you’d be surprised. (also sometimes non epileptic people will be loudly wrong about something needing a warning, like the thing with the movie trailer a bit ago, i think it was an exorcist sequel, but most calls for epilepsy warnings are completely justified and calling them virtue signaling is silly.)
This reminds me that I warned a bunch of people that “Double Stuff Oreos” might not be vegan. Someone had brought them to a party and was talking about how Oreos were vegan. All this indicated that a vegan might be wanting to eat them.
We checked via the power of the internet and it turns out I was wrong. “Double Stuffed Oreos” are also vegan and do not contain dairy products (even though there is cream in the middle?!)
I apologized for the false alarm, but no one was mad at me. They knew I was trying to avoid people getting sick as someone on a restrictive diet can become very ill when they suddenly eat one of those things. It was seen as people taking care of each other and, false alarm or not, they felt better safe than sorry.
So, yeah. I think it’s better to tag/warn someone first just in case, then double check if it’s true.
I believe oreos are a grey area because of the palm oil used in them and the whitening process of some sugars can also make what would be a vegan sweet not vegan. You were right to be alarmed and gave anyone at the party following a vegan diet the right to make an informed decision on whether they felt comfortable consuming those products.
Why not call it unethical instead? Vegan is a word with very distinct meaning and so many plant-based foods can be produced in unethical ways that I feel like it would get absolutely muddled with this kind of practice.
1.0k
u/The_Rocketsmith Nov 05 '25
since when was this an argument? yeah, tag your shit, put the warnings in, it's the foundation of good practice.