Langar

Why isn't there a Western tradition of cooking up a gigantic communal pot of sloppa for anyone to grab a bite to eat? There's soup kitchens sure, but they're mostly seen as a last resort for homeless people, rather than something everyone would take part in.

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    That's part of the plan - you are an isolated individual with strong individual spending habits. Just take the vaccine and read twitter.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      No, you have to learn how to cook and to brick lay and to reshingle your roof and to pave your own driveway and to dig in your own pipes and if you don't you're an inferior male who needs to kys right now before you shoot up a school.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I can't tell if youre joking or not but I absolutely agree that everyone should know how to do basic construction, plumbing, electrical, and mechanical tasks.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          You seem to misunderstand what he's talking about, he just commenting on how the state (what ever country or nation you live in) specializes in transforming you into something that can be exploited, in forms of something more reasonable like taxes, but there's a strange degree of optimization for the sake of extraction of a more cruel degree, like how serfs were kept from reading so they wouldn't educate themselves and go against their liege, or in a more modern context how the education system produces people who are optimized for industrial work, or how brutalist art is designed to make you feel like a automaton. These are aberrations to the natural state of the human being for the sake of profiteering off the human. Anyway I hope this cleared up what the other fella was trying to point to.

          Goddamn right, specialization is for insects.

          >Goddamn right, heh, and if anybody doesn't match my arbitrary bar for society well... i don't even care when they shoot up a school!
          Boomers deserve their fate.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            dont they have the good fate? i thought that was why people resent them

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You clearly are still missing my point, I'm just trying to explain to you the motions of human nature, like trying to explain to you why and how waves move, don't get in a huff please.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            sorry that streaming minecraft to your 12 viewers isnt paying the bills, keep trying, you'll make it big one day im sure.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You're bragging about having no practical skills or knowledge.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              As almost everyone in todays society, except for some really basic office skills.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                i like making the big numbers green and the little numbers red in excel

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I used to work in a company with a massive back office, around 50 people, they literally kept parsing data in Excel and making the same graphs month of month.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                And? That doesn't mean it's good or that you should brag about being useless.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                It is alright to be useless, as long as someone got you a job, the kind that requires zero skill but some contacts.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Every one of your posts is extremely gay.

                >it's okay to be useless if everyone's useless
                >it's okay to be useless if someone gives you money
                >it's okay to be useless if it's not your fault
                lmao keep going

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I know plenty of people who are useless but their relatives gave them a job, they are not more skilled than those without good contacts.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                doesn't make it okay. a nearly braindead moron can survive today but they're still moronic

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I know plenty of people who are useless but their relatives gave them a job, they are not more skilled than those without good contacts.

                need contacts

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Sure, if you get a chance to discard literally every skill and trait that makes you useful for some contacts, do it because it is worth.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                whats your fricking problem

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Have I said something wrong? Some good connections helps you far more than any skill or trait.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                thats fricking depressing tho

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I don't think so, I'd be fricked if contacts and wealthy weren't everything.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Nah, I have a maintenance man for that

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You seem to misunderstand what he's talking about, he just commenting on how the state (what ever country or nation you live in) specializes in transforming you into something that can be exploited, in forms of something more reasonable like taxes, but there's a strange degree of optimization for the sake of extraction of a more cruel degree, like how serfs were kept from reading so they wouldn't educate themselves and go against their liege, or in a more modern context how the education system produces people who are optimized for industrial work, or how brutalist art is designed to make you feel like a automaton. These are aberrations to the natural state of the human being for the sake of profiteering off the human. Anyway I hope this cleared up what the other fella was trying to point to.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Serfs weren't kept from reading, were they? Wasn't it just they couldn't afford to learn and didn't have the time to learn?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            By the time the printing press was invented and a good while after serfdom was close or had already reached it's peak, and in the west there were writings and let's from duke to duke, king to king, recommending that the rulers keep the surfs from educating themselves to much or at all, a educated man desires freedom; this is why the Russian revolution happened like it did because Russia was one of the last bastions of serfdom, and the people once being educated in western intellectualism (mostly marx) blew up in wrath and overthrew the empire, had Russia slowly integrated learning into the serfs its unlikely that the revolution and the new government would have lasted as long as it did, you can see the french on how they destroyed their monarchs and established a French pseudo-communism and then went back and forth till forming a simple nation. Anyway yeah they did and if you want some sources tell me.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              It seems like the dukes were right on the money then. As expected of the learned class.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                But it was inevitable that they would be overthrown, by forcing it they built up pressure like in a pipe, making the explosion bigger, the Russian empire would have been 10 times more powerful right now, sometimes you have to loosen the line on your rod to catch the fish.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Hindsight is 20/20.
                Did anybody even teach the peasants to read Marx? Or did they just preach what they knew of Marx? As I have read, the peasants didn't actually support the Marxists to begin with.

                '"Repentent noblemen" left their famalies, dressed like the poor, and went into the villagese to preach to the peasants. But the peasants weres suspicious and held their peace. When they did not hold their peace, they denounced the apostle to the police. This check to the beautiful souls had the result of throwing them back the movement on the cynicism of a Nechayev or, at any rate, on violence'.
                - L'Homme révolté

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Yes hindsight is 20/20, which is what makes foresight so much more important, one should see that serfdom was not going to last forever, of course I don't think the west saw it either, as they themselves fought bloody wars between the monarchs and the base classes, but the west revolted much earlier than the Russians, to the benefit of the western nations--if you even consider the western nations a continuation or a whole different entity--but in any regard, if what you value is- I'm sorry I'm gonna stop writing this, it's just become to tedious to talk about, I get your point but there's nothing good about either archaic kingdoms or modern society, we look to God for redemption of the world.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            By the time the printing press was invented and a good while after serfdom was close or had already reached it's peak, and in the west there were writings and let's from duke to duke, king to king, recommending that the rulers keep the surfs from educating themselves to much or at all, a educated man desires freedom; this is why the Russian revolution happened like it did because Russia was one of the last bastions of serfdom, and the people once being educated in western intellectualism (mostly marx) blew up in wrath and overthrew the empire, had Russia slowly integrated learning into the serfs its unlikely that the revolution and the new government would have lasted as long as it did, you can see the french on how they destroyed their monarchs and established a French pseudo-communism and then went back and forth till forming a simple nation. Anyway yeah they did and if you want some sources tell me.

            Sorry I meant letters from duke to duke, also I should comment on the ability to read, while the majority were incapable of reading, there was enough downtime and enough manpower to start educating the masses, proven in many ways, but I won't go over them, only if you're especially interested, if not---sourse: trust me bro---

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            it wasnt illegal to learn how to read per say as that is a legal concept thats effectively impossible to enforce that but in many places it was illegal to teach serfs the art/act of literacy. And it was generally understood that it shouldnt be encouraged even if it wasnt actually illegal

            >whats the art/act of literacy

            higher levels of education, how to argue, debate, logic, ect.

            the ruling class needs workers that can follow written instructions, but not ones that can out litigate them. It could be argue that the intentional dumbing down of public school cirriculum under the pretense of persuing equality/equitty is effectively the enforcement of this.

            This continued well into the industrial era even among free citizens as industrial machines were considered 'state secrets' tier and it was fine for your workers to know how a machine can be worked but not how the machine actually works. Americans essentially put an end to this in the 1800s as they didnt have a peasent or serf class, and with almost the entire population working towards economic and echnological advancement, it forced everyone else to do so by extension so they could compete against them, and thus the gilded era of 1800s began.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >This continued well into the industrial era even among free citizens as industrial machines were considered 'state secrets' tier and it was fine for your workers to know how a machine can be worked but not how the machine actually works. Americans essentially put an end to this in the 1800s as they didnt have a peasent or serf class, and with almost the entire population working towards economic and echnological advancement, it forced everyone else to do so by extension so they could compete against them, and thus the gilded era of 1800s began.
              Nice fan fic, but if anything American workers knew less about how their machines worked than the French, Russian or German did.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Making_of_the_English_Working_Class

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                This sort of revisionism is why the US is incapable of re-industrializing.

                Too much focus on fantasies that the real point is lost.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You're reaching levels of obsession that shouldn't even be possible.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Someone post a widespread, but ultimately false myth, I call it for what it is, you get upset and now I am obsessed?

                Do you think I should just nod my head and pretend whatever crap you post is amazing and true?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >taxes
          >reasonable

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            To run a governmental body for the sake of continuing the state one needs finances, least another power take the land and you become subjective to something even more tyrannical, and I understand where you come from when you hesitate to advocate for any portion of your work to be taken for a man that did not do his portion for your work, but think now, if you never had taxes the government would never be able to defend the land you did the work on, so you would lose that land, so instead of 30 percent you will lose 100 percent. Of course the fact of our corrupt nature leads men to corrupt this system and take more than they need or deserve, it is intrinsic that the good be partitioned amongst the evil, but that's why we wait and hope for the the Lord to fix us anew.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              I support anarchism, communities should band together to voluntarily pool resources to defend themselves and each other. I would have no problem offering resources to fund a local militia or community hospitals or fire departments or whatever else, but I have serious problems paying taxes so the federal government can go kill brown people in a desert on the other side of the ocean for oil or give free money to illegal immigrants who will just send it to their families in some other country or even fund hospitals 2000 miles away from me. I would gladly pay to help myself and my neighbors, strong communities are important, but that's not what we're talking about with taxation.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >I support anarchism
                So I will kill you and form a government with taxes.

                'The individual can, in that condition which is anterior to the state, act with fierceness and violence for the intimidation of another creature, in order to render his own power more secure as a result of such acts of intimidation. Thus acts the powerful, the superior, the original state founder, who subjugates the weaker. He has the right to do so, as the state nowadays assumes the same right, or, to be more accurate, there is no right that can conflict with this'.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >So I will kill you and form a government with taxes.
                I don't think you even read my whole post. Killing one person wouldn't do it and attacks on anyone in the community would be defended against by the community-funded militia. I didn't say I support staunch individualism, I said I support anarchism, AKA voluntarism, in which people are allowed to choose whether to contribute to community services and by how much. It's in everyone's best interest to help fund things so the community can be stronger and more well-off, but there wouldn't be a tax collector beating down your door for mandatory contributions. Similar to Amish communities where people help each other pay for expensive life-saving medical treatments; they do so of their own volition so that the community can continue to thrive, not because someone threatened to put them in jail over it. Don't mistake anarchism for the complete lack of any structure.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >m-muh militia
                I get a bigger army than yours and then rape your women.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The Amish only exist because of the government they are still a part of, and they still pay taxes, if the Amish didn't have the United States government they would have surely been crushed long ago, you're talking ideals, just like marx, and those ideas lead to millions and millions of deaths, do not abide in the house of the devil for the sake of a good meal, the idea is pretty, but it is set in the pits of Tartarus.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I wasn't the guy you were originally talking to, I forgot to clarify. I was just chiming in.

                Your wonderful, hippy ideas of society is how society always starts. Then it grows bigger, and eventually too big to keep track of the good and bad people. So everything becomes codified. Thus, the State is born.
                It is inevitable. Just as the Apostles of Jesus eventually formed a fricking empire that was the Papal States.

                Did you even have a plan to keep track of your community if it reach 300 million? How are you going to, individually, keep track of the bad apples? Who never, and don't intend to, pay their fair share, even if they could?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Communities should splinter off as they grow larger and spread out further. Looking again to the Amish as an example, they have church regions that only include the immediate community and each church can make its own rules, they don't have the equivalent of the Catholic Papacy giving out rules to every community worldwide. That's how things should be, local communities and not really anything more. There shouldn't be a singular 300 million person country, there should be a collection of 300 one million person communities, or even smaller divisions. The real-world example would be each county in each US state existing as its own sovereign community.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >there should be a collection of 300 one million person communities, or even smaller divisions
                *invades you*

                >divide et impera
                'The strategy, but not the phrase, applies in many ancient cases: the example of Aulus Gabinius exists, parting the israeli nation into five conventions'.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >there should be a collection of 300 one million person communities, or even smaller divisions
                *invades you*

                >divide et impera
                'The strategy, but not the phrase, applies in many ancient cases: the example of Aulus Gabinius exists, parting the israeli nation into five conventions'.

                Yes that's ridiculous to say that we ought splinter off more and more to form again some ideal society that is just incapable of actually working, think now if the splintered French crown in 1444, and how they were violently coalesced back under the name "France" you cannot have a nation of the same people split into anarchic societies, either a local power will accrue strength and invade the other small communities, or a foreign power will come and subjecate all of them, think now to Byzantium, once it collapsed the butchered and segmented splinter kingdoms where then after conquered, they didn't thrive, you need to actually think of a practical solution to the issue of governance, you're talking like a 20 collage student, not someone literate in nation building. You have to move on from idealism, you should only apply idealism to individuals, hoping for their best, but you cannot do that with the individuals known as states.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >communities should band together to voluntarily pool resources
                And who's going to force them to voluntarily do that?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >And who's going to force them to voluntarily do that?
                Human beings naturally do this as long as they are:
                >1. Mentally healthy
                >2. Not forced to move away from family to work
                >3. Don't lack a real religion
                >4. Are not prevented by laws

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >as long as they are don't
                >as long as they are are

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                So, if your society don't do this sort of thing, it fits at least one of these four. I assume the first three by your broken English.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Yes, things that happen in reality are often conditional. I can run 1 mile in a single direction as long as there's not an insurmountable obstacle in my way.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >Of course the fact of our corrupt nature leads men to corrupt this system and take more than they need or deserve, it is intrinsic that the good be partitioned amongst the evil, but that's why we wait and hope for the the Lord to fix us anew.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >continuing the state
              Why would I support such a thing?

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >and you become subjective to something even more tyrannical
              Governments get more tyrannical every year in the spirit of making everyone happy. What makes you think the next power will be worse?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Goddamn right, specialization is for insects.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    don't put your dick in that 😀
    or do, I'm not your mom...

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    They're really just the same as soup kitchens everywhere. Communal slop for people who can't figure out how to get food independently. It's just that in some parts of the world being totally broke is the norm.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Low trust society, atomization, etc.
    For example if we had these in america I would work to poison the batch and kill as many people as possible.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Hi mr cia!

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Why isn't there
    There is.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      why is there

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I'm just starting this thread but you could you all provide the sources you're basing your reasoning on in your paragraphs ?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      If you read everything we wrote then yes.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Thats just chili

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    There is and OP is a gay who won't respond to this.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Why don't you say what it is instead of being cryptic like a bellend?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Are you OP?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Yes. What is this, some sort of secret sloppa kitchen initiation?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Haven't you been to a county fair or a food festival? Taste of (name of place)?

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Sure, but those are like once or twice a year and it's usually expensive as shit. I'm specifically talking about the langar thing where everyone who can pitch in just makes a bunch of food every day and everyone in the community has some.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                That wasn't the case for a long time btw.

                > it could not be institutionalized into a sustainable community kitchen, but continued as volunteer-run free food opportunities. Such distribution of free food was often limited to specific Hindu festivals or events at dargahs of Sufi saints.
                >However, no evidence exists of formal institutionalized community kitchens, providing cooked free meals, continuously, over a period of time by any particular community.
                Things akin to this have existed in western culture, mostly in the form of community based festivities. A lot of spaniards still do the big ass paella thing. The closest thing nowadays is indeed something like a soup kitchen yes.

                sikhs are included in that

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                That seems like weird axe grinding from a wikipedia article. "No evidence of free meals over a period of time by any community" is such a broad and easily refuted statement as to be meaningless. I mean a soup kitchen operating is literally evidence of free meals over a period of time by a community.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                No, I was just saying that for a long time a langar thingy wasn't something continuous (food security is a recent thing anon) and that these free food fests only happened during special events or holidays, just like it did in the west. Only recently they began giving out free food daily, just like soup kitchens do in the west.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah, I get you and agree with the actual point, I'm just attuned to reacting to that sort of poor writing having spent some time in the wiki mines. Sure enough, that particular line was added by some sikh(?) dude whose other contributions are mostly about how much sikhs rule and muslims drool. I think he was trying to say that sikhs were the first and only people to do it properly and just phrased it weirdly so it stuck.
                https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Langar_%28Sikhism%29&diff=prev&oldid=1056253867

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Ah I see lol, yea it feels a bit odd to write it like that though for the second quote sikhs were included at least. It's interesting nonetheless.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Langar was continuous, historically speaking. the Sikh's Golden Temple has been serving food for free to anyone and everyone since the time of the Sikh Gurus.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Food festivals can be super-cheap and food drives are commonplace in schools and churches all over the west
                The Berlin Airlift was the largest example of Western generosity of all time

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    To anyone thinking of reading these posts: don't waste your time. There's nothing of value in that babble.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This is the food and cooking board, yet none of the replies in this thread are about food or cooking. It's just a bunch of commie bs.
      Shift-clicked.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    > it could not be institutionalized into a sustainable community kitchen, but continued as volunteer-run free food opportunities. Such distribution of free food was often limited to specific Hindu festivals or events at dargahs of Sufi saints.
    >However, no evidence exists of formal institutionalized community kitchens, providing cooked free meals, continuously, over a period of time by any particular community.
    Things akin to this have existed in western culture, mostly in the form of community based festivities. A lot of spaniards still do the big ass paella thing. The closest thing nowadays is indeed something like a soup kitchen yes.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >The closest thing nowadays is indeed something like a soup kitchen yes.
      Or any industrial kitchen really, even if the communal social aspect is lacking, the economies of scale are still there.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Not really, the focus obviously lies on the free food aspect or even the "the entire community pitches in" aspect and not the preparing food for large amounts of people aspect. By that logic we could bring up maru-chan factories or what have you.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >By that logic we could bring up maru-chan factories or what have you.
          Yes, that's literally the kind of thing he's referencing.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Don't be obtuse anon

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >making a giant cauldron of soup to feed hundreds of people who visit a temple
              >making a giant cauldron of soup that's portioned out into cans and then shipped to hundreds of people
              Where's the difference? The community aspect? That comes in when people take the soup home and make it for their family and/or friends. The giant cauldron you have to travel to is simply less efficient and effective than the giant cauldron that gets its contents shipped to your local store and stays preserved for weeks.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Why isn't there a Western tradition of cooking up a gigantic communal pot of sloppa for anyone to grab a bite to eat?
    We have this in the west. We just don't treat human beings like this.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Why isn't there a Western tradition of cooking up a gigantic communal pot of sloppa for anyone to grab a bite to eat?
    What are you talking about? Pretty much all Western food (at least in the US) is cooked in huge volumes, it's just hidden behind a facade of industry.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous
  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's more efficient to make the soup in a factory and then portion it into 5lb plastic packages to preserve it indefinitely. That way, only a maximum of 5lbs of soup can be wasted if nobody wants it.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    western people are hyper-individualistic. the concept of sharing and community does not come easy to them

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    No one here has ever heard of a potluck? Or a stone soup dinner?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >potluck
      This is what I came to say. I think American cuisine culture is based on variety due to the multiple different heritages early immigrants had, so it makes sense that we don't have a single big dish to share. There could be an argument to be made about pizza, as places do specialize in giant pizzas, but that's out of reach for home cooks. In any case, our communal gatherings involve bringing lots of different dishes to share, not that we don't have the concept of communal dining.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >I think American cuisine culture is based on variety
        I think this is bullshit, American cuisine culture is based mostly on industrial restaurants and snacks.

        While Americans do occasionally eat from other cultures, so do everyone else, this doesn't makes American cuisine culture diverse.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >American cuisine culture is based mostly on industrial restaurants and snacks.
          Modern cuisine culture is largely "convenience", sure, but look at those restaurants and snacks you cite: we have fricking tons of them because we like variety. Every supermarket here has two whole aisles of potato chips of any which way you can imagine.

          >this doesn't makes American cuisine culture diverse.
          I said variety, not diversity, and my point was that early on we didn't have a singular traditional food staple like many native cultures do because there wasn't one singular food culture.

          >In any case, our communal gatherings involve bringing lots of different dishes to share, not that we don't have the concept of communal dining.
          It used to be more normal, with a main dish like Turkey, but individualist took its tool.

          >individualist took its tool
          I think potlucks support the individualist philosophy of Americans. You get to bring YOUR dish to share. It's not a single item that everyone contributes to, it's your item that you are contributing.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >In any case, our communal gatherings involve bringing lots of different dishes to share, not that we don't have the concept of communal dining.
        It used to be more normal, with a main dish like Turkey, but individualist took its tool.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        please refrain from literally making up total bullshit and presenting like you have any fricking clue what you're talking about

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I didn't make anything up. I gave my opinion, as prefaced by "I think".

          What do you think, anon?

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Why isn't there a Western tradition
    Because we don't have to cook large amounts of garbage in trash conditions and share it because we invented capitalism. And now there is more than enough expendable income to go around.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I really don't know why mutts do this, aren't you guys too poor to afford a shack?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >what's the Answer to X
        >Its Y
        >Okay but I think its Q
        Why even post

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Why isn't there a Western tradition of cooking up a gigantic communal pot of sloppa for anyone to grab a bite to eat? There's soup kitchens sure, but they're mostly seen as a last resort for homeless people, rather than something everyone would take part in.
    individualism, it's the western motto, Indians have a caste system and hive mentality, why are you envious of sloppa when you can have steak, sushi, seafood, and so many other AAA foods

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Lack of any family or community structure, Americans are built to be better wagies, not people.

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Why isn't there a Western tradition of cooking up a gigantic communal pot of sloppa for anyone to grab a bite to eat?
    Is that... something that you want? Frick's wrong with you? Farmer's market not hip enough anymore?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Frick yeah it is, other anons have mentioned stuff like the giant paella pan in Spain, how is it not kino for the neighbourhood dadly types to regularly spend an afternoon chucking back beers and providing sustenance to all and sundry?

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Why isn't there a Western tradition of cooking up a gigantic communal pot of sloppa for anyone to grab a bite to eat?
    There was, it was called the stew pot, that every inn or tavern had. The stew pot was kept simmering for pretty much forever and you'd just toss whatever in.
    But it went away cause people started making enough money to not have to resort to a stew bowl down at a taven for dinner.
    Other parts of the world never moved past that stage

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    because of moronic government overregulation

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >seafood boil
    >fat tuesday (probably barely exists now though)
    >barbeque
    Definitely not at the same scale as the poos though.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It’s harder for us because our food has to actually be edible, served on plates, and eaten with utensils. It’s a lot easier when you can cook up carcinogen and have people eat off the floor with their hands.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >It’s a lot easier when you can cook up carcinogen and have people eat off the floor with their hands.
        A lot of your food carcinogen, cooked in a whole pot and given to be eaten with bare hands. But the whole industrial facade keeps it nicer.

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    guys I just wanted to talk about comfy neighbourhood stew

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      There's all sorts and it's a very interesting topic actually. In Southern Spain they do giant paellas (pictured). In Northern Spain they do tapas: everybody has their specialty and everybody else knows where to go for the best cheese, ham, fish, veg, whatever tapas. In Italy they do grigliate on saturday evening with nice weather: the entire countryside smells like rosemary, sage and grilled meat. They also do parties for the local saint, the mother of Jesus, the end of harvest several times a year, depending on the crop: truffle in winter, asparagus in spring, wheat in summer, apples and/or porcini in autumn. Everyone's invited (if you speak Italian, otherwise frick off). In Alsace (France) they have vol-au-vent contests in every town where everybody makes, tastes and judges the dish. Michelin star vs granny vs youngster. In Belgium they have Breughel parties, it's basically what you see in Breughel's paintings: cheese, cured meat, fish, paté, waffles, beer and wine, gin... until you pass out.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Shouldn't barbecue, both American or South American, count as communal eating?

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I'm just going to come right out and ask. Will some of you guys be me contacts

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *