We’ve gotten used to awful takes from the Economist, but this one may take the cake, so to speak:
— The Economist (@TheEconomist) August 20, 2019
Oh, the humanity!
SOMEONE READ THIS AND THOUGHT IT WOULD BE A GREAT APPROACH FOR THIS TOPIC.
— a l p a c a l y p s o ? (@prettyoddsoren) August 21, 2019
Now there's a narrative pretzel! https://t.co/utRb0EXbpo
— Chad Felix Greene (@chadfelixg) August 21, 2019
Hey, at least that’s better for the environment than a narrative hamburger, right?
Translation: poor people living longer, healthier lives is a bad thing. https://t.co/wFeECs7W1A
— Amy Curtis (@RantyAmyCurtis) August 21, 2019
The human being wants to survive, but it is bad news for the environment
— V (@socemo_sd) August 21, 2019
So it's the poor versus the planet now?
— Transwork (@Transwork1) August 20, 2019
If only these poor saps would eat worse food to save rich leftist beach front properties.
— Chris (@_crisofur) August 20, 2019
Bad poor people. They should starve to death in the dirt right? For the planet’s sake.
— Kamila (@Splodge_Humbug) August 20, 2019
so, should we gas them?
— ❤️ Jayvie ❤️ (@OneFineJay) August 21, 2019
Wokeness gets closer and closer to genocide. Those damn poor people screwing up the environment by living. https://t.co/Un9j1ZE8tD
— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) August 21, 2019
so the economist wants them to die… https://t.co/YGHLEga2WY
— Charles (@repub9989) August 21, 2019
Tastes like eugenics.
This is saying the quite part out loud, isn't it?
— Dainon Jensen (@duckinfantry) August 21, 2019
Go pound sand.
— Andrew Christiansen ???? (@_archristiansen) August 21, 2019
You guys SUCK. pic.twitter.com/4nu54mAUHj
— Meme Buendía (@SoyUnMeme) August 21, 2019