Shortly before the American streamer was detained by U.S. border officials and questioned about his political beliefs, he spoke with Madeline Sherratt about his frustrations with the Trump administration — and the weak attempts by Democrats to hold the president accountable.
I don’t find your argumentation convincing at all.
You go from a priori defining the democrats as a party that both already knows public opinion, that enhact the optimal strategies to a point where there’s not even the notion of a better strategy, but you never draw the connecting between that and where we are now, historically and politically.
There’s two party in your (?) country, and currently one of them is blatantly disregarding human rights.
It’s fair to assume the other party has, is, failing in opposing that.
The argument of Piker, of course, is not in good faith. He thinks the democrats are not aequately opposing Trump because, at the end of the day, they are aligned on many front or at least not unaligned enough.
You go from a priori defining the democrats as a party that both already knows public opinion, that enhact the optimal strategies to a point where there’s not even the notion of a better strategy, but you never draw the connecting between that and where we are now, historically and politically.
Because the DNC is essentially a dictatorship where the chair has all the power and zero accountability to anyone.
Seriously, the chair could write themselves a $500 million dollar check for consulting and it would be legal, they can do whatever they want and that is a huge problem.
So being mad at the DNC today for anything they did more than 3 months ago is like refusing to watch the new Batman movie because George Clooney’s batsuit had bat-nipples on it.
No one is saying you shouldn’t be upset at bad things that happened in the past. But holding a completely different group accountable for those past decisions doesn’t make any logical sense.
No one working on the latest Batman worked on Clooney’s nipple suit.
And no one running the DNC today, was able to make calls about what happened 3 months ago.
I am waiting with trepidation at the imminent collapse of fascism and the return, nay, the renaissance, of the United States of America and, haralded by them, the world at large.
There’s this weird phenomenon where if an IQ difference is larger than 30 points, the person on the lower side becomes confused and belligerent, believing the other person is the problem because they keep pointing out flaws in what they’re saying.
It’s why the line for intellectual impairments is an IQ of 70. At 30 points difference communication is hindered.
Unfortunately I’ve taken an actual proctored Wechsler exam… This might feel new to you, especially if you’re a full standard deviation above 100.
Statistically speaking, there’s just not many times you’d run into someone more than 3 standard deviations above average. Like, lemmy world is the biggest instance, assuming an equal distribution the amount of people over 145 is single digits. You very well might never interact with someone two standard deviations above you again.
So don’t feel bad, I get this a lot.
This is the first time I’ve been accused of having a low IQ for pointing out spelling errors tho, usually it’s taking steps of logic for granted and the other person can’t fill in the gaps on their own.
I don’t find your argumentation convincing at all.
You go from a priori defining the democrats as a party that both already knows public opinion, that enhact the optimal strategies to a point where there’s not even the notion of a better strategy, but you never draw the connecting between that and where we are now, historically and politically.
There’s two party in your (?) country, and currently one of them is blatantly disregarding human rights.
It’s fair to assume the other party has, is, failing in opposing that.
The argument of Piker, of course, is not in good faith. He thinks the democrats are not aequately opposing Trump because, at the end of the day, they are aligned on many front or at least not unaligned enough.
Because the DNC is essentially a dictatorship where the chair has all the power and zero accountability to anyone.
Seriously, the chair could write themselves a $500 million dollar check for consulting and it would be legal, they can do whatever they want and that is a huge problem.
So being mad at the DNC today for anything they did more than 3 months ago is like refusing to watch the new Batman movie because George Clooney’s batsuit had bat-nipples on it.
No one is saying you shouldn’t be upset at bad things that happened in the past. But holding a completely different group accountable for those past decisions doesn’t make any logical sense.
No one working on the latest Batman worked on Clooney’s nipple suit.
And no one running the DNC today, was able to make calls about what happened 3 months ago.
I am waiting with trepidation at the imminent collapse of fascism and the return, nay, the renaissance, of the United States of America and, haralded by them, the world at large.
I’m sorry political change feels slow to the tiktok generation, but at least you seem to understand now.
We can worry about spelling later.
Going by your username I’m older than you, also I’ve never had a tiktok account.
But yes, I do speak somewhat fluently a foreign languadge, thank you for noticing!
Hard not to notice
I hope you realize you are furthering the impression of not being a particoularly intelligent person.
Have a nice day nevertheless.
There’s this weird phenomenon where if an IQ difference is larger than 30 points, the person on the lower side becomes confused and belligerent, believing the other person is the problem because they keep pointing out flaws in what they’re saying.
It’s why the line for intellectual impairments is an IQ of 70. At 30 points difference communication is hindered.
Unfortunately I’ve taken an actual proctored Wechsler exam… This might feel new to you, especially if you’re a full standard deviation above 100.
Statistically speaking, there’s just not many times you’d run into someone more than 3 standard deviations above average. Like, lemmy world is the biggest instance, assuming an equal distribution the amount of people over 145 is single digits. You very well might never interact with someone two standard deviations above you again.
So don’t feel bad, I get this a lot.
This is the first time I’ve been accused of having a low IQ for pointing out spelling errors tho, usually it’s taking steps of logic for granted and the other person can’t fill in the gaps on their own.
That was very insighful, thanks!