>>43490840Not that other guy but,
>X doesn’t look like a pokemon” without arguing why, which is why I said that but then provided some evidenceYou really didn’t provide evidence, only thing you did was say that it looks like something else which literally anybody can do and is flimsy “““evidence””” at best. See pic related, it’s done with such irrational frequency here that it means absolutely nothing.
This statement here though:
>What about it being so generic and uninteresting and transparent in its appeal?Is a fair point which the other guy hasn’t addressed.
