sorry to be a broken record every month but christ menstruation is a stupid concept. oooooh excuse me for not getting pregnant, why the fuck is there goo falling out of me about it? grow the fuck up and reabsorb that shit for nutrients.
if you are a parent, or may become one, or you are otherwise likely to arrive in the situation of caring for a child while they eat, promise me this: if a child doesn't like a certain food or food group, you will ask them WHY. and specifically, you will pay attention to either confirming or ruling out "it makes my mouth itch" or "it makes my stomach hurt," both of which are medically important info that children may not provide unprompted. which i know because this PSA has been brought to you by "i spent my entire childhood and much of my early teens eating peas and lentils while wondering why everyone else liked the Violently Itchy Mouth Sensation so much, like were they a bunch of legume masochists or something, before i finally realized that Violently Itchy Mouth Sensation was in fact a sinister demon appearing only to me, and her true demonic name was: Legume Allergy"
Going to use tumblr to shameless brag on myself, because I had one of those perfect hearings today, the ones that you live for as a trial attorney.
I was in total control of the hearing the entire time, the judge was with me for all my arguments all the way, and I got an even better result than I had hoped for.
I was pretty confident that I would win going into the hearing (one of my arguments literally boiled down to, "8 is less than 30"), but I was in front of a judge who can be very unpredictable (and not tenant-friendly). And this was a really critical hearing for my client - they would be in a REALLY bad position if I lost.
But from the moment it started, I was in total control of the hearing. We had had a different judge last hearing, and the docket was a bit confusing. So I started off being able to helpfully frame the status for the judge and bring her up to speed - always a great way to start (because it puts you in a position of knowledge and control).
From there, I made my argument, and the judge was with me the whole way. Then the landlord's attorney spoke, and she was so out of her league (not to be mean, but...) it wasn't even funny. (She is very nice, but rather desperately needs some more training and supervision.) It was so clear the whole hearing the judge was going to rule in my favor, and she did.
BUT THEN
The landlord's attorney made a request, citing a recent change in the law. This would, if granted, potentially put my client back in the bad position I was trying to avoid. I should have been prepared for this request, but the landlord's attorney surprised me (she hadn't raised this in her filings).
Normally this would be really bad, but...
As I said, she was citing a recent change in the law. And this particular change has been an Issue for the last couple months. Landlords' attorneys keep suggesting that it should be read in a way that would be a huge advantage for landlords, and the courts (including this judge) have been going along with them. (Mostly in either cases against pro se tenants, or in hearings where the issue is not squarely in front of the judge, they are just speculating at what could happen further down the line in a case, so there hasn't - to my knowledge - been a ruling squarely on the issue.) But I think the way the landlords' attorneys are reading this change is completely incorrect. I've been trying to get people to argue against this interpretation (again, for months) to try to get a good ruling on point, and have just been waiting and hoping for a chance to argue it myself.
And again, it was perfect, even though it was on the fly. I felt so good and in control the entire time, laying out my argument without a single hitch, like effortlessly skating over the ice. And again, the judge was with me all the way. She was literally sitting there nodding along and taking notes as I hammered it out. She gave the landlord's attorney an opportunity to respond, of course - but it was already done and we all knew it. (Except maybe the landlord's attorney? Based on her response I'm not genuinely unsure if she was even able to understand what I was arguing about, let alone follow my argument. Again, very nice, but seriously needs supervision.)
It was so good, I had multiple tenants' attorneys who happened to be in the same courtroom text me after to tell me how good it was to watch.
So not only did I win for my client, I convinced (at least this) judge to start reading this change in the law the right way.
honestly my favorite thing about hardison is that he has no real tragic backstory, he's just like "i am very smart and therefore i should be allowed to do crime" and he's entirely correct
i love everyone reblogging this going "yeah! soft boy!" in the tags bc that's my other favorite thing about hardison (i have many) and that's that he's never particularly treated as morally grey bc he is constantly so kind and loving and good and also he enjoys some crime
Yes!! I love Hardison's orientation towards right and wrong, in part because it's such a fun, powerful contrast with other members of the team.
You have Parker, who has been designated as bad and wrong since she was a very young child and who has let go of any expectation of being anything else, so that identifying and doing what she thinks is the right thing is consistently an overwhelming and scary experience for her;
Then there's Eliot, who can point to exactly when and how he became irredeemable in his own eyes and whose highest ambition now is to do the wrong thing for the right people this time at least;
Nate, who is clinging to all of these ideas about morality and legality and good and bad that are completely inconsistent both internally and with his behavior, because his very normative view of the world was shattered and he never put the pieces back together in any kind of coherent way;
Sophie, who sees right and wrong as primarily about relationships between people, like she does everything else: right and wrong is in how you engage and who you hurt interpersonally, anything more abstract is irrelevant. But within that, there's also this weight to how she engages, this sense of regret at how she's treated people in the past that we never really see the full scope of;
And into this morass of regret and alienation and self-doubt, beautiful sunshine child Alec Hardison sails with this completely coherent, straightforward understanding: he's doing the right thing. He understands the systems creating and maintaining inequality and he's winning against them. He doesn't feel bad at all about breaking the law because he doesn't respect it as having any moral weight, and why should he? He's right. Y'all I love him so much.
I hope you all get to experience something today that makes you smile. Doesn't have to be a big thing. Like I got to pet a doggy and it made my heart smile.
Another AI BS predatory fake lawyer app? But of course! What is a systemic issue, but an opportunity to grift:
New unauthorized practice of law app just dropped
The quotes are full of people ripping apart problems with it (particularly noting its tendency to prompt you to admit to crimes!)
Much (grim) hilarity is had, but I decided to test it on behalf of my client population: how does it respond to people facing eviction?
Answer: This fun little actively made me genuinely upset.
I'm not going to be posting any screenshots from my tests, for two reasons. First, because (in the first and last genuine compliment I have for the bot) it started by recognizing that eviction laws vary widely across the U.S., and asking for my state to perform analysis particularized to my jurisdiction. Second, because my tests delved into particular factual scenarios, I would worry that even just my analysis of the advice would run the risk of causing people to (even unconsciously) absorb information that wouldn't apply to them.
For this test, I created in advance four different issue-spotting scenarios to test the bot's response to people in different legal postures. For each scenario, I came up with a broad fact pattern that informed the legal posture, based on fact patterns that I see all the time in my work. These facts were also very basic things that I would look for when doing an intake. Again, I'm mostly going to avoid sharing the underlying fact patterns, because I don't want to accidentally provide misleading (to you, person living somewhere with different laws) information.
Unlike some of the people on bluesky, I tested it with an "honest" client - that is, someone who was trying to be as upfront and share as much information as possible, even when that information wasn't good for them. However, I also tried to answer in a realistic manner. The bot is supposed be free of "jargon" and "democratizing legal advice," so I answered like a normal person in this kind of high-stress situation might. Again, I was pulling from my pretty extensive experience with the way normal people answer questions doing exactly the kind of intake the bot is supposedly doing. (No spoilers, but - at least, that's how I started my tests.)
This is really really important, because one of the reasons you talk to a lawyer is that you, as someone whose brain hasn't been cooked by law school, probably don't know what is legally relevant. Part of the lawyer's job is to know what and how to ask you for the information we need.
On to the tests:
Scenario A: Abby is a tenant who is at significant risk of being evicted in the future, but not an imminent risk. She probably doesn't any "good" options, but she does have options, and she has time.
Analysis of the bot's responses:
It had mostly the right legal information (aka the stuff that anyone, including you, can get from freely available resources), which was good. However, even this information fell apart right away because it assumed that Abby had perfect knowledge, and so got basic facts wrong. Again, Abby wasn’t trying to lie to it. The specific place it fell apart was in assuming that no case had yet been filed against Abby, when all Abby said was that she hadn’t received any paperwork from the court. (It is possible that a case could have been filed, but she had not yet been served.) It then proceeded to repeatedly tell Abby that no case had yet been filed.
Once it came to legal advice, it completely fell apart. While it recognized and was able to inform Abby that she was not in any imminent risk of eviction, it made some very big assumptions that led it to advise her that she was in a good long-term position, when she was not. The specific advice this lead it to giving her was…not particularly dangerous in context, but not correct, either. The biggest issue is that it left her with an EXTREMELY incorrect sense of how likely it was that she would be able to maintain her tenancy in the longer term and not be evicted. As I said, this is a scenario where Abby had options. It correctly listed some (but not all!) of them, and gave her a really inaccurate picture of the benefits and risks of each option. This matters, because if you’ve ever been in a similar situation, you know how important it is to have a realistic sense of if (and when) you might be evicted, and to know the full range of your options.
The bot's recommended next steps contained similar issues. It also recommended Abby put an admission in writing, saying it would help her case (it absolutely would not), which. Not a big an issue in this case as a confession to the police, but. Still. Please don’t.
And then - possibly the biggest issue from my perspective, given that Abby isn't real but I, Owl the lawyer, am - is that it informed Abby, in all caps, that low-income tenants in my area have a right to a free attorney in eviction proceedings. Which is. Extremely NOT TRUE. And this matters - not only is this misinformation, it can actively hurt people. I have straight up, in reality, not in a silly test scenario, had people (that's a plural) refuse to listen to my advice or even do an intake with me, because I told them they don’t have a right for a free attorney, and they thought I must be a liar or a scammer or discriminating against them.
It really, really sucks.
"It" being both that reality, and this bot.
Scenario B: Bob is a tenant who is about to be imminently evicted, but he has a slam dunk legal pathway to avoid eviction.
The bot almost immediately got things wrong, again, by making assumptions. Bob confirmed to the bot that he got "a piece of paper" from his Landlord. Rather than asking for any details about that paper, the bot immediately jumped to a conclusion, and authoritatively informed Bob what that paper was. Unfortunately, the bot was wrong - and everything went downhill from there. A normal person “without the jargon” is not going to immediately, without assistance, be able to correctly identify the legal relevance of every piece of paper they receive.
Later on, Bob provided more information about the paper, which - if he had been talking to a person - should have triggered a reconsideration and reanalysis of what this paper was. However, since the bot is not actually capable of analysis and is just spicy autocomplete, the bot just kept on with the same (incorrect) facts.
After authoritatively giving Bob incorrect information, the bot then gave him some advice that was good and correct as applied to Bob - but was not correct with respect to every person/circumstance, and it didn’t ask the necessary questions to find out if this advice actually applied to Bob. It just got lucky. And of course, it gave some specific advice that was just plain wrong.
It also completely failed to ask the extremely obvious and relevant questions that would have led to the correct analysis in this case. Again, Bob has bullet-proof reasons to stop the eviction in both the short and long term. None of these reasons were identified by the bot. If it had asked even very basic questions, Bob would have gladly provided this information. Bob, if he was a real tenant, following the advice of the bot, would completely fail to give the court the relevant information that would save his home.
The bot's legal analysis was…rough. It got some things right, but other things completely wrong. For example, it correctly identified a relevant rule, and correctly identified three of the factors a court considers under that rule.
Unfortunately, there are five factors.
It also gave ALARMINGLY incorrect legal advice based on jumping to factual conclusions. Which (not necessarily, but possibly) could lead to the following scenerio:
Bob writes down what the bot tells it are the relevant facts. These are lies. (And to be clear: the bot explicitly tells him to write these "facts" in a motion to the court.)
Bob then goes to the court and, when explaining what happens, tells the truth. Because he is trying to be honest to the court! Bob is not a liar! And the facts he is telling the court, would, again, stop this eviction, if a judge believed him.
The judge sees the inconsistencies between what Bob wrote and what he is now saying, concludes he is lying and changing his story to try to fit what he thinks will stop the eviction, and allows the eviction to proceed.
I want to emphasis this - I wrote this to be a scenario where, if Bob literally just walked into the courthouse and was handed the form by the clerks that they hand out to everyone with an imminent eviction, and wrote down the same facts that I put into the chatbot, even without an attorney, this eviction would almost certainly be stopped. Following the bot’s advice in this scenario would have at least some chance of actively making things worse.
In addition, there were multiple places where the bot was just wrong about the law, in dangerous ways. It told Bob at one point that tenants can not be evicted for [X] reason. I literally saw a judge enter a judgment for eviction for SPECIFICALLY [X] REASON literally earlier this week.
Again, the recommended next steps contained all of these same issues. It was mostly correct in telling Bob what paperwork to file next - but specifically instructed Bob to write things in that paperwork which, in reality (or, well, the reality of this scenario) are not true.
Fortunately, in this case it didn’t tell Bob he has a right to an attorney, and did give him the contact information for legal resources. This is the the best and only good thing it did - because if Bob connected with an attorney, that attorney would be able to stop this eviction.
However, just like above, this risk is now (1) that Bob thinks it’s not as important that they talk to an attorney (he's already gotten legal advice!), and so doesn’t reach out for help; and (2) when Bob talks to the lawyer and the lawyer tells him something different than the bot, he will believe the bot over the lawyer. Again, this is not a hypothetical.
I have - literally, in the real world - had tenants refuse legal assistance because I am telling them something different than the advice they got through a chatbot.
Scenario C: Casey is a tenant who is at risk of eviction, but they have a variety of possible defenses. The ultimate strength of these defenses will depend on the specific facts that can be proven a trial.
Man this one…I wrote out a whole factual scenario to try to see what the bot would do, and the bot just went off in WILDLY INCORRECT direction in response to a tenant answering questions like a normal person. The advice was so wrong and misleading on this one that I have nothing else to add - just, wrong. Completely wrong.
(For the tenant lawyers out there - the relevant part of this scenario was of a subsidized tenancy where there was a recertification issue. The landlord started charging the tenant full market rent, while the tenant continued to pay what they believed what was their correct tenant portion. The bot essentially stopped as soon as I answered "Why does your landlord say they want to evict you," with, “They said I haven’t paid my rent but I’ve always paid my rent.” It proceeded to ask NO follow up questions other than to ask if I had proof of my payments, and told me that all I needed to do was point to my payments on the rent ledger to prove the landlord’s claim “factually false.” It also told me that my landlord probably committed perjury and could be liable for a wrongful eviction.)
I tried this scenario again, this time deliberately trying to get the bot to recognize the correct legal issues, even when it meant answering the questions in an unrealistic way. It finally recognized one of the issues when Casey (unprompted) directly fed it the issue, and it kind of engaged in an analysis…but ran into all the same problems as in the last two scenarios. Although it (mostly) cited to the correct laws and gestured in the direction of relevant legal and factual issues, it made assumptions and provided incorrect analysis based on those assumptions, and also, again, included some straight-up incorrect information. It also completely missed a second defense that I had prepared for this scenario, because - just like in my first attempt at this scenario - once it thought it had identified a defense, it just stayed on that issue and didn’t ask about anything else. And again - even in this case where my defenses were much stronger than in Scenario A - it vastly overinflated my likelihood of success without having the facts to back up that analysis. (Because again, it isn't actually engaging in legal analysis).
One thing this test in particular drove home to me - althout it was also a through-line through the other scenarios as well - was that to the extent that the bot gave me any decent or correct information or advice, this was things the tenant would already likely do on their own. E.g., the decent advice was, essentially, “tell the court the things you told me.” Whenever it went into specifics beyond that, it was almost always either irrelevant or incorrect. OR, it was things that it didn’t give the tenant any tools to do on their own - e.g., it would identify a legal theory that could apply, but either not give the tenant any specifics about how to use that theory to defend themselves (or even determine if it actually applied to their case), or, if it did give specifics, they were usually either irrelevant or incorrect.
This is, imo, one of the insurmountable barriers to LLMs being useful for legal "advice". Even if they never hallucinate, they can only put out “advice” based on what you put into it. And you’re* not a lawyer! You don’t necessarily know what is relevant or important to say, or how to express it! So a bot that just takes what you feed and and spits it back out in a more jargon-y style - that’s not actually helping you (even if you are lucky enough that it is not hurting you). It’s just validating what you already think is relevant. (And usually with a bunch of misinformation and bad advice on top.)
*"you" in this scenerio being the hypothetical user base of these bots. Clarification provided for the pedantic assholes (aka the lawyers) who read this.
For another example - the one single time I thought the bot asked a useful prompting question was during Scenario A, where it listed several defenses that could apply to Abby's case. However, it asked them in a way where I (as Abby) would, naturally, only focus on one of the potential defenses - so I only responded to that one. And then it focused on that issue, and then never followed up about the other potential defenses - even though some of them could apply to her, and she would have been able to articulate those defenses to a court if she was given the proper assistance.
I could have stopped here, but I wanted to run one more test
Scenario D: Dan is, legally speaking, a squatter with no legal rights. There is nothing either he or a lawyer, can do to stop him from being from kicked out of his home.
For this one, I specifically wanted to see how the bot would respond to someone with no legal rights or defenses, and so I, again, unnaturally feed the directly relevant information to the bot.
If the entity giving you legal "advice" is not capable of providing you with bad news, it cannot provide you with advice. It does not and cannot exist for your benefit. It is a scam to sell a paid mode to the desperate, stealing from the most vulnerable.
The bot, in response to Dan's clear, straightforward, unmistakable responses that would lead any lawyer to conclude he is a squatter with no legal rights or defenses, gave him completely incorrect information and advice. It told Dan he had specific rights and defenses and protections that he does not have.
Again, if you have ever been in this kind of scenario - you know how important it is to have accurate information about your rights and if/when you may be evicted, so you can make realistic preparations. This kind of malpractice is disgusting and outrageous.
Whereas, with the other scenarios the bot was at least gesturing in the direction of real laws, here, where there was no real law to gesture to, the bot just made something up.
Because if wasn't designed to tell him, and Casey, and Bob, and Abby, that they were all in strong legal postures - well then, it couldn't sell them the documents that they "need," can it?
You all-- I never thought I'd see the day, but library peeps, strap in for a fight. The Author's Guild is going after us as the reason why a
Anyway, if you live in Illinois, support the Digital Library Protection Act! And if you live in a different state, urge your local legislature to pass something similar!
Five public library organizations released a joint letter appealing to publishers and digital platforms to make e-book and audiobook licensi
I have no idea whether this is true, it seems way too stupid to be real and I have to assume it's made up, but I'm sharing because it has the vibe of something that would happen in a cartoon from the 90s that has characters burn a hole in a door by bouncing a laser pen beam between two mirrors
Yes but the idea that the AI actually has the capability to change the emails is idiotic. We've had to deal with annoying bullshit authenication for years in the name of security and the robot should not be able to change shit. Welding steel security bars over all the windows and then installing a massive unguarded glass door type scenario. They *have* teams in charge of security, it is ridiculous that a robot could do this.
Until proven otherwise I'm gonna assume that the hackers claiming this are pulling a prank and doctoring this because I am not ready to face a world this stupid.
the ONLY Thing I find not-very-credible about this is that people exploiting the fact that other people give their AI Tools unreasonably-broad permissions/abilities, has been Happening for several years? Why would that STILL be possible?
People get so unreasonably stupid about AI and I don't. I don't understand it. Like I know that there's the occasional tech-illiterate loon who thinks that AI is Proto-Lieutenant Data or whatever, people who take scifi too seriously, but why are the people actually using the tools being so stupid about it? It's some new religion I swear. Fifty per cent of the techbros I talk to it's like they're going "souls are real and we have imbued The Circuits with them". I know nothing at all about computers so normally I'd think I was the one in the wrong here but the guys in charge of these systems are just so so obviously stupid about AI over and over again and I. What the fuck is going on. I feel like I'm in Sailor Moon or something and an evil villain is brainwashing the masses to be super consumerist or whatever those plots were about except this week the scheme is making everyone trust the AI. It all feels so unrealistic how is this shit STILL happening. Overenthusiasm at the start I get, but there have been so many very public AI disasters.
yeah yeah rainbow capitalism is bad and whatever but like. when I was a child, being pro gay was not the popular or lucrative choice. I'm happy that times have changed.
I miss rainbow capitalism. I do. I miss when it felt like public opinion was still pro gay. I understand it was always an empty gesture, but it mattered in a sense of knowing how socially acceptable being queer is. If that makes sense.
When I was in high school, I lived in a small progressive city in a spot of red. Our GSA threw everything into observing the Day of Silence, and blanketed the school in big, visible, bracelets for people to wear in support of their silent classmates.
On the bus one spring, on the Day of Silence, I overheard two girls talking about the fact that one of them was wearing a support bracelet. She said, "I don't actually support 'them', but, you know, it's basically socially suicide to say that."
And I was so, so glad. To know that I went to a school, in a place and a time, where people needed to conceal their hate, instead of needing to conceal their love.
One of my colleagues won their client, a tenant, a large judgment against a landlord. The landlord has refused to pay the judgment, and yesterday filed a motion arguing that they shouldn't have to, because the don't have the money, and the court needs to consider their inability to pay :( :( :(
And I think, in a just world, every single tenant that property ever evicted for nonpayment of rent should be mailed a copy of that order and be given the opportunity to speak on the record in the upcoming hearing.
At my case review meeting with my supervisor last month, we agreed that I need to avoid taking new cases for a while, to avoid overloading my workload.
Today:
Me: Hey so there's this case with a trial in 15 minutes. I think I should do it.
Longtime readers may be aware of how much I relish an excuse to bully a company, so I'm sharing the wealth;
Clothing company Patagonia is currently sueing drag queen Pattie Gonia for "irreparable” harm to their brand.
To be clear; Pattie named herself after the region in South America.
So Pattie is asking people to politely ask Patagonia to drop the lawsuit.
I'm extending the invitation to all of you, because sueing a drag queen for 'infringement' in the current political cultural landscape is vile.
Especially a drag queen who has raised millions of dollars for non-profits, uses her platform to raise awareness for climate activism, and fully aligns with Patagonia's apparent climate-conscious mission statement.
They're claiming they're sueing for $1. They're actually asking her to stop using her name, and pay over $1 million in legal fees. They're straight up harassing her.
In contrast, drag queen Jan Sport has a Jansport bag line. It's that easy to just... work with a queen.
Anyway. Be respectful(ish), but feel free to be annoying on Patagnoia's socials, asking them to 'DROP THE LAWSUIT'
"Pattie named herself after the region in South America." Come the fuck on. https://www.self.com/story/pattie-gonia-backpacking-drag-queen
Patagonia is not trying to "take away her name." Patagonia has no problem with her calling herself Pattie Gonia or performing as such, or using it for activism, or whatever. They are suing her to stop her from directly competing with them with a substantially similar trademark in clothing sales.
You can read the complaint here.
The relevant prayer for relief is on page 34-36. It asks the court to stop Pattie from selling, distributing, or advertising, "any goods or services that display any words or symbols that so resemble the PATAGONIA trademarks as to be likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception;" destroy the merch she was selling that would so cause confusion; and to not do it again in the future. It doesn't ask for damages more than $1 and for attorneys fees (aka pay us back for making us have to file this stupid lawsuit).
It also asks the court to stop Pattie from trying to register her drag name as a trademark specifically to sell branded apparel that says "PATTIEGONIA" - aka the same market, to an overlapping sales base.
2. Yeah this is 100% a "brand conflict." Patagonia had no issues with her existence, her drag name, her activism. (According to facts in the complaint, which she has not denied) it had no issue with even her partnering with competing brands, as long as
When Pattie started selling her own branded merch, Patagonia tried to reach out to her to resolve things informally. They were not able to do so. (And in my opinion, the email from Pattie in response looks really really bad - as I read it, it is essentially a threat to try to use her fanbase and progressive credentials to attack and harm Patagonia's brand if they try to enforce their trademark. And to be clear - if she has issues with Patagonia's actions as a brand, using those as a private threat against the company to advance her commercial interests while continuing to publicly directly associate herself with the brand - examples both in the lawsuit and in this thread: https://bsky.app/profile/kathryntewson.bsky.social/post/3mnbadc2egk2e - is. Well, I don't think it's behavior that looks good for Pattie.)
They filed this lawsuit b/c she filed to trademark the "Pattie Gonia" brand to directly compete with Patagonia in the same market. This is 100% a brand conflict. She's just lying to people.
Two other quick comments:
OP above used scare quotes around "irreparable" harm. This happens every time there is a lawsuit for injunctive relief and the person posting about it wants to make the plaintiff sound unreasonable and absurd. Irreparable harm is just literally the legal standard for injunctive relief.
I think OP's comment that, "In contrast, drag queen Jan Sport has a Jansport bag line. It's that easy to just... work with a queen," is ironically a good demonstration about the potential for brand confusion. Based on this comment, OP is demonstrating that their assumption, should they see "Pattie Gonia" branded clothing, is that it would be a collaboration. But Pattie Gonia wasn't trying to work with Patagonia. She specifically said she did not want to do so. She wants sell her own merch.
On Pattie's website, she says about this lawsuit,
I agree with Pattie on this point. But right now, while there are so many attacks on both the climate and on queer people, especially trans people? To lie about a (legally speaking, entirely reasonable, lawsuit) and to use people's fears and concerns in the - as OP says - "current political landscape" - to try to sell you her own merch? (Because that is what the lawsuit is about. She is telling you to harass Patagonia so she can sell you branded merch instead.)
I have a lot of feelings about someone taking the energy - our fears, our need to protect each other, our love - of our community, and redirecting it toward their own commercial benefit. It's really hard for me to see what Pattie is doing in any other light.
origamiaround
dailybridgerton
jbbartram-illu
germansingergirl
snowghoul
areudirty
blakekathryn
andulkaphoto
vaporwave
