The post says, as far as I understand, that denying science is for white people. Which is a weird claim to make.

Huh. So Muslims, Hindus, and non-white Christians all believe in science? Or what does “white” mean in this context?

Better is such a low bar. It’s going to be hard for this show to be worse, as there are no established characters to ruin. Except Yoda. And Darth Plagueis maybe. But it’s far from a good show, as far as I’m concerned.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombus_flavidus

Maybe? Definitely some kind of bumblebee.

Hast du das lächerliche Schauspiel letzte Nacht gesehen?

This doesn’t address anything I’ve said. But just downvote away, I guess.

Sibling?

I wouldn’t say that’s how jokes work. Some things need to be established first. The joke is not, that he is non binary. It’s a play with words, “agenda” in this case. Him being genderless is supposed to be the baseline. This is contradicted by him being a Warner brother. So the joke is already falling apart during the setup. If the joke was about him being a chicken, it wouldn’t have made sense either, because it was never established before. And can’t explained with cartoon logic.

It feels like people are automatically mad at me for criticizing the joke, because the topic is gender politics. I never said he can’t be non binary, I don’t care, but there was never a basis for this. Or so I thought. As others have pointed out, there apparently was an episode or a comic where this was mentioned.

It’s a joke based on Yakko not having a gender. Which doesn’t make sense. Therefore my confusion.

Um… they are called the Warner Brothers (and the Warner Sister). Is he non binary now?

What’s with the weird filter, though.

Feel free to correct me, but this sounds incredibly ill-informed. Yes, methane itself is an incredibly potent greenhouse gas, far more potent than CO2. But there are several types of “natural” gas. You are talking about fossil fuels, the type of methane either trapped underground or beneath the arctic perma frost. Methane is created by decomposing organic matter though. Livestock is one of the biggest producers of natural gas as far as I know. If released into the atmosphere, methane would be devastating, as it takes about ten years for it to degrade into CO2 first. I don’t know the impact of using “natural” gas compared to other kinds of fossil fuels. Burning it definitely seems like the lesser of two evils though. A quick Google search says that “emissions per unit of energy produced from gas are around 40% lower than coal and around 20% lower than oil.” While this is far from perfect, putting it on the same level seems either ignorant or disingenuous.

TLDR: Methane doesn’t necessarily mean fossil fuels. Burning methane and using it as an energy source is less bad than releasing it directly into the atmosphere.

Again, if there’s anyone with actual knowledge on the subject, please correct me.