The most common microplastics in the environment are microfibers—plastic fragments shaped like tiny threads or filaments. Microfibers come from many sources, including cigarette butts, fishing nets and ropes, but the biggest source is synthetic fabrics, which constantly shed them.
Textiles shed microfibers while they are manufactured, worn and disposed of, but especially when they are washed. A single wash load can release several million microfibers. Many factors affect how many fibers are released, including fabric type, mechanical action, detergents, temperature and the duration of the wash cycle.
You not believing it doesn’t make it untrue. Where do you shop? What do you buy? Find me a reputable store that doesn’t carry non-blend fabrics, and I’ll find you one around the same price point that does. Nobody suggested you had to go to Old Navy, in fact I used it to demonstrate that even cheap places (Old Navy is all about cheap) have non synthetic options. They’re a baseline that holds true as you advance to just about every price point.
It does not, we’re both sharing anecdotal information.
I don’t buy a lot of clothes now, most of my clothing is several years old at least. I buy what feels comfortable, that I like the look/design of and that seems to be well made.
I never said d stores don’t carry non-blend fabric clothing, simply that disadvantaged portions of the population often don’t have the luxury of choice others do and that they are stuck in a system designed to keep it that way.
You did not, and I never said you did. I pointed out that the cheap example you used was fast fashion, which many cheap stores are. Which was an ironic choice on your part because fast fashion could be a poster child for the boots theory.
Yeah, I saw your other examples of places like Patagonia which, again, is ironic because that could be the other side of the boots theory representing what “rich” people would buy.
It’s like you didn’t even read what I posted originally. I think you should check your privilege.
We are not, yours in anecdotal, mine can be verified and duplicated.
And I pointed out that every price point has these options, and offered to demonstrate it. Again not anecdotal. Unless you cannot buy clothes at all, this is not an honest assessment. You “don’t believe it”, but it is true. If you cannot afford to buy clothing at all, this entire thread doesn’t apply to you.
That is not what irony means. Saying that a brand where the average price of a new item is $20, and a brand where the average price is over $100 both have single fabric options is not ironic. It’s data validation.
You’re complaining to complain and/or arguing to argue.
No, I was engaging you comment to point out your singular perspective and privilege and now you’re upset about it.
I’m done now though. You’re either a corporate shill who’s literally doing what the original commenter stated or someone who just has this need to feel superior. Either way I’ve spent enough of my time on you.
Oh so you came in to argue an incorrect point on fabrics being attainable at any price point, specifically to privilege shame? And your definition of privileged is anyone that can buy clothes, regardless of frugality, and asserting that buying lo get lasting clothes is a good thing (which I did) just re-emphasizes how overtly privileged I am?
Cool, so you’re just an asshole. Got it.
Like the joke about the airplane their point was clearly over your head. ✈️🤣
There are no points on a circle my friend.
Wow, you like being wrong huh? A circle is defined in mathematics as a type of line which is composed of infinite number of points that are equidistant from a given point.
Omg not semantics, anything but semantics
Pedantics, actually. Much like this comment. Semantics would be applicable if you weren’t trying to be superior by dropping a single ambiguous sentence.
Since you left the meaning of your comment ambiguous I interpreted it as your lack of understanding what the mathematical definition of a circle is.
Based on the comment thread it seems like you need all the help you can get. I hope you find it!
You applied a mathematical definition to a common lingual term, which was used in the exact same fashion in the response as your original use. That’s using semantics, as you’re arguing about the lingual definition as it applies to a phrase.
The pedantic part is you using a semantic argument just to be a cunty little shit head on the internet.
Profanity is the effort of a feeble brain to express itself forcibly.