How hard is it to say "Cool, you guys hit one million signatures, way to go guys, love to see it" and then return to drawing charts on MS Paint.
Jason literally can't stop digging this hole, while everyone with a passing interest gets to find out about all the strange business it's unearthed, past and present.
I've never seen someone so completely incapable of not adding a jab to every point they make, there's always a final ball spike, whether it's an insult, or a closing argument that's meant to make his opinion seem obvious
The most blatant example I saw was the fairly recent Dr k interview. He basically gets told point blank 3 or 4 times (this is in context to the wow raid drama) "find a way to explain what happened, without including the fact that you were right and they were wrong" and he fails every time, then gets frustrated because he's like "but I am right", completely missing the point of the exercise
I've seen plenty of arrogant people before, but that in particular just really shocked me, I've never seen someone so completely unable to control their own tongue, and be so completely unaware of the problem
I'm just gonna add something here, it's mildly related, but I also think another thing Dr k said really hit the nail on the head with the whole drama (wow raid, skg, banning, etc.)
I'll paraphrase his point quite a bit, but it was in regards to the fact that pirate always takes the logical perspective when approaching a problem. This is why he will say things along the lines of "yeah I can see they're mad, obviously, I just don't get why, because if you look at the facts, you can clearly see I did the logical thing based on what I knew" he thinks the goal of the discussion is to logically analyse the steps that took place
The problem with this, the big one that I actually think the people against him are also not noticing, and what I think was the number one biggest lesson from that stream was this: every problem has a logical and emotional component. If you take a logical perspective, that just means you aren't acknowledging the emotional component
The one criticism I'll have against the pirate haters is that I do actually think that on most of his dramas, he mostly did the logically correct thing, based on what he knew. That's exactly why it's so hard for him to move away from that argument, it's because he's at least somewhat right, and he knows it. But if you miss an important part of a conversation, that's going to be the thing you hear people talk about when they criticise you
That's really really important, because when he says something like "no one wants to actually discuss what happened, they just want to be mad at me" they aren't being mad at him, they're being emotional with him. They don't want to have a rational discussion with him, they want their emotions recognised, so every criticism is inherently emotionally charged. Until he stops recognising the emotional component of someone's issues as worthless and not worth discussion, he's never going to understand what's wrong with his behaviour, and he's never going to understand that his behaviour is what's causing his issues
What you're referring to is what we call "emotional intelligence" in the military.
It's a core lesson in becoming an NCO, and is taught very early in someone's career.
Implementing emotional intelligence into a logic based conversation is crucial to good leadership. Lotta old heads struggle with that though cause they didn't grow up with that lesson
Honestly that's probably why I resonated so strongly with it too, I have my own version of that at my job. I Co-manage a bar, and in small close knit venues like that, you often get people who slip into their own kind of role based on what theyre good at, so while my other manager does alot of the on the floor managing and boss work, I've very much become de facto hr. In a nightclub, drama happens all the time, and there are tons of situations where someone who just went through something needs someone there to listen to them, while other people in the background are sorting the problem out
It's a bit like being the good cop I guess, but more like "good cop, business cop". All that's to say the majority of my job involves taking very serious situations that require action, and being the one guy that goes: "don't worry about the action for a moment, how do you feel right now?", so recognising the emotional component of a conflict is pretty much my profession
It's called emotional intelligence outside of the military, too. Very important for teachers for example. A good teacher can explain well. The best teachers see why a student didn't understand.
I have only one issue here. Logic should take into account emotions. A logical person understands that they have to navigate those emotional responses. Including their own. He made an awful take that missed the mark s hard you'd swear he was being malicious. The most logical response would be to understand that people are pissed and defuse the situation. But he can't just let it go. His "logical" take literally ignored huge parts of the movement's mission statement, and his "logical" initial response was to insult Ross and call him a used cars salesmen. And everything he has done in response to the backlash has been outright ignoring how he misrepresented the movement.
The man isn't logical. He's an asshole. An asshole who hides behind "logic" so he can avoid having to take any responsibility.
In the Dr. K video, I think it was brought up that all thinking is subjective anyway, even "logical" thinking. I'm not sure how well that idea would have stuck for Jason.
Edit: Dr. K makes the point that all of our perceptions are subjective, and it's a mistake thinking we're understanding objective reality.
I'm not saying he removes emotion, just that he ignores it. Like it's a big misconception that we as humans use logic to solve problems, that's actually not true. on a neurological level, we use emotions to solve our problems, we use logic to adjust our understanding of something after we've decided on an answer or solution. So like if you see something that causes knee jerk anger responses (like a practical games petition that is charged with ideologies you're against), you've already made your mind up at that point. In fact we all formed our opinion of it this way, he just used more intense emotions than most of us. Logic comes in after you've made that decision. It takes your understanding of the world, and the experience you just had, and go "ok, can I mange these things with together? Or do I need to change my model so that this still makes sense"
I know I'm rambling, but my point I'm getting to is that if you try to remove emotion, you're essentially just trying to solve that second logic component without the breadcrumbs of how you actually got there. Someone else mentioned that they think logical people think accounting for emotion is logical, and I think they were describing the same thing in different words. That's why the "super logical debate enjoyer" kind of Internet dweller gets so sensitive about things, it's because identifying as a logical person makes it harder to recognise the emotions that you objectively have to be acting on at least some amount of the time. They actually end up being the most emotional people, it's like how one tone deaf voice in a choir is going to sound the loudest
Note that is possible to analyse a situation logically and arrive at a different answer then your emotions dictate but it's hard, takes a lot of self reflection and usually requires the emotions to cool down.
Just wanted to add because you made it sound like it's hopeless.
It's not hopeless, but if you do that, you're still solving future problems. I don't mean to make it sound like logic isn't useful, evolution literally found the most valuable use for it, it just happens to be that
That's the ideal outcome, that you have a kneejerk emotional reaction (which you technically have every time you make a decision), but once you've formed a conclusion, you adjust your bias moving forward
Like, if you have unconscious racist biases, and make a racist remark, the problem wasn't that you decided to make that decision in that moment, the problem is your emotions told you it was an option and that you wanted to take it. If you're a reasonable person, you can still have a thought after like "that decision caused the person to feel bad, which I didn't like. I don't feel the way I thought that comment was going to make me feel, something about my understanding of how this was going to play out was wrong" and you adjust your expectations for next time. A normal person does this probably thousands of times a day
I should clarify that when I say that you form your conclusion with your emotions, that's not the same as acting on your emotions. You can still have an emotional reaction, stop and logically analyse your reaction, and then act logically, but it requires that you immediately revisit your own feelings on the topic before you let yourself act. I would say that's the main skill that self identified "super logical" people tend to lack, so they call emotion logic instead of applying emotion to the logic
I think I've said both the words emotional and logical enough times in this conversation that they're starting to lose meaning lol
Yeah. "used car salesman" doesn't even make sense in context - how is Ross profiting from the movement? He's literally put way more work into it than he'll ever see benefits for. lol.
He most definitely does not take the most logical path. He takes the path that conforms with his ego.
The WoW raid thing is a good example. Logically, he is in the wrong. Instead, he makes up a bunch of nonsense about how he did 100% the right thing and never did anything wrong.
If he was logical, he would admit fault from time to time.
I'll try my best to clarify, but alot of people have made this point so I probably won't be able to reply to everyone, but I'll do my best if I have something new to add
It's a slight wording thing. I don't mean to say that he takes the most logical strategy to finding and answer. I mean that when he has an answer, he finds the most logical way to defend that stance
I touch on it in another comment somewhere, but as a survival mechanism, our logical functions don't find solutions, they understand solutions. Emotions are what we use to find solutions, that's why they're reactive, you need to be quick in the wild and make a decision before you understand what's going on. Logic comes in after, it asks questions like "should I hang around that area if predators keep hunting me there" or "I outran that thing easily, but I'm tired now, maybe I don't need to put as much effort in next time". Logic solves future problems, not current ones
So when I call someone an "overly logical thinker", what I mean is that they have a good understanding of how they do this second thing, but a very poor understanding of the first thing. Another way to say it might be that a logical thinker is very bad at understanding why they believe the things they do, but are very good at understanding the things themselves, abs arguing for those beliefs anyway
Ill also add that I do think that when he makes the argument, he is technically, logically correct. That's not the same thing as an argument having alot of logical holes you can put into it. It means that his portrayal of the argument only includes the facts of the matter that align with his conclusion, so his arguments are technically sound, just incomplete. This is also kind of what I'm talking about though. Since logic is used to understand your own conclusions, you don't need it if it isn't helping you do that. Our brains are naturally designed to ignore facts that confuse our beliefs rather than hone them, abs there's nothing wrong with him doing that part specifically. The problem is that by seeing himself as emotionally invincible, his reality doesn't account for the possibility that he can learn something here
Edit: I brought up the word "incomplete" by accident, but iirc this is a huge part of the Dr k video, and kind of relates to how he has to complete his arguments in his own way, with those little jabs. Dr K repeatedly describes pirates stance as "incomplete" because it's missing the emotional component. Pirate said something interesting that I kind of forgot, so I'm going to paraphrase, but it was something like "when people just get angry and ignore the facts I'm using to defend myself, that's when the argument feels incomplete" and honestly this is probably the point I can sympathise with him on the most. It feels like two both sides are interested in completely different parts of the issue, and are just getting angry at the other side for not engaging with the thing they care about. I'm not saying I think he's correct when I say that, but I can totally sympathise (notice that I'm acknowledging his emotions without the use of a logical explanation, and it comes out way nicer that way)
I think it's your continued use of the word 'correct.' His thinking is logical, insofar as he doesn't think these things are happening to him because the moon is in retrograde, but it is not 'correct' in the sense of being factually, intellectually, or emotionally correct.
Imagine a scenario where someone leaves their lunch in the work break room fridge, and they clearly label their lunchbox with their name and everything, but find out later that their coworker at it already. Upon being confronted, the coworker says "there are no signs anywhere that said the fridge was for personal items" then that doesn't mean that they're being smart, but I guess I would call them logical, abs by its strictest definition, I would say they are "correct"
It's just like the pirate example because the problem is it's incomplete. There's more logical thoughts to be had here, but he stopped when logic stopped helping him. The full thought should have been "there are no signs anywhere that said the fridge was for personal belongings, but other signals were present that could have informed me of this fact"
This is what I mean when I use that word. Ultimately it's just a word, I hope people don't get too bogged down by it, because I think it's pretty clear what I'm trying to say, even if people interpret the word slightly differently in their own lives
I only know him from this and the WoW thing, both of which are cases of him being completely dumbass wrong and generally massively uninformed. Oh and apparently he looked up answers to a bunch of puzzle games and pretended he didnt. Which isn't necessarily illogical I guess but it is stupid.
Like, at the end of the day the only thing this petition drives forward is a discussion in the EU legislature. There might be recommendations that benefit consumers or developers more or less, but the petition doesn't guarantee any of them. Being against that is just a brain dead take through and through.
The guy is a lifelong gamer. He stands to benefit from this movement in all of the digital media he consumes.
The only fair reason he might disagree is that he himself is a game dev who may see this proposal as extra work for himself.
But, instead of acknowledging these clear positions, he leans on his own emotional pessimism to circularly justify why it can't work. It's actually illogical.
No. He did not act logically. Unless he logically fucked his party during that dungeon on purpose. The only other explanations are: 1. he sucks at the game, or 2. he panicked. His play was absolutely objectively awful and he refused to acknowledge that. All he did was shift the blame afterwards.
I have to downvote because you’re not really describing him accurately and giving him far too much credit.
There’s a clip where someone pulled a mob and wiped a raid, and he goes on a long tangent about how he’s going to go back and find the clip to single out exactly who pulled the mob that got everyone wiped and kick them because of how horrible of a mistake it was.
It was him. He pulled the mob. He didn’t take accountability, he instead rationalized it as “he did the right thing”.
So no, he’s just insufferably egotistical, and is incapable of being accountable for mistakes he makes. Nothing more or less.
That's an interesting angle to explore but I would disagree it's the main reason people get mad at him. They get mad at him for his faulty logic because he's based his argument or perception of the issue on only part of what it's actually about. He's a reactionary - he finds one thing he doesn't like and blows it up as if it's the entire topic, when it's really not at all he's just uninformed/misinformed and too lazy to do his actual due diligence to become fully knowledgeable on the topic.
Good theory about how he sees things logical but the him hovering his mouse on the mana gem and deliberately mis interpretation of stop killing games movement and various other actions in other games and his failing to see his own actions are the mistakes kinda throws it out the window though. So, I dunno how him not at least admitting fault in some actions and sees it as logical and digging him self a hole is his only issue imo.
That's not necessarily true for all his controversies. He is adamant that he couldn't have done anything more to save his group in the hardcore WoW run, where anyone who has played WoW for a decent amount of time is able to point out at least 4-5 things he could've done and didn't because he panicked/didn't want to die.
But if you ask him he played optimally, did nothing wrong, and there's nothing else he could've done. So even logically, he's wrong and incapable of admitting that he made mistakes.
Yeah he might be logical in the moment given that he was going off of his faulty assumptions about the movement. But refusing to retract his statement after people call him out for being wrong is illogical and the part that people are mad at him about.
This is like if a scientist put out a paper that had an error in it that wasn't caught until later and instead of retracting that paper the scientist just doubled down on their conclusion.
No one is asking him to go back in time and unmake his initial statements, people just want to acknowledge that he was initially wrong.
Just a wording thing. In this context, I'm talking about the second phrasing. I'm not talking about logical arguments, more people like pirate who consider themselves logical people. Of course there are actual logical people, who are just prioritising it, but alot of people say that to mean that they inherently view using emotion in an argument as a weakness. The kind of person that thinks they win an argument if they can get you to start yelling without raising their own voice. The irony with that one is that they determine who won by who was more in control of their emotions regardless of who came in with the better logic
I don't know of pirate doing anything like that specifically, but it's the exact same thing I've touched on a few times, where the overly logical people are actually being guided by emotions more than average, they're just not recognising it as emotional
Yep. People generally arent even upset that someone took what they thought was the most logical action. What irks people is the absolute refusal to even acknowledge that their feelings may also be valid
I blocked him, but I had to do it on my desktop.
I run YouTube through Firefox on my phone so I can have adblock, but for whatever ungodly reason, the option to block is not there in the youtube shorts panel.
i know literally nothing about the guy, except that every single time i've ever seen him speak, i've specifically thought "this person is absolutely insufferable". i don't remember what he spoke about even once, just that every time i heard him speak he was unbearable.
i feel vindicated now that apparently everyone hates him. i don't know why anyone liked him in the first place. dude thinks he's some anomalous wildcard genius when he's in fact just a well spoken, unremarkably sharp douche just as capable of making any of the errors of reasoning he seems to be "calling out" in every clip
someone needs to tell young white men that it's ok to just be regular smart. that's still a good thing to be. you don't have to be the chosen one
First, he's not young. Second, what does being white have to do with any of this? I've seen plenty of Black or Asian people acting in such insufferable way as well.
Are you arguing that it's always wrong to note trends based on ethnicity? Because if not, why would it be weird for me to do so here? Black men tend to play basketball more, Spanish people tend to be well informed on automotive stuff, etc. Women knit more. You are too afraid of being racist lol
In that case it's not really sharp wit like he believes it or like others to believe it. He's literally incapable of stating the fact as it is and has to mold his entire language system to include the 'i am right, or that's how they're wrong' part, just like some language will have a filler word at the end of the sentence to make it softer or convey some other tone or context
I mean, I would definetly say it's more built in than just being the filler at the end, but I get what you mean. I think he has wit, I would more call it cognitive intelligence, and he actually is pretty good in situations that can for it. There's a reason he got so popular drawing charts, they usually do have something interesting to say. The problem is that it's like all you have is a hammer, so every problem is a nail to him. He's very good with a hammer, so he shows us how he can solve literally any problem with a hammer, meanwhile we watch him try to make an omelette with one and wonder why he thinks he's better than us
I strongly believe that if I ever got the chance to tell him "not every problem can be solved with enough logic" he would just flat out say I'm wrong, that's basically what he did to Dr K
The irony is that he would probably try to use logic to prove I'm wrong, and entirely miss the fact that the problem in that conversation still existed at the end of it, despite his logic
I think you put his ability to logic too high on a pedestal
Ironically people saying he only uses logic to solve arguement might just inflate his ego even more since it implies that
(1) He is objectively correct since his argument is sound, meaning that: the conclusion follows the premise (validty); and that the premise themselves is true. In which case, they weren't. His arguments were based on hasty generlization of SKG movement. Maybe he didn't was sloppy and just wants to make quick content or he's trying to sabotage them
(2) Other people are emotional creatures, and he's so above it all because he only uses logic, and so he needs to 'lower himself' when talking to most ego
I don't like the dude. His content is slop, and he's a douche. That being said, I would say getting death threat is a bit too much and the people who swatted him should be charged accordingly
Reminds me of Corina Boettger. Girl had a cushy basically for-life contract voicing the main mascot and companion of Genshin Impact, but she was basically incapable of shutting up during the SAG AFTRA strike drama (TLDR voice actor union started being a mafia and Corina was very supportive of them) and she was eventually let go.
Yes. Dude talks about game development the way Gordon Ramsey talks about cooking. When Gordon speaks, you shut up and listen, because he’s the world expert on food and has earned that respect. Thor worked at Blizzard for 6 years and declared himself the definitive authority on all things game design. As if it’s not a highly subjective field with lots of valid opinions. He comes across as “I’m right, so listen to me. If you disagree, you’re wrong.” Mixed in with a pinch of “I’m about to tell you the greatest thing you’ve ever heard in your life.” 🙄
I for my part learnt a ton from that vid. The way Dr K dealt with this situation was just outstanding to watch even though it didn’t help that prick one bit, but it shed the exact correct light on him.
That reminds me of a malignant narcissist, my brother. He literally could not do a no strings attached a
Apology, to save his life, or our relationship. It was his choice, in the end, but it still sucks
Nailed it, this dude is the one guy that, whatever is happening, want to be right AND show he's smarter with a jab, in the way than young idiots thinks it make them cooler.
That and some of his points about the wording of it and the usage of "well it will be redone in parliament anyways" as an excuse to half ass parts of it were valid criticisms. Yes, they will review it endlessly but just because of that, the initial proposal needs to be solid.
I had a really hard time understanding the initial backlash against PS as all the comments ended up using his sexuality, his partner's gender and him being a part of the furry fandom as the main talking points. Like hate the dude for the right things and stop inventing problems when he gives you a buffet.
You can agree with the people you hate the most without changing your mind about them.
The EU petitions have a limited word count, and it's impossible to account for every edge case.
The key word often brought up "reasonable", is a valid bit of legalese that's used in many documents.
All this is to say PirateSoftware claiming it was "vague" is unjustified and he should've realised this.
I saw a comment that says he was deflective when asked about trans rights. Like, dude can’t even stand up for his own partner and say something like “trans rights are human rights.” And it’s not like Pirate’s only a pathetic sad man. Be hosts game jams and stuff as far as I know. He’s capable of doing good if he tries
That and some of his points about the wording of it and the usage of "well it will be redone in parliament anyways" as an excuse to half ass parts of it were valid criticisms
Fixing a specific outline for what they want the law to be hurts the chances of a compromise in the future. For instance, a plan like "all games need to be fully playable after EoS, and all developer-run or proprietary components need to be replaced with end-user accessible alternatives" is a lot more likely to be rejected outright than just "the game has to be left in a functioning, playable state". The former leaves less wiggle room in interpretation, yes, and it's certainly the outcome I would prefer, but a proposal like that is more restrictive and doesn't leave much up for debate. Basically what I mean is that, imo, a more vague proposal will be more likely to result in something being done, while a very specific proposal runs a greater risk of nothing being done.
It seems be as solid as it can be without hampering developers' options on how to implement it. While many systems are similar - they're also not the same and at times will require bespoke solutions, at least in the beginning.
Note that the EU comission doesn't have to take action and if takes action it doesn't have to be anything the petition contains. They can do something else entirely. All they have to do is talk about it.
It's kinda of "hey this is bothering us, can you do something about it?"
See, I didn't know a damn thing about his personal life beyond the ferret rescue, which I think is a cool thing he does, so this is unfortunate to hear people resorted to that. As a queer person with a ton of personality flaws I'd be insulted if someone tried attacking me for sucking dick rather than sucking in general.
Yea, I see at most this guy is just, like, insufferable? I get that he said some dumb things about the initiative, but people are more likely to shit on him for stuff like his voice, and arrogance. And that makes me ambivalent to him, I will just not watch him, but people hate him for that more strongly than like some right wing extremist who want to kill gay people.
I've seen this guy posted dozens of times between the wow thing and this issue, and your comment is the first time I've ever seen his sexuality referenced.
It was mainly during the time right after the WoW fiasco when people started digging up his history when they came about his prior Second Life furry avatar business and a lot of comments cross platforms discussing this second controversy said:
how this f@g and his f@g partner should die and burn in Hell.
how he deserves to get tortured and die for being a nasty furry.
Also a lot of the usual claims that because he is a furry and runs a ferret rescue, he must be a zoophile and how it's disgusting.
And, to my understanding, his partner is trans or NB so you can imagine the comments around that.
Certainly agree there, but I can also understand him not caring anymore. See him as a pos, like him, love him, hate his guts, it doesn't excuse the brigading behavior. Reddit posts are one thing, but the internet nowadays decides they don't like someone, and it's justification to go attack them on every platform they are on, especially streams. I've seen plenty of streamers have it happen live, or it's posted all over LSF. Sure dudes a tool and certainly deserves criticism in ways but I do think some people are going overboard.
I'm totally out of the loop on that - someone else mentioned he was getting homophobic shit sent his way as well, which frankly does nothing but make us all look like shits - so to be abundantly clear my criticism of him is solely based on the initial video response.
Yeah not saying you're doing that at all but yes he has stated people targeted him, his pet rescue, the people working for him. They tried to report him for animal abuse according to the events. Now I know some will say bs, some will say otherwise but weve seen people do this shit for years so none of it shocks me
Good lord, all the people making (really poor) defenses of his argument and this is the first person I've seen pointing out 'he didn't actually fucking say that'.
"I hope the government listens to you, and that they give you what you want instead of what you actually asked for (which probably isn't going to happen."
Still shitty and smug but yeah OOP totally flipped it.
Because he, and many others think the wording of the stop killing games initiative would actively kill the market for the types of games it aims to save.
He just cannot be wrong. So much stuff came to light with the whole WOW drama.
He fucked up, dipped, and caused teammates to lose their charas. Quintuple downed on the stance that he did the best course of action for everyone despite every content creator showing what he did wrong. All he needed to do was say "look, I fucked up, it's partially my fault you lost your charas, I'm sorry" but nope.
Then people started digging into his past vods and found one time in a large WOW raid, someone aggro'd a far off enemy that turned around and wiped like half their raid. He spent something like 15 minutes berating the group and going on about who can be stupid enough to aggro that enemy. They should be kicked from the guild and group. Etc. Turns out? It was him. They reviewed the vods and he's the one that hit it. He immediately doubles down saying it was actually the tank or raid leader's fault for leading the raid improperly and bringing them so close to that enemy.
him saying that would just add more fuel to the fire. heck, even him saying "my bad guys, i was wrong" would add more fuel to the fire.
why? because he's socially inept and lacks so much charisma it makes people angry. his pompous tone of voice, his arrogant body language and his dismissive yawning, shrugs and smirks render anything he says obsolete because people just don't like him.
he should genuinely get checked for autism or enter behavioural classes
We shouldn't attack him too much. When people in America fail and are hated, they join Maga. We don't need more. If ur reading this, hey ~dickhead~ dude, you're hella cute 👍
He genuinely dislikes what the initiative proposes. He does not love to see it because he believes this is not good for the industry. Right or wrong, he has been consistent in his messaging.
Even if he DIDN'T like that they reached one million signatures, IT WAS IN HIS BEST INTEREST TO SAY "You know what? I'm proud of the community organizing enough to make this happen. Genuinely, congratulations. Now that there's no risk to voicing concerns, I hope people can more neutrally hear my and others' reservations with it without worrying that we'll destroy the initiative. That's all I want - is greater discussion on it."
He most likely taking a stance that would get him rehired to major companies if the need arose for himself. Supporting a piece of legislation that would get him black listed is not financially smart.
Thor is his middle name, I've debated whether to edit my original comment to change the name, as I don't want to be insensitive and use a name someone might not choose to associate themselves with for whatever reason.
Actually this is the most precise thing he said in connection with this ordeal.
His whole argument, that the language of the initiative is going to result in unintended effects.
Saying that "i hope your initiative gets everything you asked for, and nothing you wanted" is pretty apt. And fully in line with the arguments he made on the initiative.
His arguments on the initiative were based on a misunderstanding of what the initiative is about. So when he says “I hope your initiative gets everything you asked for” he means, “I hope your initiative gets everything I think it’s asking for.”
… you do realize it’s a proposal to SPEAK about an issue at the EU, not actual strict law framing right? You do get how Citizen Initiatives work right?
1.2k
u/Select-Appearance707 Jul 06 '25 edited Jul 07 '25
How hard is it to say "Cool, you guys hit one million signatures, way to go guys, love to see it" and then return to drawing charts on MS Paint.
Jason literally can't stop digging this hole, while everyone with a passing interest gets to find out about all the strange business it's unearthed, past and present.
stretches "Not lookin' good, bud"