You know, without actually looking at the things he speaks about, I've found thunderfoot to be a downer. I've had acquaintances like him, very toxic.

I'm sure he's following the scientific method, having a critical eye, and exposing charlatans that dearly need the light of day shone on their taints, but imagine him in person.

If it's really Vantablack...No thanks..
Carbon nanotubes...
"These results suggest that carbon nanotubes are potentially toxic to humans and that strict industrial hygiene measures should to be taken to limit exposure during their manipulation."

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Respiratory-toxicity-of-multi-wall-carbon-Muller-Huaux/d045b356626d552c0d8d97b8d2117949e013ab40

I suspect this is a vanity armored car for vaguely disreputable sorts...lol

Almost as stupid as holding the producers of the toxic product AND the misleading or outright false information about it's hazards blameless. Because they actively misled their customers, I give them the vast lions share of blame, but maybe not 100%. There's plenty to go around.

You don't have to live in poverty to abandon fossil fuels.
Not.
Even.
Close.
I bought solar 10+- years back...it paid for itself in 8. It's lifespan is 20+-. I get 12 years of free electricity for abandoning that portion, with no blackouts, no brownouts, and no rate increases.

True, the video could be better at sharing the blame, but it stayed on topic instead, that topic being major polluters greenwashing their mage. I didn't take it as assigning ALL blame to one source, just not allowing the worst offenders to shirk all responsibility for their products.


Every one of these is the likely outcome of any anthropogenic rise over 2-3C because of feedback loops that drive us to 6-12C rise. Only the wars are likely this century, but I didn't put a timeframe on those outcomes. 140 million + will be displaced by just a 3' rise, which is all but guaranteed by 2100 under the most optimistic current projections.
That wipes out mangroves and other fish nurseries, further impacting the struggling ocean food webs. All the while it accelerates as our ability to cope erodes like the shorelines....it doesn't just halt at 3' rise.
The natural food webs on land are also struggling, and are unlikely to survive ocean collapse.

Not just from deforestation, but diatoms are near a point of collapse from ocean acidification. https://diatoms.org/what-are-diatoms. That's over 1/2....and the base of the ocean food web.


Since the IPCC (again, known for overly conservative estimates) now says at current rates we could hit as much as a 6C rise by 2100, and rates of emissions are rising as fast as carbon sinks are shrinking, they're not just a possibility, they a likelihood in the near future....but granted the hydrogen sulfide clouds are far in a worst case scenario future, far from guaranteed.

?
Don't know what that means.
Just remember, loving everyone indiscriminately is a sure fire way to get the herps....and once you've got it, your love becomes infectiously toxic.

If you want my pain and my pen....homie's gonna need that paper. ;-)

Now post that clip of Peck's Dick before I have to.

They way she talks, she comes off like a stereotypical Millennial, the way they yammer about "microaggressions" and shit like that, but the illustrator is focusing on really large "in your face" toxic situations. The ones that make you shake your head and go, "how the Hell did you stay around that person?"

Is incongruous is all.

In her longer explanation (5:54 to 6:43) she does say to start with communication, but end it if it continues to be toxic. She never says to isolate yourself, just to find more supportive friends and ditch the ones trying to use you.

I found it interesting how it started by describing a significant other pointing out your friends foibles as intentionally controlling and isolating you, then later suggests that you looking for these foibles and isolating yourself is a positive move. Telling someone to isolate themselves is controlling, telling them you notice and object to others disrespecting or abusing you may be consoling.

I also found it telling that the suggestions are "end it....or try to communicate", in that order. Sounded amazingly backward.
I feel like the writer has had a long string of toxic relationships and no healthy ones.

I've been with my wife since 92, married her in 98, we are the only people in either of our extended families still on our first marriage, so I do have some small experience with maintaining a healthy relationship.

Double thanks

I rather suspect that there isn't a single answer, and that it depends on the type of plastic and the fragment size. Melamine for instance is harmful if it's ground up to a powder, but not directly because it's toxic by itself but rather that it becomes toxic and causes kidney damage when it reacts with cyanuric acid inside the body.

Because transporting the toxic waste to a lower altitude costs money. It's pure greed, nothing more.

I agree that mob mentality and internet anonymity are a toxic combination, and for that alone his point is well made that public shaming is bound to end badly for everyone involved.

however, its hard to take the video seriously when he fails to address at all the failure of police and the justice system. He talks about bringing powerful people to justice as if it were a bad thing, in fact Larry Nassar's name comes up in the video as he makes the point- are you really suggesting that its a bad thing that a guy who raped dozens of girls- while representing your country no less- be exposed and brought to justice for his despicable behavior?

as for palmer, he complied with the law but the law sucked, and he knew what he was doing. he went to the border of a national park and shot a lion that had a GPS collar because it was under study, you'd think a good hunter would spot that. He didnt care because he travelled half way round the world and paid good money to bring himself back a lion skin- should he be immune from criticism just because he didnt break the law? The people who put signs and flowers didnt break the law either by that standard, only the ones who vandalized his property. maybe its just a matter of the justice system actually working so that mob justice is unnecessary??

I'm sure they will gain more overall customers because they are owned by Proctor & Gamble. As I mentioned originally, there will be plenty of women and white knights who jump at the chance to support a company who decided to tag along onto the #metoo movement.

To me, that is part of the reason why I dislike this commercial so much. Not just because of it's huge and sweeping generalizations (practically every scene has one), but because their ad department had to know that an edgy commercial would do the same thing for them as it did for Nike. Does anyone think that the majority of actual corporate level people at Gillette/P&G give two fucks about #metoo? I know I don't.

It's just an ad targeted at a huge group of people that are easy to take potshots at currently. I find it little different than attack ads run by fucktards that want to condemn all Muslims for the act of terrorists or fundamentalist jihadists. The most screwed up thing about that analogy is that, realistically, there are largish groups of Islamic people that actually will cheer and throw celebrations when there is a terrorist attack. Yet you would be hard put to find large swaths of men out in the streets cheering on the effects of so called Toxic Masculinity.

Yes, we as men need to speak out. We need to support the evolution of mankind away from barbarism. But we don't need to succumb to propaganda that tries to purport that a man seeing a pretty lady walk past shouldn't attempt to say hi or introduce himself to her because that is bad. This ad, with one of the sweeping generalizations I mentioned earlier, would have you think that it is HORRIBLE for a man to do that and that a 'responsible' man would body check that guy. Because men should never try to meet women, only remain passive and allow the woman to come to them. I say fuck that, it is wrong to catcall women, but there is nothing wrong with going up and saying hi. This ad (and some other internet videos) would have you think it's the equivalent of throwing the lady down in the middle of a crowded walkway and having your way with her.

The ad could have been better, there were moments like the Terry Crews scene that I agree with, but they took the easy way out and just slammed men in general.

Yeah, heaven forfend we end up with a generation of men who think women deserve respect or that violence is a last resort.

That’d be a fucking nightmare.

Toxic masculinity is absolutely a thing, and it harms men as much as women.

But it’s called “toxic” masculinity for a reason. If I said “shit this toxic water is killing us”, would you think I was implying that ALL water is toxic? Of course not. There’s nothing wrong with masculinity or masculine behaviour. But when you define aggressive, predatory behaviour as “masculine” then of course all masculinity is bad. But the problem isn’t masculinity, it’s your fucked up definiton of it. Hence the differentiator “toxic”.

TL;DR don’t be an asshole and no one will bother you for just being a man.

I'm content that his toxicity has energised people to work against misogyny, sex abuse, and bullying, I just hope they're more influential than he is and don't take a toxic turn themselves.
It's easy to become what you despise in one's fight against injustices.

I'm reluctant to agree too much with each other, especially on something that's apparently controversial. That said, a simple string of Trump tweets and finishing with his "grab them by the p****" audio would have been more powerful. You don't have a more cut and tried example of "toxic masculinity" sitting at the top of the patriarchy than him. If you invented the example 5 years ago people would have derided it as too outrageously over the top and calling for something a little more realistic.