I am just concerned about vocabulary and manipulation.

        • JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          So if “malnourished” is better, as you imply, let’s use that instead. The issue is not hunger by any non-academic definition of the word.

          You’ve made your case. Mine is that this is a clear example of sensationalist lexical inflation. Like calling everyone right of center a Nazi, it is intended to provoke engagement and emotion rather than to describe a fact.