Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[California Politics] America's Hippie Commune

11011121416

Posts

  • Inkstain82Inkstain82 Registered User regular
    edited January 4
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    People I know keep bitching about those straw and soda "bans" and it's like omigod, you are not being denied ANYTHING AT ALL. Like, this literally does not prevent you from doing anything you want to do! Just say "Hey dude, can I have a straw?" seriously how hard is that dgfdsfhfdhgdf

    Most of the disability advocates I follow consider these bans to be prejudicial against people with disabilities. It’s an accessibility issue.

    Non-plastic straws are not always viable options for a variety of reasons. Asking the staff is awkward, leads to gatekeeping and frequently denials.

    These bans are well-intentioned but make disabled people’s lives worse for no tangible environmental improvement (industrial plastic use is causing the problem, not individual use).

    These complaints are largely ignored by the larger left, which isn’t unusual for disability issues.

    Inkstain82 on
    orangeusTryCatcherShorty
  • JragghenJragghen Registered User regular
    @ElJeffe - fyi, snow pack was back below average before this storm :)

    And now a collection of PG&E stuff.

    Federal prosecutors say they may have violated probation

    Attorney General says company may be charged with murder

    PG&E looking into selling off gas assets

    Also looking into bankruptcy as an option

    Starting to look like executives may be trying to split the gas and electric portions, declare bankruptcy on the electric (and have the state take it over, and thereby also the liability) and take over the gas and try to get away that way.

    I'm going to be pissed as hell if someone doesn't go to jail for criminal negligence.

  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    Inkstain82 wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    People I know keep bitching about those straw and soda "bans" and it's like omigod, you are not being denied ANYTHING AT ALL. Like, this literally does not prevent you from doing anything you want to do! Just say "Hey dude, can I have a straw?" seriously how hard is that dgfdsfhfdhgdf

    Most of the disability advocates I follow consider these bans to be prejudicial against people with disabilities. It’s an accessibility issue.

    Non-plastic straws are not always viable options for a variety of reasons. Asking the staff is awkward, leads to gatekeeping and frequently denials.

    These bans are well-intentioned but make disabled people’s lives worse for no tangible environmental improvement (industrial plastic use is causing the problem, not individual use).

    These complaints are largely ignored by the larger left, which isn’t unusual for disability issues.

    There is no law saying a restaurant must provide straws, and not all restaurants do. I'm a parent, I've asked and frequently (even long before the ban) been told we don't have straws. As such, I don't believe that anyone who needs a straw isn't bring their own one.

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • Inkstain82Inkstain82 Registered User regular
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Inkstain82 wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    People I know keep bitching about those straw and soda "bans" and it's like omigod, you are not being denied ANYTHING AT ALL. Like, this literally does not prevent you from doing anything you want to do! Just say "Hey dude, can I have a straw?" seriously how hard is that dgfdsfhfdhgdf

    Most of the disability advocates I follow consider these bans to be prejudicial against people with disabilities. It’s an accessibility issue.

    Non-plastic straws are not always viable options for a variety of reasons. Asking the staff is awkward, leads to gatekeeping and frequently denials.

    These bans are well-intentioned but make disabled people’s lives worse for no tangible environmental improvement (industrial plastic use is causing the problem, not individual use).

    These complaints are largely ignored by the larger left, which isn’t unusual for disability issues.

    There is no law saying a restaurant must provide straws, and not all restaurants do. I'm a parent, I've asked and frequently (even long before the ban) been told we don't have straws. As such, I don't believe that anyone who needs a straw isn't bring their own one.

    You don’t believe that anybody finds it a burden because you don’t?

  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    I am legit having difficulty understanding how having to say "can I have a straw" is an insurmountable burden for anyone, disabled or otherwise.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
    FencingsaxshrykeAiouaRedTidemrondeauMvrckHavelock2.0Hacksawdispatch.o
  • Inkstain82Inkstain82 Registered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I am legit having difficulty understanding how having to say "can I have a straw" is an insurmountable burden for anyone, disabled or otherwise.

    In an ideal world, the question would be “what are we gaining by taking away an accessibility feature?” and not put the burden of proof the other way around.

    But recognizing we don’t live in that world, the answers are gatekeeping and non-compliance.

    You can write a waiver into the law, but what will happen and is already happening is restaurants will simply stop stocking them. And if they do stock them, you have to hope that the staff knows that and doesn’t decline reflexively.

    And then among those who do, they’ll want to know why you want one. Theyll tell you they don’t look disabled. They’ll want to know your personal medical information. They’ll want to know why you can’t use the reusable straw that their friend’s cousin’s nephew used.

    Straw bans, plain and simple, make life worse for disabled people.

    Here’s some good reading on the subject:

    https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2018/07/11/627773979/why-people-with-disabilities-want-bans-on-plastic-straws-to-be-more-flexible

    http://cdrnys.org/blog/disability-dialogue/grasping-at-straws-the-ableism-of-the-straw-ban/

    https://www.vox.com/first-person/2018/7/19/17587676/straws-plastic-ban-disability

    Shorty
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    We've already answered the question of what is to gain: less pollution.

  • Inkstain82Inkstain82 Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    We've already answered the question of what is to gain: less pollution.

    A negligible amount. It’s been admitted that this isn’t a serious attempt to lower pollution so much as it is publicity for the need to reduce plastic use.

    But we see again how the world treats disabled people and their issues: disposable at the slightest convenience

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Inkstain82 wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    We've already answered the question of what is to gain: less pollution.

    A negligible amount. It’s been admitted that this isn’t a serious attempt to lower pollution so much as it is publicity for the need to reduce plastic use.

    But we see again how the world treats disabled people and their issues: disposable at the slightest convenience

    Every bit helps.

    But hey, digging up and burning coal employs a bunch of people so I guess we can't stop doing that either.

  • Inkstain82Inkstain82 Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Inkstain82 wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    We've already answered the question of what is to gain: less pollution.

    A negligible amount. It’s been admitted that this isn’t a serious attempt to lower pollution so much as it is publicity for the need to reduce plastic use.

    But we see again how the world treats disabled people and their issues: disposable at the slightest convenience

    Every bit helps.

    But hey, digging up and burning coal employs a bunch of people so I guess we can't stop doing that either.

    Every bit of not making disabled people’s lives harder also helps

  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    If you want to actually discuss the topic, go for it. If you want to snipe back and forth, stop.

  • AiouaAioua Ora Occidens Ora OptimaRegistered User regular
    So here's how I see it.
    The argument feels kind of hollow because it's going to apply to every single instance of regulating away some wasteful or polluting convenience. I would think that most things that are useful for people who aren't disabled can be very useful or even needful for some people who are disabled. I understand that something going from being in common use to being a special exception means accessibility goes into the toilet but like, should we just never make any improvements to our wasteful culture? Because any new restriction to our American excess is going to put some disabled person somewhere in a pinch.

    Instead we should be advocating for greater laws protecting the disabled and punishing businesses who do not provide accommodation. There should be programs that work with business to educate them about what kind of accommodations they're expected to provide. There should be inspectors regularly checking out businesses before there are complaints, showing them where they went wrong and fining them if they don't get into compliance.

    life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
    fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
    that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
    bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    Inkstain82 wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Inkstain82 wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    People I know keep bitching about those straw and soda "bans" and it's like omigod, you are not being denied ANYTHING AT ALL. Like, this literally does not prevent you from doing anything you want to do! Just say "Hey dude, can I have a straw?" seriously how hard is that dgfdsfhfdhgdf

    Most of the disability advocates I follow consider these bans to be prejudicial against people with disabilities. It’s an accessibility issue.

    Non-plastic straws are not always viable options for a variety of reasons. Asking the staff is awkward, leads to gatekeeping and frequently denials.

    These bans are well-intentioned but make disabled people’s lives worse for no tangible environmental improvement (industrial plastic use is causing the problem, not individual use).

    These complaints are largely ignored by the larger left, which isn’t unusual for disability issues.

    There is no law saying a restaurant must provide straws, and not all restaurants do. I'm a parent, I've asked and frequently (even long before the ban) been told we don't have straws. As such, I don't believe that anyone who needs a straw isn't bring their own one.

    You don’t believe that anybody finds it a burden because you don’t?

    I do find it a burden. My younger son went through a phase of throwing a fit if a restaurant didn't have a straw for his cup. Many restaurants do not provide them. To address my minor need for a straw, I began bringing them with because if you need a straw you cannot count on a restaurant to provide one.

    If there had been a law saying restaurants had to provide straws, this would be a change which would hurt the disabled. There is no such law. As such, no-one who needs a straw is counting on restaurants having them, so there is no additional burden on them.

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • Inkstain82Inkstain82 Registered User regular
    edited January 7
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Inkstain82 wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Inkstain82 wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    People I know keep bitching about those straw and soda "bans" and it's like omigod, you are not being denied ANYTHING AT ALL. Like, this literally does not prevent you from doing anything you want to do! Just say "Hey dude, can I have a straw?" seriously how hard is that dgfdsfhfdhgdf

    Most of the disability advocates I follow consider these bans to be prejudicial against people with disabilities. It’s an accessibility issue.

    Non-plastic straws are not always viable options for a variety of reasons. Asking the staff is awkward, leads to gatekeeping and frequently denials.

    These bans are well-intentioned but make disabled people’s lives worse for no tangible environmental improvement (industrial plastic use is causing the problem, not individual use).

    These complaints are largely ignored by the larger left, which isn’t unusual for disability issues.

    There is no law saying a restaurant must provide straws, and not all restaurants do. I'm a parent, I've asked and frequently (even long before the ban) been told we don't have straws. As such, I don't believe that anyone who needs a straw isn't bring their own one.

    You don’t believe that anybody finds it a burden because you don’t?

    I do find it a burden. My younger son went through a phase of throwing a fit if a restaurant didn't have a straw for his cup. Many restaurants do not provide them. To address my minor need for a straw, I began bringing them with because if you need a straw you cannot count on a restaurant to provide one.

    If there had been a law saying restaurants had to provide straws, this would be a change which would hurt the disabled. There is no such law. As such, no-one who needs a straw is counting on restaurants having them, so there is no additional burden on them.

    But they are telling you it is an additional burden. Explicitly. I linked a few disability advocates up above talking about it.

    Telling a disadvantaged group they’re wrong when they explain their problems is a really bad look.

    Inkstain82 on
  • Inkstain82Inkstain82 Registered User regular
    Aioua wrote: »
    So here's how I see it.
    The argument feels kind of hollow because it's going to apply to every single instance of regulating away some wasteful or polluting convenience. I would think that most things that are useful for people who aren't disabled can be very useful or even needful for some people who are disabled. I understand that something going from being in common use to being a special exception means accessibility goes into the toilet but like, should we just never make any improvements to our wasteful culture? Because any new restriction to our American excess is going to put some disabled person somewhere in a pinch.

    Instead we should be advocating for greater laws protecting the disabled and punishing businesses who do not provide accommodation. There should be programs that work with business to educate them about what kind of accommodations they're expected to provide. There should be inspectors regularly checking out businesses before there are complaints, showing them where they went wrong and fining them if they don't get into compliance.


    It doesn’t apply to every waste improvement because we don’t have these complaints for every waste improvement. Plastic bag restrictions, for example, passed without a peep.

    Your world of preventative inspections sounds great. We don’t live in that world. We live in one where disabled people are pooped on from all corners and they have to fight like heck all the time just to get the insufficient accommodations they do now.

    When you pass straw bans, you make life worse for disabled people. There isn’t any way around this.

  • TNTrooperTNTrooper Registered User regular
    The problem isn't banning straws it's restaurants being cheap and not getting paper straws as a replacement for plastic ones. The restaurant I am getting dinner at right now doesn't use plastic straws and my drink order with me ordering a coke and the waitress asking if I wanted a straw no questions when I said yes.

    steam_sig.png
  • Inkstain82Inkstain82 Registered User regular
    edited January 7
    Paper straws are not a viable replacement for plastic straws. They don’t hold up to hot drinks and can cause cuts on the inside of the mouth for people who have trouble holding the straw still. They are also a choking hazard for people with poor jaw control.

    Inkstain82 on
  • AiouaAioua Ora Occidens Ora OptimaRegistered User regular
    Inkstain82 wrote: »
    Aioua wrote: »
    So here's how I see it.
    The argument feels kind of hollow because it's going to apply to every single instance of regulating away some wasteful or polluting convenience. I would think that most things that are useful for people who aren't disabled can be very useful or even needful for some people who are disabled. I understand that something going from being in common use to being a special exception means accessibility goes into the toilet but like, should we just never make any improvements to our wasteful culture? Because any new restriction to our American excess is going to put some disabled person somewhere in a pinch.

    Instead we should be advocating for greater laws protecting the disabled and punishing businesses who do not provide accommodation. There should be programs that work with business to educate them about what kind of accommodations they're expected to provide. There should be inspectors regularly checking out businesses before there are complaints, showing them where they went wrong and fining them if they don't get into compliance.


    It doesn’t apply to every waste improvement because we don’t have these complaints for every waste improvement. Plastic bag restrictions, for example, passed without a peep.

    Your world of preventative inspections sounds great. We don’t live in that world. We live in one where disabled people are pooped on from all corners and they have to fight like heck all the time just to get the insufficient accommodations they do now.

    When you pass straw bans, you make life worse for disabled people. There isn’t any way around this.

    I'm ok with this.

    life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
    fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
    that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
    bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
  • AimAim Registered User regular
    ...you could make the law also require restaurants to have a small stock of straws to be provided to people with disabilities.

    LoisLane
  • Inkstain82Inkstain82 Registered User regular
    Aioua wrote: »
    Inkstain82 wrote: »
    Aioua wrote: »
    So here's how I see it.
    The argument feels kind of hollow because it's going to apply to every single instance of regulating away some wasteful or polluting convenience. I would think that most things that are useful for people who aren't disabled can be very useful or even needful for some people who are disabled. I understand that something going from being in common use to being a special exception means accessibility goes into the toilet but like, should we just never make any improvements to our wasteful culture? Because any new restriction to our American excess is going to put some disabled person somewhere in a pinch.

    Instead we should be advocating for greater laws protecting the disabled and punishing businesses who do not provide accommodation. There should be programs that work with business to educate them about what kind of accommodations they're expected to provide. There should be inspectors regularly checking out businesses before there are complaints, showing them where they went wrong and fining them if they don't get into compliance.


    It doesn’t apply to every waste improvement because we don’t have these complaints for every waste improvement. Plastic bag restrictions, for example, passed without a peep.

    Your world of preventative inspections sounds great. We don’t live in that world. We live in one where disabled people are pooped on from all corners and they have to fight like heck all the time just to get the insufficient accommodations they do now.

    When you pass straw bans, you make life worse for disabled people. There isn’t any way around this.

    I'm ok with this.

    I find that to be a more respectable stance than all the diversions and gaslighting.

  • AiouaAioua Ora Occidens Ora OptimaRegistered User regular
    edited January 7
    Aim wrote: »
    ...you could make the law also require restaurants to have a small stock of straws to be provided to people with disabilities.

    It does!

    e: er, ok, rather it only allows restaurants to supply straws if asked, so some restaurants may have no straws at all

    but this is already the case anyway

    Aioua on
    life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
    fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
    that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
    bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
  • Just_Bri_ThanksJust_Bri_Thanks Seething with rage from a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPA regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I am legit having difficulty understanding how having to say "can I have a straw" is an insurmountable burden for anyone, disabled or otherwise.

    Wasn't there a ruling on the ACA where having to fill out a form requesting exemption to the requirement to provide service was ruled as being unduly burdensome?

    Some days I just want to smack people with a rolled up newspaper. Or a phone book.
    A folding chair is looking like an attractive option right now too...
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    edited January 7
    Inkstain82 wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Inkstain82 wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Inkstain82 wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    People I know keep bitching about those straw and soda "bans" and it's like omigod, you are not being denied ANYTHING AT ALL. Like, this literally does not prevent you from doing anything you want to do! Just say "Hey dude, can I have a straw?" seriously how hard is that dgfdsfhfdhgdf

    Most of the disability advocates I follow consider these bans to be prejudicial against people with disabilities. It’s an accessibility issue.

    Non-plastic straws are not always viable options for a variety of reasons. Asking the staff is awkward, leads to gatekeeping and frequently denials.

    These bans are well-intentioned but make disabled people’s lives worse for no tangible environmental improvement (industrial plastic use is causing the problem, not individual use).

    These complaints are largely ignored by the larger left, which isn’t unusual for disability issues.

    There is no law saying a restaurant must provide straws, and not all restaurants do. I'm a parent, I've asked and frequently (even long before the ban) been told we don't have straws. As such, I don't believe that anyone who needs a straw isn't bring their own one.

    You don’t believe that anybody finds it a burden because you don’t?

    I do find it a burden. My younger son went through a phase of throwing a fit if a restaurant didn't have a straw for his cup. Many restaurants do not provide them. To address my minor need for a straw, I began bringing them with because if you need a straw you cannot count on a restaurant to provide one.

    If there had been a law saying restaurants had to provide straws, this would be a change which would hurt the disabled. There is no such law. As such, no-one who needs a straw is counting on restaurants having them, so there is no additional burden on them.

    But they are telling you it is an additional burden. Explicitly. I linked a few disability advocates up above talking about it.

    Telling a disadvantaged group they’re wrong when they explain their problems is a really bad look.

    Many restaurants have no straws. Many restaurants make no effort to provide or replenish straws. Straws provisioned by restaurants are of varying lengths, diameters, and strengths. They can be bendy, or not. Long or short etc. they might meet your needs, or not. If you need a straw you cannot, under any circumstances, count on a restaurant to provide one. No law requires restaurants to provide them.

    tbloxham on
    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
    Fencingsax
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    Inkstain82 wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I am legit having difficulty understanding how having to say "can I have a straw" is an insurmountable burden for anyone, disabled or otherwise.

    In an ideal world, the question would be “what are we gaining by taking away an accessibility feature?” and not put the burden of proof the other way around.

    But recognizing we don’t live in that world, the answers are gatekeeping and non-compliance.

    You can write a waiver into the law, but what will happen and is already happening is restaurants will simply stop stocking them. And if they do stock them, you have to hope that the staff knows that and doesn’t decline reflexively.

    And then among those who do, they’ll want to know why you want one. Theyll tell you they don’t look disabled. They’ll want to know your personal medical information. They’ll want to know why you can’t use the reusable straw that their friend’s cousin’s nephew used.

    Straw bans, plain and simple, make life worse for disabled people.

    Here’s some good reading on the subject:

    https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2018/07/11/627773979/why-people-with-disabilities-want-bans-on-plastic-straws-to-be-more-flexible

    http://cdrnys.org/blog/disability-dialogue/grasping-at-straws-the-ableism-of-the-straw-ban/

    https://www.vox.com/first-person/2018/7/19/17587676/straws-plastic-ban-disability

    I have to think that you are talking about something different from what California is doing. Those articles are talking about plastic straws being banned. But plastic straws have not been banned in California. The state law that went into effect bars restaurants from automatically giving people straws, and requires that customers ask before they get them.

    None of the articles you linked explain why requiring a customer - disabled or not - to ask for a straw they need is so burdensome. What I'm gathering, given the rhetoric i'm seeing, is that not having access to a restaurant-provided single use plastic straw is literally a matter of life and death, but that for some reason having to ask for it is so troublesome that disabled people will just quietly die rather than go to the tremendous effort of saying "Hi, can i have a straw?"

    You say that disabled people will be interrogated and not provided a straw unless they explain why they need one, which leads me to think you believe that only disabled people are allowed to have them? Which isn't the case; anyone can have a straw if they ask.

    I continue to be confused.

    Though even if there was a total ban on straws in restaurants, it seems to me that if the situation is so apparently dire that not having a plastic straw onhand at a moment's notice is a death sentence, that maybe disabled folks should carry a backup straw with them, i dunno.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
    shrykeMayabird
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited January 7
    Inkstain82 wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Inkstain82 wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    We've already answered the question of what is to gain: less pollution.

    A negligible amount. It’s been admitted that this isn’t a serious attempt to lower pollution so much as it is publicity for the need to reduce plastic use.

    But we see again how the world treats disabled people and their issues: disposable at the slightest convenience

    Every bit helps.

    But hey, digging up and burning coal employs a bunch of people so I guess we can't stop doing that either.

    Every bit of not making disabled people’s lives harder also helps

    Don't know what this has to do with the point. Nothing is cost free. Especially when it comes to fighting pollution. There's always someone who was depending on that polluting activity for anything from convenience to their entire livelihood. That's why the polluting activity exists in the first place after all. That's not a reason to not do anything though. And the cost associated with "having to ask for a straw" is basically zero.

    shryke on
    kime
  • Inkstain82Inkstain82 Registered User regular
    edited January 8

    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Inkstain82 wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I am legit having difficulty understanding how having to say "can I have a straw" is an insurmountable burden for anyone, disabled or otherwise.

    In an ideal world, the question would be “what are we gaining by taking away an accessibility feature?” and not put the burden of proof the other way around.

    But recognizing we don’t live in that world, the answers are gatekeeping and non-compliance.

    You can write a waiver into the law, but what will happen and is already happening is restaurants will simply stop stocking them. And if they do stock them, you have to hope that the staff knows that and doesn’t decline reflexively.

    And then among those who do, they’ll want to know why you want one. Theyll tell you they don’t look disabled. They’ll want to know your personal medical information. They’ll want to know why you can’t use the reusable straw that their friend’s cousin’s nephew used.

    Straw bans, plain and simple, make life worse for disabled people.

    Here’s some good reading on the subject:

    https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2018/07/11/627773979/why-people-with-disabilities-want-bans-on-plastic-straws-to-be-more-flexible

    http://cdrnys.org/blog/disability-dialogue/grasping-at-straws-the-ableism-of-the-straw-ban/

    https://www.vox.com/first-person/2018/7/19/17587676/straws-plastic-ban-disability

    I have to think that you are talking about something different from what California is doing. Those articles are talking about plastic straws being banned. But plastic straws have not been banned in California. The state law that went into effect bars restaurants from automatically giving people straws, and requires that customers ask before they get them.

    None of the articles you linked explain why requiring a customer - disabled or not - to ask for a straw they need is so burdensome. What I'm gathering, given the rhetoric i'm seeing, is that not having access to a restaurant-provided single use plastic straw is literally a matter of life and death, but that for some reason having to ask for it is so troublesome that disabled people will just quietly die rather than go to the tremendous effort of saying "Hi, can i have a straw?"

    You say that disabled people will be interrogated and not provided a straw unless they explain why they need one, which leads me to think you believe that only disabled people are allowed to have them? Which isn't the case; anyone can have a straw if they ask.

    I continue to be confused.

    Though even if there was a total ban on straws in restaurants, it seems to me that if the situation is so apparently dire that not having a plastic straw onhand at a moment's notice is a death sentence, that maybe disabled folks should carry a backup straw with them, i dunno.


    All of your confusion and several of your questions were in fact addressed in the links.

    Inkstain82 on
  • Inkstain82Inkstain82 Registered User regular
    edited January 8
    shryke wrote: »
    Inkstain82 wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Inkstain82 wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    We've already answered the question of what is to gain: less pollution.

    A negligible amount. It’s been admitted that this isn’t a serious attempt to lower pollution so much as it is publicity for the need to reduce plastic use.

    But we see again how the world treats disabled people and their issues: disposable at the slightest convenience

    Every bit helps.

    But hey, digging up and burning coal employs a bunch of people so I guess we can't stop doing that either.

    Every bit of not making disabled people’s lives harder also helps

    Don't know what this has to do with the point. Nothing is cost free. Especially when it comes to fighting pollution. There's always someone who was depending on that polluting activity for anything from convenience to their entire livelihood. That's why the polluting activity exists in the first place after all. That's not a reason to not do anything though. And the cost associated with "having to ask for a straw" is basically zero.


    Pretending that any and every attempt to fight pollution will be met with these complaints is disingenuous. The only complaint being made is about this specific movement.

    In this case, the anti-pollution gains are negligible. A marginalized people are explaining why this would make their lives more difficult in ways that, if we actually cared about them in a meaningful way, would cause the balance to easily be in their favor against negligible gains.

    But just like society is racist and sexist, society is ablist. When disabled people speak up, they get gaslit and told that it isn’t a real problem. And when you finally cut through all that, the truth comes out: disabled people just don’t matter to society at large.

    When there are multiple disabled activist voices saying “this is a real hardship for us,” repeatedly saying that you can’t see how it is a hardship is just gaslighting.

    Inkstain82 on
    orangeusGnizmo
  • JragghenJragghen Registered User regular
    https://www.sacbee.com/latest-news/article224493080.html

    PG&E CEO resigns, company may declare bankruptcy this week due to billions in liabilities.

  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    Inkstain82 wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Inkstain82 wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Inkstain82 wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    We've already answered the question of what is to gain: less pollution.

    A negligible amount. It’s been admitted that this isn’t a serious attempt to lower pollution so much as it is publicity for the need to reduce plastic use.

    But we see again how the world treats disabled people and their issues: disposable at the slightest convenience

    Every bit helps.

    But hey, digging up and burning coal employs a bunch of people so I guess we can't stop doing that either.

    Every bit of not making disabled people’s lives harder also helps

    Don't know what this has to do with the point. Nothing is cost free. Especially when it comes to fighting pollution. There's always someone who was depending on that polluting activity for anything from convenience to their entire livelihood. That's why the polluting activity exists in the first place after all. That's not a reason to not do anything though. And the cost associated with "having to ask for a straw" is basically zero.


    Pretending that any and every attempt to fight pollution will be met with these complaints is disingenuous. The only complaint being made is about this specific movement.

    In this case, the anti-pollution gains are negligible. A marginalized people are explaining why this would make their lives more difficult in ways that, if we actually cared about them in a meaningful way, would cause the balance to easily be in their favor against negligible gains.

    But just like society is racist and sexist, society is ablist. When disabled people speak up, they get gaslit and told that it isn’t a real problem. And when you finally cut through all that, the truth comes out: disabled people just don’t matter to society at large.

    When there are multiple disabled activist voices saying “this is a real hardship for us,” repeatedly saying that you can’t see how it is a hardship is just gaslighting.

    But those disabled voices are talking about criticisms of a complete ban on straws. A situation where we transition from straws being sometimes available and sometimes useful on request, to one where all straws useful to them are banned, even from private purchase. I 100% agree that there are disabled people who need straws to drink in Restaurants, but right now restaurants don't have to provide straws, and they certainly don't have to provide straws which meet any kind of ADA requirement for 'utility'. And they certainly aren't providing straws in a way where the disabled can access and use them without requesting assistance.

    For example, a common reason to require straws for drinking is a highly diminished grip strength or hand mobility, preventing you from easily lifting a cup. So you might want a straw, however, nearly every chain restaurant which provides straws (your most likely 100% certain to have a straw destination) provides those straws inside plastic or paper wrap, which is a challenge to open even with conventional drip strength. So the disabled are either forced to ask someone to open their straw for them, or bring their own straw, or bring scissors. And since we still have the whole bendy straw situation to deal with (where some people may definitely need a bendy straw due to poor neck mobility or the need to place the beverage in a holder before drinking and others may have conditions which require the exact opposite) we're an even worse state. Add to that the fact that the dispenser of straws is often a recessed hole (requiring good grip control), or one of those push down levering things (requires ability to exert force at height greater than wheelchair height, and again, good grip control to get the thing out) restaurant provided straws are just not a solution for more than a fraction of the disabled community who need them. People in these articles talk about using bendy straws for hot beverages, and I can tell you that as an abled person who also sometimes uses straws for hot things due to occasional bouts of sensitivity in my teeth, only CERTAIN bendy straws of standard length work for that. Your 'very slightly cheaper than normal' plastic straw (as you will see at every cheap diner or restaurant) is too thin walled to resist collapse at high temperatures when you suck the liquid, and will not return to its previous shape once it has collapsed. Meaning you either must wait for your hot beverage to cool, or use a different straw.

    It would seem that the 'right' path forward for considering the disabled here is to ban the automatic provision of single use plastic straws, but in the same law insist that all restaurants have an inventory of reasonable plastic straws which should meet the needs of the largest possible group of the disabled. A complete ban is indeed wrong, there are many people for whom 'generic bendy straw + someone to help me open it' is the right choice, but the overall harm from single use plastic straws is more than enough to justify that no able bodied person should use one again.

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • emp123emp123 Registered User regular
    Jragghen wrote: »
    https://www.sacbee.com/latest-news/article224493080.html

    PG&E CEO resigns, company may declare bankruptcy this week due to billions in liabilities.

    And now they're declaring bankruptcy:
    https://www.google.com/amp/s/abc7news.com/amp/business/pg-e-to-file-for-chapter-11-bankruptcy-ceo-resigns/5073774/

    camo_sig2.png
  • OrcaOrca Registered User regular
    Fuck 'em.

    I hope the state of california claws back income and just takes over the damned company.

    The 2012 issue of Fornax. | Steam and Origin: Espressosaurus
    FencingsaxSkeithDoodmannHacksawdispatch.o
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Newsom has placed a moratorium on the death penalty in California:
    Gov. Gavin Newsom, arguing that the death penalty overwhelmingly discriminates against racial minorities and the poor, will sign an order Wednesday placing a moratorium on executions in California, according to his office. The move serves as an immediate reprieve for hundreds of prisoners currently housed on the nation’s largest Death Row.

    Newsom’s executive order, to be signed Wednesday morning, withdraws California’s lethal injection protocol and immediately mandates the closure of the execution chamber at San Quentin State Prison, in Marin County. While the governor’s order will be a reprieve for 737 prisoners sentenced to death — including 24 who have exhausted all legal appeals — Newsom’s office stressed that his order would not provide for the release of any inmates or alter their convictions or sentences.

    California has the largest number of condemned prisoners in the nation, representing one out of every four Death Row inmates in the United States.

    Good on him stopping the state's machinery of death.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    JragghenWaveformFencingsaxDoodmannkimeTNTrooperAimLeeksemp123shrykeLoisLanedispatch.oSkeithDavid Walgas
  • JragghenJragghen Registered User regular
    Newsom has been mostly pleasing me this far, honestly. More than I expected.

    dispatch.o
  • TenekTenek Registered User regular
    Is there some particular reason he couldn't commute all of their sentences to life imprisonment? Unless I'm missing something this is just a 4-year renewable reprieve.

  • JragghenJragghen Registered User regular
    Tenek wrote: »
    Is there some particular reason he couldn't commute all of their sentences to life imprisonment? Unless I'm missing something this is just a 4-year renewable reprieve.

    Probably would (arguably rightly) be viewed as executive overreach given we just had a prop a couple years ago to remove the death penalty entirely and it failed.

  • TenekTenek Registered User regular
    Jragghen wrote: »
    Tenek wrote: »
    Is there some particular reason he couldn't commute all of their sentences to life imprisonment? Unless I'm missing something this is just a 4-year renewable reprieve.

    Probably would (arguably rightly) be viewed as executive overreach given we just had a prop a couple years ago to remove the death penalty entirely and it failed.

    I see that there's apparently some ability for the court to block commutations and pardons for people with multiple felonies, so I suppose this isn't quite as reviewable... but unless that applies to most of them it would seem like a better option to at least take both options.

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    So, in California political news, in a very loose sense, Representative (and likely war criminal) Duncan Hunter just had sex with his wife regarding the criminal charges they are facing:
    The wife of indicted Republican U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter of California has pleaded guilty to conspiracy to misuse campaign funds, including for an Italy trip that cost more than $10,000.
    Margaret Hunter, who worked as her husband’s campaign manager, had previously pleaded not guilty to corruption charges alleging the couple used more than $250,000 in campaign funds to pay for personal trips, hotel rooms and shopping sprees.

    But on Thursday she withdrew that plea in U.S. court in San Diego and pleaded guilty to a single count carrying a sentence of up to five years in prison.

    The misuse of campaign funds spanned from 2010 to the end of 2016.

    The move suggests she is cooperating with the prosecution and might even testify against her husband. His trial is scheduled for September.
    His attorney, Gregory Vega, told the San Diego Union-Tribune that Margaret Hunter’s guilt should have no impact on his client’s case.

    Don't piss on our legs and say it's raining, Greg. When the spouse suddenly pleads guilty, it's usually because they were flipped. And that's never a good sign for the other spouse.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • kaidkaid Registered User regular
    Inkstain82 wrote: »
    Paper straws are not a viable replacement for plastic straws. They don’t hold up to hot drinks and can cause cuts on the inside of the mouth for people who have trouble holding the straw still. They are also a choking hazard for people with poor jaw control.

    I have never had a paper straw that was in any way sharp. Generally they are heavily waxed so they hold up in fluids so cutting yourself on it should be very hard to do as they are in general duller than normal plastic straws are and also more likely to crumple than to cut. Hot drinks I can see being a problem though as the heat would soften the wax on them.

    I remember back when I was younger all fast food places always used waxed paper straws almost none of them used plastic ones and it worked well enough.

  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    So, in California political news, in a very loose sense, Representative (and likely war criminal) Duncan Hunter just had sex with his wife regarding the criminal charges they are facing:
    The wife of indicted Republican U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter of California has pleaded guilty to conspiracy to misuse campaign funds, including for an Italy trip that cost more than $10,000.
    Margaret Hunter, who worked as her husband’s campaign manager, had previously pleaded not guilty to corruption charges alleging the couple used more than $250,000 in campaign funds to pay for personal trips, hotel rooms and shopping sprees.

    But on Thursday she withdrew that plea in U.S. court in San Diego and pleaded guilty to a single count carrying a sentence of up to five years in prison.

    The misuse of campaign funds spanned from 2010 to the end of 2016.

    The move suggests she is cooperating with the prosecution and might even testify against her husband. His trial is scheduled for September.
    His attorney, Gregory Vega, told the San Diego Union-Tribune that Margaret Hunter’s guilt should have no impact on his client’s case.

    Don't piss on our legs and say it's raining, Greg. When the spouse suddenly pleads guilty, it's usually because they were flipped. And that's never a good sign for the other spouse.

    Oh yes, it's utterly absurd that the campaign manager was cooperating with the candidate.

    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited June 25
    And now we know why Duncan Hunter's wife turned state's evidence:
    Federal prosecutors have accused Rep. Duncan Hunter of improperly using campaign funds to pursue numerous romantic affairs with congressional aides and lobbyists, according to a new court filing late Monday night.

    The Justice Department alleged that Hunter (R-Calif.) and his wife Margaret Hunter illegally diverted $250,000 in campaign funds for personal use, including to fund lavish vacations and their children’s school tuition. Monday’s court filings also spell out allegations that Hunter routinely used campaign funds to pay for Ubers, bar tabs, hotel rooms and other expenses to fund at least five extramarital relationships.

    Five affairs? You are so fucked, Duncan.

    Edit: TPM has more:
    Prosecutors argue persuasively if rather archly that they must introduce evidence of Hunter’s affairs because otherwise Hunter might argue that the expenses were tied to his work in Congress. As they note, each girlfriend was tied either to Congress or political work in general. So tying the meetings to his campaign is not inherently implausible unless you know they were having sex.

    So for instance, while noting that an lobbyist identified as “individual 17″ was a lobbyist who had organized events and fundraisers for Hunter, prosecutors make clear that certain meetings were clearly not tied to his campaign:”That night, however, was not about business: at around 11:00 pm, Hunter and I-17 departed the Hamilton together for her home, where they engaged in intimate personal activities unrelated to Hunter’s congressional campaign or duties as a member of Congress.”

    The filing includes numerous examples like this with five separate individuals.

    That's a new strategy for hiding your affairs.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    Fencingsax
Sign In or Register to comment.