
tannertan36
tumblr dot com
cherry valley forever
styofa doing anything
Game of Thrones Daily

❣ Chile in a Photography ❣
Claire Keane

PR's Tumblrdome
TVSTRANGERTHINGS
dirt enthusiast

Origami Around

oozey mess

titsay
I'd rather be in outer space 🛸

JBB: An Artblog!
Sweet Seals For You, Always

Discoholic 🪩
No title available

pixel skylines
Monterey Bay Aquarium
seen from Indonesia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Indonesia

seen from India
seen from Croatia

seen from Russia
seen from Poland

seen from Indonesia
seen from United States

seen from India
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom

seen from United States

seen from Singapore

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Thailand
@ampersam
good evening. are u avoiding pain or seeking joy
abused kids reaching late teenage years: it seems I have trauma symptoms, which is odd because nothing traumatic had ever happened to me... sure I don't have many memories of my childhood but I am sure that everything that happened was 100% my fault and also normal and I am supposed to be strong enough to be over that and it was a long time ago so. That's all good. Now. I need to hide these trauma symptoms or my parents will kill me.
You know, it occurs to me that the known internet phenomenon of Reddit “am I the asshole?” posts having completely misleading headers is actually a really great example of a far less known but far more common practice of extreme journalistic spin in cases where there are large monetary incentives to diminish the story in question.
Like, if you see a Reddit post titled “Am I the asshole for buying my wife a new dress?”, the post is pretty much always something totally deranged like: “I (48) really dislike the way my wife (20) dresses, because I think it’s too revealing and makes her look slutty, which was fine when we started dating five years ago, but it makes me feel like she’s going to cheat on me now that we’re married. I’ve politely asked her to get new clothes multiple times, and every time she refused because she said she liked her clothes, and didn’t want to waste money buying new ones. Yesterday I couldn’t take it anymore so I threw out a bunch of her old dresses and bought her a new one that was more modest looking. She started crying because one of the dresses I threw out had been left to her by her mom who died when she was a teen, but I couldn’t have known that it had sentimental value. She said that I should have asked, but obviously if I asked she’d have just told me not to throw out any of her clothes, including the ones that weren’t sentimental. Also, the more modest dress I bought was pretty expensive, and she never thanked me for it. Am I the asshole here, or is she being unreasonable?”
Similarly, whenever you see a headline like “Woman Wins Millions From McDonald’s Because Her Hot Coffee Was Too Hot”, if you dig a bit, you’ll almost always quickly find out that what actually happened was: A 79-year-old ordered coffee which, unbeknownst to her, was being served extremely dangerously hot, because McDonald’s was trying to have coffee that stayed warm over a long commute without spending any extra money on cups with better insulation. The coffee spilled on the old woman’s lap, giving her severe third degree burns over a huge portion of her body, including her genitals. She got to a hospital and they managed to save her life with skin grafting, but she became disabled from the accident, and her genitals and thighs were permanently disfigured. She tried to settle with McDonald’s for her medical costs, and McDonald’s refused to cover any portion of her medical expenses at all, and so she sued. At trial, the jury discovered that this same exact thing had happened seven hundred times before, and McDonald’s had still decided not to change their policy because paying out individual suits was cheaper than moderately reducing their coffee profits. As a result, the jury awarded punitive damages designed to penalize McDonald’s two days worth of their coffee profits, in addition to the woman’s medical costs.
I think it’s largely the same phenomenon, but I know a lot of people who are familiar with the first case, but don’t know to look for the second. If you see some totally outrageous “how could a person ever sue over this stupid thing?” case, you should immediately be incredibly suspicious that that’s all that actually happened, because a lot of the time, it absolutely isn’t. The people who have the most incentive to make their opponent look not only wrong, but completely crazy for having any sort of grievance at all, are often the actually unreasonable ones.
Anyway this is all to say that if I see ANY of y’all automatically siding with McDonald’s over the recent case where 4-year-old girl was severely burned by their chicken nuggets because “hurr durr dumb kid didn’t know that chicken nuggets were hot, people sue over anything lol”, I will grab that McBoot you’re licking and shove it all the way up your McFuckingAss.
Hey btw, this goes for the Panera lemonade thing too. I’m already seeing articles with headlines like “Caffeinated lemonade turns out to contain caffeine”, which is a truly incredible level of spin, seeing as the issue is that Panera fucking killed people. Their products were so deceptively labeled that multiple people who were actively attempting to carefully monitor their caffeine intake still mistakenly drank a lemonade which had more caffeine in it than any energy drink on the market. Do not let a handful of carefully crafted PR one-liners about “underlying conditions” and “what did they think charged meant” turn the narrative on this into a wankfest of victim blamey bullshit. The facts of the case are utterly damning, and the money and effort that Panera is pouring into smearing the victims is as appalling as it is predictable.
no, no, hold on, what did they think charged meant? what lead them to think that?
here’s a real photo of some charged lemonade dispensers from about a year ago i found online
apologies for the bad quality, but you can clearly see that next to the charged lemonades are just. normal drinks. iced tea. lemonade that doesn’t give you a heart attack. and that banner above it, well, it just says up the energy. “Well it also says caffeine in the banner-” how many of you read the last terms and conditions you agreed to? how many of you check the privacy policy of every single website you visit? how many of you see some new gimmicky lemonade that’s next to the normal lemonade, and the normal iced tea, and the normal green tea, and assume that it’s anything but a normal drink? Can you even see the labels on the machines that say how much caffeine is in there? Fuck no, the picture quality is shit, but if you didn’t look closely in person, you wouldn’t see shit either. But would you look at all? Or would you just choose a nice flavor and call it a day? Would you read the terms of service? Or would you just click the check box?
This is what deceptive marketing look like. This is what corporate indifference and greed looks like. If Panera didn’t want to get sued, maybe they should’ve increased the contrast between the green and the labels. Maybe they should’ve increased the font size. Maybe they should’ve made the word caffeine more prominent. There were a thousand ways to avoid the harm caused, and they did none of them.
Just saw this addition, and I really appreciate the breakdown, because this really goes to the heart of the way that corporations pantomime helplessness in these situations.
When I was in law school, we studied the hot coffee case and a number of other cases like it in the context of so-called “tort reform” laws. One thing that came up quite frequently as we dug into the actual lawsuits was that corporations adopted a sort of “well, what were we supposed to do about it?” attitude as part of their strategy to shift the burden of harm prevention onto their customers.
McDonald’s wanted their coffee to stay hot for longer in the cup so that customers with long commutes wouldn’t have their coffee go cold, and they wanted it to stay hot for longer in the brewer so that it would stay fresher and they wouldn’t have to throw out as much coffee over the course of the day. Their argument, when you really got down to it, was: “It’s an unreasonable burden on our business to not serve a dangerous product!” In class, our professor posed the question, is it? And within minutes, we’d come up with dozens of other solutions that they could have applied to their stated problems which would not have had the same risk to consumers: they could get better insulated cups; they could get cups with better lids, to reduce the risk of spills; they could add the sugar and milk for customers before serving them, so that people would not need to open their coffee in order to add them; they could offer a cardboard holder with single coffee orders as well as multiple coffee orders, so that consumers would not need to hold their coffee in their lap; they could let people bring their own insulated tumblers like Starbucks does; they could brew smaller amounts at a time so that there would be less risk of it going off before it could be used; they could buy brewers with better insulation; they could include warnings about the temperature that state that their coffee is served significantly hotter than normal coffee; and on and on and on. Once we got going, it was clear that there were so many things that the companies in these cases could have done to prevent these accidents.
Panera could have changed the color of their signs, or increased the font size. They could have used the word “caffeinated” instead of “charged”. They could have not served their caffeinated drinks right next to their non-caffeinated drinks. They could have not offered free refills beyond a lethal dose of caffeine. They could have reduced the caffeine content to a level that was more in line with what people might reasonably expect from a caffeinated lemonade, instead of putting the same amount of caffeine as three Red Bulls in a single drink. Failing that, they could have marketed it as one of the most caffeinated drinks being sold anywhere in existence, instead of prominently claiming that it had “as much” caffeine as their coffee, without making it clear that that measurement was by volume, not by serving. I could keep going.
Never let these companies convince you that there’s nothing that they could have done. I’m not a restaurant management expert or a professional graphic designer, and even just off the top of my head, I can come up with dozens of easy things that they could have done differently that might have prevented these tragic deaths, if they had cared the slightest bit. Imagine how much better they could have done if they’d devoted any of their immense product development budget to safety. Imagine the people who might still be alive today if they’d bothered.
northern snow hog
you know he sniffed a snow
great, my post is in some sort of dungeon
Rat detected. Make him jiggle.
Holy shit I assume everyone is doing an up and down jiggle and maybe a side to side jiggle but if you jiggle your phone forward and backwards he jiggles in and out, too
I was today years old when I found out Loch Ness looks like this and not like an oval like how the cartoons always depict it
Nessie turning around in the lake:
Saw an old lady today that looked like an old lady and was dressed like an old lady except she was wearing big goth stomping boots like this
shot in the HEAD. and you're to blame. You are not good. At dart game
shoutout to everyone
this was going to be a very different text post before i pressed enter too soon, but you know what, nevermind. shout out to everyone. don't we all deserve it
when u move out you can go to a living room and use your phone there instead of being in your bedroom. it's allowed
the news presenter is weird today
I loved Thunderbolts*, that moment when you have to defeat god with a knife and a gun