In Australia we call this “skimpflation” because they aren’t shrinking the final product, they’re skimping on ingredients to lower production costs.

It’s the bane of my existence because brands I know and love will change their ingredients without warning and without changing anything on the packaging (sometimes not even changing the ingredients list! If the ingredients list has always just said “starch” they don’t have to change anything going from arrowroot starch to cheaper potato starch)

I have allergies and I’ve bought two boxes of the same product at the same time, and had an allergic reaction to one, but not the other.

I used to always blame it on my housemates not washing the cooking utensils properly, but I now use separate cooking equipment and I clean down the kitchen before I start and cook at odd times so I’m the only one using the kitchen.

I’ve started emailing companies after my allergic reactions to determine if they have changed an ingredient, and 90% of the time they confirm they have changed the ingredients. Usually they put some PR spin on it about the new ingredient being more allergy friendly or sustainable (they don’t clarify “environmentally” so I assume they mean “financially sustainable for the profits of our company”)

Again, it depends on the purpose of the group you’re creating, does this person in question face discrimination for their perceived race? Then a support group for people who have faced discrimination for their race may be the right place for them, assuming the intersection of having “chosen” to present as a race they’re not doesn’t create an unsafe space for the other group participants.

However if your group is for people who have grown up POC or been raised in a non-dominant cultural group to discuss shared experiences, then obviously someone who identifies as POC later in life would not be served by that group, so would not be eligibile to join that group.

There are circumstances when even if you fit the criteria of the group, you may still be excluded due to the way various identities and experiences intersect, or because your personal actions are not serving the group.

It’s not discrimination to be told you can’t use a private service because the service can’t serve your specific needs, and your personal circumstances reduce the groups ability to serve its other members.

I’m not trying to be rude, I’m trying to understand.

As far as the language is concerned, I’m just trying to understand how a trans woman could be a cis lesbian, when my understanding is that being cis and being trans are mutually exclusive.

Am I missing something?

If you’re a private entity and there is a specific reason that having non-black people in the group would be detrimental to the purpose of the group, yes, in Australia you can make a black only space.

For example, if you want to create a support group for POC to discuss trauma around being subjected to racism, to ensure you create a safe space, making the space POC only is not only legal, but often the more ethical choice for this group.

Want to create a social and dating app for queer women to meet other queer women? What purpose would it serve to let straight people into that group?

There is difference between public spaces, that must allow access and entry to all, and a private organisation that caters to specific demographics, and being freely open would completely defeat the purpose of the private organisations goals.

I’m not an alcoholic, I don’t personally know anyone who has struggled with alcoholism. Why can’t I go to an AA meeting to talk about my feelings on alcoholism? Obviously, Because that’s not helpful, it has the potential to be harmful to the people who attend because they have lived experiences with alcoholism. I could argue I’m being discriminated against because of my medical history, but I’m not being discriminated against, I’m just not being catered to, because I don’t have an unmet need in this specific situation.

How does that even work?

I mean, to be a cis lesbian also implies being a cis woman…

I mean, given what’s happening with the women’s only art exhibit at the MONA right now, this woman definitely has a legal leg to stand on even with this being a private company.

Even if it’s just a matter of false advertising (if the app means cis women they should say cis women, not say “women” and then go out of their to exclude an entire group of women) or compensation for being given access then having access removed.

That feels like a large payout for that type of injury, but that’s not my business.

Everytime I hear news like this, or stories of people who “receive support for xyz injury, but can still do abc activity so must be cheating the system” I can’t help but think how brightly it highlights that the author has never had to experience chronic pain and dynamic disability.

Anyone who has ever injured anything knows, some days it just randomly hurts more than others, and you have very little control over predicting or changing that randomness other than through avoiding certain activities when you can to preserve your health and energy for days and times when you don’t have a choice and have to perform that action.

It’s also about balance.

Because of my wrists I can’t do the dishes and do latch hooking on the same day. I have to do the dishes, I can’t just live in squalor. But some days I also “need” to take some time for latch hooking because it’s a mindful hobby I find enjoyable and it’s so good for my mental health.

Now is it wrong of me to tell my OT that my wrists mean I struggle to do the dishes and latch key, so I’d like support with the dishes - maybe I get a dishwasher, or a helper twice a week to come in and do the heavy dishes for me.

If I’m sat on the couch doing my latch hooking putting pressure on my wrists “just for a hobby” while the dishwasher runs in the background - was I lying about my injury? Was I being a cheat? Do I no longer deserve the dishwasher because I’m “abusing it just so I can run off and have fun latch hooking”

She tossed one Christmas tree at a one off event.

How does that change the pain it is causes to play with her kids or carry groceries every single day that she wants and needs to do those tasks?

I mean, a little bit. I had to quit weed for a while job and so I was having a glass of wine at a party and a few people made judgemental comments about how I’m “drinking again”.

Similarly, now that I can smoke again, and as the only one in my extended social circle who can roll a joint that burns properly, I’ll ask the person who brought the gear if they want me to roll joints, spliffs, or a few of each, and how strong, and again there will be one or two people who say “I can’t believe people cut their weed with the tobacco, that’s disgusting”

But at the same time, those judgy friends would never campaign for alcohol and tobacco to be completely criminalised. They just think weed is much better.

That said, a few of us were pretty happy to see the 100% vape ban coming into Victoria, not so much from the drug side of it, but I’m sick of seeing “disposable” vapes everywhere and seeing the parking lot bins catch fire almost every day at work because people chuck them out and the batteries explode.

The actual law bans using the swastika to “glorify or profit from Nazi idiology”.

Wolfenstein would not be impacted by the ban because at the core of the gameplay, the Nazis are the bad guys. It does not glorify the Nazis or celebrate them.

Sure Bathesda is profiting from the game, but they aren’t profiting from the glorification of Nazi idiology, they’re profiting from people’s desire to shoot zombie Nazis in the face.