• hraegsvelmir@ani.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 hours ago

    That’s a perfectly valid point about law that they have bumbled adjacent to, but never actually broached themselves. I’m not saying that the law would even necessarily be a good idea, just pushing back on their original, nonsensical claim that if something doesn’t have a logo, it doesn’t count as a uniform. They just claim this isn’t a uniform on an absurd basis, and provide no support to justify why anyone should accept that idea when it has nothing to do with the conventional definition of a uniform.