Diet meaning: does it have more that 4 ingredients?

What in the scaremongering bullshit even is this advice?

This is a common misconception with “charity shops” in the UK and “opportunity (op) shops” in Australia.

The assumption is that the charity/opportunity is for people doing it tough to be able to buy cheap clothes and home goods.

But the “charity” is because many shops like this are partner retailers of larger charity organisations, eg: the “profit” from Salvos stores helps indirectly fund Salvation Army Housing and food relief programs.

The opportunity comes from who they hire, if you’re disabled or elderly, these shops are more likely to hire you than other retail providers.

But of course, a large number of charity and op shops abuse their staff as much as Amazon and Walmart do. Wage theft and unethical labour practices galore

Heck I still find myself thinking this on a subconscious level. I can’t let go of the sense that we should be able to discuss things in good faith and make change through civil discourse.

I have to remind myself that history does not support my blind faith in the goodness of humanity like this.

Even people who have less than two seconds ago proven they are arguing in bad faith, my gut reaction is to give them another chance to come to the discussion properly.

It’s like pathological naivety, and yes, it’s just as harmful as the original bad faith argument when all it’s doing is echoing the bad faith argument.

I have been booted from many communities for asking what I thought was a genuine question. And at first been left wondering why a community would ban someone for asking questions and trying to learn. I’ve experienced this my entire life and only recently began to understand that it’s not some personal slight against my curiosity and ignorance. It’s a necessary safety measure for that community.

I’m just an idiot, questioning an asshole, but from everyone else’s perspective there’s two dumb assholes over here.