michigan’s centrist dems stand for nothing and fall for everything. that’s why whitmer is able to stand next to silicon valley’s biggest liar with a smile on her face
No one thinks this. It takes an astonishing level of cope to believe this, especially when right wing politicians are constantly trying to pass “vaporize every animal on sight” bills and the “bulldoze every national park” acts
The aversion to synthetics can be reasonable, depending on the context, but some of the stuff I read on here reads like an oversimplification or simply misinformation.
First, it's almost certain you already wear synthetics. If you wear tailored clothing — such as suits, sport coats, tailored trousers, and dress overcoats — those garments are likely lined in a semi-synthetic material known as rayon. You need this lining so you can easily slip in and out of the garment without the material catching on your shirt (also to protect your skin from the itchiness of wool, which is why you find such lining in trousers).
Even if you don't wear tailored clothing, your underwear and socks are likely made with a synthetic-blended yarn, such as a wool- or cotton-nylon blend. This is necessary so that the garment stays up on your body. If you wear pure cotton socks, you'll often find they stretch out and droop down your leg, which isn't comfortable. Underwear is also often made with a synthetic waistband that essentially functions as a rubber band around your torso. Without it, you would likely need a belt or suspenders for your underwear.
Synthetics show up in other places. Shoes commonly have ethylene-vinyl acetate (EVA) or polyurethane (PU) materials in the insole. Swim trunks for men (or bikinis and swimsuits for women) are commonly made from quick-drying polyamide (a petroleum-based material).
Second, labels are not always a good indication of what you're wearing. I've known mills, brands, and shops to mislabel things. Sometimes this is intentional; sometimes it's just information that gets lost somewhere in the supply chain. A yarn supplier may not disclose that the "magical property" of their cotton or linen yarn was achieved by adding a touch of elastane, so when they sell it to a mill, the resulting fabric is wrongly labeled as purely natural. This misinformation trickles down from the factory to the shop, which is the point where you see the clothes.
Additionally, there's a disconnect between what consumers expect and what's actually practiced in the fashion industry. For instance, a consumer might purchase a garment labeled "100% wool" and marketed as a "machine washable garment." This is common with activewear and undergarments. People don't want to take their activewear to the dry cleaner; they want to throw it into a washing machine for a wet wash.
But have you ever wondered why you can't throw other wool garments into a wet wash? It's because your machine-washable wool garment has been specially treated. Before the yarns were woven or knitted into fabric, they were coated with a polymer resin. This prevents wool fibers from felting or shrinking during the wash. Sometimes these fabrics are marketed as "Superwash wools." The fiber is technically 100% wool, but it's been coated with a plastic that touches your skin.
Third, and finally, it's not true that synthetics are a modern thing. People often harken back to the 1950s as a more beautiful, natural state of existence. But when you look at clothing catalogs from that period, you will see men's clothing was commonly made with nylon or rayon (an inveterate thrifter can tell you this). Attached is a scan from a 1954 Sears spring/summer catalog. Note the trousers — nylon and rayon.
My view of synthetics is purely pragmatic: what will produce the best, most functional clothes that people will wear for a long time? For example, Sierra Design's mountain parkas — popular in the 1970s — are made from a 60/40 blend of cotton and nylon, which allows them to shed water while remaining reasonably breathable (unlike waxed cotton, which is as breathable as a trash bag). To be sure, this is not the only showerproof fabric, but the 40% nylon serves a function.
To me, someone who purchases clothes and wears them for decades is more sustainable than someone who buys pure cotton or wool garments that they wear for a few years and discard. Such disposability can result from a few things: the garment failed in its function, or it simply doesn't resonate with the wearer anymore for whatever reason (it's not fashionable or doesn't make the person feel excited).
Every material, whether synthetic or natural, has an environmental impact. Yet, we are required by law to wear clothes. Thus, to me, the most sustainable decision is to build a wardrobe that you will love wearing for a very long time. Discussion about synthetic vs. natural, to me, revolves around that goal first.
Often see people here frame synthetics as automatically bad and natural as automatically good. IMO, this oversimplifies things. In China, some of the rivers run in indigo blue because of the (pure cotton) denim plants nearby. India is dealing with toxic wastewater because of leather tanneries. I think it's better to consider the whole picture when thinking about sustainability and health, not rely on mental shortcuts.
(Ngandu guy trying not to laugh) No dude I’ve literally never heard of jacking off before you sound crazy. You’re going to have to show me what you’re talking about (friends start losing their shit and have to walk away
Ausar has been their 2nd/3rd most important player damn near 11/12 playoff games.
The fact he’s being lumped in with Duren is fkn ridiculous.
He’s been doing his job at an elite level but people are gonna focus on his flaws cos our OFFENSIVE players aren’t pulling their weight.
i would like to once again rant about how AWFUL spellcheck is now. not only are they wrong and unhelpful but now half the time the "feedback" doesn't line up with what's being edit. why are you underlining a section when the "incorrect word" is on the next page?