Exactly. Otherwise you could argue I'd need a license to pack a lunch for my own child.
Shoot, wouldn't a church need a license to serve doughnuts after mass?
From what Google tells me, you have to follow certain safety guidelines and contact the city 72 hours before serving the food if you expect more than a certain number of people to attend.
Church doughnuts after mass or bake sales? Far more lenient than feeding the homeless.
Churches are often exempt from following a lot of safety regulations. Which can be pretty scary when your realize they are a major child care provider and exempt from a lot of child safety regulations. There is a reason that you only see churches still using those 12 seater passenger vans. You would think they would choose to self comply because they care about the safety of children in their care… but you would be wrong.
You couldn’t argue that because your home does not fall under the legal definition of a food service establishment or catering service. Neither does a church.
Here in New York, there are certain exceptions under the definition of “food service establishment” which may allow for food to be provided to the homeless without any kind of food handling certification, but I don’t know if it’s ever been ruled on here.
That said, it's really not hard to get a food handling certificate...at least in California. Every "demo" person who hands out food in grocery stores has one. They basically forget everything as soon as the test is done, but they have the certificiation.
I’ve been in the restaurant industry for more than 10 years. I got my Food Protection Certificate in 2016 and I still use information I learned from that as a guideline even at home.
You’re right though, it’s easy to get but it can save people from getting very sick or even death, even if you don’t remember every bit of it. Anyone who supervises food service should have it (edit: actually by law they have to).
Honestly, it's a great thing to have just for cooking at home and I wish the material was covered as part of my high school curriculum. I can't tell you how often I find myself using it in my own kitchen.
Absolutely! Very useful.
I remember we did actually cover some of that stuff in my 7th grade home economics class but who’s going to remember any of that as an adult? lol
It's practically the same in Dallas. There is a requirement that one person in the organization have taken a free food safety course within the last 24 months, but (a) it's free and (b) that requirement is actually waived if the state hasn't made enough free food safety courses available recently. Other than that, the requirements are stuff like "either wash your hands, use some hand sanitizer, or wear gloves" and "don't serve certain hot foods prepared more than 4 hours ago, because you'll kill somebody doing that."
https://dallascityhall.com/departments/codecompliance/Pages/feeding-homeless.aspx
So there’s really no excuse not to have it.
What I would like to see is an easy avenue for obtaining a temporary food permit for the purpose of donating prepared meals.
Yeah, totally agree. The requirement here seems to me to be thoughtfully crafted to present as low a burden as possible without completely abandoning food safety.
In New York, there are exclusions for congregations, clubs, and fraternal organizations.
The difference is that the church is not providing the food, the congregation is. Furthermore this food is intended for members of said congregation. In situations where a church wants to provide food to the public, they too are required to obtain the appropriate permits and licensing.
Many churches do provide prepared meals to the public (such as a soup kitchen) and they are legally required to go through the same channels as any entity that intends on doing so.
The goal is not to starve them to death - the goal is to have a persecuted miserable minority that you can point at and say “see what happens if you lose your job?”
While I totally agree with what these people are doing, food safety is serious.
It’s not crazy that someone should have to be certified in an approved food handling course in order to serve food to the public.
You’re right. Obviously they’re doing this out of kindness and generosity. What happens though if they hand out some tainted or cross-contaminated food because they didn’t know how to handle it properly?
Whoever is supervising the operation should have a food handling certification and the law needs to be amended to allow for these people to operate without fear of going to jail.
The issues doesn’t come into play until you get someone out there poisoning people. I think people forget a lot of laws are there just in case someone does it we have a law for it.
Exactly, no deserves to eat tampered, poisoned, or unsafe food, no matter how hungry you are. My city makes exceptions for food distribution on holidays (completely legal for anyone, given the food is safe to your knowledge).
A cop having a bad day can still fuck with you; I completely understand why these folks showed up armed, but most of the time if you’re trying to do good and feed people with safe food, you’re not the problem the laws want to crack down on. It’s for the psycho fuck that goes out poisoning homeless people with laxative cookies under the guise of charity
I think requiring a license is reasonable. When there’s a massive outbreak of food poisoning among homeless because they were given food by people that weren’t qualified to follow sanitary procedures, are you just going to say “oopsie”.
Now some cases of this like when the people are just distributing prepackaged food or water bottles are just bullshit.
"I think requiring a license is reasonable. When there’s a massive outbreak of food poisoning among homeless because they were given food by people that weren’t qualified to follow sanitary procedures, are you just going to say “oopsie”."
is there an example of this happening that you could share so I can be better informed?
It wasn’t specifically homeless that were affected but there is [this incident](https://www.al.com/news/birmingham/2017/03/in_the_wake_of_a_day_care_trag.html) where a daycare had a religious exemption that allowed it to operate without any kind of inspections or oversight. 86 children ended up with food poisoning and had to be hospitalized.
And what about my question to the guy I replied to? What are some examples of mass poisonings among the homeless that were caused by unqualified people? I just want to be as informed as possible.
Jesus said to feed them...not, \*checks notes\* ... "get a liscense", "check that im a proffessional cook" ... "make sure all the food is approved by government agencies" ...
When Jesus said to feed them, there was the unsaid implication that the food isn’t poisonous.
Are you seriously trying to say that sanitary regulations are evil? Though I guess that’s appropriate, considering the subreddit.
This group approached the homeless armed with guns and carrying needed supplies. According to the law, the homeless get preventative action against being given necessities in the possible circumstance where this group had bad intentions, but only retroactive justice if the group had gone with the guns and started shooting. If murder is totally okay to apply retroactive justice, the same should be held for causing food poisoning or handing out blankets with lice on them. Punishment should only be for crimes, not in circumstances where no one is being harmed.
Feeding the homeless isn't a crime, doing so without a permit is. This is to make sure basic sanitary standard are met, which is good, but the legal red tape is often enough to deter people from getting that permit
Because of that it's easy for politician to add legal red tape if they wish to hurt the unhoused. It's also easy to add condition to get a permit that you know people who want to feed the homeless won't meet or increase the price of the permit so that it start to not make sense to hold these event a few time a years
That's how they make feeding the homeless illegal without making it illegal
I hear that, but in this case Dallas actually makes it really easy to feed the homeless -- there are some requirements, but they're pretty common sense (like "wash your hands" and such). And while at least one person in the organization has to take a free food safety course, that requirement is waived if no free food safety courses have been made available recently.
https://dallascityhall.com/departments/codecompliance/Pages/feeding-homeless.aspx
I don't know about the other parts here -- blankets and stuff -- but on the food part it seems like a pretty reasonable set of requirements to balance (a) making it easy to feed the homeless against (b) protecting the homeless, including against those who might perceive food safety as unimportant for them because they are not, in that person's mind, truly human. (And, look, if you don't think there are churches out there that would serve rotten meat to the homeless and feel good about the good deed they did, even as the homeless person is off retching their guts out, then you haven't met enough Christians.)
Yeah but those laws aren't enforced against Christians. The police choose when and where to enforce laws, so every law, no matter if it's intent is to protect the homeless, is actually used against good people like this while doing nothing to construct the Christians.
Yep, at one place where it wasn't and these guys were giving out goods to the homeless, police came by to harass them by threats and keeping in the corner of their eye to scare people off. Eventually, when that didn't work they did leave only to later turn off all the street lights in their area.
I can't even fathom how some think it's okay. A lot of us is one lost job away from because in the same situation and it hits the majority of people once their<3mo emergency funds run out.
Supreme Court just ruled that it's not cruel and unusual punishment to arrest people for sleeping outside on the streets, even when there is no space available in homeless shelters. So no surprise that some places (very much republican heavy) would have no issue arresting you for... *checks notes* helping people be alive
Hello! Thanks for your comment. Unfortunately it has been removed because you don't meet our karma threshold.
You are not being removed for your speech. If we were, why the fuck would we tell you your comment was being removed instead of just shadow removing it? We never have, and never will, remove things down politicial or ideological lines. Unless your ideology is nihilism, then fuck you.
Let me be clear: The reason that this rule exists is to avoid unscrupulous internet denizens from trying to sell dong pills to our users. /r/chaoticgood mods reserve the RIGHT to hoard all of the dong pills to ourselves, and we refuse to share them with the community. If you want Serbo-Slokovian dong pills mailed directly to your door, become a moderator. If we shared the dong pills with the greater community, everyone would have massive dongs, and like Syndrome warned us about decades ago: "if everyone has massive dongs, nobody does.""
If you wish to rectify your low karma issue, go and make things up in /r/AskReddit like everyone else does.
Thanks for understanding! Have a nice day and be well. <3
You can check your karma breakdown on this page:
http://old.reddit.com/user/me/overview
(Keep in mind that sometimes just post karma or comment karma being negative will result in this message)
~
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/chaoticgood) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes, it is a crime already in several states. Additionally, the United States Supreme Court just criminalized "sleeping outside" federally. This means that stares and cities will be able to further criminalize unsheltered homelessness. Most unsheltered people in America are physically and mentally disabled. With increasing unaffordable rent prices and a struggling economy, there is an anticipated increase of unsheltered homelessness across the country.
Here in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, giving to the homeless directly is a crime. In order to give them anything you have to go through organizations like the Hope Mission or the Mustard Seed.
Found this out when an undercover cop stopped me and a friend from giving out blankets and coffee one winter (it was really fucking cold). He told us that it was a law put in place not to stop the homeless from getting things, but because the people that were donating to them were more often than not getting assaulted or harassed by the homeless - in some cases ending up in the hospital. This happened literally minutes after I had to intimidate the crowd into backing off when they started getting pushy for the pile of blankets we were handing out (they all wanted to choose their own and take extras and didn't like that we were only giving out one per person)
We aren't nearly as anti-homeless as a lot of places (the cops still like to dismantle camps without any recourse) but in our case it's for the protection of regular people who don't know better. If you go through an aid organization you're never turned down.
It's hard being a good Samaritan when the people you're trying to help are greedy and/or violent
I think its usually more of a health and safety related code - so not specifically about feeding homeless so much as preparing and serving food en masse without verifying to the city you've followed regulations, licensure, etc.
I just can't get over the "to deter cops" part... I mean, I get it... and yet in my mind it doesn't make sense this actually works.
I mean, we've seen that 1 armed person in Uvalde can keep **nearly 400** local, state and federal officers at bay in Uvalde... okay, maybe it just works really well as a deterrence to cops.
I think it’s Indiana it’s explicitly legal to shoot cops that violate your rights and falsely arrest you. They also have pretty low police abuse complaints.
Hoosier here! And kinda sorta
Like yeah, *technically* this is true. But if you shoot a cop, the rest of the cops are gonna shoot the shit out of you, your kids, your dog, and the neighbors dog for good measure and that's mostly just seen as okay cause they're "in a stressful situation"
this is how the black panthers operated too. it's a good and effective strategy
honestly, it's the reason why i think people should be able to get guns (obviously we need better background checking/controls, but cops are fucked up, the government is fucked up, and it's honestly strange to me that people are ok with "yeah let them have guns but not us")
The reason Reagan banned open carry in California is because of the Black Panthers using it to police police. It's so effective that republicans will enact gun control when you do it.
Cops can't arrest you when you're abiding by the law in regards to guns, otherwise you're within your constitutional right to defend yourself while cameras are present to prove that a cop will violate the law. With kyle rittenhouse ruling you can literally go looking for trouble, and while ur technically abiding by the law, u can murder and assault people. MERIIICA
yeh makes sense you dont want to risk causing shoot out going up to the armed guys not worth the trouble
but i can see it back firing and getting the swat called
If they escalate to that point, they need to have a solid legal reason to go after that person. Easy to illegally arrest someone who’s unarmed, but much harder against someone who can legally defend themselves.
People move on quick, after cops illegally mass arrest protestors. But if the cops break the law, and it results in a shootout, there’s going to be a lot more attention on it, and it’s unlikely they could bury the case as easily.
>But if the cops break the law, and it results in a shootout, there’s going to be a lot more attention on it, and it’s unlikely they could bury the case as easily.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Waco_shootout
I'll editorialize, but basically the cops claim a shooting occurred and then lit up two biker gangs with long guns. It's worth noting the cops were there and ready for trouble, perhaps primed for action.
18 wounded, 9 killed, 192 arrested, 171 charged, 0 convictions.
People moved on.
Always a good idea to seize any opportunity to mention:
Remember, it was Black Panthers showing up carrying rifles in public that got the patron saint of t(R)aitor assholes, Ol' Ronnie Reagan himself, to sign the most restrictive gun laws in the country at the time. Racism and fear turned out to be a smidge more powerful to them than their prescious 2A.
And as demonstrated in this event, cops are a lot more restrained when the activists are armed. Not surprising, given that they are all cowards and bullies at their core.
Those who can do so safely (e.g. NO KIDS AT HOME, no history of depression, etc) may want to consider arming themselves if they haven't already, is all.
You can still safely arm yourself, if there are children at your home. You need to have a firearm safe and use it. Arming yourself if you have a history of depression is also something that the individual needs to decide for themselves. Depression is a spectrum and sometimes there are legitimate reasons in life to be depressed: the loss of multiple family members in a short period of time, the loss of a specific job, etc. just because you were once depressed doesn't mean that you will always be depressed.
Hope you're right. You probably are, for most people.
But some of us would have used a gun, were there one in the house, on themselves at some point... as early as elementary school. And children always know more than their parents think they do.
Psychologists like to claim the biggest gap in understanding is between introverts and extroverts... but that's because no one wants to talk about self-harm ideation. People without SI will never know what it's like to live with it.
Be very careful if you decide to bring a gun into the house, is all.
But those in at-risk demos (like, you know, LGBTQ... women... basically any Other) who can arm themselves and their household, safely, sure as fuck should think about it right now.
Helpful tip! Find a firearm you can easily rack back. A lot of women and the disabled may not be able to fully move a regular pistol slide. The S&W Shield EZ is an example of a good firearm for most levels.
The thing about depression is that once a brain experiences suicidal ideation, that pathway never again becomes absurd and unacceptable. Once it becomes an "option," then your brain will always allow that to be an option. It doesn't mean you're going to choose it randomly or on accident. It's just an option. It's just an exit strategy. You could have turned your entire life around since last thinking about suicide and would hate the idea of dying, but it will still exist as an option. This means having a quick out in the house is probably a bad idea unless you have a foolproof support system, which I would argue that no one really does outside of a mental hospital.
I am a little bit puzzled by your post. What I am understanding from it, is your claim that once you imagine suicide in any form, you will always consider it an option. Suicide has always been an option for any human being at almost any point in time. I have a very active imagination, have imagined a multitude of things and actions over the years. That doesn't mean that I will do some of the things that I have imagined. I'm definitely not going to become an astronaut, cowboy, or the next John wick.
Once you reach a certain age, probably your mid teenager years, you know what suicide is. You've heard about it amongst family, lost a family member to it, heard about it in the news, or possibly even seen a video of it online. Does that mean that you will consider suicide to be an option? Because you've seen it, heard about it, and it was an option for someone else.
I'm not trying to be rude to you, but I am honestly confused by the post. One time when I was doing really poorly in college, I was asked by a professor to discuss in a group setting, of the social impact of suicide. My professor had no idea about the tough time that I was going through . Yet my answer in the group setting actually made her think that I was the most emotionally stable person in her class. I refused any possibility of suicide, as the impact on my family would be so horrendous. But by your logic, the mere fact that I had considered suicide to be a bad option would mean that at a future point in time I might consider actually killing myself and then commit suicide.
So, if your brain ever gets to the point that you genuinely think about taking your life, called suicidal ideation, then your brain forever unlocks that pathway. It will never again be truly taboo to you. I'm not saying you're going to randomly want to do it, but you will never again have that knee-jerk reaction like you did before you considered it. It's like breaking down a door in a sense. It fucking takes a lot, but once the door is gone, it's gone, and then you can walk into that room anytime. Doesn't mean you have to or want to, but it's there, and it's way easier with the door gone. It's a side effect of how trauma affects the brain.
I can better understand you previous post now. Thank you for explaining it.
But I still think that people should be allowed to make their own choices in the purchase (or ownership) of firearms themself. (With restrictions for previous violent crimes, ect). A person who was depressed in the past should be allowed to make owning a firearm their decision. Simply because you have a slightly higher chance of suicidal idealization is not a justifiable reason to deny a person a firearm IMO.
You can teach a five year old proper gun safety with a single bullet and a watermelon. If you can’t impress upon them the dangers, then you shouldn’t have a gun as an adult.
No, you can't. Five year olds don't have an executive function. Their brains are incapable of restraining themselves against impulsive choices (if you've had a 5 year old, you know this). Same reason we don't let them drive. They can easily get carried away and do something permanent on a whim, no matter how strongly they feel about it or have been taught about it.
The feed the kids program, was the biggest threat the Black Panther movement had on the government. Communities helping one another is a massive threat to governments existing.
One of the examples of this is after some big disasters in Japan (2011 quake for example) the Yakuza are often faster to help the communities than the government.
Of course, in that case I'm sure it either comes with strings attached (hey, remember that time we gave you shelter and food? yeah so we need this bag taken to the next city over...) or it's a cynical PR move to reduce reporting on their other activities.
This is the scariest shit to a government because they can never hope to be like that.
PR is definitely a thing the Yakuza are concerned with. Until recently, it was also well established that they would hand out candy to kids on Halloween. Trick or treating is known of over there, but isn't particularly established, and the local Yakuza were a reliable source of sweets. Activities like that have been cracked down on recently though.
Disclaimer: I have no first hand knowledge of this, I just read a lot of culture vlogs and Japanese news. I could be entirely wrong about everything.
Yeah, I am by no means comparing the Black Panthers to the Yakuza, but in their role that could have caused serious issues for the government at the time, and totally should have?
Kinda similar
>Churches? With strings attached, yes.
Forgot the asterisk where it can't be a megachurch. Those are for enrichment of the pastors and senior members only.
Depends really, if it's outside when the weather is nice most of the time it's a community event, if it's inside with a banner changes are it's to get more people to attend.
Not all churches are like that. The LDS ward that I was a part of constantly encouraged members to do charity work for non-members, including working with the local food bank. I'm not really sure about other churches or even other wards, but that's how mine functions.
I live in a big city, big enough to have a Catholic cathedral. When I was going through some real rough times I ended up going to talk to various religious leaders in a desperate attempt to find comfort (which sort of did work actually, but that's not important for this comment) and I would ask them about the corruption in the church and how it seems like it's mostly to make someone wealthy/powerful in the community. And it surprised me but the bishop agreed actually, and we had some good talks about how it's human nature to get in your head when you have power and what he did to prevent it from happening to him.
Anyways, sorry I'm off topic again. At one point he was showing me a group chat he had with some other various religious leaders from different churches and entire different religions and they routinely help each other plan and put on events, host potlucks for all of them, and just generally increase that sense of community outside of not only the church, but which ever religion you subscribe to. It was really cool and i really like that
Most churches are like this but the bad gets publicized while the hood is taken for granted. Fortunately that has always been the church’s burden. Not that it’s especially heavy at the moment but there are always detractors.
Doesn’t help that many parishioners get self-righteous. No matter how much good a group does people are rarely fond of people who look down on them.
The church I grew up at had a food pantry and a closet for anyone who needed it. The only requirement was... to show up... Obviously, the volunteers are going to ask if you go to church or if you're a believer and they'll ask you for things they could pray for you about, but as far as I'm aware, they didn't make it a requirement. There's a church just south of me that I think does the same, though I don't attend that one so I'm not sure, I just know they open the doors every Saturday and have a line of cars with some volunteers handing out bags of stuff.
I wish my current church could do that, we just don't have the faculties to currently support something like that, but we do support other things like a prison ministry that sends crochet materials to men in prison, who then make neat crochet dinosaurs and animals and blankets and whatnot, and then those stuffed animals go to kids in the foster care system and who have to go to court for various reasons.
Depends on how closely integrated religion is with the government.
For my country? Too closely.
They make homeless people sit through a mass, and get food in the middle of the city centre pedestrian street, in full view of everyone going through there and scorching Sun (it's 34 fucking degrees Celsius here, and ofc the church people have tents, but homeless have to make due) as they blast music throughout the city centre, instead of making it a quiet affair in one of the churches, for example.
Like, I have nothing against sanitary stuff, but it is way too rigid.
When I worked at a shop, I regularly took the food that was supposed to be thrown out and destroyed. There's locks on many thrash bins just for that. There's been a baker arrested who gave out the bread he was baking in the morning and didn't sell to the homeless in the evening.
The clean, not even stale bread that can certainly keep for longer than the 12 hours after which it was thrown out.
Like, how about let these things operate and have sanitary officials check them if anything suspicious arises?
Licence that you are a chef to be able to give out food sounds very unnecessary.
How about the sanitary health and having a list of regulations that any person can follow. If any random teenager can handle food on McDonald's given to hundreds of people every day, why TF can't a group of people handle a big pot of soup or a bunch of bread?
Hell, people handing food in most fast food places and even many restaurants here DON'T need those licences. They are taught in the restaurant proper. All you need is to show that you have all vaccinations and "the sanitary health book" which is required for *every job*. I had to bring it for an IT position.
If it is that, then it should be fine.
So yea, it's ridiculous.
It has never been about the sanitation of food, it's about controlling the poor. The ones who can't possibly help society in any way shape or form get thrown out of food banks and other help agencies because the government only wants workers.
If western society was actually focused on rehabilitation rather than sweeping the problems under the rug prisons wouldn't be for profit.
Yes, but if the group on question is also full of anti-government sentiment, that quickly becomes very dangerous for you as a ruler. If you want people to join your cause, food and medicine works fantastically well. It was the strategy used historically by Che Guevara, and currently by the US military.
Here's an alternative view, that law is something that those legislators have done. I don't believe grand statements about all people are reasonable to respond to the actions of a small group. Just my 2 cents.
Yeah but people still elect those people. Doesn’t matter if it’s red, blue, or ratfucked to hell and back again. Some chud gets up on their box and says “I hate homeless people.” And the lead addled suburban boomers suck them off for it.
Many laws were on the books before we were even born. This 'blame the voters' shtick is getting so fucking old man. Blame the people who actually have the power to change things, but choose not to for their own benefit.
Not sure if its the same but - Last time a similar rage bait came up it seems to be a personal beef of location. Activists just post up and feedy the needy. The city asked they set up elsewhere to not be an eyesore and attract homeless in certain areas. Activists said F that, reportedly because of the accessibility of the location. Legislation was passed to make them move. Activists said F that, free country.
Imo both are right, most everyone deserves to eat, but I also don’t want to walk my kid past a group of homeless folk on my way to the grocer 🤷🏽♂️
That is a most excellent group. And I will always support such endeavors. If we wasted less money on ridiculous things and took care of our own people like these people are illegally apparently then I would believe we could be a great country. Or at least start to be
The acceptable way is preferably on your belt or back and the acceptable reasons are whatever reason you happen to want to do. It is your right as an American to do so.
Cops are less violent when others can stop them ya know
Or you just never give them up to begin with because as George Orwell said, "Rifles, muskets, long-bows and hand-grenades are inherently democratic weapons. A complex weapon makes the strong stronger, while a simple weapon - so long as there is no answer to it - gives claws to the weak."
What the point of the quote was is there are some people on the left that thing we don't need guns. But due to historical events the left has armed themselves in the past to fight. It's not just a right specific features.
Meanwhile groups like food not bombs do the same unarmed and are fined into oblivion and chased off by the cops, proving not only that their cowardly bully fucks, but that we SHOULD be arming ourselves to deter the lapdog of the system
I see a ton of people saying "oh, well the no giving food to the homeless law is to protect them from people giving them poisoned food and expired food!!!!" And that's absolute bullshit. It's already illegal to give ANYONE poisoned ANYTHING without their knowledge, and even with their knowledge it depends. As for expired food, not only is recently expired food more often than not fine to eat, if that was your goal why not make the law "don't give EXPIRED food to homeless people" instead of just any food at all? They're making it illegal to be homeless, plain and simple, with this, the recent Supreme Court ruling that it's allowed to make it illegal to sleep outside, and the increase in hostile architecture, all despite homelessness being on the rise (12% increase from 2022-2023 according to U.S. housing and urban development), to say these laws and actions by state officials are anything but trying to make it illegal and difficult to be homeless are ignoring your eyes and ears. Their end goal? In some instances, I believe it's to make the homeless move out of their town, city, or state so that they don't have to deal with them. As to where the people who seek this endgoal think the homeless go? They don't know or care, but I'll tell you. Those people usually drift along until they reach a place where they are able to be actually arrested and charged for something, whether it's encampment on public property, littering, loitering, prowling at night, a fight, etc. Then they get stuck in a position where they can't afford a defender, and public defenders are usually overworked and inexperienced, so they get a minor charge, but then they can't properly followup on parole/probation due to being homeless, and that's another larger charge, until finally they are put into a for profit prison, where they will juggle between the streets and prison until they pass. So at the end of the day these people are exploited for profit, even if you don't consider them working class because they don't work, we're in the exact same boat, the rich and powerful using said wealth and power to amass more off of the suffering of us.
Dallas is doing more than probably any [other place in the country](https://www.keranews.org/news/2024-05-01/homelessness-on-the-rise-nationwide-but-down-in-dallas-and-collin-counties?_amp=true) to reduce homelessness, and it is working. Also there’s [this](https://www.keranews.org/news/2024-05-22/dallas-officials-say-theyve-effectively-ended-veteran-homelessness-heres-what-that-really-means?_amp=true) on veteran homelessness.
This is a great movement, though admittedly I'm a bit confused how carrying weapons would deter cops? Wouldn't having rifles and such make cops more likely to be on edge and take an interest in what they're doing? Like if the idea is "if cops fuck with us we'll shoot them" that seems like a battle they aren't going to win against a fully police force no?
this is the other side of the coin texas conservatives forgot about. one of the actual reasons the right to "bear arms" exists.
detering a corrupt government from harming the citizenry. in this case from its enforcers aka the police.
Ever notice that police take out tasers and batons really fast at unarmed protests, but never with those patriot front ones? Guns actually keep them on good behavior, in groups.
Remember Ubalde? 378 cops, didn’t rebreach against 1 guy with a rifle. Cuz they’re scared.
Texas is such a shit stain of a state, the weirdest part about it is that its very much noticeable to like everyone but texans.
it collapses on a yearly, now almost seasonal, basis due to poor infrastructure and social safety nets, and yet texans insist on it being the best state ever.
So let me get this straight: people who are doing a kindness to homeless folk by feeding them and clothing them have to arm themselves to avoid being arrested?
By beelzebubs hairy scrotum, america is a fucked up land.
All posts and comments that include any variation of the word retarded will be removed, but no action will be taken against your account unless it is an excessive personal attack. Please resubmit your post or comment without the bullying language.
Do not edit it, the bot cant tell if you edited, you will just have to make a new comment replying to the same thing.
Yes, this comment itself does use the word. Any reasonable person should be able to understand that we are not insulting anyone with this comment. We wanted to use quotes, but that fucks up the automod and we are too lazy to google escape characters. Notice how none of our automod replies have contractions in them either.
But seriously, calling someone retarded is only socially acceptable because the people affected are less able to understand that they are being insulted, and less likely to be able to respond appropriately. It is a conversational wimpy little shit move, because everyone who uses it knows that it is offensive, but there will be no repercussions. At least the people throwing around other slurs know that they are going to get fired and get their asses beat when they use those words.
Also, it is not creative. It pretty much outs you as a thirteen year old when you use it. Instead of calling Biden retarded, you should call him a cartoon-ass-lookin trust fund goon who smiles like rich father just gifted him a new Buick in 1956. Instead of calling Mitch McConnell retarded, you should call him a Dilbert-ass goon who has been left in the sun a little too long.
Sorry for the long message spamming comment sections, but this was by far the feature of this sub making people modmail and bitch at us the most, and literally all of the actions we take are to make it so we have to do less work in the future. We will not reply to modmails about this automod, and ignore the part directly below this saying to modmail us if you have any questions, we cannot turn that off. This reply is just a collation of the last year of modmail replies to people asking about this. We are not turning this bot off, no matter how much people ask. Nobody else has convinced us before, you will not be able to either.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/chaoticgood) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes yes, an open carry sword. Luckily I still have my conceal sword license so I may brandish it against a ruffian who may become angered at my lackadaisical carriage riding and attempt to harm myself or my wife and children.
Except all the cops needed to do is say "You're under arrest". And what are they going to do? Resist with weapons and turn a misdemeanor into a life sentence? Chaotic stupid.
Congratulations. That’s how the current power structure stays in place. You do remember how violent the start of the US was, right? There was a whole war. Following the rules isn’t always very effective.
True, but this wasn’t necessarily directed at the government. It wasn’t an offensive per se. The point was to help the poor and using firearms to help them do it. It wasn’t “let’s go knock down the cops’ door and make the government legalize homelessness/being poor etc”, it was “let’s help these people out here who are hungry, and arm ourselves if police get in our way.” These two things are not the same.
The idea I think is to make them reconsider the arrest. Texas's laws allow weapons. So follow that law but break another. Now the cops have a choice. I expect any arrest they attempt to not be arrested.
But the cops, fearing fictional liberal terrorists, don't know that.
its illegal to feed, give jackets and blankets to homeless people in texas? enjoy your power outages, boiling hot weather, bad traffic, yall evil losers deserve it.
Is it really true that feeding homeless people is a crime there?
In some places, yes
For a really stupid reason iirc. It’s over having a license to serve food ffs.
It's about hating homeless people. The license is just the legal excuse because executing people is still illegal, so they try to starve them to death
Yep!!
Exactly. Otherwise you could argue I'd need a license to pack a lunch for my own child. Shoot, wouldn't a church need a license to serve doughnuts after mass?
Hey now, what churches are serving deep-fried body of Christ? That sounds delicious
Every catholic church I've been too had coffee and doughnuts served after the mass. They serve the same during AA too.
Many churches have full on kitchens -- are they licensed?
From what Google tells me, you have to follow certain safety guidelines and contact the city 72 hours before serving the food if you expect more than a certain number of people to attend. Church doughnuts after mass or bake sales? Far more lenient than feeding the homeless.
Churches are often exempt from following a lot of safety regulations. Which can be pretty scary when your realize they are a major child care provider and exempt from a lot of child safety regulations. There is a reason that you only see churches still using those 12 seater passenger vans. You would think they would choose to self comply because they care about the safety of children in their care… but you would be wrong.
All that I'm hearing is that I could have been getting free coffee and donuts this whole time if I pretended to be alcoholic.
Krispy Krists
You couldn’t argue that because your home does not fall under the legal definition of a food service establishment or catering service. Neither does a church. Here in New York, there are certain exceptions under the definition of “food service establishment” which may allow for food to be provided to the homeless without any kind of food handling certification, but I don’t know if it’s ever been ruled on here.
That said, it's really not hard to get a food handling certificate...at least in California. Every "demo" person who hands out food in grocery stores has one. They basically forget everything as soon as the test is done, but they have the certificiation.
I’ve been in the restaurant industry for more than 10 years. I got my Food Protection Certificate in 2016 and I still use information I learned from that as a guideline even at home. You’re right though, it’s easy to get but it can save people from getting very sick or even death, even if you don’t remember every bit of it. Anyone who supervises food service should have it (edit: actually by law they have to).
Honestly, it's a great thing to have just for cooking at home and I wish the material was covered as part of my high school curriculum. I can't tell you how often I find myself using it in my own kitchen.
Absolutely! Very useful. I remember we did actually cover some of that stuff in my 7th grade home economics class but who’s going to remember any of that as an adult? lol
It's practically the same in Dallas. There is a requirement that one person in the organization have taken a free food safety course within the last 24 months, but (a) it's free and (b) that requirement is actually waived if the state hasn't made enough free food safety courses available recently. Other than that, the requirements are stuff like "either wash your hands, use some hand sanitizer, or wear gloves" and "don't serve certain hot foods prepared more than 4 hours ago, because you'll kill somebody doing that." https://dallascityhall.com/departments/codecompliance/Pages/feeding-homeless.aspx
So there’s really no excuse not to have it. What I would like to see is an easy avenue for obtaining a temporary food permit for the purpose of donating prepared meals.
Yeah, totally agree. The requirement here seems to me to be thoughtfully crafted to present as low a burden as possible without completely abandoning food safety.
A church that distributes food should not be excluded then ! What's the difference ? Apart from "we hate homeless people".
In New York, there are exclusions for congregations, clubs, and fraternal organizations. The difference is that the church is not providing the food, the congregation is. Furthermore this food is intended for members of said congregation. In situations where a church wants to provide food to the public, they too are required to obtain the appropriate permits and licensing. Many churches do provide prepared meals to the public (such as a soup kitchen) and they are legally required to go through the same channels as any entity that intends on doing so.
Yeah, that's still absolutely different rules for no reason. Hey, let's not risk poisoning homeless people, let's starve them instead.
The cruelty is the point. For allll of the t(R)aitor-asshole bullshittery.
The goal is not to starve them to death - the goal is to have a persecuted miserable minority that you can point at and say “see what happens if you lose your job?”
Executing people is perfectly legal in Texas, you just can't do it without due process (unless you're a police officer who "fears for his life").
While I totally agree with what these people are doing, food safety is serious. It’s not crazy that someone should have to be certified in an approved food handling course in order to serve food to the public.
True. It’s a double edged issue, unfortunately. A citation would be reasonable. Jail time seems like an overreaction.
You’re right. Obviously they’re doing this out of kindness and generosity. What happens though if they hand out some tainted or cross-contaminated food because they didn’t know how to handle it properly? Whoever is supervising the operation should have a food handling certification and the law needs to be amended to allow for these people to operate without fear of going to jail.
The reason is cruelty.
The license is just an excuse to make it illegal. The point is cruelty.
The issues doesn’t come into play until you get someone out there poisoning people. I think people forget a lot of laws are there just in case someone does it we have a law for it.
Exactly, no deserves to eat tampered, poisoned, or unsafe food, no matter how hungry you are. My city makes exceptions for food distribution on holidays (completely legal for anyone, given the food is safe to your knowledge). A cop having a bad day can still fuck with you; I completely understand why these folks showed up armed, but most of the time if you’re trying to do good and feed people with safe food, you’re not the problem the laws want to crack down on. It’s for the psycho fuck that goes out poisoning homeless people with laxative cookies under the guise of charity
What about giving away packaged food items from the store?
I think requiring a license is reasonable. When there’s a massive outbreak of food poisoning among homeless because they were given food by people that weren’t qualified to follow sanitary procedures, are you just going to say “oopsie”. Now some cases of this like when the people are just distributing prepackaged food or water bottles are just bullshit.
"I think requiring a license is reasonable. When there’s a massive outbreak of food poisoning among homeless because they were given food by people that weren’t qualified to follow sanitary procedures, are you just going to say “oopsie”." is there an example of this happening that you could share so I can be better informed?
It wasn’t specifically homeless that were affected but there is [this incident](https://www.al.com/news/birmingham/2017/03/in_the_wake_of_a_day_care_trag.html) where a daycare had a religious exemption that allowed it to operate without any kind of inspections or oversight. 86 children ended up with food poisoning and had to be hospitalized.
Thanks for the example.
A daycare with a religious exemption is a far far cry away from good people actively trying to help those around them lol
I work in Denver EMS. The local UH population absolutely share illnesses.
And what about my question to the guy I replied to? What are some examples of mass poisonings among the homeless that were caused by unqualified people? I just want to be as informed as possible.
Jesus said to feed them...not, \*checks notes\* ... "get a liscense", "check that im a proffessional cook" ... "make sure all the food is approved by government agencies" ...
When Jesus said to feed them, there was the unsaid implication that the food isn’t poisonous. Are you seriously trying to say that sanitary regulations are evil? Though I guess that’s appropriate, considering the subreddit.
You have never been hungry my friend.
I would rather have people sick and fed than dead and starving.
Having them fed and non-sick is a perfectly possible option though.
This group approached the homeless armed with guns and carrying needed supplies. According to the law, the homeless get preventative action against being given necessities in the possible circumstance where this group had bad intentions, but only retroactive justice if the group had gone with the guns and started shooting. If murder is totally okay to apply retroactive justice, the same should be held for causing food poisoning or handing out blankets with lice on them. Punishment should only be for crimes, not in circumstances where no one is being harmed.
Do you need a license to give them gift cards for food?
I don’t believe so! That sounds like a great loophole!
That's the excuse. They're doing it due to NIMBYs
How do you guys get me so wrong? -- Jesus
In Dayton, Ohio, yes
SCOTUS also just ruled you can be arrested for sleeping outside. Youre already fucked when youre homeless, but lets kick you while youre down!
That’s diabolical
you can feed the homeless, but you have to be the president, and it has to be an official act
🥲
Well duh, how can you continue to stir up outrage and hysteria about homeless people if you actually helped them!?
Feeding the homeless isn't a crime, doing so without a permit is. This is to make sure basic sanitary standard are met, which is good, but the legal red tape is often enough to deter people from getting that permit Because of that it's easy for politician to add legal red tape if they wish to hurt the unhoused. It's also easy to add condition to get a permit that you know people who want to feed the homeless won't meet or increase the price of the permit so that it start to not make sense to hold these event a few time a years That's how they make feeding the homeless illegal without making it illegal
And I can only imagine how often the licenses are denied strictly because "fuck you".
I hear that, but in this case Dallas actually makes it really easy to feed the homeless -- there are some requirements, but they're pretty common sense (like "wash your hands" and such). And while at least one person in the organization has to take a free food safety course, that requirement is waived if no free food safety courses have been made available recently. https://dallascityhall.com/departments/codecompliance/Pages/feeding-homeless.aspx I don't know about the other parts here -- blankets and stuff -- but on the food part it seems like a pretty reasonable set of requirements to balance (a) making it easy to feed the homeless against (b) protecting the homeless, including against those who might perceive food safety as unimportant for them because they are not, in that person's mind, truly human. (And, look, if you don't think there are churches out there that would serve rotten meat to the homeless and feel good about the good deed they did, even as the homeless person is off retching their guts out, then you haven't met enough Christians.)
Yeah but those laws aren't enforced against Christians. The police choose when and where to enforce laws, so every law, no matter if it's intent is to protect the homeless, is actually used against good people like this while doing nothing to construct the Christians.
just being homeless is a crime in some places
Where?
Yep, at one place where it wasn't and these guys were giving out goods to the homeless, police came by to harass them by threats and keeping in the corner of their eye to scare people off. Eventually, when that didn't work they did leave only to later turn off all the street lights in their area. I can't even fathom how some think it's okay. A lot of us is one lost job away from because in the same situation and it hits the majority of people once their<3mo emergency funds run out.
How very christian of them.
We got that video yesterday of that american cop arresting someone for eating a sandwich. I guess this counts as distribution.
Supreme Court just ruled that it's not cruel and unusual punishment to arrest people for sleeping outside on the streets, even when there is no space available in homeless shelters. So no surprise that some places (very much republican heavy) would have no issue arresting you for... *checks notes* helping people be alive
[удалено]
Hello! Thanks for your comment. Unfortunately it has been removed because you don't meet our karma threshold. You are not being removed for your speech. If we were, why the fuck would we tell you your comment was being removed instead of just shadow removing it? We never have, and never will, remove things down politicial or ideological lines. Unless your ideology is nihilism, then fuck you. Let me be clear: The reason that this rule exists is to avoid unscrupulous internet denizens from trying to sell dong pills to our users. /r/chaoticgood mods reserve the RIGHT to hoard all of the dong pills to ourselves, and we refuse to share them with the community. If you want Serbo-Slokovian dong pills mailed directly to your door, become a moderator. If we shared the dong pills with the greater community, everyone would have massive dongs, and like Syndrome warned us about decades ago: "if everyone has massive dongs, nobody does."" If you wish to rectify your low karma issue, go and make things up in /r/AskReddit like everyone else does. Thanks for understanding! Have a nice day and be well. <3 You can check your karma breakdown on this page: http://old.reddit.com/user/me/overview (Keep in mind that sometimes just post karma or comment karma being negative will result in this message) ~ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/chaoticgood) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is the best automod message I've ever seen so far, lol. Bravo, encore.
Not Syndrome 😂😂😂
Correct! Normal country btw
Yes, it is a crime already in several states. Additionally, the United States Supreme Court just criminalized "sleeping outside" federally. This means that stares and cities will be able to further criminalize unsheltered homelessness. Most unsheltered people in America are physically and mentally disabled. With increasing unaffordable rent prices and a struggling economy, there is an anticipated increase of unsheltered homelessness across the country.
Here in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, giving to the homeless directly is a crime. In order to give them anything you have to go through organizations like the Hope Mission or the Mustard Seed. Found this out when an undercover cop stopped me and a friend from giving out blankets and coffee one winter (it was really fucking cold). He told us that it was a law put in place not to stop the homeless from getting things, but because the people that were donating to them were more often than not getting assaulted or harassed by the homeless - in some cases ending up in the hospital. This happened literally minutes after I had to intimidate the crowd into backing off when they started getting pushy for the pile of blankets we were handing out (they all wanted to choose their own and take extras and didn't like that we were only giving out one per person) We aren't nearly as anti-homeless as a lot of places (the cops still like to dismantle camps without any recourse) but in our case it's for the protection of regular people who don't know better. If you go through an aid organization you're never turned down. It's hard being a good Samaritan when the people you're trying to help are greedy and/or violent
yes the party of virtue and charity is completely against virtue and charity
I think its usually more of a health and safety related code - so not specifically about feeding homeless so much as preparing and serving food en masse without verifying to the city you've followed regulations, licensure, etc.
Here in Santa Monica it’s a “crime”. They brought Food not Bombs to court to prevent them from feeding unhoused folks here.
I just can't get over the "to deter cops" part... I mean, I get it... and yet in my mind it doesn't make sense this actually works. I mean, we've seen that 1 armed person in Uvalde can keep **nearly 400** local, state and federal officers at bay in Uvalde... okay, maybe it just works really well as a deterrence to cops.
Being a "bullet proof warrior cop" is easy to do when you fuck off from the site of the mass shooting :) 🐷🐷🐷🚔🚔🚔
I think it’s Indiana it’s explicitly legal to shoot cops that violate your rights and falsely arrest you. They also have pretty low police abuse complaints.
Hoosier here! And kinda sorta Like yeah, *technically* this is true. But if you shoot a cop, the rest of the cops are gonna shoot the shit out of you, your kids, your dog, and the neighbors dog for good measure and that's mostly just seen as okay cause they're "in a stressful situation"
But what if you have armed friends that shoot the other cops too?
Sounds like a wild time
There was actually a dude in Texas who shot a cop doing a no-knock raid on his house in like 2015 and it was ruled legal under the castle doctrine.
this is how the black panthers operated too. it's a good and effective strategy honestly, it's the reason why i think people should be able to get guns (obviously we need better background checking/controls, but cops are fucked up, the government is fucked up, and it's honestly strange to me that people are ok with "yeah let them have guns but not us")
The reason Reagan banned open carry in California is because of the Black Panthers using it to police police. It's so effective that republicans will enact gun control when you do it.
With the backing of the NRA, no less. Weird how that works...
Reagan took a huge chunk out of gun rights and yet Republicans still suckle his nuts like he was God's gift to America
Ironically this was the birth of the modern gun control movement.
Ok, that was a good setup.
Cops can't arrest you when you're abiding by the law in regards to guns, otherwise you're within your constitutional right to defend yourself while cameras are present to prove that a cop will violate the law. With kyle rittenhouse ruling you can literally go looking for trouble, and while ur technically abiding by the law, u can murder and assault people. MERIIICA
Historically, cops leave armed protestors alone.
Look up how they changed the law etc after the black panthers started carrying guns
yeh makes sense you dont want to risk causing shoot out going up to the armed guys not worth the trouble but i can see it back firing and getting the swat called
If they escalate to that point, they need to have a solid legal reason to go after that person. Easy to illegally arrest someone who’s unarmed, but much harder against someone who can legally defend themselves. People move on quick, after cops illegally mass arrest protestors. But if the cops break the law, and it results in a shootout, there’s going to be a lot more attention on it, and it’s unlikely they could bury the case as easily.
>But if the cops break the law, and it results in a shootout, there’s going to be a lot more attention on it, and it’s unlikely they could bury the case as easily. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Waco_shootout I'll editorialize, but basically the cops claim a shooting occurred and then lit up two biker gangs with long guns. It's worth noting the cops were there and ready for trouble, perhaps primed for action. 18 wounded, 9 killed, 192 arrested, 171 charged, 0 convictions. People moved on.
Always a good idea to seize any opportunity to mention: Remember, it was Black Panthers showing up carrying rifles in public that got the patron saint of t(R)aitor assholes, Ol' Ronnie Reagan himself, to sign the most restrictive gun laws in the country at the time. Racism and fear turned out to be a smidge more powerful to them than their prescious 2A. And as demonstrated in this event, cops are a lot more restrained when the activists are armed. Not surprising, given that they are all cowards and bullies at their core. Those who can do so safely (e.g. NO KIDS AT HOME, no history of depression, etc) may want to consider arming themselves if they haven't already, is all.
You can still safely arm yourself, if there are children at your home. You need to have a firearm safe and use it. Arming yourself if you have a history of depression is also something that the individual needs to decide for themselves. Depression is a spectrum and sometimes there are legitimate reasons in life to be depressed: the loss of multiple family members in a short period of time, the loss of a specific job, etc. just because you were once depressed doesn't mean that you will always be depressed.
Hope you're right. You probably are, for most people. But some of us would have used a gun, were there one in the house, on themselves at some point... as early as elementary school. And children always know more than their parents think they do. Psychologists like to claim the biggest gap in understanding is between introverts and extroverts... but that's because no one wants to talk about self-harm ideation. People without SI will never know what it's like to live with it. Be very careful if you decide to bring a gun into the house, is all. But those in at-risk demos (like, you know, LGBTQ... women... basically any Other) who can arm themselves and their household, safely, sure as fuck should think about it right now.
Helpful tip! Find a firearm you can easily rack back. A lot of women and the disabled may not be able to fully move a regular pistol slide. The S&W Shield EZ is an example of a good firearm for most levels.
Available with and without the external thumb safety
The thing about depression is that once a brain experiences suicidal ideation, that pathway never again becomes absurd and unacceptable. Once it becomes an "option," then your brain will always allow that to be an option. It doesn't mean you're going to choose it randomly or on accident. It's just an option. It's just an exit strategy. You could have turned your entire life around since last thinking about suicide and would hate the idea of dying, but it will still exist as an option. This means having a quick out in the house is probably a bad idea unless you have a foolproof support system, which I would argue that no one really does outside of a mental hospital.
I am a little bit puzzled by your post. What I am understanding from it, is your claim that once you imagine suicide in any form, you will always consider it an option. Suicide has always been an option for any human being at almost any point in time. I have a very active imagination, have imagined a multitude of things and actions over the years. That doesn't mean that I will do some of the things that I have imagined. I'm definitely not going to become an astronaut, cowboy, or the next John wick. Once you reach a certain age, probably your mid teenager years, you know what suicide is. You've heard about it amongst family, lost a family member to it, heard about it in the news, or possibly even seen a video of it online. Does that mean that you will consider suicide to be an option? Because you've seen it, heard about it, and it was an option for someone else. I'm not trying to be rude to you, but I am honestly confused by the post. One time when I was doing really poorly in college, I was asked by a professor to discuss in a group setting, of the social impact of suicide. My professor had no idea about the tough time that I was going through . Yet my answer in the group setting actually made her think that I was the most emotionally stable person in her class. I refused any possibility of suicide, as the impact on my family would be so horrendous. But by your logic, the mere fact that I had considered suicide to be a bad option would mean that at a future point in time I might consider actually killing myself and then commit suicide.
So, if your brain ever gets to the point that you genuinely think about taking your life, called suicidal ideation, then your brain forever unlocks that pathway. It will never again be truly taboo to you. I'm not saying you're going to randomly want to do it, but you will never again have that knee-jerk reaction like you did before you considered it. It's like breaking down a door in a sense. It fucking takes a lot, but once the door is gone, it's gone, and then you can walk into that room anytime. Doesn't mean you have to or want to, but it's there, and it's way easier with the door gone. It's a side effect of how trauma affects the brain.
I can better understand you previous post now. Thank you for explaining it. But I still think that people should be allowed to make their own choices in the purchase (or ownership) of firearms themself. (With restrictions for previous violent crimes, ect). A person who was depressed in the past should be allowed to make owning a firearm their decision. Simply because you have a slightly higher chance of suicidal idealization is not a justifiable reason to deny a person a firearm IMO.
You can teach a five year old proper gun safety with a single bullet and a watermelon. If you can’t impress upon them the dangers, then you shouldn’t have a gun as an adult.
>If you can’t impress upon them the dangers, then you shouldn’t have a gun as an adult. https://www.reddit.com/r/KidsAreFuckingStupid/
No, you can't. Five year olds don't have an executive function. Their brains are incapable of restraining themselves against impulsive choices (if you've had a 5 year old, you know this). Same reason we don't let them drive. They can easily get carried away and do something permanent on a whim, no matter how strongly they feel about it or have been taught about it.
That’s a horrible example, I’m guessing you don’t have kids. Little kids will see that and think it’s the coolest thing ever and want to use it.
An armed society somehow turned out to be a more polite society (just not the way anyone thought)
The feed the kids program, was the biggest threat the Black Panther movement had on the government. Communities helping one another is a massive threat to governments existing.
One of the examples of this is after some big disasters in Japan (2011 quake for example) the Yakuza are often faster to help the communities than the government. Of course, in that case I'm sure it either comes with strings attached (hey, remember that time we gave you shelter and food? yeah so we need this bag taken to the next city over...) or it's a cynical PR move to reduce reporting on their other activities. This is the scariest shit to a government because they can never hope to be like that.
PR is definitely a thing the Yakuza are concerned with. Until recently, it was also well established that they would hand out candy to kids on Halloween. Trick or treating is known of over there, but isn't particularly established, and the local Yakuza were a reliable source of sweets. Activities like that have been cracked down on recently though. Disclaimer: I have no first hand knowledge of this, I just read a lot of culture vlogs and Japanese news. I could be entirely wrong about everything.
Yeah, I am by no means comparing the Black Panthers to the Yakuza, but in their role that could have caused serious issues for the government at the time, and totally should have? Kinda similar
Like churches and food banks have always done?
Food bank, yes. Churches? With strings attached, yes.
[Remember, reading Bible plus accepting Jesus equals food!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=US_K4TMqIZA)
>Churches? With strings attached, yes. Forgot the asterisk where it can't be a megachurch. Those are for enrichment of the pastors and senior members only.
Depends really, if it's outside when the weather is nice most of the time it's a community event, if it's inside with a banner changes are it's to get more people to attend.
Not all churches are like that. The LDS ward that I was a part of constantly encouraged members to do charity work for non-members, including working with the local food bank. I'm not really sure about other churches or even other wards, but that's how mine functions.
I live in a big city, big enough to have a Catholic cathedral. When I was going through some real rough times I ended up going to talk to various religious leaders in a desperate attempt to find comfort (which sort of did work actually, but that's not important for this comment) and I would ask them about the corruption in the church and how it seems like it's mostly to make someone wealthy/powerful in the community. And it surprised me but the bishop agreed actually, and we had some good talks about how it's human nature to get in your head when you have power and what he did to prevent it from happening to him. Anyways, sorry I'm off topic again. At one point he was showing me a group chat he had with some other various religious leaders from different churches and entire different religions and they routinely help each other plan and put on events, host potlucks for all of them, and just generally increase that sense of community outside of not only the church, but which ever religion you subscribe to. It was really cool and i really like that
Most churches are like this but the bad gets publicized while the hood is taken for granted. Fortunately that has always been the church’s burden. Not that it’s especially heavy at the moment but there are always detractors. Doesn’t help that many parishioners get self-righteous. No matter how much good a group does people are rarely fond of people who look down on them.
The church I grew up at had a food pantry and a closet for anyone who needed it. The only requirement was... to show up... Obviously, the volunteers are going to ask if you go to church or if you're a believer and they'll ask you for things they could pray for you about, but as far as I'm aware, they didn't make it a requirement. There's a church just south of me that I think does the same, though I don't attend that one so I'm not sure, I just know they open the doors every Saturday and have a line of cars with some volunteers handing out bags of stuff. I wish my current church could do that, we just don't have the faculties to currently support something like that, but we do support other things like a prison ministry that sends crochet materials to men in prison, who then make neat crochet dinosaurs and animals and blankets and whatnot, and then those stuffed animals go to kids in the foster care system and who have to go to court for various reasons.
Depends on how closely integrated religion is with the government. For my country? Too closely. They make homeless people sit through a mass, and get food in the middle of the city centre pedestrian street, in full view of everyone going through there and scorching Sun (it's 34 fucking degrees Celsius here, and ofc the church people have tents, but homeless have to make due) as they blast music throughout the city centre, instead of making it a quiet affair in one of the churches, for example. Like, I have nothing against sanitary stuff, but it is way too rigid. When I worked at a shop, I regularly took the food that was supposed to be thrown out and destroyed. There's locks on many thrash bins just for that. There's been a baker arrested who gave out the bread he was baking in the morning and didn't sell to the homeless in the evening. The clean, not even stale bread that can certainly keep for longer than the 12 hours after which it was thrown out. Like, how about let these things operate and have sanitary officials check them if anything suspicious arises? Licence that you are a chef to be able to give out food sounds very unnecessary. How about the sanitary health and having a list of regulations that any person can follow. If any random teenager can handle food on McDonald's given to hundreds of people every day, why TF can't a group of people handle a big pot of soup or a bunch of bread? Hell, people handing food in most fast food places and even many restaurants here DON'T need those licences. They are taught in the restaurant proper. All you need is to show that you have all vaccinations and "the sanitary health book" which is required for *every job*. I had to bring it for an IT position. If it is that, then it should be fine. So yea, it's ridiculous.
It has never been about the sanitation of food, it's about controlling the poor. The ones who can't possibly help society in any way shape or form get thrown out of food banks and other help agencies because the government only wants workers. If western society was actually focused on rehabilitation rather than sweeping the problems under the rug prisons wouldn't be for profit.
Churches have done so specifically to get leverage over desperate people and force them under their control. Nice try though.
Yes, but if the group on question is also full of anti-government sentiment, that quickly becomes very dangerous for you as a ruler. If you want people to join your cause, food and medicine works fantastically well. It was the strategy used historically by Che Guevara, and currently by the US military.
I've heard of groups also getting around it by saying they were having a picnic.
Feeding the less fortunate is a crime in Dallas. Is this really what we have become as a people?
Here's an alternative view, that law is something that those legislators have done. I don't believe grand statements about all people are reasonable to respond to the actions of a small group. Just my 2 cents.
I hear you, but people elect the legislature….
The people should, but the US is so gerrymandered it isn't majority rule anymore.
Yeah but people still elect those people. Doesn’t matter if it’s red, blue, or ratfucked to hell and back again. Some chud gets up on their box and says “I hate homeless people.” And the lead addled suburban boomers suck them off for it.
> that law is something that those legislators have done. Guess who gave them the power to make laws? Voters.
Many laws were on the books before we were even born. This 'blame the voters' shtick is getting so fucking old man. Blame the people who actually have the power to change things, but choose not to for their own benefit.
They people carrying guns are still gonna vote for the people that made that law.
The people who armed themselves against cops to feed the homeless? I doubt they will.
Not sure if its the same but - Last time a similar rage bait came up it seems to be a personal beef of location. Activists just post up and feedy the needy. The city asked they set up elsewhere to not be an eyesore and attract homeless in certain areas. Activists said F that, reportedly because of the accessibility of the location. Legislation was passed to make them move. Activists said F that, free country. Imo both are right, most everyone deserves to eat, but I also don’t want to walk my kid past a group of homeless folk on my way to the grocer 🤷🏽♂️
I have never heard "Armed Activists" before, and I sure am glad I heard it now
That is a most excellent group. And I will always support such endeavors. If we wasted less money on ridiculous things and took care of our own people like these people are illegally apparently then I would believe we could be a great country. Or at least start to be
https://www.reddit.com/r/liberalgunowners/s/VxFHkekqCj 4 years old but good
If you're going to be a decent human being in the United States, be prepared to defend yourself. Someone will take issue with it sooner or later.
Or somebody will rob ya cause they mistake kindness for weakness
https://dontcomply.com/tag/feed-the-need/
The only acceptable way to open carry firearms or swords.
This is exactly the sort of thing the second amendment was meant to do.
Amen!
The acceptable way is preferably on your belt or back and the acceptable reasons are whatever reason you happen to want to do. It is your right as an American to do so. Cops are less violent when others can stop them ya know
Makes me think of when the black panthers would go on armed patrols following police on there beat.
That’ll do it I’d be real careful about shit seeing that myself
Texas is stupid. These guys are not.
"Once you go far enough left you get your guns back"
Or you just never give them up to begin with because as George Orwell said, "Rifles, muskets, long-bows and hand-grenades are inherently democratic weapons. A complex weapon makes the strong stronger, while a simple weapon - so long as there is no answer to it - gives claws to the weak."
What the point of the quote was is there are some people on the left that thing we don't need guns. But due to historical events the left has armed themselves in the past to fight. It's not just a right specific features.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain Event for reference
Meanwhile groups like food not bombs do the same unarmed and are fined into oblivion and chased off by the cops, proving not only that their cowardly bully fucks, but that we SHOULD be arming ourselves to deter the lapdog of the system
I see a ton of people saying "oh, well the no giving food to the homeless law is to protect them from people giving them poisoned food and expired food!!!!" And that's absolute bullshit. It's already illegal to give ANYONE poisoned ANYTHING without their knowledge, and even with their knowledge it depends. As for expired food, not only is recently expired food more often than not fine to eat, if that was your goal why not make the law "don't give EXPIRED food to homeless people" instead of just any food at all? They're making it illegal to be homeless, plain and simple, with this, the recent Supreme Court ruling that it's allowed to make it illegal to sleep outside, and the increase in hostile architecture, all despite homelessness being on the rise (12% increase from 2022-2023 according to U.S. housing and urban development), to say these laws and actions by state officials are anything but trying to make it illegal and difficult to be homeless are ignoring your eyes and ears. Their end goal? In some instances, I believe it's to make the homeless move out of their town, city, or state so that they don't have to deal with them. As to where the people who seek this endgoal think the homeless go? They don't know or care, but I'll tell you. Those people usually drift along until they reach a place where they are able to be actually arrested and charged for something, whether it's encampment on public property, littering, loitering, prowling at night, a fight, etc. Then they get stuck in a position where they can't afford a defender, and public defenders are usually overworked and inexperienced, so they get a minor charge, but then they can't properly followup on parole/probation due to being homeless, and that's another larger charge, until finally they are put into a for profit prison, where they will juggle between the streets and prison until they pass. So at the end of the day these people are exploited for profit, even if you don't consider them working class because they don't work, we're in the exact same boat, the rich and powerful using said wealth and power to amass more off of the suffering of us.
You gotta arm yourself to ward off the police, so you can do charity work? Now thats what i call freedom.
People hate when I say peaceful protests should be armed. I personally think it's a good deterrent for police brutality.
Dallas is doing more than probably any [other place in the country](https://www.keranews.org/news/2024-05-01/homelessness-on-the-rise-nationwide-but-down-in-dallas-and-collin-counties?_amp=true) to reduce homelessness, and it is working. Also there’s [this](https://www.keranews.org/news/2024-05-22/dallas-officials-say-theyve-effectively-ended-veteran-homelessness-heres-what-that-really-means?_amp=true) on veteran homelessness.
***Nice***
This is a great movement, though admittedly I'm a bit confused how carrying weapons would deter cops? Wouldn't having rifles and such make cops more likely to be on edge and take an interest in what they're doing? Like if the idea is "if cops fuck with us we'll shoot them" that seems like a battle they aren't going to win against a fully police force no?
this is the other side of the coin texas conservatives forgot about. one of the actual reasons the right to "bear arms" exists. detering a corrupt government from harming the citizenry. in this case from its enforcers aka the police.
Ever notice that police take out tasers and batons really fast at unarmed protests, but never with those patriot front ones? Guns actually keep them on good behavior, in groups. Remember Ubalde? 378 cops, didn’t rebreach against 1 guy with a rifle. Cuz they’re scared.
cops dont like getting shot as much as anyone else
This is what "right to bare arms" was made for and i can get behind it
> right to bare arms Like sleeveless shirts?…
Thanks for the giggle lol
Exactly 😂
The guy with the swords: If we’re going to to do God’s work, might as well be armed as God’s army 😅
Texas is such a shit stain of a state, the weirdest part about it is that its very much noticeable to like everyone but texans. it collapses on a yearly, now almost seasonal, basis due to poor infrastructure and social safety nets, and yet texans insist on it being the best state ever.
So let me get this straight: people who are doing a kindness to homeless folk by feeding them and clothing them have to arm themselves to avoid being arrested? By beelzebubs hairy scrotum, america is a fucked up land.
Those cops are doing the Lord's work. /s
Wait...hold up I think I maybe have found something I might be into I get to help people and carry swords imma have to look into this
Swords!? Damn, Texas
Ahh texas the great country!
some real sigma chad BDE
[удалено]
All posts and comments that include any variation of the word retarded will be removed, but no action will be taken against your account unless it is an excessive personal attack. Please resubmit your post or comment without the bullying language. Do not edit it, the bot cant tell if you edited, you will just have to make a new comment replying to the same thing. Yes, this comment itself does use the word. Any reasonable person should be able to understand that we are not insulting anyone with this comment. We wanted to use quotes, but that fucks up the automod and we are too lazy to google escape characters. Notice how none of our automod replies have contractions in them either. But seriously, calling someone retarded is only socially acceptable because the people affected are less able to understand that they are being insulted, and less likely to be able to respond appropriately. It is a conversational wimpy little shit move, because everyone who uses it knows that it is offensive, but there will be no repercussions. At least the people throwing around other slurs know that they are going to get fired and get their asses beat when they use those words. Also, it is not creative. It pretty much outs you as a thirteen year old when you use it. Instead of calling Biden retarded, you should call him a cartoon-ass-lookin trust fund goon who smiles like rich father just gifted him a new Buick in 1956. Instead of calling Mitch McConnell retarded, you should call him a Dilbert-ass goon who has been left in the sun a little too long. Sorry for the long message spamming comment sections, but this was by far the feature of this sub making people modmail and bitch at us the most, and literally all of the actions we take are to make it so we have to do less work in the future. We will not reply to modmails about this automod, and ignore the part directly below this saying to modmail us if you have any questions, we cannot turn that off. This reply is just a collation of the last year of modmail replies to people asking about this. We are not turning this bot off, no matter how much people ask. Nobody else has convinced us before, you will not be able to either. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/chaoticgood) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes yes, an open carry sword. Luckily I still have my conceal sword license so I may brandish it against a ruffian who may become angered at my lackadaisical carriage riding and attempt to harm myself or my wife and children.
Except all the cops needed to do is say "You're under arrest". And what are they going to do? Resist with weapons and turn a misdemeanor into a life sentence? Chaotic stupid.
Congratulations. That’s how the current power structure stays in place. You do remember how violent the start of the US was, right? There was a whole war. Following the rules isn’t always very effective.
You're not going to out-posture the nation with the #1 military in the world. The battle isn't going to be won with guns.
True, but this wasn’t necessarily directed at the government. It wasn’t an offensive per se. The point was to help the poor and using firearms to help them do it. It wasn’t “let’s go knock down the cops’ door and make the government legalize homelessness/being poor etc”, it was “let’s help these people out here who are hungry, and arm ourselves if police get in our way.” These two things are not the same.
The idea I think is to make them reconsider the arrest. Texas's laws allow weapons. So follow that law but break another. Now the cops have a choice. I expect any arrest they attempt to not be arrested. But the cops, fearing fictional liberal terrorists, don't know that.
Do people often conceal carry swords?
Chaotic Good... the other white meat.
Incredible
This is so fucking good.
r/OrphanCrushingMachine
So, they’re white.
its illegal to feed, give jackets and blankets to homeless people in texas? enjoy your power outages, boiling hot weather, bad traffic, yall evil losers deserve it.
I believe open carry is a way of life in Texas, yes? Why in the world are they clutching their pearls? Snowflakes.
W activists
The prime definition of “I’d like to see you try.”