Both things can be true, you know. Yes, its food is abysmally unhealthy, but it’s effectively the de facto national cafeteria of the continental United States by virtue of its widespread footprint and (previously) low prices.
In an ideal world, we should be challenging both, rather than throwing up our hands and pleading confusion because someone can’t hold two truths simultaneously.
"In an ideal world, we should be challenging both"
Not really. Calling food poison and then complaining that poor people can't afford it implies that you support poor people eating poison and or eating the food.
The first complaint implies that they shouldn't be eating it at all and result is that I just can't take the second complaint seriously.
It's just a way to shit on big corporations without having to take responsibility.
You’re grossly misunderstanding the broader arguments through misrepresenting the claims as tied together, rather than the standalone grievances they are. A single system can have multiple flaws that interact on each other without necessarily creating a single, larger issue.
McDonald’s food is unhealthy and should be improved. At the same time, they have become too expensive for the poorer working classes to afford. These are two different problems, with different solutions.
You’re basically arguing that because I cannot demonstrate “one easy fix” to a complex issue of nuance that I’m essentially advocating for poisoning people, and it demonstrates your complete inability to grasp simultaneous truths or discuss complex issues effectively without misrepresenting opposition to score points.
In an ideal world, we should be challenging both, rather than throwing up our hands and pleading confusion because someone can’t hold two truths simultaneously.