Kind of intentionally obtuse since they used eₑ as a variable and eₑₑ as another variable, and used (e-e) as an exponent a few times, which is basically the equivalent of multiplying by 1 in a fancy way. The first and last term also perfectly cancel out.
The same integral written in a saner form is:
integral from -e^e to e^e of (integral from -e^e to e^e of e^-(x^2+y^2)dy)dx
Plus even that isn’t enough: 10/3 has an infinite decimal expansion (in base 10 at least) too, but if π = 10/3, you’d be able to find exact circumferences. Its irrationality is what makes it relevant to this joke.
A mathematician is also perfectly happy with answers like “4π” as exact.
Plus what’s to stop you from having a rational circumference but irrational radius?
Writing this, I feel like I might have accidentally proved your point.
“All issues have only one sensible side and the rest are insensible” is not the takeaway from their comment. Some issues have multiple sensible sides. Other issues might have one sensible sides and several nonsense sides. All their last comment did was provide an example of the latter. They seem to take no stance on what type of issue their first example is.