This original post in r/CrappyDesign2 was not censored, but the following two comments in that thread were censored:
In response to this comment, I wrote:
In terms of products we need to minimize to save the earth, pretty sure "Shirts" are waaaaaaay down the list.
The Extinction Rebellion movement has copyrighted their logo so that they can declare:
"We do not endorse or create any merchandise and we will pursue and prosecute anyone who does."
And rightly so. Eco-activists quite rightly oppose the foolish production of unneeded clothing that outlasts its useful purpose - even when it promotes their own agenda. Hopefully they sue these scumbags who are not only making XR clothes but they're also doing so with unsustainable material.
By comparison, the XR movement will long outlive the absurdly short Yang 2020 campaign.
You imply that there's a triage, whereby sensible clothing design is somehow in competition with other climate actions. It's nonsense. Did Yang save enough time on his shirt design to do something more important for climate change? What more important activity will not be accomplished if clothing is designed to be sustainable?
Even the shirts made congratulating super bowl losers get used somewhere.
Those are slightly less ridiculous because the intent is for them to be appreciated /after/ the event -- unlike a POTUS campaign involving ~20 candidates, 19 of whom won't make it to the general election.
In response to this comment, I wrote:
The design flaw is actually orthogonal to political bias. The problem is the political ideology of the politician is misaligned with the design, thus making the design unfit for purpose.
If this shirt were a Trump shirt, there would actually be no problem with the design as there would be no conflict of interest (the orange guy is a climate denier).
The design flaws are objectively evident regardless of our personal political leans.
I believe those posts were civil, and in fact more civil than the uncensored posts they are replying to.