1504

Over the last week, the guide has surged to become the 5th-most-accessed book on Project Gutenberg, an open source repository of free and public domain ebooks. It is also the fifth most popular ebook on the site over the last 30 days, having been accessed nearly 60,000 times over the last month (just behind Romeo and Juliet).

Direct link to the book (without the backref):

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/26184

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 19 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Nope. Soup kitchens are cheap and easy.

Yeah, so is eating out of a dumpster. Jesus Christ. Have you ever even talked to a homeless person?

[-] roguetrick@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago

They're talking about establishing mutual aid networks, not relying on existing ones.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

Soup kitchens are not mutual aid networks and now they're saying eat out of dumpsters.

[-] roguetrick@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

My guy, food not bombs explicitly is a mutal aid network and they're specifically discrediting your attempt to discredit them because they have eaten out of dumpsters. But sure, it's everybody else that's wildly out of touch in this conversation.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I am discrediting them because they don't give a shit about child abuse. And you're defending them. Not a good look.

Also, this same person you are defending says the real problem here is accusing imaginary people of being spies.

[-] roguetrick@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

You're discrediting them for something you hadn't even brought up yet? Those goalposts are on wheels as long as they hold up your self righteous justification to be snarky on the Internet huh?

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I brought it up and they ignored it. Did you even bother reading the discussion?

Their idea about letting people's kids be homeless and starve until they're taken away from their parents and put in foster care for the sake of a general strike is fucking disgusting. And you're defending them.

[-] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I spent years eating dumpstered food when I lived in the US. You're proving my point.

Have you ever even volunteered with Food Not Bombs?

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago

Did you feed your kids out of dumpsters? And if so, were any of them autistic kids who would only be willing to eat things they approve of and starve otherwise? I hope not.

But I'm guessing your suggestion is either force-feed them or let them starve.

Also, do you know one of the reasons they take your kids away from you and put them in abusive foster care? Because you're homeless.

Basically your whole idea is advocating child abuse.

Amazing how many people here think you should put the welfare of others over your own children.

[-] jagged_circle@feddit.nl -4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Its clear you've never dumpster dived before. Its usually wrapped in food grade containers. Completely sanitary. And good stuff, like super fancy expensive pastries.

And food not bombs works with restaurants and groceries to get the food before they even put it in a dumpster, just before its thrown out.

Seriously, please find your local chapter of Food Not Bombs and volunteer. You would learn a lot. Feeding people is not an issue in the US.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

My entire post was about child abuse and you just ignored it.

So I guess we know how you feel about children suffering.

[-] Exatron@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago

It's also clear that you're making things up, sparky.

this post was submitted on 29 Jan 2025
1504 points (99.2% liked)

politics

31115 readers
1987 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS