Cuddle Bear

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'

This is being discussed heavily on Bluesky, such as here.

I’m a law student specializing in Intellectual Property, which includes Copyright and Trademark. I’ve studied these subjects and the law is clear that everything y’all said about Patagonia “losing the trademark” if they don’t sue Ms. Pattie is absolute bullshit.

Trademarks are only lost if they are abandoned by the user or if the product made by the company becomes so ubiquitous, everyday, and common that people start calling all types of that product by the trademark name. This is called genericide, because the trademark has become so generic, it is no longer an indicator of one singular source. Think Band-Aid or Thermos; we use those terms to refer to the generic products they’re associated with. We call pretty much all sticky bandages Band-Aids and all containers used to keep things warm in Thermoses.

What Patagonia is doing is actually closer to suing for trademark infringement based on tarnishment, which means the infringer is using the trademark name in a way that makes the company look bad or associates the company with things like drugs or pornography. Queen Pattie Gonia is someone who raises awareness for climate and environmental activism. Nothing about Miss Gonia’s use of the name tarnishes Patagonia’s brand.

The only possible argument the company has is that Miss Gonia’s queer identity could be seen as not “adult-friendly” but that very quickly slides into homophobic and moralistic territory that will absolutely be shot down by the court based on First Amendment rights. People are allowed to use “not safe for work names,” based on caselaw that states that “labels that are disparaging or morally offensive” are a violation of free speech because it’s people’s choice to say and use those names. For example, an all-Asian band applied for the trademark name “The Chinks” because they were taking the racially disparaging name and reclaiming it. The Trademark Office attempted to refuse to grant the band’s trademark, and when the band sued, the Supreme Court sided with the band.

That got off on a little bit of a tangent, but the long and short of it is this: Patagonia has absolutely no basis for a trademark name. Any IP lawyer would say the same. The reason Patagonia is getting away with a frivolous suit like this is because they know their target is a member of a vulnerable minority. Miss Gonia is 100% correct that they are trying to bully her because they know she doesn’t have the money to withstand a years-long expensive lawsuit.

It’s because of idiotic bootlickers who kiss companies’ asses like this that big corporations can get away with hurting independent creators. Patagonia does not have any chance at winning, but they know that just by filing and announcing their lawsuit against Miss Gonia, they are putting pressure on her to give up. If this lawsuit goes on, even if it doesn’t make it to court and just goes to a judge for a quick summary judgment, Miss Gonia would still have to pay for a lawyer to defend her and lawyers cost more money than the average person has. Miss Gonia would win, but because Patagonia set the damages for $1, even if she did win, she’d still end up in debt because in America, the typical rule is that each party pays for the cost of their own attorney’s fees. The only time the opposing side would pay your lawyer’s fees is if you have a contract with them that says so, and that’s usually only used in contracts between businesses or high profile individuals.

That being said, reading Patagonia's actual complaint... they wanted her to not use the words "Pattie Gonia" on any products, regardless of font or logo? Seriously? & it seems the logo shown above was never a product she was selling but rather fan art they wore on social media. He is running a clothing brand, yes, but the clothing he's selling is not trying to look like Patagonia clothes or imitate its logo, & the brand seems fixated on the fact that Pattie wears fan merch of the logo or jokes about Patagonia clothes in a Ted Talk.

Which, sure, I get the claim that people might think they are formally related (their evidence for that is a few Tiktok comments). But, as I (a laywoman) understand it, their claim is based around Pattie selling clothes that infringes on their trademark since they are a clothing brand specifically, yet his merch doesn't imitate Patagonia's to my eyes, and their most compelling evidence is Pattie saying or wearing things that relates to their brand, not the things they are actually selling. Again, the logo shown above was seemingly never being sold by Pattie, it was just something someone made him that they wore in public. If she did sell that logo, why didn't they put that in the complaint? & again the ask of her not using the name Pattie Gonia on merch at all, no matter how it is presented, just seems ridiculous to me? Its a pun based off a fucking geographic range, man.

Regardless, whether Patagonia is legally in the right in the lawsuit, and whether we should give a fuck about the legal rights of a multinational corporation, are two different questions. We will see how this plays out in the legal field, but personally I think even if it comes out in Patagonia's favor, its fucking stupid.

I am also annoyed seeing people in the notes defending Patagonia as this poor innocent company, "owned by its employees," which does so much good work and is being unfairly maligned! & the claim that it is employee-owned surprised me, so I wanted to look it up, and oh boy did I find some interesting information on Patagonia Inc.'s business practices re: human trafficking and taxes!

but it's an entirely new level of tragic when somebody you've actually spoken to gets turned into a bot account. it's like peeking at a zombie apocalypse through the window and realizing one of the shambling corpses was your friend.

and then the zombie catches sight of you, lurches up to your window, and shouts through the glass that they accidentally reported your account to tumblr and you'll be deactivated unless you click this link.

if you get something like this ↑ they're gonna follow up by instructing you to contact tumblr support on discord and give you contact info; or they're gonna link a website that looks sort of like tumblr support and say you have to email them; or any variety of "you must now contact tumblr, here is how you contact tumblr."

whatever they send you, it Does Not lead to tumblr. it leads to the master zombie that bit them and inducted them into the ranks of the undead, and will bite you the second they have your email and password. i might be confusing zombies and vampires. anyway,

it's easier to fall for these messages because the blog doesn't LOOK like a bot blog, because it ISN'T a bot blog. it's a normal person's blog that got accessed by a bot, meaning the blog's content CLEARLY looks like a real active user when you click on it. and yes—it might even be a blog you already know. sometimes bots like this go down a blog's DMs or reblogs and message people they've previously interacted with.

but i know calls to action without any kind of instruction aren't very helpful so here are some tips that i think you can easily do yourself with your own circles:

1) Staring off simple: Look around. Are there any BIPOC girls in your friend group, or are all of you white? Why? Do you often joke about everyone in your friend group being white? Why is that funny?

What to do: Examine why there are no people of color in your group. Examine why people of color may not be comfortable enough to hang out with you & your friends. Correct these, where possible. Do some reading on anti-racism. Talk to more people.

2) Examine how you talk about people of color & racism. Are you downplaying racism in your community? Are you treating women of color as dramatic or unreasonable for bringing it up? Do you find yourself only defending white dolls, always defending them from claims of racism, but never defending BIPOC dolls? Why?

What to do: Think about why you care more about accusations of racism than protecting the women of color in your community. Make sure you're making your space safe for BIPOC girls. Speak openly and loudly about anti-racism. Hold your sisters accountable- they should be apologizing when they say or do something wrong.

3) This one might sound silly, but as we often meet each other over fandom and roleplay- how are nonwhite characters treated in your circle? Are they always aggressive, angry, or antagonistic? Do you find yourself putting nonwhite characters in more roles like cops, dictators, sex pests, etc?

Additionally: If your circle shares sexual content, is there a lot of art where there's a pale/blonde character on the bottom, and a darker character on top? Are you and your friends always drawing darker characters as more dominant, more sexually aggressive, or promiscuous, while the white/pale characters are more innocent, submissive, modest, or clueless?

What to do: Examine how the way your group approaches fandom & art with nonwhite characters in it may make people of color uncomfortable. Examine why your art may make people of color feel unsafe or awkward hanging out with you. It's not wrong to have the occasional character of color be more antagonistic or dominant, but it's a problem when this is a pattern. If it's happening All The Time, question why!

4) Be honest with yourself: Did this post make you feel defensive? Does it make you feel defensive when people say something you did was racist? Why?

If a person of color tells you your actions were racist, they trust you to improve. I don't tell people they're being racist if i think they're going to hurt me for bringing it up. I know many like me. Don't prove us wrong- take these criticisms into account and work on it. You aren't cursed to be some kind of terrible bigot forever because you messed up- panicking without action is useless. Just be sure you examine the behavior in question and work to prevent this kind of thing from happening again. Okay?

Like "You have to venture into the scary insane asylum!" VS "You're a patient who was admitted by force to an asylum, and you are very clearly in real danger, but everyone is pretending that you're just deluded, and are essentially leaving you to die because they don't really see you as a person."

It's been interesting to see what media people are recommending based on the first post alone. A lot of recommendations for games/franchises like World of Darkness, Carrion, Kill All Humans, Among Us, etc. It's interesting because these are games that put you into the shoes of the violent other that has to infiltrate, without actually challenging the idea that the other is a threat. They actually parrot the ideas of the other as violent.

Funnily enough, the people recommending the comedy game Octodad understand the post much better than most of the people recommending horror media. A few mentions of Am I Nima, which isn't finished yet but does look like it could be what I am describing, so brownie points to the people recommending that.

But everyone saying stuff like "This is just being Trans/Autistic/Etc" really gets it, like really really gets it. Horror always communicates the fears and anxieties of the people who create it, this post was basically: "What if instead of communicating the fear of the other, we communicated the fears of the others, which are actually vastly more legitimate than the dominant groups fear of the other. We should recognise that it is overwhelmingly the others who are the ones who actually suffer and die, all for the perceived "saftey" and "comfort" of the dominant group."

This idea is about transphobia, it is about ableism, about anti-imigrant rhetoric and white supremacy, about queerphobia, it's about all of it. It is horror from the perspective of minority groups. It is the twisting of a trope built upon reactionary fears and narratives in order to critique them, it is a direct allegory for all those experiences you are describing.

4 year old me: why must we do this

Fantastic old woman in the leopard print coat: "Why yes, my tooth IS real silver! Nobody ever asks me that. Do you like cats?"

If you see a fawn laying down on the ground all alone, leave it alone. It is not lost, it does not need your help, do not pick it up, do not move it.

This behavior evolved to keep deer young safe. The baby is very small, very quiet, and hard for most predators to see. A young fawn cannot keep up with a fleeing mother deer, which is their primary problem-solving strategy. So while the mother goes elsewhere to graze, the fawn stays safe and hidden. The mom will be back.

The sexuality of a police officer is cop.

The gender of a police officer is cop.

When you become the enforcer and protector of capital, you are making the deal to be slightly favored by the system over others like you, in exchange for being its servant. Your solidarity is with the system that you serve, even if it hates you.

We actually agree! I specifically called them "protectors of capital," as they will protect the property of the wealthy, not the public. As for "defender" and "servants," they were said in regard to "the system," not the people.

It is exactly as you say, cops are the dogs of those with power, whether that is wealth or political, not of the average person, or "the people," as a whole. They know their masters and make it clear through their actions, every day.

When you see cops in conflict with peaceful protesters or prioritizing the property of corporations, or assaulting citizens, ask yourself who they are serving in that moment. Who benefits from this action? Why is there a legal framework in place to make them immune to punishment for this action? Who has the power to end that immunity? Who benefits from that immunity?

Free Harvard courses. Free Courses from Stanford. Free Courses from MIT. Free courses from Yale. Free courses from Princeton.

Free courses on Coursera.

Free Courses on EDx Free Courses on Alison

For paid, there's The Great Courses+/Wonderium. 20$ a month for unlimited courses.

And I also wanted to mention that humanitarian organisations have free courses too, like the Red Cross on international humanitarian law.

1946-Present

Background context:

Each Presidential Administration from Eisenhower to Obama is assigned a number. Throughout the map, you will see each intervention tagged with a number that corresponds to the presidential administration that the intervention occurred under:

It starts with The School of the Americas:

And then the interventions begin.

“Some common themes can be seen in many of these U.S. military interventions:

First, they were explained to the U.S. public as defending the lives and rights of civilian populations. Yet the military tactics employed often left behind massive civilian ‘collateral damage.’ War planners made little distinction between rebels and the civilians who lived in rebel zones of control, or between military assets and civilian infrastructure … The U.S. public always believe that in the next war, new military technologies will avoid civilian casualties on the other side. Yet when the inevitable civilian deaths occur, they are always explained away as ‘accidental’ or ‘unavoidable’.

Second, although nearly all the post-World War II interventions were carried out in the name of ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy,’ nearly all of them in fact defended dictatorships controlled by pro-U.S. elites … The U.S. was not defending ‘freedom’ but an ideological agenda (such as defending capitalism) or an economic agenda (such as protecting oil company investments). In the few cases when U.S. military forces toppled a dictatorship–such as in Grenada or Panama–they did so in a way that prevented the country’s people from overthrowing their own dictator first, and installing a new democratic government more to their liking. Third, the U.S. always attacked violence by its opponents as ‘terrorism,’ ‘atrocities against civilians,’ or ‘ethnic cleansing,’ but minimized or defended the same actions by the U.S. or its allies. If a country has the right to ‘end’ a state that trains or harbors terrorists, would Cuba or Nicaragua have had the right to launch defensive bombing raids on U.S. targets to take out exile terrorists? Washington’s double standard maintains that an U.S. ally’s action by definition ‘defensive,’ but that an enemy’s retaliation is by definition ‘offensive.’

Fourth, the U.S. often portrays itself as a neutral peacekeeper, with nothing but the purest humanitarian motives. After deploying forces in a country, however, it quickly divides the country or region into ‘friends’ and ‘foes,’ and takes one side against another. Fifth, U.S. military intervention is often counterproductive even if one accepts U.S. goals and rationales. Rather than solving the root political or economic roots of the conflict, it tends to polarize factions and further destabilize the country. The same countries tend to reappear again and again on the list of 20th century interventions. Sixth, U.S. demonization of an enemy leader, or military action against him, tends to strengthen rather than weaken his hold on power.”

Sources:

Info Graphic

Words (Zoltán Grossman, Faculty of Geography & Native Studies, Evergreen State College, Olympia, Washington)

More resources about U.S. Intervention (worldwide):

“Histoy of U.S. Intervention” by NNOMY

“America’s Third World War” by John Stockwell/NNOMY

“U.S. Interventions in the Middle East” by Information Clearing House

If you are an angry and aggressive person, you might make other people nervous or scared even, but ultimately people will not genuinely respect you or take you seriously, or see you as a strong or authoritative figure.

Leaders and authority figures who are able to conjure genuine respect from other people (and wield that respect as a form of social power) are rarely overtly angry and aggressive people.

They are calm because they are secure in their power and strength as an individual. Anger is an expression of feeling threatened. Anger evolved with the purpose of protecting us when we are threatened or in danger.

Oh good points all around, and thank you for clarifying that. As someone with a trauma background as well, it took me almost a decade of therapy to stop feeling ashamed or like I was a bad person for ever feeling angry, and to accept that my anger exists to protect me, and specifically as a nudge (or a shove) to assert my boundaries when I need to.

It depends on how it's used and what you do with it. There are definitely people who will lash out when it's not called for or appropriate, and the people who do this would probably benefit from therapy.

I do know several people who I am convinced perpetually act angry and always find something to be angry about because they think it makes them look stronger, tougher, or smarter even to other people. It's hard to explain why I get this feeling. Maybe it's because I can't talk to them about anything without them turning the conversation into an angry rant (which is exhausting as is) but they always have their angry rants with a tone of smug triumph and superiority, and usually end the story with victory over whoever they were ranting about. ("someone made a dumb comment on Facebook, and then I TOTALLY told that person off and put them in their place because I'm not afraid to be an asshole!").