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 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.
![[Not the Onion] Nobel Prize winning economist says Bidenomics is working if you exclude food, energy, shelter, and used cars.](https://hexbear.net/pictrs/image/056e2b2f-c3f7-43b4-84ae-511a72338a87.png){kind=link}
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.
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…
And libs don’t want to seem cruel and dismissive so they would like to avoid…
Enter “food insecurity”. Voilà!
No mention of troublesome words like eat, meals, money, hungry or god forbid hunger.