5 ms·

This issue is a wrecking ball being swung first this way, then the other way, to create division, hatred, polarization, radicalization and the feeling of being

by acyou 3y ago

This issue is a wrecking ball being swung first this way, then the other way, to create division, hatred, polarization, radicalization and the feeling of being marginalized on all sides. Who benefits from consuming this article? Was it not mass media used as a primary vector to create the hysteria in the first place? And will the wheel not again soon turn, so that the criticized can criticize the criticizers from their moral high ground created by manufactured narrative and invective? The lesson here is: We should not read or promote these divisive articles. Three years ago, Wired were contributing to this problem: Yes, great idea, we should just buy the methanol and benzene containing products online and make hand sanitizer ourselves. https://www.wired.com/story/how-to-make-hand-sanitizer/ https://www.wired.com/story/how-to-make-hand-sanitizer/ Probably, the same lesson extends to most mass media. Consumption of mass media like this seems to tend to create knock-on effects that don't necessarily align with our best interests. We should find something better to do with our limited time.

_a_a_a_ 3y ago
This is one peculiarly shrill post. Can you explain your mention of "division, hatred, polarization, radicalization" related to this article? I'm not saying you're wrong but it's a very strange opinion and seemingly entirely disproportionate.
- acyou 3y ago
  It's tough to explain. It's something to do with not standing on any particular side, but attempting to cast blame and start arguments. If you read through the HN comments, and think about the bigger picture and what will result from the publishing of the article, isn't the most lasting effect pitting one group against another? Hasn't the article done a great job of doing that, and is that not the primary effect of this article being published? It seems clear enough to me. People who believe one thing are also reading this article in resentment and despair. You don't think about them, but they are out there. When the next crisis comes, they will remember how their world view was publicly shamed, and more loudly and actively assert their views. And the people who are on top now, or think they are due to the current media cycle, will build resentment in turn. And the cycle will continue. I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to publish it and sow discord. They should. I'm saying that we shouldn't elevate it. Unfortunately, even me commenting on this probably goes against that idea.
  - _a_a_a_ 3y ago
    > isn't the most lasting effect pitting one group against another? I honestly just don't see it. > People who believe one thing are also reading this article in resentment and despair. You don't think about them, but they are out there Again, I struggle to see that. Saying "but they are out there" doesn't mean they actually are. Look, I just don't get what you're saying. I know when my mental health problems kick in the world starts to distort and I can feel, to a lesser degree, something like what you're saying. It doesn't mean it's universally true, or even predominantly true. And I'm not saying you're wrong either, but... you leave me baffled. Are you seeing through a glass darkly? (For the record you're worrying about methanol contamination – for the past 3 years I've been using methylated spirits as a hand sanitiser; 90% ethanol 10% methanol. I haven't had any problems)
  - objectivetruth 3y ago
    [dead]
gowld 3y ago
Where is benzene in the Wired article?
- acyou 3y ago
  I think that the source of the benzene and methanol might have been from hand sanitizer manufacturers buying raw input feedstocks (ethanol and glycerol) containing methanol and benzene from dubious sources. If that's the case, then making your own hand sanitizer by buying ethanol and glycerol from dubious (random online) sources (that Wired actually goes so far as to directly link to) would also put you at risk of inadvertently creating your own home-made hand sanitizer cocktail of ethanol, methanol, benzene and who knows what else.
  - NotYourLawyer 3y ago
    They recommended buying isopropyl alcohol. They did not recommend buying fuel grade ethanol.
    - acyou 3y ago
      That's right. But the time, isopropyl alcohol was expensive and unavailable enough that people were getting into that business too. And the fastest movers, and most successful, would have been the hustlers. Awhile back, I noticed that a local liquor distillery was also selling hand sanitizer. I didn't think about it at the time, but I guess that would probably have been a pretty reliable source.
      - NotYourLawyer 3y ago
        Yeah, but the production of IPA doesn’t lend itself to benzene contamination. I’m also not sure I believe that a bunch of IPA factories were springing up overnight—you can’t make it with yeast and a still.
emodendroket 3y ago
Yeah, let's just have a Bureau of Information to make sure that nothing that upsets harmonious relations among the people is published, never mind that it is factual reporting.
BitPolice 3y ago
I didn't read the article as playing blame-games or stoking hatred, personally. The author does kind of walk through a timeline from 2020 to now about hand sanitizer; but that felt more like just a timeline. Yeah, we all kind of freaked out about washing early on (I had a UV-C sterilizer in an aluminum foil lined box (!!!)), but each of us was doing our best during an emergency. That, at least, is the sense I got from that part of the article. I realize the article set you off, and I could totally see that happening to me in different circumstances, so just want to say that I get it. But, speaking for myself, I liked this article because it made me think about something I hadn't before so I thought I'd share that perspective. The article talks about how there's tons of left over hand sanitizer we now have to deal with. I personally just never spared a thought for there now being many millions of gallons of this stuff sitting around. I also hadn't ever thought about how they can't sell or give away or cheaply dispose of it, so it's just sitting there being all haz-matty and stuff. And, I can absolutely see some low-margin operators looking for an out in that situation. Anyway, I'd encourage anyone who liked the article to read the complaint the county filed in this instance. It's not short but it's a pretty quick read. Start at "Pre-Fire Violations of the Hazardous Materials Laws at the Property" if you just want to read the timeline [according to the Plaintiffs] there's also lots of pictures. It does sounds like the authorities were trying to do the right thing, but the company [allegedly] ignored the repeated citations. See: https://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/lac/1118231_CountyvPrologisComplaintReDominguezChannelOdors.pdf https://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/lac/1118231_CountyvProlog... That made me wonder whether there are any other facilities improperly storing this stuff. To be clear, this isn't political code; I'm not saying we need different laws, not drawing parallels to the Beirut or Tianjin warehouse explosions and saying we now suck, or drawing parallels to the Ohio rail fire and how we keep defunding and defanging government safety inspectors... Instead, this is an article talking specifically about an industrial accident and the many Americans who suffered. I had never heard about it previously, found it interesting, and learned something both from the article and by following up and looking into it a bit more myself. Anyway, while I respect your opinion, speaking for myself I don't see this article creating any sort of division... I mean, between who? You and me and everyone who reads the article versus people who [allegedly] improperly store dangerous chemicals in residential areas despite multiple citations to stop doing that? That's the sort of polarization I don't mind.

by acyou 3y ago

_a_a_a_ 3y ago

This is one peculiarly shrill post. Can you explain your mention of "division, hatred, polarization, radicalization" related to this article? I'm not saying you're wrong but it's a very strange opinion and seemingly entirely disproportionate.

acyou 3y ago
It's tough to explain. It's something to do with not standing on any particular side, but attempting to cast blame and start arguments. If you read through the HN comments, and think about the bigger picture and what will result from the publishing of the article, isn't the most lasting effect pitting one group against another? Hasn't the article done a great job of doing that, and is that not the primary effect of this article being published? It seems clear enough to me. People who believe one thing are also reading this article in resentment and despair. You don't think about them, but they are out there. When the next crisis comes, they will remember how their world view was publicly shamed, and more loudly and actively assert their views. And the people who are on top now, or think they are due to the current media cycle, will build resentment in turn. And the cycle will continue. I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to publish it and sow discord. They should. I'm saying that we shouldn't elevate it. Unfortunately, even me commenting on this probably goes against that idea.
- _a_a_a_ 3y ago
  > isn't the most lasting effect pitting one group against another? I honestly just don't see it. > People who believe one thing are also reading this article in resentment and despair. You don't think about them, but they are out there Again, I struggle to see that. Saying "but they are out there" doesn't mean they actually are. Look, I just don't get what you're saying. I know when my mental health problems kick in the world starts to distort and I can feel, to a lesser degree, something like what you're saying. It doesn't mean it's universally true, or even predominantly true. And I'm not saying you're wrong either, but... you leave me baffled. Are you seeing through a glass darkly? (For the record you're worrying about methanol contamination – for the past 3 years I've been using methylated spirits as a hand sanitiser; 90% ethanol 10% methanol. I haven't had any problems)
- objectivetruth 3y ago
  [dead]

gowld 3y ago

Where is benzene in the Wired article?

acyou 3y ago
I think that the source of the benzene and methanol might have been from hand sanitizer manufacturers buying raw input feedstocks (ethanol and glycerol) containing methanol and benzene from dubious sources. If that's the case, then making your own hand sanitizer by buying ethanol and glycerol from dubious (random online) sources (that Wired actually goes so far as to directly link to) would also put you at risk of inadvertently creating your own home-made hand sanitizer cocktail of ethanol, methanol, benzene and who knows what else.
- NotYourLawyer 3y ago
  They recommended buying isopropyl alcohol. They did not recommend buying fuel grade ethanol.
  - acyou 3y ago
    That's right. But the time, isopropyl alcohol was expensive and unavailable enough that people were getting into that business too. And the fastest movers, and most successful, would have been the hustlers. Awhile back, I noticed that a local liquor distillery was also selling hand sanitizer. I didn't think about it at the time, but I guess that would probably have been a pretty reliable source.
    - NotYourLawyer 3y ago
      Yeah, but the production of IPA doesn’t lend itself to benzene contamination. I’m also not sure I believe that a bunch of IPA factories were springing up overnight—you can’t make it with yeast and a still.

emodendroket 3y ago

Yeah, let's just have a Bureau of Information to make sure that nothing that upsets harmonious relations among the people is published, never mind that it is factual reporting.

BitPolice 3y ago

I didn't read the article as playing blame-games or stoking hatred, personally. The author does kind of walk through a timeline from 2020 to now about hand sanitizer; but that felt more like just a timeline. Yeah, we all kind of freaked out about washing early on (I had a UV-C sterilizer in an aluminum foil lined box (!!!)), but each of us was doing our best during an emergency. That, at least, is the sense I got from that part of the article. I realize the article set you off, and I could totally see that happening to me in different circumstances, so just want to say that I get it. But, speaking for myself, I liked this article because it made me think about something I hadn't before so I thought I'd share that perspective. The article talks about how there's tons of left over hand sanitizer we now have to deal with. I personally just never spared a thought for there now being many millions of gallons of this stuff sitting around. I also hadn't ever thought about how they can't sell or give away or cheaply dispose of it, so it's just sitting there being all haz-matty and stuff. And, I can absolutely see some low-margin operators looking for an out in that situation. Anyway, I'd encourage anyone who liked the article to read the complaint the county filed in this instance. It's not short but it's a pretty quick read. Start at "Pre-Fire Violations of the Hazardous Materials Laws at the Property" if you just want to read the timeline [according to the Plaintiffs] there's also lots of pictures. It does sounds like the authorities were trying to do the right thing, but the company [allegedly] ignored the repeated citations. See: https://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/lac/1118231_CountyvPrologisComplaintReDominguezChannelOdors.pdf https://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/lac/1118231_CountyvProlog... That made me wonder whether there are any other facilities improperly storing this stuff. To be clear, this isn't political code; I'm not saying we need different laws, not drawing parallels to the Beirut or Tianjin warehouse explosions and saying we now suck, or drawing parallels to the Ohio rail fire and how we keep defunding and defanging government safety inspectors... Instead, this is an article talking specifically about an industrial accident and the many Americans who suffered. I had never heard about it previously, found it interesting, and learned something both from the article and by following up and looking into it a bit more myself. Anyway, while I respect your opinion, speaking for myself I don't see this article creating any sort of division... I mean, between who? You and me and everyone who reads the article versus people who [allegedly] improperly store dangerous chemicals in residential areas despite multiple citations to stop doing that? That's the sort of polarization I don't mind.