Nike probably endorsed it secretly then had an oh shit moment when they found out the anti white anti everything but socialist zombie narative hasn't been pushed far enough. This was just a test of the brainwashing.
You say that like they aren't in lockstep with every other company, and government official trying to tell us to take the mystery "Vaccine" - that is about as much a biohazard.
It's just to save face since they pushed a little to hard and the normies started to pay attention.
"During the court hearing, MSCHF stated that the shoes are art — a criticism of collaboration culture and a critique of how "Nike will collaborate with anyone." Lawyers referenced the companion artwork, the "Jesus Shoes," which made "just as big of a societal impact," but did not face a lawsuit.
MSCHF made a similar argument in a statement to CBS News. "Heresy only exists in relation to doctrine," the company said. "Who is Nike to censor one but not the other?""
Do these people not understand how the law works? That was a rhetorical question.
Nike probably endorsed it secretly then had an oh shit moment when they found out the anti white anti everything but socialist zombie narative hasn't been pushed far enough. This was just a test of the brainwashing.
Probably true.
I don't care if they sell them or not, but I can assure you that I will never buy a pair Nike's again.
I just don't support slavery to begin with.
I'm a New Balance man.
Yeah, probably because HUMAN BLOOD is a BIOHAZARD.
You say that like they aren't in lockstep with every other company, and government official trying to tell us to take the mystery "Vaccine" - that is about as much a biohazard.
It's just to save face since they pushed a little to hard and the normies started to pay attention.
"During the court hearing, MSCHF stated that the shoes are art — a criticism of collaboration culture and a critique of how "Nike will collaborate with anyone." Lawyers referenced the companion artwork, the "Jesus Shoes," which made "just as big of a societal impact," but did not face a lawsuit.
MSCHF made a similar argument in a statement to CBS News. "Heresy only exists in relation to doctrine," the company said. "Who is Nike to censor one but not the other?""
Do these people not understand how the law works? That was a rhetorical question.
Not a lawyer but if they're trying to prove damages I'd think it's fairly obvious why "Jesus Shoes" wouldn't apply but "Satan Shoes" would.