intended harm

taken from theskimm Oct 13th

What's hitting the 'deny' button….

SCOTUS. Yesterday, the Supreme Court denied an appeal from gun-maker Remington to block a lawsuit filed by families of the 2012 Sandy Hook victims. The families claim the company is liable for the shooting over its promotion of the rifle used in the massacre. But the company says a law protects it from lawsuits over crimes committed with its guns. Yesterday, SCOTUS said it won't hear the appeal, so the lawsuit now goes back to a lower court in Connecticut.

I wonder if this is a good idea. I get that guns are essentially MADE to injure/kill something/someone so it's not like a BMW could be liable in the same way if someone killed someone else using a car because cars are made to transport you from point a to point b. that you misused it and killed someone doesn't really have to do with the car itself.

but couldn't you kind of argue that alcohol is made to make you feel different which leads to decreased reaction speeds, impaired decision making etc. so if someone killed someone else while drunk, could the victim's family sue Johnny Walker?

or a better example might be smoking since abusing alcohol is the problem, but having a glass with dinner likely won't hinder you enough to accidentally kill someone in an alcoholic fit. but if I died from lung cancer caused by second hand smoke, could my family sue Phillip Morris? when used correctly, smokers do cause harm to others. 

4x

taken from theskimm on Oct 8th:

A new report shows that LGBTQ+ diversity on TV is at an all-time high. Last year, the advocacy group GLAAD called on the TV industry to do better when incorporating LGBTQ+ diversity. And called for 10% representation on screen by 2020. Yesterday, it released a report saying the industry delivered with 10.2%.
The study also shows that LGBTQ+ women characters outnumbered LGBTQ+ men on broadcast TV for the first time ever... There was also an increase in the number of transgender characters. But GLAAD doesn't want to stop there.
It's challenging the TV world to get to 20% by 2025. And that within the next two years, all platforms should make sure at least half of the LGBTQ+ characters in shows are people of color.

I'm definitely not against representation, but how much representation is "fair"? a gallup poll in 2017 "concluded that 4.5% of adult Americans identified as LGBT." so at 20%, GLAAD wants a major over representation of a minority group, which seems kind of uncool.

of course, 20% is still very small compared to 80%, but with any over representation you're in a sense discrimination against the other. I don't care if there are fewer straight characters on tv, but what if we were to request the same representation of other minorities?

asians make up about 6% of the general population of america; should we ask for 1 in 4 of characters in media to be asian? that may not be a problem, but hispanics make up 16.7%, so 4 times that would be nearly 67%. we're out of percentages if we add all up all the non-whites in america and multiplied that by four, so there would be negative caucasians on tv.

harm vs harm

I've been thinking a lot about harm lately, and unintended consequences. you cannot live life without causing harm. and it's not even as easy as trying to live causing the least amount of harm possible because sometimes it's impossible to weigh.

at our office, sometimes even deciding where to eat brings up a lot of questions. do we get slightly better tasting burritos at whole foods which is owned by amazon which annually produces nearly as much carbon as swizerland or denmark? not to mention all their terrible workers' rights issues, and lack of paying taxes. or do we get not as tasty burritos at chronic taco which probably also does a lot of terrible things that we just don't know about because they're not as closely scrutinized as amazon?

and that's just lunch! where do you stand on bioplastics or the conventional kind?

a lot of people would say, bioplastics, of course, because it doesn't come from petroleum, and it has a smaller carbon footprint because most oil doesn't come from america anyway. but that's just the oil aspect. most bioplastic in the states is made from corn since we have govt subsidies for that. but it's those same subsidies which ultimately led to high fructose corn syrup in everything because we have too much corn and the govt asked scientists to come up with ways to use it up. and, while both oil and corn require water, corn requires more land and possibly causes more water pollutants because of fertilizers and pesticides. oil has led to war, which farming hasn't as much, but our modern conventional farming has led to hella cancers and also involves migrant workers / illegal immigration issues which oil likely has too much definitely on a smaller scale.

end of life is murky too. bioplastics are rarely recycled or composted. in fact, they actually contaminate regular plastic recycling and most waste haulers don't even want it. almost all bioplastics end up in landfill where they don't biodegrade at all, but do release methane, which regular plastic doesn't. methane, of course, contributes to increased greenhouse gases which aggravates climate change.

so, which is better? well, they both suck. just in different ways.

I tell the customers to decide what matters most to them (for me, i sacrifice taste and eat at chronic because i don't like to support amazon), and not worry too much about the rest. i also suggest they do research so they can make informed decisions, but as demonstrated above, sometimes it's the knowing too much that makes it impossible to make decisions!

articles about bioplastic here and here
fact sheet about bioplastic

i also want to emphasize that a lot of the bioplastic on the market isn't even 100% plant based plastic. something is considered bioplastic even if it's a blend of plant based and petroleum based plastics.