@werewolffbarmitzvah:

Guy Incognito :

Patagonia are a non profit though? If it was Coca Cola nobody would care. Pattie however is a private company. It is up to her to spend profits however she likes and while I’m sure she would donate profits to helping the climate she doesn’t have the same accountability or transparency that Patagonia has.

Nat P. :

It's not even corporation vs an individual. It's corporation vs corporation.

Murphybleu310 :

You don't have to defend either, it's that simple.

LennyDeconstructing :

All of the trademarks experts who talk about this say that the company is actually legally in the right. I don’t know why trying to seek out the accuracy of a situation is simping for anybody.

fhhaggit :

Excuse me they used Grok, so it’s worse.

Ashley :

Yes, I don’t get it either! 💖

imcalledgarrett :

Wait, can we get a video on these law degrees??

Rickhugs :

It’s not accuracy or even really the law. It’s a David vs Goliath morality issue. The law is an ass.

Shelby :

There's a problem with your premise "why some of you are simping". I'm just one dude, but every video I've seen defending Patagonia the company has prefaced with "I don't wanna defend companies", and I personally don't either. I was on Patties side, and even now I'm suspecting she's not "evil/lying" just confused, frankly because similar things have happened to me, not with lawsuits but just in communicating with other people and perceiving threats where there were none. Anyway, I don't matter in this case, but for my own knowledge I just wanna know where the lines are, and who is wrong in this case, and sometimes it seems like it's Pattie, and other times it seems like Pategonia, and I'm starting to feel unequipped lol because people who I think are smart are taking different sides on this and it's very confusing for me. But I just don't think ppl who are on the Patagonia side are just dumb and wrong, I think there's something there, and Pattie isn't talking about this very succinctly as far as I've seen. I'm def gonna keep waiting but, yeah I'm very confused the discourse and welcome anybody who knows more to just info dump and let me parse it

Cowboy Bibimbap :

I genuinely think the majority of them are bots 🫩

gay gay gay :

I don't care about Patagonia, I care about supporting a clearly bad actor because their enemy is worse instead of just walking away. I cannot trust Pattie after seeing the massive discrepancy between her version of the lawsuit and the one Patagonia filed.

cwillev7 :

they treat the law like a impartial arbiter and that the company wouldn't lie in our faces- but for whatever reason pattie to them is a lier... it says alot about where we are

Andrew C :

I think you’re missing the part where this app lives and dies off of ppl haphazardly giving opinions to inflame others. How else am I supposed to come back wanting more?

fenty_wap :

i made one and got jumped. people are going so hard for the corporations and not realizing they are falling for patagonia’s online propaganda

friskJayson :

And the laws that are made are really made to advantage the ruling class, not us.

user_name_7351916 :

Let’s not forget that she is also a corporation… if we’re gonna be anti corporations we gotta be anti corporations to all

Stray_pop :

user8867774013468 :

People have a compulsion towards certainty rather than nuance. They just love to be right more than anything else

Cherry :

I’m not pro Patagonia, but Pattie flat out using disinformation to insinuate she had done legally no wrong turns me off from supporting her, and we as leftists and queer people can’t be okay with dis/misinformation just because it supports our people. If we do we’re just rainbow MAGA

stella_sapiente :

You say you're a lawyer and yet you don't apply any of that legal knowledge to this particular situation. I'm not going to ask you to produce a law degree, but I will say that you're not doing that law degree any favors by claiming to be a lawyer.

marshasmom :

In the same way you think it's your job to defend a drag queen

cykittyaf :

It's not defending or simping for corporations to describe how trademarks work. I can't be a drag queen named Starbux Mochalatte and then open a coffee shop called Starbux and be like, "No no, but it's different because it's spelled different and it's gay." Pattie "borrowed" her name from the outdoor outfitter. Which was fine when she was just using it to do drag and environmental awareness etc. But when she filed for a trademark application to sell the SAME kind of goods to the SAME demographic that Patagonia is marketing to, under a VERY similar name, they're legally required to jump in and defend their brand name. That's how trademarks work. Pattie could and SHOULD have come up with her own brand name like "Rainbow Forest Outfitters" or something and used her existing social media presence to market it. Instead, she came on the internet to lie to us with her whole chest and make it seem like a big bad company was trying to ruin her whole life and erase her identity. They sued her for $1, which is WAY nicer than they have to be since they have her dead to rights for attempting trademark violation. And she refuses to settle out of court because she wants this to be a circus. I don't GAF about Patagonia. They sell overpriced bougie gear to "outdoor tourists" who think they're rugged. But the law is what it is, and it's stacked in favor of big business. Smaller creators HAVE to be aware of this when trying to sell merch. And the smart ones do.

Osvaldo :

Had Pattie not attempted to weaponize the queer community and intentionally mislead her audience to believing this ANYTHING to do with her being a drag queen or an activist, i think a lot of people would’ve cared less, but when you attempt to create a PR mess to cover your wrongs it’s just not going to go well for you

George Hurt III :

I think it’s more that Pattie seemed to have cynically put out the video full of half-truths and lies just days before pride month. I don’t like Patagonia, but I think Pattie manipulating her audience for her own financial gains rubs a lot of people the wrong way

Tomi Tuck :

Honestly, what I’m realizing slowly is that if there were laws against being gay, a LOT of people would have zero compunction about turning us in. A terrifying amount of people seem to have decided that Law is some kind of absolute moral standard. If you’re glazing Patagonia rn bc you think they have a good legal case… you would have ratted out Anne Frank or Harriet Tubman. Let’s just be real about that. Own your appalling thought processes.